Cache-tech

If the cache is actually missing, by dropping another one in its place is only preserving the listing on this site, the actual cache is gone and as such, the listing should be archived to preserve the history. Further, by just dropping another replacement cache in place of an abandoned, unmaintained cache, you are just setting out another abandoned, unmaintained cache there. If you plan on maintaining the cache, you should submit your own cache listing there. There is a time to allow a listing to be archived, possibly permitting newer cachers to hide a new cache in a fresh new way, if the location is truly worth a visit, someone will hide a new cache there.

Yup! Your turn I dont know why he is BCs reviewer.. maybe he is just the only one who applied for the job Still missed one Would it be "geoaware" that approves Earthcaches that was missed? Nope, another Canadian reviewer in Canada

Yup! Your turn I dont know why he is BCs reviewer.. maybe he is just the only one who applied for the job Still missed one

Last warning to this thread, keep it on topic, making the text blank is not appropriate, the appropriate thing to have done was to PM or email the text to the intended person.

Please keep this discussion on topic and not personal. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules Thank you.

A "Needs Maintenance" log is not a "Found it" log and does not count as a Found. Logging and then archiving your found log will remove your find. As the question has been answered, I am locking this thread as the issue seems to be resolved.

Parks Ontario has more or less banned geocaching in their parks. Here is a link to their interim policy which has not changed for some time. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry1464621 Currently, if you place a cache in Algonquin or any other provincial park in Ontario, I will not be able to publish the cache unless you have express permission from the parks super intendant.

I am not sure who to ding here for taking the thread off topic Usually the bigger events are posted a few months in advance, if you want to hold an event, look to see what is coming up and make your plans. It has been awhile since we attended an event in the Quinte area.

I have found a couple, as a player, I hope permission was sought and granted for the hide, but I was not comfortable searching and returning the cache, but permission must have been given if it is there right? I have also passed on a few because it was a nice day and a number of people from the neightbourhood was out, I have archived any with complaints and no permission just like any other cache. I have been removed from a property while caching and it is not fun (and those caches even had permission). We have seen what the police bomb division will do to an evergreen tree for a 35mm cannister, can you imagine if they blew up a Canada Post mailbox? I for one would not want to be the cache owner there. I have had a number of cacher argue that a cache is no different then the numerous posters found on mailboxes. While I was driving through a subdivision that had a number of boxes, most did have posters, all had tape glue residue. The difference between a cache and a poster, it is likely someone from the neighbourhood placing the poster, maybe not, they walk up, attach and move on, what they are doing is identifiable to anyone watching and quick. Attaching a cache in most cases is much the same, most likely someone that lives in the area, the walk up, hide the cache, take the co-ordinates and leave, a little suspicious but can be done quickly. Now the big difference, a cacher arrives, searches for the cache, removes something and then returns it, it takes longer and is more likely to be notice, could also be viewed as someone breaking into the mailboxes as you are more then likely a stranger there and may even have out of province plates. What is so special about these mailboxes that we need to expose our fellow cachers to the possible trouble for tampering with the mail, this also exposes the cache owner to the same charges. A number of things should be common sense, do we really need to spell out every aspect for cache hiders, and as cachers seeking a cache, it is up to you to pursue the cache or just move on to the next one. As I stated, if you have permission and it is known that the cache is there, I have no problem with listing the cache. If you don't have permission, why run the risk of a federal offense, has not happened yet, do you want to be the first? Let keep this a fun safe activity that we can continue to enjoy for a long time.

If you plan on attaching a cache to Canada Post property, be it mail boxes, pick up boxes and such, please provide the permission from the local post master or your cache will not be listed. Recently I spoke to my post master, attaching anything to Canada Post boxes can be considered mail tampering and is a Federal Offense. Personally I would not want to spend jail time over a micro cache, but I have been getting more and more of these. If you own the mailbox that is at the end of your driveway, from what I understand, this is your property and you can attach a cache to that box. But if it is a community mail box that is owned by Canada Post, then no. All it will take is a neighbour to complain that strangers are poking around the boxes to cause a problem with a cacher being charged. If they don't have a mailbox there, then they should not be poking around the mail boxes. With the amount of identity theft and cheque theft, do we really want to get mixed up into that over a cache?

Using the GC.com maps or running your own PQs would be best as getting PQs from other cachers is against the TOU of the site. Closing topic.

Sounds very cool and all, I have always wanted something like this myself, but as this is OT with the answer given, closing topic.

A link was added to the pinned topic, Canadian Geocaching Land Manager Policies, above.

