Log a Disabled Cache?

[+Snake & Rooster]

I have several caches in burned areas (from the recent wildfires) that are temporarily disabled, until I can check them and replace them if necessary. Today, someone found the disabled cache, which has evidently survived the fires. Question: would you allow the find of the disabled cache, or delete the log? I am inclined to let it stand, assuming I find the cache intact when I check it, but would like to hear what others think.

[+paulandstacey]

To me disabled means everything from "needs a new log sheet" to "the area has been levelled". If someone found it, they found it. Unless you know something is fishy with the log, let it stand.

[+hairball45]

It would appear that the cache is in sufficently good condition that someone found it and was capable of signing the log, the most generally accepted standard for a find. If you complete your checks and find something hinky then delete the find, but otherwise let 'em enjoy the smiley and be happy that your cache seemed to survive the fires.

hairball

[+sbell111]

I would allow the find even if the cache was archived. As long as the cache is still in place, I would allow a 'find'.

[+StarBrand]

If they found it and signed the logbook. Why not let them log online??

[+HB-vanislelady]

I have several caches in burned areas (from the recent wildfires) that are temporarily disabled, until I can check them and replace them if necessary. Today, someone found the disabled cache, which has evidently survived the fires. Question: would you allow the find of the disabled cache, or delete the log? I am inclined to let it stand, assuming I find the cache intact when I check it, but would like to hear what others think.

 

Did the cacher provide any info on the log regarding the condition that the cache is in other than just logging it...

 

When I log a disabled cache I try to indicate that it is okay or not and sometimes I will email the owner and give specifics

 

If the log is wet I will let the owner know via the log or email that I have provided some maintenance...depending on the location, cache owner, or availability of the owner or cache I may even bring out the wet log, it always depends on the situation

 

But, unless I know that the cache has definately gone missing via then no, I would not delete the find

[+egami]

I'd let them log it. Especially if they were also affected by the recent fires...this may be one of the few things they have from previous normalcy.

[+Jeep_Dog]

1) Let it stand.

 

2) Check the cache. If you find them in the log, then goto 4)

 

3) No entry in physical log, delete find from online listing.

 

4) Entry in log, then they found the cache. Let it stand.

 

References

- Simple geocaching rule #3: "Write about it in the logbook."

- Listing guidelines on definition of "disable" function : "You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem." I interpret this as letting others know not to hunt for it, not "no one is allowed to find this cache."

[+Renegade Knight]

It depends on why they were disabled.

 

If it was just because you were unsure if they were still there...then I'd let the find stand.

 

There are other reasons that I might delete the log on a disabled cache. It's all going to depend on the circumstances.

[+BlueDeuce]

It depends on why they were disabled.

 

If it was just because you were unsure if they were still there...then I'd let the find stand.

 

There are other reasons that I might delete the log on a disabled cache. It's all going to depend on the circumstances.

 

ayep.

[4wheelin_fool]

I have several caches in burned areas (from the recent wildfires) that are temporarily disabled, until I can check them and replace them if necessary. Today, someone found the disabled cache, which has evidently survived the fires. Question: would you allow the find of the disabled cache, or delete the log? I am inclined to let it stand, assuming I find the cache intact when I check it, but would like to hear what others think.

 

It completely depends on why the cache is disabled. In a few cases, the cache may be disabled because the area is temporarily closed off to all visitors. In your case, it sounds like the cacher was just making a check to see if the cache was OK, so I would let it stand.

[+Jeep_Dog]

There are other reasons that I might delete the log on a disabled cache. It's all going to depend on the circumstances.

 

Examples?

[+sbell111]

I'd likely still allow the find, no matter why I disabled it. The cacher is no doubt using stale data and didn't even realize the cache was disabled, he therefore wouldn't know the reason that I disabled it.

[+briansnat]

I have several caches in burned areas (from the recent wildfires) that are temporarily disabled, until I can check them and replace them if necessary. Today, someone found the disabled cache, which has evidently survived the fires. Question: would you allow the find of the disabled cache, or delete the log? I am inclined to let it stand, assuming I find the cache intact when I check it, but would like to hear what others think.

 

It depends on the situation.In your case I'd absolutely allow it. He found the cache and I can't think of a reason not to allow it. Hey, the guy did you a favor and saved you the trip out there.

 

On the other hand I have a cache that is disabled because it's in a mine that's off limits during the winter to protect hibernating bats. I say on the page that I will not accept finds while the mine is off limits. I also note this fact on the logbook inside the cache. So I would delete any logs made while the mine is off limits.

