+Moote Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) In the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines it states the following Cache Permanence When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there. Now I have just been updating my GSAK and setting caches which have not been updated to archived, when I spotted several Christmas and New Year based caches having been archived because the Big days have now passed. It this Cache Permanence? Some of these caches have hardly seen a month out. Edited January 2, 2009 by Moote Quote Link to comment
+The Hornet Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I agree with Moote (! ) If people have been getting temporary caches past the reviewers they should get an appropriate bollocking (the owners, not the reviewers ) Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'm in agreement there with you, after all the Reviewers do act in good faith that a cache will remain for a reasonable period. Quote Link to comment
+drdick&vick Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I'm in agreement there with you, after all the Reviewers do act in good faith that a cache will remain for a reasonable period. Maybe they should be given a 6 month ban on hiding caches, they certainly need something to stop them doing it again. I would be really hacked off if I had planned them into a short tour in the caravan only to find them archived when I arrived. Quote Link to comment
+Dorsetgal & GeoDog Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Name and shame! Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Name and shame! Oh if it was the old days I probably would; but I've had too many hand wrappings from accross the pond so I behave Quote Link to comment
+dibbler69 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Theres one that comes to mind that was published on the 20 Dec and the archived on the 1st of Jan. Is this a record It also says in the cache listing there is no log book or pen in this cache to log the find you will have to e mail the T**********o and stated how many bags you have taken and of what colour I thought a cache had to have a log book? Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 6th Dec to 4th Jan (When it's due to archived) Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 I brought up the same question about the cache mentioned in this thread. Quote Link to comment
+harrogate hunters Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 On the other hand my Christmas Word Cache was released on 30th November 2004 just in time for Christmas and its still going strong... Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) I know the 3 month rule for caches, but lots of people do place Xmas caches that will look well out of place come Mid January - Maybe there is a case for a 1 month limit for Xmas caches. Just a suggestion... Edited January 2, 2009 by Birdman-of-liskatraz Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Or follow the Retail Rule and place them at the end of September Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 I know the 3 month rule for caches, but lots of people do place Xmas caches that will look well out of place come Mid January - Maybe there is a case for a 1 month limit for Xmas caches. Just a suggestion... It's one day, that is all, if we give in to Christmas having a get out clause, then why not Easter, Mothersday, Farthersday etc etc, Quote Link to comment
+HazelS Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'm a bit guilty... I released a cache on 24th (published on 26th) and I had to remove it on 27th!! Not because of anything other than when I went back a 2nd time I was unhappy with the placement. Mine was not xmas based, and I intend to replace and extend it to become part of a wider series of caches. Unfortunately I went away on holiday on 30th Dec - I'm away until 7th Jan, and replacing it won't be hight on my priority list as soon as I come home! I'm sure Milton was not initially referring to my cache, but I've not had chance to update the cache page to explain! Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) I'm a bit guilty... I released a cache on 24th (published on 26th) and I had to remove it on 27th!! Not because of anything other than when I went back a 2nd time I was unhappy with the placement. Mine was not xmas based, and I intend to replace and extend it to become part of a wider series of caches. Unfortunately I went away on holiday on 30th Dec - I'm away until 7th Jan, and replacing it won't be hight on my priority list as soon as I come home! I'm sure Milton was not initially referring to my cache, but I've not had chance to update the cache page to explain! Hazel I think that is acceptable, it's so easy to think you have a great hide, only to see it wasn't, yours is unintentional, It's the ones who place a cache knowing that you will be pulling it deliberately in a few weeks I and ranting about. Edited January 3, 2009 by Moote Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'm a bit guilty... I released a cache on 24th (published on 26th) and I had to remove it on 27th!! Not because of anything other than when I went back a 2nd time I was unhappy with the placement. Mine was not xmas based, and I intend to replace and extend it to become part of a wider series of caches. Unfortunately I went away on holiday on 30th Dec - I'm away until 7th Jan, and replacing it won't be hight on my priority list as soon as I come home! I'm sure Milton was not initially referring to my cache, but I've not had chance to update the cache page to explain! Perfectly acceptable in my opinion. I think given the circumstances you made the correct decision, what you can do is once you are happy with it you can ask the reviewers to unarchive it. As long as it still meets the guidelines I am sure they will be more than happy to help. Quote Link to comment
