DubbleG

I often do that but in these cases my impression was that the CO was long gone. I'd checked the last time they'd visited the site and it was years ago. I've since found out that that isn't always a valid way to check but follow ups (checked their last caches logged) bear out that they are MIA. Regardless, the reviewer gets to handle it whether one waits or not. Frankly, I think it comes down to people being upset with the old caches getting archived regardless of whether or not it is technically the right thing to do.

You're making my point for me. They can write their own rules so they can determine how to manage abandoned caches.

In most of the cases (I've since learned that I messed up on one of them) I attempted to send the information via email and/or the messaging system and was unable to do so. That spurred me to check when the CO last logged in (I've since learned to check on their cache history) and when I determined that they were unreachable and and inactive I logged the NA. As long as I am able to send the information, for V's, EC's, etc., I consider the matter closed (unless the CO replies that I've gotten something wrong). I don't expect a response although I do appreciate them. However, the inability to send the information is a trigger that the cache isn't being monitored and a prime target for armchair cachers.

The actual text of my log was "CO hasn't logged in since 2009! Why hasn't this been archived or adopted long ago? Nobody is verifying the finds.". Not terribly different from what I wrote above. A tad harsher, yes, but the core of "adopt or archive" is there. I certainly did NOT mean to imply there was any fault/responsibility to the reviewer. It was more rhetorical, as in I can't believe nobody had brought this up long ago.

With a virtual, there is no "cache", only the listing. So they would be exercising ownership of the listing which they can, and IMO, should do. If not in the rules today, the could be amended if GC so chose. Much as they grandfathered certain caches they can control adoption of them.

How does that differ from them archiving caches where the CO has not responded to a string of DNFs or a NA log for a cache that has been verified muggled? They are controlling the instance, are they not? I see no difference.

Can you send me the GC code so I can check? I logged 40+ virtuals on my trip, with several needing adoption/archiving, so it is entirely possible I messed one of them up. Ironically, if I did, the CO should've disallowed my log or at least contacted me to provide the required info.

Sorry, not sure what "CHS" means. No, I only checked last logon time. As mentioned above, even if I grant that that isn't a good indicator, the inability to send them the required information should be concrete evidence that they aren't checking the logs.

Yes, but not being able to be contacted, to verify the logs, is itself enough to indicate these were abandoned. The only thing preventing armchair finds for virtuals is the CO.

One of the caches I logged as NA did get adopted within a couple of days of my log. So now we have an old virtual that is being properly monitored which I think is a good thing. NM wouldn't work for an inactive CO and I thought the reviewers only got notified by NA's. I could be wrong, happened once before ;-) I find the concept of GC not "owning" the cache to be interesting. With a traditional that certainly makes sense. But what is "ownership" of a virtual? To me, that means taking responsibility for it - primarily by ensuring valid finds. In this case I think these have been abandoned and therefore not "owned" by anyone anymore.

Well, for the virtuals in question I checked the CO's page and they hadn't logged in for some time, in several cases for years. That aside, their messenger and emails were inactive so there was no way to contact them to send in the required information. That was the key that told me they were inactive or at least nobody could be checking answers. In any case, the ultimate decision on how to handle the case falls to the reviewer who would only know about the potential problem via such a log. For traditional caches, the reviewer logs a note that the CO needs to respond to strings of DNFs, NM logs, etc. Something similar can apply to virtuals. Reviewer posts a note to the CO stating that they need to indicate that they want to retain ownership of their cache. If they don't respond in 30 day, same as a traditional (at least around here), then the cache is up for adoption. I think first to ask would be fair but would have to give that some thought.

The key to that link is "Cache owners can now adopt..." What I'm trying to determine is if caches can be adopted out if the CO can't initiate the adoption.

Last month I took a trip which included stops at quite a few old virtual caches. When I got home I tried to log them but found that, for several of them, the CO's haven't been active for some time. I logged "Needs Archived" with a message that they should be adopted or archived since nobody was verifying finds. Today I got into a discussion in a Facebook group where I was demonized for my logs. It was mentioned that these caches cannot be adopted which I don't think is true, given that one of the ones I logged did get adopted within days. My questions to the group are... Is there some reason why caches should not be able to be adopted, even if the CO doesn't initiate the process? I can certainly see wanting to check with them first but they may be inactive and not care, deceased, etc. I don't understand why Groundspeak would prevent this. Am I violating some unwritten rule by bringing these caches to the reviewer's attention?