By way of this thread and a different topic, it appears we might not have a problem with losing older caches, we have a trend with the way new caches are being hidden. Not all new caches are crappy, not all old caches the greatest hides ever. If an active cache owner drops in, maintains their cache, replaces and relocates slightly, it is still their hide, done with their style so to speak. If someone else does the same, then really, it should be a new listing, giving it new life, a new style which might even be better then the old cache. One thing I did note lost with the example of caches that were adopted, when I clicked on the placed by "The Parkers", I did not get their profile. When I did find their profile, I don't get any sense of history attached to that profile regarding their contribution to geocaching. That was lost during the adoption of the cache(s), I see 2 in their profile for hides, the one mentioned here indicates they had 3, were there more that was adopted, I don't know. We can get nostalgic when it comes to old caches, trust me, I know, I really don't like having to archive anyones caches, I hate seeing caches become trash and I dislike having cachers and friends depart the hobby without so much a word.

I care about history, if the cache needs to be moved because it was "muggled", then really the only thing most likely left are the online logs. If someone has to replace and relocate the cache, then it is not the original cache, that is lost, so the only thing preserved is the online listing, which should be archived to preserve the history of those finds and cache hider. If a new cache would be a waste of everyone's time to revisit, even years later, then was the original cache worth a visit in the first place? I don't know how many locations I have logged "going to have to return and explore more another day, thanks for bringing me here", so a return visit might not be a waste of time if the location is worthy of a cache. For the record, I am a very serious player, that is why I volunteered 5 years ago, I care a great deal about this activity.

The answer you seek can be found at Listing Guidelines: Cache Maintenance As it stands now, the exception has been given that a person or group might able to maintain a cache on behalf of an absentee owner but this is not always going to be a possibility. There is a limit to the exception and the factors surrounding the cache and its listing are considered based on the listing guidelines and other items. Oh brother, way to continue to avoid a direct question. Never mind, since you are unwilling to stand by what you said and answer a direct question that refers to your comments. If the cache location can no longer support a cache, then it should be archived, just as it should be if there cache owner were present and properly maintaining their cache. The only difference, I would have to archive the cache for them. Is this the answer you were looking for? I don't want to get into debates and what ifs, each cache will be looked at when required. In reality, how many "historic" caches are we discussing here, a cache is not and should not be forever, once a cache needs to be changed in such a way that is no longer the original cache, then it should be archived to maintain the history of those who found the cache and of whom hid it. It is a shame that some people get into the hobby and then just quit, sometimes for reasons beyond their desire or control, other times, moving onto other activities due to getting bored with the current hobbies. Unfortunately, this means they sometimes leave behind caches and not keeping up their part of the maintenance agreement. Once archived, another cacher can then hide a cache at/near the same location, if it was truly worth it before, most cachers would not mind another visit from a different perspective of a new cacher.

Same here. Caching history ( or any history for that matter ) is important and it's sad that Groundspeak does not respect that. Yet another change that was not requested by the paying customer. Actually, it was the caching history and paying customer that prompted this, changing cache owner changes the history and some cache owners were really upset when they discovered their cache was taken away from them. The cache belongs to the cache owner and they are responsible for the cache container and cache site, geocaching.com only hosts the cache listing. I don't see how Groundspeak can be faulted for a cache owner who has abandoned their "historic" cache.

Please bring this topic to a more civilized line of discussion. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules Thank you

Thread closed upon request.

Hi, you will find this info in the FAQ section of the Getting Started forum here http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3032392 Happy Geocaching!

Hi, I'm the forum moderator for Canada and I see you have posted the same message in multiple forums. While I can understand your reason for doing this I'm afraid it breaches the forum posting guidelines at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules, specifically the one that says "Posting Messages: Posting the same message to many topics or boards is considered spam. Duplicate messages will be deleted or consolidated by our moderators." Therefore I am going to close this thread.

Please don't *** out a portion of a word to pass the forum filters, this is the same as using the word. It still violates this portion of the forum guidelines, I don't want to see it. Thank you.

They already stated there would be no event, http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3355290 Why is everyone jumping on the reviewers for the demise of the event, the issue was a guideline issue that is clearly stated for everyone. Please keep this thread in line with the forum guidelines or it will be closed. Thank you.

Closing thread at request of the OP.

I think I explained my position before in this thread. The what and definately the who will not be named as that is something between the "who", Groundspeak and the volunteer reviewers. The commercial guidelines are being followed as we were requested, if you want to boil it down to someone, then that would be me followed by my interpritation of the guidelines which may have lead to some inconsistencies here. Personally, I would just like to go caching without any commercial intent directed at me, intended or not, I would just like to program my GPS and go find a cache. As for the other caches named, well, I am not going to comb the listings for them and I am not going to look over the shoulders of other reviewers to point out they are wrong. I am going to deal with anything in my review area when needed. I think this weekend, after tonight, that is what I am going to do, go caching and not worry about reviewing this weekend.