Unique Virtual too special to be Archived?

[ao318]

Oh boy, vacation caches are really a pain to have around. Every time I go out to the coast to cache, I run into those alot. I am quick to hit the need archived button if I find the container in bad shape and the CO isn't caching anymore. The coastal people that live out there do take care of their own caches alot better and I search for their more if I can help it.

 

We do have a cache deep in the mountain and its a 14ish miles round trip from the nearest trailhead and only see around 2-4 cachers a year or less and some years, zero. When I went back there last fall to find it, I took maintenance supplies with me. Its an ammo can so its low maintenance in that case. I clean it up and the seals so its good to go for a couple more years. The CO isn't around anymore and the cache taken care of by the cachers that go back there. With this cache, I am ok if the community take care of it but not a cache in a high vacation spot.

I found this on a different forum post called, "Placing a cache that you cannot maintain": I don't understand why you would do an NA on a cache you have never seen nor been to but you will work to keep one that is near you in good shape that falls within the guidelines you quoted?

 

Edited to add bold

Edited February 16, 2011 by ao318

[+wimseyguy]

 

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

 

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

 

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+101

 

... sigh... SwineFlew... why?

 

I got guts and very thick skin.

 

Reread the guideline, it applies on all virtuals, unique or not.

Must_resist_urge to delete skin and replace with head.

 

Reread the guideline, it applies on all virtuals, unique or not.

The guidelines also say this about using the Needs Archive Log:

 

Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location.

Ayup-the guidelines should be used in the context in which they were crafted. Posting a couch potato NA log on a cache you have not looked for, or are not planning to look for is right under the couch with the dust bunnies and those who abuse the virts by logging them from their couches.

 

There simply is no reasonable situation to insist that this one get archived. Unless it was blocking a cache you were hoping to place there? Oh wait-virts don't get 528' of protection, so that ain't it either. sheesh, some people....

[knowschad]

I still find it sad that everyone's piling on the person that spoke up, and no mention of the person that abandoned their cache.

 

If the person was still around, even logging in, there would be no issue.

Don't be feeling too sorry for SwineFlew. He's no babe in the woods. He knew exactly what he was in for when he posted the NA log and then again, when he bragged about (excuse me... mentioned) it here. This is not a pile-on, either... it is a bunch of people that agree that what he did was none of his business and just plain wrong.

[+Mountain Lovers]

I'll do my part & clean up the cache page of my recent post. But I too am one of the 100+ watching this cache and I DO have every intention on visiting the South Pole one day.

If Swine Flew is all absorbed in getting caches archived, why don't you take care of your own neck of the wood? I'm sure this cache in not near home.

 

Here is what I posted on the cache page..... I'll leave it here.

 

Swine Flew, I throw up on you for ever even bringing up the idea to archive this cache. Regardless of whether or not the CO is logging in, virtuals should NEVER be archived regardless of rules. Had you not posted your note, Erik would have been just fine not knowing about it.

Do you plan to visit the South Pole? Well there are those of us who do plan on a visit down under.

 

A good example of why archiving virtuals is a bad idea is some are great locations to visit. Personally., I say do away with Earthcaches and bring back virtuals. Think about it, an Earthcache has no physical log to sign so WHAT makes it really any different than a virtual?

 

Here is one example of what cachers will miss once virtual caches are gone....

"Enter The Dragon" GC8BA1 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d55f1ca8-1261-417b-ac0e-e5d44ee6e51b

 

Personally, I search out archived virtuals and believe you me, they are out there and can be found.

 

Leave "No Further South From Here" alone!!!

 

The thought of archiving this cache makes me want to puke.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Mountain Lovers

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

I got guts and very thick skin.

 

Reread the guideline, it applies on all virtuals, unique or not.

Must_resist_urge to delete skin and replace with head.

 

 

Haha, Perhaps deleting their head* and replacing it with skin would work better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Disclaimer...This is only a joke, and is in no way meant to be interpreted literally or as a threat or as advocation of violence.

[+Walts Hunting]

Has anybody looked at all the TB's and coins that were dropped and retrieved but obviously never made it there. An active CO could have probably stopped that early on with a change to the cache description. I wonder if deleted a note with a bug drop removed the bug drop like it does any photos attached. Interesting question.

[+fizzymagic]

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

 

Yeah, right.

 

It's kind of like proudly posting "I drowned a sack full of puppies this morning. Should I have burned them instead? Let's keep this discussion friendly, please."