I'm not arguing about going outside and exercising (assuming both are done following social distancing guidelines). Caching, however, requires physically handling of things that allow the virus to pass from person to person. In the case of new caches, this is far more likely because of the FTF hounds who go after them as soon as they are published. It doesn't matter if the cache is in the middle of the woods 1000 miles from the nearest person. The cache was placed and, in many cases, will be handled by someone else within a day. You can argue that the survival tests skewed the results. That may or may not be the case but let's say it is. You're still likely to be within its survival window going after FTF. While I disagree with any caching at this time, going after lonely caches or virtual caches is probably far safer than going after FTFs. I've seen logs where 1/2 a dozen people have signed the new cache within hours of publishing. How can you justify publishing new caches right now? Is the risk justified when compared to the benefits of waiting a month or two? The short answer is that we are taking chances with public health for something that really isn't essential. If we all hunker down for a few weeks we can probably get past the tipping point. Each of these little "exceptions' adds up and puts all of us at more risk. There is also the psychological aspect which comes from one person seeing someone do something and thinking it is OK for them as well. YOU may be using soap/sanitizer, not touching your face, staying 6+ feet away, etc. but the next person might not and it only takes one. If we all encourage "STAY AT HOME" it reduces the likelihood that anyone is out there taking risks that impact us all.

You may be sticking to the letter of the law but you are also violating the spirit of what needs to be done to eradicate the virus and lift the restrictions. The concept is really simple, "STAY AT HOME". Anything non-essential that contributes to people going out is adding to the risk. What possible justification can you provide for continuing to publish new caches which, in turn, encourages people to get out and spread the virus? No need to respond, there is none.

I would urge the temporary halt of publishing ANY caches until the pandemic is over. All that does is encourage folks to continue to cache when they should be staying at home. Latest evidence shows that the virus can survive on plastic for 3 days, metal for 5 so someone can easily transmit it from cache to cache even if some of these caches are off the beaten path. We're all in this together and should do our best to follow the medical advice which says to "stay at home". The caches will be there when this is over. If we don't have some solidarity, we may not be.

I had the same experience with the Project-GC lab cache series. Would love to remove the logs but can't figure out how. Can anyone tell me?

Thanks, found that shortly after posting. Resolution is already in the works.

Hmm. Sorry, I thought the links would work. Does this one? https://www.geocachi...ef-53f92c34171c If it doesn't I'll cut and paste from the archive but would prefer that you see the original to know I'm not trying to edit anything. As for what the CO said, it isn't important and it doesn't change anything.

I found a cache with a damaged container. I signed the log and posted both "found" and "needs maintenance" logs. After the CO replaced the damaged cache he deleted both logs. I sent him a message asking him why and got back what I felt was a disrespectful post. We had a couple of unfortunate message exchanges after which I told him I was blocking him and putting his caches on my ignore list. I thought that was the end of it but it was not. He has subsequently deleted my replacement logs for no good reason. All my logs can be found here: https://coord.info/GLNQY8Z9 https://coord.info/GLNQY8Z6 https://coord.info/GLNRAFCT https://coord.info/GLNT8B3C None of the logs violate Groundspeak policy and since I did find and sign the log I am entitled to post my find. What are my options to get the CO to refrain from what I believe is an invalid removal of my logs (in addition to acting like a child)?

I think you forgot Irukandji jellyfish but none of that compares with PA poison ivy and ticks

I have two that I sent off into the world and both have gone missing. Finders actually logged them as being in their possession and then never sent them back on their way. I would think that someone wanting to keep them wouldn't bother logging that they have them. I've tried contacting both cachers but have gotten no replies. The whole experience has completely soured me on TBs and, barring getting one as a gift or FTF prize, I don't think I'll send any more out.

To me, messaging is something that needs an instant/urgent response. I've no problem trying to help out a friend in the field who may need a nudge quickly but don't want to deal with that level of urgency from the general public. Getting an email from someone I don't know is something that I can deal with on my own schedule. I think there is a distinction between the two and would prefer to block one but not the other. It has nothing to do with the content.

Sorry, but you're being disingenuous. It is easy to say you wouldn't care on a forum where you have no emotional investment. I rather think you'd be taken aback if approached IRL by a stranger with sharp words. You're fabricating the situation to suit your argument. You have no way of knowing if the poster knew the CO so the "friends" argument doesn't hold water. Even if I buy your argument that he was standing up for the little guy, which I don't, the method used was such that the message was lost in the delivery. He could have been 100% right (which he was not given that my post had no ill intent) but because of how he addressed things what he said meant nothing. Finally, much as I love to have the last word I can tell that is a trait you and I share. This will continue w/o adding any benefit so I will close and leave the final word to you.

How does that work? Logging is a requirement. I suppose one could just write "Found" to meet the letter of the law but, for me, that would be an insult to the CO and no use to anyone looking for additional help. I'd rather deal with the occasional yahoo who thinks it is their job to moderate my posts than to not provide meaningful information in my logs.