Wandering Islanders

The way that corrected coordinates (for puzzes, multis etc) are displayed on maps is excellent. But it would be really useful if they could still be displayed once the cache is found. I realise that not everybody might want this so it would be fine if it were optional, but having the facility would be invaluable when working on caches on a trail, series, etc.

Cache GC39W03 - it's found, the cache log says we found it, but the map refuses to show a smiley, just the unfound trad cache icon. Not a kajor problem, but irritating!

I'm just sorry I started this (which doesn't mean I'm changing any of the views I've expressed.) But I've learned a lot about the caching community; not much of it pleasant.

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. Jacob - you've never stated clearly what the abuse was. There was some double-logging. What else? When did it go to an event? When was it pocketed? Those logs (I think) are still there, so give us the details, because I'm afraid we simply don't believe you. Just like we don't believe your claim that nobody would cooperate after disabling - two of those members (and there weren't many) say they wrote to you asking what you wanted them to do; neither received a reply. Sorry. It appears all the regulars here believe what you tell them. I'm afraid nobody in UK does.

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!

Yes, I hve that message loud and clear. Still think it's a pity, but there you are.

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. We can only go on what's written on the cache page (although, to be fair, what is there today is very different from what was there last week!) Don't know what exactly has happened many times in the past, though if it's been suddenly relocated frequently then I'll leave it to speak for itself.

That's odd, on post 57, the CO himself says that's not so. If there's anything that goes against the "spirit" of the original cache, it's the way the cache was misused by others. Sad that the CO had to make it a "completely new cache" to comform to his (and Groundspeak's) wishes... I'm aware that he said that. And that's a big part of the trouble. NEVER while it was over here did he indicate that he saw any abuse (in fact I don;'t recall him ever posting anything other than coord updates until his "Mayube its time has come" post.) And neither in this thread nor in e-mails I've had from him has he cited any abuse at all in UK, apart from his claim that he repeatedly asked those who had found it to return it to him. A claim which more than one recent finder has denied and one said he offered to pay postage to US and was ignored. So his claim about abuse needs some clear substantiation. And by the way - not much point asking those who've found it to return it to him; they've probably already moved it on. A note in the cache page would have been more to the point. So it seems we can't get away from this particular CO!

Can we get this thread away from the particular cache and CO please and back to the question - should they be allowed?

In response to HauptGirls comment - I think you misunderstand the motivation here. One year ago Jacob explicitly gave permission to CoralTeach to bring #1 over to UK, so clearly distance wasn't felt to be a problem at that time. The UK caching fraternity welcomed that hugely (I don't know of any others circulating over here) and huge gratitude was felt towards him for this. Until Jacob's post yesterday there has never been the slightest hint of the kind of abuses which he is now claiming have taken place here, nor of any requests to return the cache. Until a couple of days ago he had posted nothing in the cache log during all of that time apart from periodic Update Coordinates logs, although a public request to stop placing the cache and to contact him would have been an obvious place to start, and the cryptic comment on 29 January this year that "Deciding what to do with this cache. It's time may have come", with no other explanation of why he might have felt that. The result was numerous offers to adopt the cache and take over the responsibility, together with continued expressions of gratitude for Jacob's work to date. Any negativity now is the result of unexplained actions which have led to considerable confusion here, together with belated statements which simply don't match the publicly available facts.

Thanks Jacob for this. It does help to understand your problem, although I think it would have been helpful if you had mentioned the abuse reason when you first disabled the cache - all you said was "maybe its time has come". And the kind of abuse you mention has very clearly NOT happened in UK with the #1 cache, so I am sorry that you felt you had to extend the action over here. (Granted there were a few instances of more than one member claiming the same find, but there were numerous "policing" responses to that by members over here anxious to see the rules observed. I trust you will exercise the same discipline over the two members claiming the recent find in Utah!) I don't really think that you can claim finding a disabled cache as being abuse in anything like the same way. And removing those logs looks like a case of determining that the UK cache should be totally unfindable. And it certainly doesn't fall within the scope of "I deleted some logs that I thought were confusing people, notes that were just talking" which you wrote in your e-mail to me this morning! However, this topic was intended to be about the wider issue of movable caches. Hope we can get back to it!

But that doesn't explain why he also disabled the other two, in the States!

Update For anybody in England who's wanting to know what's happened to the Jacob's Moving Cache #1. CO changed the coords to Utah and the name to "Utah Moving Cache #1" about a week ago, but finds and new locations were still being logged in England, and then one in Utah. I received notification this morning that three of my logs had been deleted, and checking the cache log it appears that all British logs since the cache was disabled have been deleted, including those with new coords in them. Two "Find" notes which are probably from Utah remain. I can only assume that the CO has decided to make it impossible for the original cache still to be found but has set up a new one in Utah. The other two original caches, #2 and 3, remain disabled and it raises the question of why he wanted to disable and possibly archive the original ones. Two e-mail replies from him give no indication of his thinking except that he didn't want "discussion" in his cache logs. Find and replace logs scarcely count as "discussion". Frankly, I find this - how shall I put it? - annoying!

