JacobBarlow

Though I like traveling caches I don't see why they would allow adoptions. They want them gone like Webcams and Virtuals. You can't adopt those. Adopting out a Traveling cache would just be prolonging their life. Not something reviewers want. I have seen where some got archived just because cachers bickering over them. I am amazed that the Jacob caches have lasted this long. WTG Jacob. It's great that he can not keep them (hopefully) closer to home. Yeah, I've been told specifically by Groundspeak that they won't allow moving caches to be adopted because they want them to phase and and not exist anymore, but obviously others have recently been told otherwise.

But both caches AREN'T in play. Someone just grab and toss the UK container, please - then all can move on. Yes, exactly. Please.

I don't have any rules, Groundspeak does. Quite correct JacobBarlow, GS makes the rules you have to ensure they are complied with, I apologise. However what most people on this side are interested in is a reply to my suggestion that Jacob' s cache is shared between the US and the UK. Will you consider this ? How do you propose this be accomplished? Are you or someone else going to travel from USA to UK to accomplish this? As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted. If I had to guess there have been twenty to thirty times that a huge virtual jump from another part of the world to Utah has occurred, it's the way it goes with moving caches. I can't get attached to the container because they don't last, they get stolen, they get picked up and people forget to hide them, there are many reasons but every time a reason comes up I just start a new one. So do the other moving cache owners. You're quite correct, Jacob. Recently I was monitoring a moving cache in Pennsylvania (my review area) that had ground to a halt. The owner successfully "re-spawned" the traveler in North Carolina. Yay! Now, if there were two containers in play at one time, sharing a single cache page?? That would be stopped pretty darn quickly. Several of the times were when a person picks up the cache and waits a few months because life gets busy, eventually after having my emails ignored that long I will "re-spawn" a new version and after it get moved a couple of times that person will suddenly put the other back out. Which I guess technically makes two, but in my mind the old one is done when the new one is made.

I don't have any rules, Groundspeak does. Quite correct JacobBarlow, GS makes the rules you have to ensure they are complied with, I apologise. However what most people on this side are interested in is a reply to my suggestion that Jacob' s cache is shared between the US and the UK. Will you consider this ? How do you propose this be accomplished? Are you or someone else going to travel from USA to UK to accomplish this? As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted. If I had to guess there have been twenty to thirty times that a huge virtual jump from another part of the world to Utah has occurred, it's the way it goes with moving caches. I can't get attached to the container because they don't last, they get stolen, they get picked up and people forget to hide them, there are many reasons but every time a reason comes up I just start a new one. So do the other moving cache owners.

Funny, I have been told by Groundspeak many times if I don't delete logs they will archive the cache - without that I would just let anyone log it... I don't like policing caches. I did say valid logs.... Just because you disabled the cache doesn't mean that people weren't finding it and moving it as per the cache "rules" and hence they can ask for their logs to be reinstated. The few valid finds that were deleted had accompanying emails asking them to log the find without saying they hid the cache, so that they could both have a find and stop tricking people into thinking that cache was still the cache. Most deleted logs were from people who broke the rules.

Funny, I have been told by Groundspeak many times if I don't delete logs they will archive the cache - without that I would just let anyone log it... I don't like policing caches.

Possibly. But I find it difficult to see how GS can think things will be better in US - where it appears abuse is rife - than they were in UK - where it was minimal! Yeah, you keep saying how minimal it was. I guess we will pretend.

Wouldn't I be the only person who knows what it was originally? This exact thing has happened many, many times over the years - not only with all of my movies caches but with all the others as well.

I don't have any rules, Groundspeak does.

I agree that in general finding a disabled cache should be a legitimate find, but I do feel the UK cache should be unfindable after I have asked several people who were in possession of it to take it out of play for me. I can only assume they have the attitude of "what's he going to do? He's on the other side of the world" when they see my email asking them to take it out of play, agree to do so and then change their mind and put it out for more friends to find. Obviously I have no way of taking care of the finds on my cache when people act that way, so I thought it would be better to have it nearer to me geographically.

Wow. I see this caused quite a stir, let me see if I can explain. Over the many years of maintaining these caches I have been contacted many times by Groundspeak telling me that the caches have started to be "passed around" or taken to events and mass logged. That is not allowed and I have been told if I don't police it better and stop that from happening the caches would be archived. Personally I hate deleting logs, but in hopes of keeping these unique caches alive I have tried to police them. I do not enjoy being the police and instead prefer to let people do what they want. There was recently another rash of "illegal" behavior with the caches and I was faced with the need to stop it, I thought about just archiving the caches because it is not fun to babysit people who can not follow the simple rules on the cache page. I temporarily disabled the caches and asked the people who had them to take the caches and either hide them as a new cache hide in a permanent place or take the contents and put them in another cache. I thought that way there would be no "litter" caused by leaving the caches places and I would have time to decide what to do. I was of course ignored in my requests to those people, and the people who continued to find the cache while it was disabled. I have so far decided to keep at least one alive and given it a fresh start closer to my home where I can hopefully keep a better eye on it. I expect to get the other two going as well but the blatant refusal to my requests is starting to make it go back towards archiving all three. Hope that helps?

Sure hope so!

Name, size, ratings, maps, that doesn't sound like zero information. Lots of descriptionless caches are published all the time out here, most are mine

I start them empty and they quickly fill up.. wish I had your problem!

I log a DNF when I look for a cache and don't find it, weather its my first time, 10th time, even if I've already found it and am just there because the friend I'm caching with still needed to find it.

I have noticed over the last few weeks and tested it with friends to be sure, we don't get emails when our logs are deleted anymore, is this a glitch in the website or an "on purpose change?"

Agreed. Little else holds up well out in Nature or keeps water out as well. LocknLocks only last a year or two in my experience, anything plastic is that way.

I was really into HAM Radio ( my geocaching name is my callsign ) and have been so into geocaching I haven't touched it in years.

I have found several caches on golf courses, I don't know if they should have been there, but they were, so I went and found them.

And a waymark and Wherigo, all on top of a benchmark, by a webcam, and locationless. I've had fun trying to pile caches on top of each other before, put an earthcache and a traditional on top of a virtual, then have a multi start there with a virtual first stage, and a mystery... could do a Wherigo too I guess.. But a simpler way I've seen it happen was a cacher had their puzzle cache final location destroyed, so they moved the cache to another nearby location and changed the puzzle... the problem was I had a cache in the EXACT same spot, also a puzzle... she had not solved it I guess, and didn't look in the bush for caches before she dropped hers in... so there are two, regular sized caches in the same bush, literally touching each other.

I posted it here : http://www.utahgeocachers.com/forum/viewto...p?p=43100#43100 I could probably come on the first day, and the 2nd if its in the evening.

Before it was published!

I would have gone for it, I love caches in high traffic areas, if someone wants to put a cache where it's "ALWAYS busy" then I take that as permission from them to get it in front of everyone.

I don't log caches twice, but don't look down on those who do. I do actively seek out archived caches that I can honestly find and log, just because its archived doesn't mean someone can't look for it, and if they "find" it then log it.

There are several of us in Utah who hide a lot, we are friends and just maintain each others caches without being asked to, I've stuck replacements out and logged it found for them and they for me... it just saves a trip for the owner. But I wouldn't do that to someone I don't know, because as we can see in this thread, it upsets some people.