Not being allowed to log caches

[+TnT]

These two caches came up (GCYYXH,GCYN5Z) many cachers in the area wanted to log them but the owners state that since they use stages from another cache that was archived you can not log them if you found the first one and if you do log them your log will be deleted whats up with that???.....(GCTVAF,GCVCG2 the original caches) Since they are using different GC numbers I feel they are fair game , but I want to know what others have to say... when did geocaching stop being a game? There are to many cache police out there.

Edited October 27, 2006 by TnT

[+Blucruz]

These two caches came up (GCYYXH,GCYN5Z) many cachers in the area wanted to log them but the owners state that since they use stages from another cache that was archived you can not log them if you found the first one and if you do log them your log will be deleted whats up with that???.....(GCTVAF,GCVCG2 the original caches) Since they are using different GC numbers I feel they are fair game , but I want to know what others have to say... when did geocaching stop being a game? There are to many cache police out there.

 

I'll assume that these are multi-caches? It sounds to me that if the caches you need to visit in order to log these two caches have been archived then these caches as well should be archived. Wish I could look but I can't get on gc.com from work.

[+TnT]

There was two other caches, both archived.... these are two new caches using some of the previous stages with a different final. Most folks feel as I do and feel the should be logable as they are new caches, regardless if you completed the other caches.

Edited October 27, 2006 by TnT

[CoyoteRed]

 

Now I think I seen everything. New cache page because there is a new container?

 

Another ALR with a twist.

[+Team Namthcof]

These two caches came up (GCYYXH,GCYN5Z) many cachers in the area wanted to log them but the owners state that since they use stages from another cache that was archived you can not log them if you found the first one and if you do log them your log will be deleted whats up with that???.....(GCTVAF,GCVCG2 the original caches) Since they are using different GC numbers I feel they are fair game , but I want to know what others have to say... when did geocaching stop being a game? There are to many cache police out there.

 

I'll assume that these are multi-caches? It sounds to me that if the caches you need to visit in order to log these two caches have been archived then these caches as well should be archived. Wish I could look but I can't get on gc.com from work.

[+Team Namthcof]

Since we had already found the original caches we didn't try for the new ones. Seems like the owner should have changed the various stage coordinates a bit to allow us to find again.

 

Shall we get Criminal involved for fun???

[+Renegade Knight]

... when did geocaching stop being a game? There are to many cache police out there.

 

First geocaching never was a game. It's a RASH. Recreational Activity Sport Hobby is about the best description I've see. Game means 'silly little children running about with GPS devices' which most politicians don't want in their backyards.

 

Regardless Games, Sports, Cooperative Hobbies all have rules.

 

The rule you are hating is a cache owne saying "do the cache I have placed for you as intended".

 

While I agree that as new caches you should be able to do them, the owners have spoken and until they change the rules they are the final authority over their cache. If you as a finder want to impose your own rules on each and every cache owner, that's another thing and it's flat out wrong.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Another ALR....

 

Yup.

[+Indotguy]

I don't understand the problem here. As I understand this, these are not new hides but old hides with new GC numbers. If you found the original hides why pray tell would you WANT to log the same finds again anyway? What does their having new GC numbers have to do with anything?

[+jmmhooper]

The reason I see for it is to get credit in stats for two more finds.

 

I would think if something changed on the cache and it has new way point GCXXX then it should be found log book signed again and you get credit.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't understand the problem here. As I understand this, these are not new hides but old hides with new GC numbers. If you found the original hides why pray tell would you WANT to log the same finds again anyway? What does their having new GC numbers have to do with anything?

 

Well, for non-paying members those caches will be on their Nearest Caches List forever through no fault or limitation of their own. Only paying members have the option to ignore caches.

 

Additionally, I don't know what was going on with the though processes to do it this way. One was simply changed from a multi to a traditional with the same final. The other it appears was changed because of muggles. The starting point is different and if the cache was muggled then maybe a different final would be in order? Even if the the final was the same future seekers wouldn't have known unless broadcast, like they did, and would have most likely hunted as a new hunt.

 

I'm kind of surprised the reviewer didn't guide the owner better in this instance.

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Now I think I seen everything. New cache page because there is a new container?

 

Another ALR with a twist.

 

I don't see how this qualifies as an ALR. There is no additional logging requirement listed. No logging "Mother May I", or posting a moon shot.

 

On the other hand, it does seem to go against the grain of archiving old caches to let new caches be placed in the area. (Which seems to be the operant reason for reviewers archiving long disabled caches.)

[CoyoteRed]

I don't see how this qualifies as an ALR. There is no additional logging requirement listed. No logging "Mother May I", or posting a moon shot.

 

This is very similar to those you're not supposed to log unless you have more or fewer than a certain of finds. In this case, you can't log it if you've already found a cache in the same location. Neither cache is an exact replication of the original.

[+tozainamboku]

Is that dueling banjos I hear? Where's KBI?

[+TnT]

... when did geocaching stop being a game? There are to many cache police out there.

 

First geocaching never was a game. It's a RASH. Recreational Activity Sport Hobby is about the best description I've see. Game means 'silly little children running about with GPS devices' which most politicians don't want in their backyards.