+careygang Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'm a bit guilty... I released a cache on 24th (published on 26th) and I had to remove it on 27th!! Not because of anything other than when I went back a 2nd time I was unhappy with the placement. Mine was not xmas based, and I intend to replace and extend it to become part of a wider series of caches. Unfortunately I went away on holiday on 30th Dec - I'm away until 7th Jan, and replacing it won't be hight on my priority list as soon as I come home! I'm sure Milton was not initially referring to my cache, but I've not had chance to update the cache page to explain! But your cache is only a temporary disable, for genuine reasons, not an archive as stated by the OP. So you're in the clear Hazel!! Quote Link to comment
+careygang Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Name and shame! Oh if it was the old days I probably would; but I've had too many hand wrappings from accross the pond so I behave I don't see any reason why the subject caches should not be listed as part of a forum question... Quote Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Name and shame! Oh if it was the old days I probably would; but I've had too many hand wrappings from accross the pond so I behave I don't see any reason why the subject caches should not be listed as part of a forum question... Are we talking about GC1JVJD: ARCHIVED CACHE 1 - CACHE REMOVED and other similar caches that seemingly didn't even have a physical cache and were placed so that attendees of a bash could log something from the event? Quote Link to comment
+dibbler69 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I was looking at GC1K06N Quote Link to comment
+Brenin Tegeingl Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Name and shame! Oh if it was the old days I probably would; but I've had too many hand wrappings from accross the pond so I behave I don't see any reason why the subject caches should not be listed as part of a forum question... Are we talking about GC1JVJD: ARCHIVED CACHE 1 - CACHE REMOVED and other similar caches that seemingly didn't even have a physical cache and were placed so that attendees of a bash could log something from the event? Sorry but as the Archive note made clear, there was a Physical Container and Log Book at the Posted Coordinates. Which Geocachers Attending the event went out and Physically found and Logged. Due to a mistake on the part of the cache owner, these caches which were part of a series put out, could not be published in their original location. The cache owners tried to relocate both to enable them to be published, but were unsucsesful. After discusions between the Reviewer and cache owner, as several people had found and physically logged them, it was agreed to Publish and then Imediatly Archive them, to allow legitimate finds to be made on-line. Once again just to make it very clear, there was A Physical Container at Both Locations, whith Physical Log Books which were Signed. Both Geocachers were intended to be Permenant ones, and Not ones placed just for a Event. I'm sure if you make contact directly either with the Cache Owner or the Reviewer, they would be prepared to explain the circumstances behind both caches belonging to the same owner. If a cache which has been Published is not active for the Minimum of 3 months as required by the Guidelines, and the owner does not have a good reason to Archive ie: it was only intended to last for a Holiday period. Please contact the Reviewer who Published it. However if you just believe the cache has been placed for the Holiday Period, due to it's theme. But it is still active, then common curtesy suggests that you make direct contact with the cache owner. Rather than making accusations about it. The cache owner I'm sure, will be happy to explain his/her future plans for it. Dave Edited January 3, 2009 by Mancunian Pyrocacher Quote Link to comment
+sssss Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 how about a rule that no caches can be published during the month of december to prevent xmas caches, thus giving the reviewers a holiday, they could then use the free time to check out the caches that should be SBA'd Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 how about a rule that no caches can be published during the month of december to prevent xmas caches, thus giving the reviewers a holiday, they could then use the free time to check out the caches that should be SBA'd And no caches from new cachers in January, until they've found a few caches and know what's expected. Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 ......anyone for an Easter Cache? ......if I post it now I can archive it before April too. Quote Link to comment
+dibbler69 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Dont forget to not include a log book Quote Link to comment
+The Hornet Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I agree with Moote (! ) If people have been getting temporary caches past the reviewers they should get an appropriate bollocking (the owners, not the reviewers ) Just to clarify, my comments were intended to refer to caches that were designed to be temporary and where the wording is intended to sneak them past the reviewers. Quote Link to comment
+Stokesy Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I was looking at GC1K06N I was one of the early finders of this cache. I thought they were going to just change the container (it was huge) with a smaller one. It appears that they have archived this cache and set a new one just a short distance away....which means I have to go back to the same spot to find the new one and another smiley! Don't see why they couldn't just change the box, it's location was fine. Quote Link to comment