 

Your behavior was inexcusable. It deserves condemnation. It was completely uncalled-for. I think it is entirely appropriate for people to post their opinions about the behavior (as opposed to the person).

 

I can't remember the last time I felt this disgusted by something another cacher did.

[knowschad]

Has anybody looked at all the TB's and coins that were dropped and retrieved but obviously never made it there. An active CO could have probably stopped that early on with a change to the cache description. I wonder if deleted a note with a bug drop removed the bug drop like it does any photos attached. Interesting question.

People can do whatever they want with trackables. Have you looked to see if 1) the trackables in question belonged to the person dipping them there, or 2) the trackables had a goal to be dropped in there? You don't archive a cache simply because trackables are being logged.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

 

Yeah, right.

 

It's kind of like proudly posting "I drowned a sack full of puppies this morning. Should I have burned them instead? Let's keep this discussion friendly, please."

 

Your behavior was inexcusable. It deserves condemnation. It was completely uncalled-for. I think it is entirely appropriate for people to post their opinions about the behavior (as opposed to the person).

 

I can't remember the last time I felt this disgusted by something another cacher did.

Perhaps the last time involved a bunch of spam??

[+Walts Hunting]

I don't seem to see anybody doing a little research and commenting on the logs w/o pictures from people who probably (actually obviously didn't go there). There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

 

Then there are the TB's and coins logged through on virtual tours.

 

Maybe we should all go over and log it before it gets archived. We have as much right as all the other phony loggers.

 

That alone makes the NA appropriate.

[knowschad]

I don't seem to see anybody doing a little research and commenting on the logs w/o pictures from people who probably (actually obviously didn't go there). There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

 

Then there are the TB's and coins logged through on virtual tours.

 

Maybe we should all go over and log it before it gets archived. We have as much right as all the other phony loggers.

 

That alone makes the NA appropriate.

 

I only saw one that looked bogus to me, and that was the one with the stupid photoshopped picture in the gallery. Most seemed not only genuine, but grateful for the unique cache. It sure doesn't look like an armchair virtual cacher's paradise to me (although it sure will be now, after all of this publicity)

[+Ecylram]

I don't seem to see anybody doing a little research and commenting on the logs w/o pictures from people who probably (actually obviously didn't go there). There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

 

Then there are the TB's and coins logged through on virtual tours.

 

Maybe we should all go over and log it before it gets archived. We have as much right as all the other phony loggers.

 

That alone makes the NA appropriate.

 

I dislike armchair logging as much as armchair archiving. The difference is an armchair logger has no affect on my caching, while an armchair archiver can deprive me of caches to find and log.

 

If there is truly a problem with a cache, it will eventually be reported by those actually visiting the cache.

[+WRASTRO]

At this time I would suggest there should be an effort mounted to get the guidelines modified so they exclude armchair NA logs. We tell cachers they should not post NM or NA logs if they have not visited the cache location. I believe visiting the cache location should be a requirement for posting either a NM or a NA log. If there is any doubt in the mind of the reveiewer he/she should require proof of the visit be provided by the cacher who posts the log.

 

Any cacher found to be posting inappropriate NM or NA logs could/should be suspended for a period of time.

[+Manville Possum]

Relax people. I have two virtual caches on my watchlist that are being armchair logged because their owner is absent, has been scince 2005. There has been NA posted on them before. This is something that is simply ignored. I know of one traditional cache that the owner has been gone for years, the last NA posted on that account resulted in the account that posted the NA getting locked. A local reviewer even updated the coordinates. It is not the one person that posts the NA on a cache, but how many of the geocommunity that crys foul because someone thinks they are playing by the rules and guidelines. Nothing will happen to this virtual, the OP will feel the wrath of the angry geocommunity and that's as far as it will go.

 

Yeah, been there and done that. Lesson learned, experience gained.

[+Flintstone5611]

I wonder if Swineflew is gonna take his own advice (posted on his profile). I don't think he has archived his worst cache yet! Shame when we can't take our own advice, lol.

[+Don_J]

I don't seem to see anybody doing a little research and commenting on the logs w/o pictures from people who probably (actually obviously didn't go there). There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

 

Then there are the TB's and coins logged through on virtual tours.

 

Maybe we should all go over and log it before it gets archived. We have as much right as all the other phony loggers.

 

That alone makes the NA appropriate.