[+DavidMac]

There are other reasons that I might delete the log on a disabled cache. It's all going to depend on the circumstances.

 

Examples?

 

Here's an example: I had to disable a cache because a few people reported that the hiding area (woods) had been leveled to dirt. I checked, and verified that it was gone/buried, but before I could replace it, two cachers came through the area and posted copy/paste logs. I didn't delete the logs outright, but first followed up with them to ask where/how they had managed to find the cache (in case they had searched more extensively than me and managed to find the container). Turns out they hadn't, but logged it anyway. They deleted their own logs and saved me from having to do so, but if you didn't sign the log and can't even describe the hiding area, I think that justifies deletion.

[+Jeep_Dog]

They deleted their own logs and saved me from having to do so, but if you didn't sign the log and can't even describe the hiding area, I think that justifies deletion.

 

I suppose that I should clarify the "examples?" bit.

 

Examples would be circumstances where someone did indeed visit the cache and sign the physical log, and the log would be deleted. In the circumstance that you outline, it is a GIVEN that the log is deleted, since such a log appears to be bogus & counterfeit.

 

Now, briansat brings up an interesting and valid deletion - looked at from an alternate angle, his cache has an additional logging requiremnt of "log only between the months of xxxx and xxxx."

 

This next bit is not stated as criticism to briansnat, since it is his cache after all, and he seems very responsible about taking cache guidelines seriously.

 

It seems the purpose of briansat's additional logging requirement is to protect the integrity of the bats. If this is the case, a much more effective way of keeping cachers out of the cave than the stated disabling of the cache and deleting found logs (deleting the logs is reactive prevention to a deed already done, and bats disturbed), would be to actually REMOVE the cache and then disable it every year during bat season. Obviously, this would be explained both on the cache page and in the disable log "cache removed due to bat preservation." In this way, the desired effect of keeping folks out of the cave is proactive as opposed to reactive.

[+egami]

Oops, misread I see what you are getting at.

Edited November 16, 2007 by egami

[+Renegade Knight]

There are other reasons that I might delete the log on a disabled cache. It's all going to depend on the circumstances.

 

Examples?

 

Hibernating Bats in a cave cache. Disabled during the winter, no finds allowed even if you did since I didn't want to encourage disturbance of the bats. This came up once in the 3 years I had the cache so it wasnt' much of an issue.

[+DavidMac]

 

I suppose that I should clarify the "examples?" bit....

 

Ah, I see what you meant now. If they were able to sign the log in this case (not in the one I described), I'd be a little annoyed, but I'd let the log stand.

 

.... would be to actually REMOVE the cache and then disable it every year during bat season.

 

Bingo. Removing the cache removes any incentive to disobey the wishes of the owner and search anyway.

 

It also gives you a reason to check on the cache location when you re-enable it.

[+Scare Force One]

Unless you don't find the cache i say let it stand.

 

~.~Scare Force One

[+Snake & Rooster]

Thanks to everyone who responded. The reason for disabling the cache was to allow me to check it and see if it was still there, as well as not knowing if the conservancy that owns the land would have closed it due to the fires. It seems that the land is still open and a least this cache is still there. I have plans on hikiing up this weekend to replace the container (snap lock to ammo can) and as long as the signature is there, I'll leave the find.

 

Thanks again. Just wanted to make sure that my head was on straight.

[+TrailGators]

Thanks to everyone who responded. The reason for disabling the cache was to allow me to check it and see if it was still there, as well as not knowing if the conservancy that owns the land would have closed it due to the fires. It seems that the land is still open and a least this cache is still there. I have plans on hikiing up this weekend to replace the container (snap lock to ammo can) and as long as the signature is there, I'll leave the find.

 

Thanks again. Just wanted to make sure that my head was on straight.

 

I have the same issue with several of my caches Snake. I disabled them because they are probably burned up and I didn't want people to waste their time. I also did it because the rangers closed that park because they don't want people up there yet. So disabling them helps out the rangers too.

[+Zop]

I have several caches in burned areas (from the recent wildfires) that are temporarily disabled, until I can check them and replace them if necessary. Today, someone found the disabled cache, which has evidently survived the fires. Question: would you allow the find of the disabled cache, or delete the log? I am inclined to let it stand, assuming I find the cache intact when I check it, but would like to hear what others think.

 

For me, if I find a disabled cache, it's only because it wasn't disabled when I placed it in my GPS & PDA so yes, of course I would log it if I found it and signed the log. Same goes for an archived cache.

