"This cache has been disabled by Groundspeak as it is not at the listed location."

[+JL_HSTRE]

Saw a local cache that had be disabled. It was last found on May 30th and has no DNFs since then. Looking to see why, this was the Disabled log:

 

"This cache has been disabled by Groundspeak as it is not at the listed location. The cache owner is asked to read and respond to the email sent by Groundspeak."

 

I have seen many Disabled logs but they are usually by the CO. This wasn't even disabled by a local reviewer - it was disabled by a Groundspeak Lackey.

 

Has someone seen something like this before? What causes a GS Lackey to step in over Reviewers? I'm guessing maybe it was found by muggles and turned over to authorities as a suspicious container?

 

FWIW, the cache in question is GC11XN2.

[+thedeadpirate]

No telling. Anything we might say would be pure speculation.

[jholly]

No telling. Anything we might say would be pure speculation.

 

I've seen that once before. In my opinion the cache violated the pointy thingy rule, it was somewhat buried and the permissions were really questionable. Someone dropped a dime either directly to the frog or the reviewer kicked it upstairs. And no, I was not the one that dropped the dime.

[+hydnsek]

No telling. Anything we might say would be pure speculation.

 

I've seen that once before. In my opinion the cache violated the pointy thingy rule, it was somewhat buried and the permissions were really questionable. Someone dropped a dime either directly to the frog or the reviewer kicked it upstairs. And no, I was not the one that dropped the dime.

Yes, on the rare occasion when I've seen that abrupt Lackey note it's because a guidelines violation has been discovered that was not evident to the reviewer when they published the cache. (E.g., burying, defacement, private property.)

Edited July 22, 2010 by hydnsek

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

Sure, but the part about the cache not being at the posted coordinates seems to suggest it was pulled by the LO/Manager or some other authority. I've never heard of GS actually pulling a physical cache from its location.

[+hydnsek]

Sure, but the part about the cache not being at the posted coordinates seems to suggest it was pulled by the LO/Manager or some other authority. I've never heard of GS actually pulling a physical cache from its location.

Agreed - possible scenario is that the land manager (or concerned cacher) discovered the violation, pulled the cache, and alerted Groundspeak.

[+Chrysalides]

Why not ask the CO what happened? Then you can come and update us so that we don't explode from our curiosity

[+palmetto]

The cache was found, well out of position, by a passer by.

 

Reading the stash note, they emailed contact@geocaching.com about it.

 

Using the information they provided, it was possible to identify the cache. The cache owner has been contacted about where the cache is now being held.

 

There was no violation. A very nice person made the effort to get the cache returned to the owner.

 

I hope no one explodes.

[+Eastshire]

The cache was found, well out of position, by a passer by.

 

Reading the stash note, they emailed contact@geocaching.com about it.

 

Using the information they provided, it was possible to identify the cache. The cache owner has been contacted about where the cache is now being held.

 

There was no violation. A very nice person made the effort to get the cache returned to the owner.

 

I hope no one explodes.

 

A helpful muggle? That's unpossible.

[+sbell111]

The cache was found, well out of position, by a passer by.

 

Reading the stash note, they emailed contact@geocaching.com about it.

 

Using the information they provided, it was possible to identify the cache. The cache owner has been contacted about where the cache is now being held.

 

There was no violation. A very nice person made the effort to get the cache returned to the owner.

 

I hope no one explodes.

You should have let this become another great 'overstepping' thread before deflating it.

 

Party pooper.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I was as curious as to what could cause this in theory as I was about what caused it in this particular situation. So reasonable speculation is good too.

 

But thanks for the info on what happened in this specific cache, palmetto.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The cache was found, well out of position, by a passer by.

 

Reading the stash note, they emailed contact@geocaching.com about it.

 

Using the information they provided, it was possible to identify the cache. The cache owner has been contacted about where the cache is now being held.

 

There was no violation. A very nice person made the effort to get the cache returned to the owner.

 

I hope no one explodes.

You should have let this become another great 'overstepping' thread before deflating it.

 

Party pooper.

Don'cha hate it when someone explodes a perfectly good speculation thread with facts?

[+bflentje]

A similar situation happened to me a couple years ago where a small town didn't like where a cache was hidden. They pulled it and then contacted Groundspeak, who then archived it contacting me after the fact.

[knowschad]

The cache was found, well out of position, by a passer by.

 

Reading the stash note, they emailed contact@geocaching.com about it.

 

Using the information they provided, it was possible to identify the cache. The cache owner has been contacted about where the cache is now being held.

 

There was no violation. A very nice person made the effort to get the cache returned to the owner.

 

I hope no one explodes.

You should have let this become another great 'overstepping' thread before deflating it.

 

Party pooper.

Don'cha hate it when someone explodes a perfectly good speculation thread with facts?

Yeah, dang it! I was just getting ready to say that it was probably a result of someone posting TFTC logs.