Unpublished cache?

[+purple_pineapple]

this cache used to be in my GSAK oflfine db, placed in April 2005, and somehow appears to have been 'unpublished'... can this happen?

 

linky

 

or am i being stoopid? all the archived caches are fine...

 

Dave

[+Learned Gerbil]

Beleive a similar query was raised about nine months ago.

[+purple_pineapple]

Beleive a similar query was raised about nine months ago.

 

possible - i remember one similar, but that was a cache that was published accidentally and then unpublished within a day or so. This one has been live for over a year!

 

just realised you can;t see the details - its a Beds Clangers cache, Curious Beds 4 to be precise. Maybe the clangers themselces could explain! Its intriguing me!

 

If its something confidential, then just tell me to get lost! lol

[+walkergeoff and wife]

Beleive a similar query was raised about nine months ago.

 

possible - i remember one similar, but that was a cache that was published accidentally and then unpublished within a day or so. This one has been live for over a year!

 

just realised you can;t see the details - its a Beds Clangers cache, Curious Beds 4 to be precise. Maybe the clangers themselces could explain! Its intriguing me!

 

If its something confidential, then just tell me to get lost! lol

I noticed the same thing when I was doing an archived cache search with GSAK. I must admit I didn't look at the date and just assumed that somehow it had slipped through the net and would be active soon.

[+Satellite Kid]

I found a cache in the black mountains that no one had ever logged in 4 years and when i checked all the sites its not been archived or published...can't find it listed anyway, even though I found the cache by accident!?!?!?

[Alan White]

Best wait for a reviewer (or Beds Clangers) to respond. It was unpublished in the last week, as I last received it in a GPX file on 12th.

 

And, of course, anyone who's found it now hasn't.

[+purple_pineapple]

Best wait for a reviewer (or Beds Clangers) to respond. It was unpublished in the last week, as I last received it in a GPX file on 12th.

 

And, of course, anyone who's found it now hasn't.

 

thats what i thought, and is why i asked, cos its such an unusual situation!

 

Come on Mr Reviewer Sir! Spill the beans!

[+Moote]

It might be due to there being a new road right where it was placed

[+Nellies Knackers]

Curious bed 4 is(was) near me and was active normally for a good while but got disabled (and I think archived) as a critical notice board to the multi got taken down from an outside wall and put inside a village hall entrance messing up access, I think I was the last to do it and only managed due to an event at the hall that day.

[+purple_pineapple]

Curious bed 4 is(was) near me and was active normally for a good while but got disabled (and I think archived) as a critical notice board to the multi got taken down from an outside wall and put inside a village hall entrance messing up access, I think I was the last to do it and only managed due to an event at the hall that day.

 

so did you log it as a find? cos you'll find its not on your found list anymore... rather than archived, its unpublished, which means it effectively never existed and any stats relating to it don't exist either...

 

/me is a nosy so-and-so!!!

[+Hi-5ers]

We have done this cache (Curious Beds 4) in the past (actually after Nellies Knackers - we found the necessary info elsewhere, but think that the board itself was later put back in position anyway). Now we have the unusual situation where our profile says we have found 129 caches, but when you list them, it says 128! At least we haven't completely lost the cache from our count.

[Lactodorum]

this cache used to be in my GSAK oflfine db, placed in April 2005, and somehow appears to have been 'unpublished'... can this happen?

 

linky

 

or am i being stoopid? all the archived caches are fine...

 

Dave

 

No you're not being stoopid !

 

Actually I was responsible for removing it from the listings by Archiving and unpublishing it at the request of the landowner. If it had just been archived the information would still have been visible.

 

If people would prefer, I can remove the "Found" logs from it which should get their stats back in order. Just drop me a note and I'll sort it for you.

[+purple_pineapple]

this cache used to be in my GSAK oflfine db, placed in April 2005, and somehow appears to have been 'unpublished'... can this happen?

 

linky

 

or am i being stoopid? all the archived caches are fine...

 

Dave

 

No you're not being stoopid !

 

Actually I was responsible for removing it from the listings by Archiving and unpublishing it at the request of the landowner. If it had just been archived the information would still have been visible.