+Mr'D Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 This topic seems a bit of a witch hunt to me. What's the big deal?... archiving a cache a few weeks before the 'guideline'. If they're then stuff the turkey... go get 'em. Quote Link to comment
+dibbler69 Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 No witch hunt with the cache I pointed to. It was that in the description it said "No Log Book". I wondered how it was published as I thought all caches needed a logbook now? Quote Link to comment
+Mr'D Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 No witch hunt with the cache I pointed to. None intended Quote Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I'm in agreement there with you, after all the Reviewers do act in good faith that a cache will remain for a reasonable period. Maybe they should be given a 6 month ban on hiding caches, they certainly need something to stop them doing it again. I would be really hacked off if I had planned them into a short tour in the caravan only to find them archived when I arrived. The difficulty is in determining "intent". Unless the owner archives the cache with a note like "Twelfth Night, time to close this one, see you next year", it's always going to be hard to show that the cache was not intended to live for at least the minimum three months. The last thing the reviewers want is to be put in the position of "Cache coroners" who have to conduct an inquest into the unexpected premature demise of a cache. If someone gets a reputation for placing and archiving caches within a short time then maybe the reviewers would ask Groundspeak to have a quiet word in their shell-like, but I'm guessing that it would have to be fairly black-and-white. PS: If people used the same definition of the Christmas season as certain High Street retailers, the three months requirement might well be met... Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Apart from agreeing that caches shouldn't be set just for Xmas, I just thought I'd bring some light relief by mentioning that Mary and I saw some EASTER EGGS in Morrisons on December 30th... Quote Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Apart from agreeing that caches shouldn't be set just for Xmas, I just thought I'd bring some light relief by mentioning that Mary and I saw some EASTER EGGS in Morrisons on December 30th... In that case it must be time to submit your Easter caches about now, so that you can archive them on Easter Monday with a (fairly) clear conscience. MrsB Quote Link to comment
+Munkeh Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Apart from agreeing that caches shouldn't be set just for Xmas, I just thought I'd bring some light relief by mentioning that Mary and I saw some EASTER EGGS in Morrisons on December 30th... or tesco selling them Quote Link to comment
+Munkeh Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Apart from agreeing that caches shouldn't be set just for Xmas, I just thought I'd bring some light relief by mentioning that Mary and I saw some EASTER EGGS in Morrisons on December 30th... or tesco selling them Quote Link to comment
+dibbler69 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Ive just seen a tv advert for a certain Cream Egg. Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Apart from agreeing that caches shouldn't be set just for Xmas, I just thought I'd bring some light relief by mentioning that Mary and I saw some EASTER EGGS in Morrisons on December 30th... Hang on... that's REALLY astonishing... ... there's a Morrisons in Surrey??? :-P Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Apart from agreeing that caches shouldn't be set just for Xmas, I just thought I'd bring some light relief by mentioning that Mary and I saw some EASTER EGGS in Morrisons on December 30th... Hang on... that's REALLY astonishing... ... there's a Morrisons in Surrey??? :-P I don't think its all that popular - we were only in there for some more plastic boxes after we ran out of them recently... Obviously, us surrey types do all our shopping at Fortnums, or possibly waitrose if we can't get up to town because the chauffeur has a day off... Quote Link to comment
+sham69 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Thats why no clip top boxes in Morrisons !! Quote Link to comment
GerritS Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Apart from agreeing that caches shouldn't be set just for Xmas, I just thought I'd bring some light relief by mentioning that Mary and I saw some EASTER EGGS in Morrisons on December 30th... Hang on... that's REALLY astonishing... ... there's a Morrisons in Surrey??? :-P I don't think its all that popular - we were only in there for some more plastic boxes after we ran out of them recently... Obviously, us surrey types do all our shopping at Fortnums, or possibly waitrose if we can't get up to town because the chauffeur has a day off... Hey my local Morrisons became a Waitrose . Prices have gone up , the number of checkouts have gone down and the product range has gone down . Yet I know people who say the store is better for it Quote Link to comment
Izzy and the Lizard King Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Hey my local Morrisons became a Waitrose . Prices have gone up , the number of checkouts have gone down and the product range has gone down . Yet I know people who say the store is better for it Perhaps it's a case of quality, not quantity? We all know "It's not about the numbers" Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Hey my local Morrisons became a Waitrose .<SNIP> Yet I know people who say the store is better for it What a coincidence! My local Waitrose became a burnt out shell! Personally, I would say the store is better for it Edited January 13, 2009 by purple_pineapple 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.