Well, clearly they didn't! They live on

"Geoaching is just for fun" - exactly. My fun isn't yours. A large number of cachers find that these caches increase their fun enormously. Personally I have no interest in Wherigo caches, can't see the point of Letterbox Hybrids, and don't understand why earth caches escape the usual rules re logging. I think they're "against the spirit of the game" Actually of course I don't think that - I think that if other cachers want to do it that way, good on them; just not for me.

I can only say (as the originator of this topic) in reply to the last few posts that the only one that I am familiar with is Jacob's Moving Cache #1, which appears to be the only one moving in England. As Everything in Moderation wrote - that cache has very strong statements and rules about the kind of behaviour listed above. It also insists that the new coordinates are posted in the log when it is newly hidden. I have followed the logs closely for that cache since it arrived in England almost a year ago - hundreds of Find (and the associated Write Notes logging the find before it was replaced) logs and, until it was disabled, very few others (mostly from people desperately waiting for it to arrive within reach of them!) A cache operating like this is not in any sense equivalent to a trackable. I have seen absolutely no sign at all of it being passed around at events, although it is true there have been some multiple loggings where more than one cacher has found the cache at the same time. So far as Groundspeak and control is concerned, once again I have little experience to draw on. But in regard to these caches they are currently exerising control. Personally I would like that control not removed - the abuses need to be stopped - but relaxed so that this kind of cache can continue to grab those of us who find it of interest.

Each to their own cerberus. Plenty of us feel very different!

Agree 100%. That's why I started this

I couldn't find anything that explicitly states that moving caches are "grandfathered" either, but in effect they are. Existing ones can still move around (see official list here), but new ones will not be published: Guidelines - II-5. Geocache Permanence As for adoption, it could be trickier with moving caches. If you look at some of the moving caches, you'll see that the respective owners will periodically update the coordinates, sometimes changing the coordinates by extremely large distances. Since this isn't something that you can typically do as a cache owner, I have to assume that these owners (or maybe the caches themselves) have been granted the special ability to update the coordinates by more than 0.1 mile. If it's the owner that has been granted this ability, adoption would mean that the ability would have to be revoked from the old owner and granted to the new owner. Whether Groundspeak is willing to do this is unclear. If the ability is tied to the cache, then adoption may be more straightforward. Hmm. Looks like that reference to permanence settles it. But I still think it's a huge pity!

No - several logs and posts have said so but I haven't found anything official either! One reason for this topic

OK then. Not grandfathered, or else the cache at the second link couldn't have been moved that far (and the same has happened to JHacob's Moving Cache #1 - technically relocated from Utah to England and now back again! So, can it be adopted? As a previous post said, let's try it (actually of course, that's up to the CO - but until now everybody's been telling us it coiuldn't happen.)

I am NOT "someone from Groundspeak" Neither am I but I have seen statements from people that are that have stated that a cache that is a grandfathered cache type can not be adopted. That is true for moving caches, webcams, and virtuals. I understand the "grandfather" rule; but I haven't found anywhere that includes moving caches in that category, nor a reason why they are.

That's exactly why I placed it here! At the same time, the strength of feeling is pretty clear

There is a type of cache known as "moving caches" where the finder takes the cache to another place and hides it, then posts the new coordinates (and maybe hint) in the log for the next people to search. I only know of three ("Jacob's Moving Cache #...", GCA87C, GCB598,GCDB76) but I've seen references to others. #2,3 are, I believe, in USA at present and #1 has been in UK since last February/March, but the CO has announced his (probable) intention to archive them. This has led to a huge outcry in all three cache logs from people who value them enormously; the excitement they have generated nationally in UK has been phenomenal since #1 arrived. And numerous members in all three logs have offered to adopt the caches because they are considered so important. But there have been a couple of suggestions that adoption is not allowed by Groundspeak, and the rule forbidding adoption of grandfathered caches has been quoted. Moving caches were said to be "locationless" and therefore grandfathered. I've never found one of these, and will be very pleasantly surprised if I'm ever near enough even to look for it (was close when it first landed in Cornwall, but too late!) But I've shared the excitement of watching it move around England (and for a while to Scotland). In common with almost all who have posted logs recently, I very much hope that these caches will cpntionue to be available. Probably not in large numbers, and Groundspeak might well wish to keep a tight control on the number - but the existence even of a few adds a huge dimension to the game. I'm fairly new to the hobby and the site and don't understand the finer points of the rules, but it's clear to me that in most respects the caches are traditional. They are physical caches with logs, and there are clear coordinates stating where they are to be found currently. I hope that someone from Groundspeak will clear up the position here and that an exception will be made (if necessary) to allow adoption of these caches. Even better would be a clear statement that new ones will be allowed, subject to whatever controls are deemed necessary.

I can change routes as long as I want to travel by road; but the routes I want are all waterway routes and I can't make it go that way at all. Any ideas?