 

I only saw one that looked bogus to me, and that was the one with the stupid photoshopped picture in the gallery. Most seemed not only genuine, but grateful for the unique cache. It sure doesn't look like an armchair virtual cacher's paradise to me (although it sure will be now, after all of this publicity)

 

The photo-shopped log was a note, not a find. There are a total of of 22 found logs on the cache, with all of the photos looking genuine, with exception to that mentioned above. This hardly puts in the category of a cache that is being armchair logged.

[+Don_J]

Relax people. I have two virtual caches on my watchlist that are being armchair logged because their owner is absent, has been scince 2005. There has been NA posted on them before. This is something that is simply ignored. I know of one traditional cache that the owner has been gone for years, the last NA posted on that account resulted in the account that posted the NA getting locked. A local reviewer even updated the coordinates. It is not the one person that posts the NA on a cache, but how many of the geocommunity that crys foul because someone thinks they are playing by the rules and guidelines. Nothing will happen to this virtual, the OP will feel the wrath of the angry geocommunity and that's as far as it will go.

 

Yeah, been there and done that. Lesson learned, experience gained.

 

MPH, This from the reviewer

February 15 by erik88l-r

 

Cache owner, if you do not log onto the site at least monthly to show you are still active your cache will be archived. This is a friendly warning, not a threat. We don't want to archive your cache, but do have to abide by the rules. Please do your part.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

I'm afraid that the cache may be history.

[GOF and Bacall]

The OP should not have done it. However, the attack on his caches was a totally uncalled for act.

[+Don_J]

The OP should not have done it. However, the attack on his caches was a totally uncalled for act.

 

I agree, that is really over the top.

[+WRASTRO]

The OP should not have done it. However, the attack on his caches was a totally uncalled for act.

I agree completely. The OP was totally wrong in my opinion but the posts to his/her caches are outrageous and should not be tolerated. Whoever posted those should be banned from the site.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

At this time I would suggest there should be an effort mounted to get the guidelines modified so they exclude armchair NA logs. We tell cachers they should not post NM or NA logs if they have not visited the cache location. I believe visiting the cache location should be a requirement for posting either a NM or a NA log. If there is any doubt in the mind of the reveiewer he/she should require proof of the visit be provided by the cacher who posts the log.

 

Any cacher found to be posting inappropriate NM or NA logs could/should be suspended for a period of time.

 

We agree totally! This would put a crimp on those who think they know better than the reviewers or are just doing it out of spite.

 

Go WRASTRO!

 

Shirley~

 

-------------

Why? Because we like you.

-------------

[+fizzymagic]

The OP should not have done it. However, the attack on his caches was a totally uncalled for act.

 

People posted nasty notes to his caches?

 

Sigh. Another disgusting action. There is no excuse for that behavior, either.

[+Flintstone5611]

The OP should not have done it. However, the attack on his caches was a totally uncalled for act.

 

I agree, that is really over the top.

 

Really, even when it is asked for? Coming here to tell us what he did seemed an awful lot like gloating to me!

 

I got guts and very thick skin.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Flintstone5611

[+Manville Possum]

Relax people. I have two virtual caches on my watchlist that are being armchair logged because their owner is absent, has been scince 2005. There has been NA posted on them before. This is something that is simply ignored. I know of one traditional cache that the owner has been gone for years, the last NA posted on that account resulted in the account that posted the NA getting locked. A local reviewer even updated the coordinates. It is not the one person that posts the NA on a cache, but how many of the geocommunity that crys foul because someone thinks they are playing by the rules and guidelines. Nothing will happen to this virtual, the OP will feel the wrath of the angry geocommunity and that's as far as it will go.

 

Yeah, been there and done that. Lesson learned, experience gained.

 

MPH, This from the reviewer

February 15 by erik88l-r

 

Cache owner, if you do not log onto the site at least monthly to show you are still active your cache will be archived. This is a friendly warning, not a threat. We don't want to archive your cache, but do have to abide by the rules. Please do your part.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

I'm afraid that the cache may be history.

I really just don't have much faith in the system. There are too many caches out there thar are being abused with armchair logging, this one does not seem to be one of them. Many people will contact Groundspeak about this cache, and that reviewer will just do what they are told to do. And I think that will be leave it alone. I'm not going into details because I don't want trouble or to get moderated, but I just can't see caches that are known to be getting armchair logged and have been called to attention being left alone and this one archived. When it comes right down to it, we the geocommunity want this cache left alone, and I feel that Groundspeak will support us. After all, it's us that supports them is'nt it?