 

If I had a disabled cache out there somewhere it would only be because I have been told that it is in dire need of my inspection for whatever reason - missing, needs new log or maintenance so if a cacher does find it, I would not only allow them the find, I would probably thank them for confirming that it's still there in the first place as they may have just saved me the trip!

[+Miragee]

I found a cache yesterday that did not have any other signatures in the logbook . . . I was confused, as I didn't think I could have gotten FTF on a cache that has been out for a few days.

 

When I got home, it turned out the cache was Disabled . . . I logged my find anyway.

 

Turned out the original container went missing before the first cacher got there to sign the log . . .

 

That cache owner accepted my find because I found the replacement container. The cache is now Active.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I would allow the find even if the cache was archived. As long as the cache is still in place, I would allow a 'find'.

'Zackly! So long as the cache is still in place, and so long as there is a logbook to sign or at least someplace in the container to stick a small piece of paper bearing the log entry, I would allow a find.

[+Snake & Rooster]

In the way of follow-up, I visited the cache today and found that it had been destroyed by the fires. People were signing the summit register, thinking it was the cache--though the two were nowhere close to each other. I did delete the logs. Thanks to all who responded, though the destruction of the cache has made the whole thing moot now. You cannot log a cache that doesn't exist anymore.

[+Trucker Lee]

If they signed the logbook, allow it. Even if they had to provide a new log. The important things is that they found the cache. Now, take advantage of that fact, and utilize their experience to be sure you have all the parts necessary to repair (if needed) the cache with only one trip.

 

Keep in mind the haphazard nature of wildfires. They can leave a parched oasis in the midst of ashes, they can burn across the surface so quickly that items under the surface, or minimally hidden, are not touched. Someone found your cache, celebrate! It survived!!

 

Edit OOPs! Old tab. In the circumstances you describe just above, not a find.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Trucker Lee

[+simpjkee]

I am inclined to let it stand, assuming I find the cache intact when I check it,

 

That is EXACTLY what I would do.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I found a cache yesterday that did not have any other signatures in the logbook . . . I was confused, as I didn't think I could have gotten FTF on a cache that has been out for a few days.

 

When I got home, it turned out the cache was Disabled . . . I logged my find anyway.

 

Turned out the original container went missing before the first cacher got there to sign the log . . .

 

That cache owner accepted my find because I found the replacement container. The cache is now Active.

 

About a week ago I found a cache that had been around for quite awhile and I had downloaded the coordinates a few weeks ago. Since the cache was a nano I just figured that the log had been replaced. When I checked the logs today (to see if anyone else had found it since I did) I saw that there had been several DNFs in the last couple of weeks, that it been confirmed as missing by the owner, but replaced the day I found the cache. It may have actually been disabled at the time I found the cache.

 

Since this cache was in South Africa (my only find in SA), 8132 miles from my home location, I am very glad that logging of disabled caches is allowed. A few days later I found and logged another cache in Zimbabwe, a mere 7661 miles from my home location.

[+SanityEndsHere]

About a year ago, I logged an archived cache because I was able to find the container and signed the log. Then the following day at an event the cache owner asked me about it. It seemed that people kept finding the cache but when he went to check on it he couldn't find it. So I explained what I had found and where I found it. Because it was a unique container he knew I had found the cache... but the reason he couldn't find his own cache is because someone didn't put it back where it was originally placed. And I got to keep my smilie.

[+Illinois Bill]

I'd likely still allow the find, no matter why I disabled it. The cacher is no doubt using stale data and didn't even realize the cache was disabled, he therefore wouldn't know the reason that I disabled it.

been there and done that see 1 Amboy crater GC14EG5 Found the cache in fine shape and still there. But after returning home could not remember cache address and finally found it and logged it as found. Then sent email to owner letting them know its still up and working.. but, alas its still temporarily unavailable.

[+SuperDave_GPS]

Yup. I've disabled a few of my caches simply because of a damaged container or whatever, but there was a time when a honest fellow cacher placed a log (on the disabled cache) to say that they've taken the liberty to repair or even replace my container. Very nice. They posted a picture of the new container, or the repair job, and everything's good to go.

 

Yes, I would go and personally verify the container's condition, it just won't be as high of a priority to do as if the cache was still disabled. It's comforting to know that there's still some good old-fashioned honest people out there...

[+SuperDave_GPS]

Also, perhaps this link may interest some, or stir the pot even more...

 

To log, or not to log...