 

If people would prefer, I can remove the "Found" logs from it which should get their stats back in order. Just drop me a note and I'll sort it for you.

 

ahh, yes, i hadn;t thought that information would still be visible... fair enough! Just a thought though, would it have been possible to edit the information and change the coords, and then archive, so at least the record is kept?

 

no skin of my nose though! I'm off to manually delete it from GSAK! cheers for the answer though!

[Alan White]

If people would prefer, I can remove the "Found" logs from it which should get their stats back in order.

I'm a bit confused.

 

I'm not affected by this cache, but this situation has happened before and will no doubt happen again, and I'd like to see a "policy" on how it gets handled so as not to mess up stats.

 

It's entirely understandable that sometimes archiving a cache will not be sufficient. The problem seems to be that unpublishing it causes all the stats to disappear. I'd be very miffed if this happened to me - our carefully chosen 1000th cache would become our 999th, etc .

 

The best way of sorting this would be for the website to deal with it properly, but there's not much chance of that happening so we need a way of removing the sensitive information about a cache while preserving the logs and therefore stats. Is this what Peter is describing? Perhaps you could expand?

 

As PP suggests, perhaps the way forward is to delete the description and set dummy coords?

[Lactodorum]

As PP suggests, perhaps the way forward is to delete the description and set dummy coords?

Hmm! Now that could be a good idea, let me investigate.

[alistair_uk]

As PP suggests, perhaps the way forward is to delete the description and set dummy coords?

Personally I would vote for that. Or even better, just remove the bare minimum required to keep everyone happy.

 

I appreciated that the land owner probably asked for the whole thing to be removed, but I guess that was probably out of anger or misunderstanding, so perhaps a compromise could be found without bothering them.

[+The HERB5]

I appreciated that the land owner probably asked for the whole thing to be removed, but I guess that was probably out of anger or misunderstanding

 

But shouldn't the landowner of given permission first ?

 

I am one of those Geocachers that hasn't actually set a cache yet

Purely because of the grey area of permission.

I black-and-white it says permission MUST be obtained, but in reality many don't.

 

Shouldn't a body such as Groundspeak be more open in the actual permissions required to set a cache.

[+purple_pineapple]

I appreciated that the land owner probably asked for the whole thing to be removed, but I guess that was probably out of anger or misunderstanding

 

But shouldn't the landowner of given permission first ?

 

I am one of those Geocachers that hasn't actually set a cache yet

Purely because of the grey area of permission.

I black-and-white it says permission MUST be obtained, but in reality many don't.

 

Shouldn't a body such as Groundspeak be more open in the actual permissions required to set a cache.

 

You are quite correct, landowner permission is required for all caches, as stated on GC.com. However, and I doubt many will admit to it on here , there are plenty (dare I say most?) caches where the cacher has decided not to get permission, for whatever reason. The reviewers cannot be expected to check this for the majority of caches (There are a couple of specific situations where they will – I think eg The Forestry Commission ) so it is assumed caches are placed with permission.

 

The cacher obviously accepts the risk that the cache may be found, cleared away or generally need to be archived at some point if no permission is obtained. In most cases, it will be simply ‘tidied up’ by a landowner, and it’s a very unusual situation for the landowner to feel so aggrieved that he actually contacts GC.com. I’m not saying the Beds Clanger cache wasn’t , but most sensibly placed caches won’t irate the landowner too much, even if they don’t actually want the cache there.

 

Finally, IMHO, Groundspeak have to maintain at least the illusion (is that the right word?) that all caches are placed with permission, that way the onus is on any cache owner who doesn’t, and protects Groundspeak from any potential legal action. I can’t see this changing!

 

HTH

 

Dave

[Lactodorum]

OK, it's back but in an Archived, Locked state with bogus coordinates. Hopefully everyone's stats should be fixed now.

 

Also, the original reason for removing it was a bit more complicated than a simple permission issue but I cannot go into specifics. I think it best that I close this thread now but if you still have problems please e-mail me.

 

Thanks for your forebearance.

[Lactodorum]

Sorry, abrupt change of plan but I've had to retract the listing permanently. Sorry for any inconvenience caused but I've no alternative.