[GOF and Bacall]

The OP should not have done it. However, the attack on his caches was a totally uncalled for act.

 

I agree, that is really over the top.

 

Really, even when it is asked for? Coming here to tell us what he did seemed an awful lot tike gloating to me!

 

I got guts and very thick skin.

 

Oh yes, really. Such language has no place on a cache page.

[+Don_J]

The OP should not have done it. However, the attack on his caches was a totally uncalled for act.

 

I agree, that is really over the top.

 

Really, even when it is asked for? Coming here to tell us what he did seemed an awful lot tike gloating to me!

 

I got guts and very thick skin.

 

Breaking guidelines that can get you banned is not the proper response, regardless of what the offending party did.

[+Flintstone5611]

Oh yes, really. Such language has no place on a cache page.

I agree 100% that it was foul, but you had to see the action coming.

[+lamoracke]

 

Here is one example of what cachers will miss once virtual caches are gone....

"Enter The Dragon" GC8BA1 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d55f1ca8-1261-417b-ac0e-e5d44ee6e51b

 

 

Well, to be honest, that virtual was probably partly archived because folks could easily log that one without even being there. I live like 10 miles from it and realized there was nothing I had to do to even log it. The South Pole one at least requires a picture.

 

I would agree with the majority that the South Pole virtual should stay, its obviously one of the favorites here and just because someone had a bee in their bonnet to be a stickler for the rules wanted to have something to do with their free time.

[GOF and Bacall]

Oh yes, really. Such language has no place on a cache page.

I agree 100% that it was foul, but you had to see the action coming.

 

Foreseeable does not make it right. It makes it all that much sadder.

[+Flintstone5611]

Foreseeable does not make it right. It makes it all that much sadder.

I am afraid that if you plant apple seeds you should expect an apple tree. Realistic, not really saddening. Especially considering that many cachers go to great efforts to show consideration and respect for people in this game (most of the time)!

[GOF and Bacall]

Foreseeable does not make it right. It makes it all that much sadder.

I am afraid that if you plant apple seeds you should expect an apple tree. Realistic, not really saddening. Especially considering that many cachers go to great efforts to show consideration and respect for people in this game (most of the time)!

 

It is still wrong. And sending those logs not only to SwineFlew but to anyone watching his caches just makes it worse.

[+WRASTRO]

Foreseeable does not make it right. It makes it all that much sadder.

I am afraid that if you plant apple seeds you should expect an apple tree. Realistic, not really saddening. Especially considering that many cachers go to great efforts to show consideration and respect for people in this game (most of the time)!

Huh?

[+Unkle Fester]

Sooo... I'm sitting in Iraq, armchair surfing caches around the world (just surfing, not logging) and I come across this one. Then I jump to the forum and see this thread.

 

Despite the rightness or wrongness of the NA, guidlines, etcetera, if it gets archived why couldn't the next person to head down that way just create an Earthcache? I understand it may be the older cache number some people like, but going to the unique location is more the point. I would love the opportunity to go, my company even gets work down there occasionally. But the odds are slim.

 

Anyhow, my two cents.

[+Flintstone5611]

It is still wrong. And sending those logs not only to SwineFlew but to anyone watching his caches just makes it worse.

Which part? I agree that the use of profanity is wrong. I would never argue that.

[+Walts Hunting]

I don't seem to see anybody doing a little research and commenting on the logs w/o pictures from people who probably (actually obviously didn't go there). There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

 

Then there are the TB's and coins logged through on virtual tours.

 

Maybe we should all go over and log it before it gets archived. We have as much right as all the other phony loggers.

 

That alone makes the NA appropriate.

 

I only saw one that looked bogus to me, and that was the one with the stupid photoshopped picture in the gallery. Most seemed not only genuine, but grateful for the unique cache. It sure doesn't look like an armchair virtual cacher's paradise to me (although it sure will be now, after all of this publicity)

 

The requirements from the cache description require a picture. Logs without pictures should have been deleted. Plus as I said my friends log is only 4 days after he attended an event here and there is no picture.

[GOF and Bacall]

It is still wrong. And sending those logs not only to SwineFlew but to anyone watching his caches just makes it worse.

Which part? I agree that the use of profanity is wrong. I would never argue that.

 

The whole thing was wrong. And cowardly.

[+WRASTRO]

It is still wrong. And sending those logs not only to SwineFlew but to anyone watching his caches just makes it worse.

Which part? I agree that the use of profanity is wrong. I would never argue that.