 

Regardless Games, Sports, Cooperative Hobbies all have rules.

 

The rule you are hating is a cache owne saying "do the cache I have placed for you as intended".

 

While I agree that as new caches you should be able to do them, the owners have spoken and until they change the rules they are the final authority over their cache. If you as a finder want to impose your own rules on each and every cache owner, that's another thing and it's flat out wrong.

 

So according to your description Baseball,hockey,football "games-silly little children running about" I understand what you are saying but I still feel it is a game, I GEOCACHE to have fun and to meet people. Taking away the ability to hunt for a cache as it uses some of the same stages, not all is ridiculous. I just want to go out and have fun and find caches on my list to take them off. If the cache had the same GC number then I can see where you would be right in not logging the cache but alas it is a new gc number and fair game to all.

[Neos2]

Well this one seems like a easy enough thing to fix.

 

If the cache owner only wanted to improve the cache experience, but not create new hides for locals to find, they really could have just made little changes and kept the old gc numbers. I agree that if the caches have new GC numbers, the hides should be different enough from whatever they had out there before that the owners would welcome anyone who had found the old caches to revisit the area.

 

The caches owners can still make these "new" caches, if they just go back out and shift the containers to slightly new locations, or use a different kind of container, etc.

 

Perhaps a nicely worded note to the owners, explaining your sorrow over having "new" caches in the area that really aren't new would convince them to shuffle them around enough that folks who had already found them really could feel good about hunting them out anew?

[+hukilaulau]

So you DIDN'T really want to hear what others had to say. You wanted to inform us of a grave mistreatment, right?

[+KBI]

... I don't know what was going on with the though processes to do it this way. One was simply changed from a multi to a traditional with the same final. The other it appears was changed because of muggles. The starting point is different and if the cache was muggled then maybe a different final would be in order? Even if the the final was the same future seekers wouldn't have known unless broadcast, like they did, and would have most likely hunted as a new hunt.

 

I'm kind of surprised the reviewer didn't guide the owner better in this instance.

I agree.

 

In each case the owner should have simply modified the existing cache page instead of archiving it and creating a new page. The way they chose to handle it doesn't make sense.

 

Why didn't the reviewer point this out? Or, assuming the reviewer did offer that suggestion, why did the owner choose the klunky version instead?

[+Renegade Knight]

...I just want to go out and have fun and find caches on my list to take them off....

Stick to this part. It's the easy thing to do.

 

 

...If the cache had the same GC number then I can see where you would be right in not logging the cache but alas it is a new gc number and fair game to all.

This part is where you take the time to stop having fun and draw a sword and make a stand. Cache owners can make the rules for their caches. Finders can have fun, or not as they see fit. However if you take the time to argue the point odds are the funs going to slip away. Unless you enjoy that sort of thing.

[+halffast]

Im not sure I understand why the owner would not let a cacher log a find on a new cache.Even if its the same old cache.Something changed.I have archived a few and placed new caches in the area of the old ones.They are new caches and therefore loggable as such.Just my 2 cents worth.

[+TnT]

So you DIDN'T really want to hear what others had to say. You wanted to inform us of a grave mistreatment, right?

 

No actually I wanted to see what others had to say. That is why I posted this. lol but I did like what you had to say

thanks for you input

[+ThePropers]

IMO, what determines a new cache is the GC number. So new GC number = new cache, which should be open for everyone to find.

 

This is the exact same thing as finding a location that had a cache that was archived 2 or 3 years ago, putting a new cache there, and then telling people who found the old one that they can't log the new one. It's a different cache, with a different GC number, a different set of logs, a different "hidden" date..etc, so it should be available for everyone to find.

 

I can't wait for people to start complaining about "numbers hos" who log two different caches 2 years apart that happen to be in the same spot as each other

Edited October 28, 2006 by ThePropers

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Why would anyone want to create a cache and not let people find and log it? The cache owners really should have thought this through before creating brand new caches.

[+Glenn]

Is that dueling banjos I hear? Where's KBI?

That video is disturbing because I think I've seen a lot of those photos used here as avatars. On another note I wonder why DOG the Bounty Hunter is in there, twice.

[+Mudfrog]

IMO, what determines a new cache is the GC number. So new GC number = new cache, which should be open for everyone to find.

 

This is the exact same thing as finding a location that had a cache that was archived 2 or 3 years ago, putting a new cache there, and then telling people who found the old one that they can't log the new one. It's a different cache, with a different GC number, a different set of logs, a different "hidden" date..etc, so it should be available for everyone to find.

 

We have a cache here that the owner has to disable once a year because of a festival that takes place in the area. All fine and dandy except that he accidently archived it one time and then resubmitted as a new cache afterwards. I'm sure he could have gotten with the reviewer and straightened it out but he didn't.

 

He didn't make any changes to the cache at all and i just don't feel that this is a loggable find for me. Thankfully the ignore feature was implemented soon after this came out!

 

On the OP's concern, his is a different story. Parts of these caches were changed and with the new GC numbers, they should be considered new and findable by all.