+paulandstacey Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Recently I've heard of a situation where a person using an older PQ for an area found a cache that, unbeknownst to them, had been archived. The owner had archived the cache, but never retrieved it, just leaving it there in the woods. After the person logged it, the owner deleted the log. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment
+Moose Mob Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Make sure you are not useing stale data? Quote Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Make sure you are not useing stale data? Agreed. Quote Link to comment
+paulandstacey Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 I agree it's always best to use up to date data, but most of us have had older queries in our gpsrs, haven't we? I know it's up to the owner to decide on legitimate logs, so I know there's not a whole lot that can be done. I guess I'm just a little annoyed as people leaving their wet/damaged/unmaintained caches out there seems to be more of an issue lately. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Recently I've heard of a situation where a person using an older PQ for an area found a cache that, unbeknownst to them, had been archived. The owner had archived the cache, but never retrieved it, just leaving it there in the woods. After the person logged it, the owner deleted the log. Thoughts? It depends. On the cache. What the cache page says. Why it was archived. If it's listed elsewhere etc. Quote Link to comment
+Klatch Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I agree it's always best to use up to date data, but most of us have had older queries in our gpsrs, haven't we? I know it's up to the owner to decide on legitimate logs, so I know there's not a whole lot that can be done. I guess I'm just a little annoyed as people leaving their wet/damaged/unmaintained caches out there seems to be more of an issue lately. IF you found the cache and signed the log, in my book it is a find. Shame on the hider for not retrieving it, but that's not your fault. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 I think in most cases, the person found the cache and should be able to log the find. It is called a "found it". Quote Link to comment
+nekom Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 As far as I'm concerned, whenever you find a cache and sign your name in the logbook, it's a legitimate find. But of course it's up to the cache owner. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Make sure you are not useing stale data? What do you consider stale data? A week old? A day old (automatic PQs can only run once a day). While it's nice to have current, accurate date while caching, if one is on the road traveling it's pretty easy to go several days without updating cache data. Quote Link to comment
nonaeroterraqueous Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Personally, I get a bigger kick out of finding archived caches than listed ones (namely, if everyone thinks it's missing, but it's not). It's a real find unless the owner retrieved it and knows it's not really still out there. Any other reason for deleting a log on an archived cache escapes me. If you don't want people to find it, then remove it. Quote Link to comment
+Knight2000 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 A find is a find regardless. I don't necessarily agree with the statement about using current PQ's. At times we have intentionally searched for archived caches. Why? Many times they are archived because they need maintenance and the owner is MIA. If archived they end up being geo-trash which ultimately could reflect bad on all of us as a group. If it is archived for another reason, then that is a different story. Quote Link to comment
+Knight2000 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Worse yet, i have seen local cachers with many finds archive caches because they are too far away to do maintenance. It never even occurs to them that they are leaving behind garbage. That really eats at me. I retrieved one as i remembered it while in the area. I posted a note to the page and offered to scan in the log book. No answer... This is what happens when cachers are too worried about placing caches. Driving around with a camo tape pill bottle is bad form IMO. It is like a child with money burning holes in their pockets. How can a find be deleted? It is like taking away a FTF post. Why deny it? Quote Link to comment
TinyMoon & The Pumpkin King Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 We have found and logged many archived caches. Several were owned by a local cacher who for whatever reason became very disgruntled with Geocaching and archived them all in just a matter of days. He was one of our area's very first cachers, and he had some of the best caching "real estate" around. Over the course of a few years we've found them, logged them, and retrieved the actual caches from their sites. A find is a find. Log it! Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I agree. Find cache. Sign Log. Get smiley. Quote Link to comment
+Great Scott! Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 (edited) We have found and logged many archived caches. Several were owned by a local cacher who for whatever reason became very disgruntled with Geocaching and archived them all in just a matter of days. He was one of our area's very first cachers, and he had some of the best caching "real estate" around. Over the course of a few years we've found them, logged them, and retrieved the actual caches from their sites. A find is a find. Log it! We had a similar situation in our area. A cacher became disgruntled with gc.com and archived his caches. But they were still listed on another site. I found a couple and logged finds on gc.com. He wrote back that the caches were archived on gc.com, but I was welcome to log them on the other site. I didn't bother to log them on the other site. I don't remember if I or if Mr Disgruntled deleted the finds on gc.com. Probably me. I was new to the area back then and didn't want to cause more friction. Edited February 29, 2008 by Great Scott! Quote Link to comment
+nativefly182 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I adopted a cache that the owner no longer could maintain & during the time that I adopted it & replaced it someone signed the old log. They found it, signed log, it's a legit find. My .02 cents worth. Quote Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Personally, I get a bigger kick out of finding archived caches than listed ones (namely, if everyone thinks it's missing, but it's not). It's a real find unless the owner retrieved it and knows it's not really still out there. Any other reason for deleting a log on an archived cache escapes me. If you don't want people to find it, then remove it. I know of a cacher that makes it a practice to log finds on archived caches with an explanation like "I found this cache a long time ago but forgot to log it" Sure he did On one or two of my caches that I archived I posted a note that I would delete future found it logs. Quote Link to comment
+BilLow Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I've seen logs on caches some two years after they were archived. I guess the owners were not watching those caches anymore or the just didn't care. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 We have found and logged many archived caches. Several were owned by a local cacher who for whatever reason became very disgruntled with Geocaching and archived them all in just a matter of days. He was one of our area's very first cachers, and he had some of the best caching "real estate" around. Over the course of a few years we've found them, logged them, and retrieved the actual caches from their sites. A find is a find. Log it! Ah yes, that was the world's first and only "bring back locationless" geocide. I'll go with the crowd here, a find is a find. Deleting the log was rather strange behavior. Quote Link to comment
+FireRef Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I agree - and maybe remove the container or contact the owner to find out what should be done with it? Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 (edited) Recently I've heard of a situation where a person using an older PQ for an area found a cache that, unbeknownst to them, had been archived. The owner had archived the cache, but never retrieved it, just leaving it there in the woods. After the person logged it, the owner deleted the log. Thoughts? It's a find. Why would the owner delete the log? They were the ones that left the cache there... Edited February 29, 2008 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 (edited) Personally, I get a bigger kick out of finding archived caches than listed ones (namely, if everyone thinks it's missing, but it's not). It's a real find unless the owner retrieved it and knows it's not really still out there. Any other reason for deleting a log on an archived cache escapes me. If you don't want people to find it, then remove it. I know of a cacher that makes it a practice to log finds on archived caches with an explanation like "I found this cache a long time ago but forgot to log it" Sure he did On one or two of my caches that I archived I posted a note that I would delete future found it logs. But I think that you are talking about people logging archived caches where the container has been removed. If the container is still in place and someone finds and signs a log or something else inside the container then I don't believe you would delete that type of find, archived or not. But then again, you are an active cacher and cache maintainer and I beleive your archived containers would not stay in place for terribly long. (P.S. I sure liked those rats!) Edited March 1, 2008 by Team Sagefox Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.