I'll try. An armchair NA log from someone who has never been anywere near the cache location should not be allowed.

[knowschad]

Foreseeable does not make it right. It makes it all that much sadder.

I am afraid that if you plant apple seeds you should expect an apple tree. Realistic, not really saddening. Especially considering that many cachers go to great efforts to show consideration and respect for people in this game (most of the time)!

Huh?

I'm afraid that was too deep for the likes of you or I, Wrastro. Most likely some sort of Zen koan. No matter... those that need to understand it will understand it. Like the wind that blows gently from the east.

[knowschad]

I don't seem to see anybody doing a little research and commenting on the logs w/o pictures from people who probably (actually obviously didn't go there). There is one that logged an event in Northern California 4 days before he logged this one. I might ask him when I see him again.

 

Then there are the TB's and coins logged through on virtual tours.

 

Maybe we should all go over and log it before it gets archived. We have as much right as all the other phony loggers.

 

That alone makes the NA appropriate.

 

I only saw one that looked bogus to me, and that was the one with the stupid photoshopped picture in the gallery. Most seemed not only genuine, but grateful for the unique cache. It sure doesn't look like an armchair virtual cacher's paradise to me (although it sure will be now, after all of this publicity)

 

The requirements from the cache description require a picture. Logs without pictures should have been deleted. Plus as I said my friends log is only 4 days after he attended an event here and there is no picture.

Nope. Review the guidelines, grasshopper. Pictures are not required anymore for virtuals or ECs.

[+firennice]

Nope. Review the guidelines, grasshopper. Pictures are not required anymore for virtuals or ECs.

 

You mean Earthcaches... Virtuals can still require them

 

Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines: A geocacher must visit the location of the virtual cache site to log the cache online. Logging a virtual cache requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner. This includes emailing the cache owner to provide the required answers and sometimes photographs. Neither answers to questions nor hints should be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

Edited February 16, 2011 by firennice

[Mr.Yuck]

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+100

 

+1000

 

I am shocked and disappointed that anyone would take it upon themselves to post a NA on this cache. How sad and unnecessary.

 

+356,296

[+WRASTRO]

Foreseeable does not make it right. It makes it all that much sadder.

I am afraid that if you plant apple seeds you should expect an apple tree. Realistic, not really saddening. Especially considering that many cachers go to great efforts to show consideration and respect for people in this game (most of the time)!

Huh?

I'm afraid that was too deep for the likes of you or I, Wrastro. Most likely some sort of Zen koan. No matter... those that need to understand it will understand it. Like the wind that blows gently from the east.

I will bend like a reed in the wind.

[+M 5]

Nope. Review the guidelines, grasshopper. Pictures are not required anymore for virtuals or ECs.

 

You mean Earthcaches... Virtuals can still require them

 

Virtual Cache Logging Guidelines: A geocacher must visit the location of the virtual cache site to log the cache online. Logging a virtual cache requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner. This includes emailing the cache owner to provide the required answers and sometimes photographs. Neither answers to questions nor hints should be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

 

Here is the earthcache guideline under logging

 

EarthCache Logging Guidelines: As EarthCaches are meant to be educational, visitors will be asked to log an aspect of their visit that demonstrates they have learned something at the site. Unlike physical geocaches, where "additional logging requirements" are considered optional, an EarthCache requires geocachers to comply with all instructions in order to log the cache online.

 

These do seem to be a change, despite the assurances of GS that there was just clarifications made.

Edited February 16, 2011 by M 5

[knowschad]

Nope. Review the guidelines, grasshopper. Pictures are not required anymore for virtuals or ECs.

You mean Earthcaches... Virtuals can still require them

Apparently you are correct about that, and I was mistaken. Nevertheless, I don't see a rash of even remotely suspicious logs. One guy did claim it twice, but I'm not going there. This was NOT a problem virtual.

[+Kyle98632]

This whole situation reminds me of Captain Sulu's quote to a young Ensign Tuvok. "You're absolutely right...but you're also absolutely wrong."

[+buttaskotch]

Sorry for original poster and everyone dumping on him. I would agree with him.

 

The cache owner agreed to rules, and to stay active to keep his virtual. We self police, I do not think one can be held to a different standard than another.

If a cache is being ignored or is breaking the rules there is no problem with someone saying it needs maintenance or needs archived. If the person logs in and visits, everything will move on and nothing will happen.

 

Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location.

 

Great quote, but violating the rules of the game, is violating the rules. The cache owner should know that.

 

You should be looking at the cache owner for not following the rules, not anyone else. Throwing stones at someone for letting someone know is stupid.

 

To be frank, I don't believe a cacher should be policing from thousands of miles away, without searching for the cache. For example, here are some caches that are 360 miles away from me, give or take. You might recognize them, as they are yours (firennice).

 

Durin - Dwarf - Middle Earth Cache - On 5/21/10 there was a report that the cache was muggled and a NM was files. A DNF was filed on 10/30/10 and it hasn't been found since. I could choose to file a NA on the cache thinking I'm being a good citizen. But for all I know, the cache is there and you just forgot to clear the NM attribute. There's no way I should file a NA.

 

4 Years of Geocaching - On 11/27/10 a cacher posted an NM on this cache stating the container was cracked. On 12/4 a cacher reported having to pour water out of the cache. The NM attribute has not been cleared and there is no notes from the owner that the cache was repaired. Should I post a NA because the CO isn't maintaining there cache? Of course not. I've never seen the cache and really don't know what is going on.

 

Signage - This cache has two consecutive DNF's and hasn't been found since 10/8/10. A couple of find logs before that mentioned the cache has been vandalized and that the cache needs maintenance. The NM attribute has not been cleared and there are no CO notes about checking on the cache. Also, it could be argued that the cache description encourages cachers to park illegally. Why not file a NA? Because I haven't visited the cache site. For all I know everything is going along swimmingly. It wouldn't be the first time that the logs give a false impression.

.

Friends in Low Places - This cache had an NM filed on 11/25/10 after it hadn't been found since 10/20/09. The cache was disabled nearly two months later and has been disabled for over a month without the cache being checked. An armchair logger could say the owner isn't doing their job and file an NA. That would be a RUBBISH thing to do, IMO.

 

For those who haven't caught on, the CO has placed 184 caches and I've cherry picked four examples and painted worst-case scenarios. The CO actually has a significant number of caches with multiple favorite votes and is obviously still actively involved in the game.

 

My point is, cachers shouldn't be posting NA's on caches they've haven't gone after. Especially when there is not serious known problem with the cache. If they want to "clean up the game" they should visit caches in their own area. For example, the PQ I ran to pull the above information turned up 1000 caches with uncleared NM's within a 50-mile radius.

Ecylram you are my hero! One shouldn't throw stones unless they are willing to deal with their own shortcomings.

Unless,OP searched for the cache and came up DNF, then he/she/it shouldn't armchair police. So, is OP now going to arbitrarily go after every cache he/she/it declares NM or SBA?

 

To OP:

There are enough local caches for you to police. Stick to the area near you, that you can run other people off of. And if you are going to throw stones, don't be a hypocrite. Reading that you maintained a cache due to its importance and then posting a NA on something you have never visited and more than likely never will is short sighted, needless, and pretentious.

This won't earn you a cacher of the year souvenier.

Nor will it help you attain Antarctica reviewer status.

Edited February 16, 2011 by buttaskotch

[+mtn-man]

 

Here is one example of what cachers will miss once virtual caches are gone....

"Enter The Dragon" GC8BA1 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d55f1ca8-1261-417b-ac0e-e5d44ee6e51b

 

 

Well, to be honest, that virtual was probably partly archived because folks could easily log that one without even being there. I live like 10 miles from it and realized there was nothing I had to do to even log it. The South Pole one at least requires a picture.

No, that cache was archived by the owner. It was their choice. There was no "Need Archived" note by anyone, no reviewer or Groundspeak involvement. A cache owner can archive their cache at any time if they want, and they did. It is completely different to the very sad chain of events set in motion by this person's actions with the armchair "Needs Archived" log they have posted.

[+Walts Hunting]

Nope. Review the guidelines, grasshopper. Pictures are not required anymore for virtuals or ECs.

You mean Earthcaches... Virtuals can still require them

Apparently you are correct about that, and I was mistaken. Nevertheless, I don't see a rash of even remotely suspicious logs. One guy did claim it twice, but I'm not going there. This was NOT a problem virtual.

 

So I guess you thought that the guy who logged it as "My son and I swung by here aver leaving mt. Everest" wasn't suspicious (and I repeat that a log for another is 4 days after he attended and event here).

[+WRASTRO]

Ultimately to me, this is all about a mis-guided cacher who has achieved more than his/her 15 minutes of fame by doing something very ill considered. The caching world will be poorer for losing the cache. The cacher who posted the NA will be forever poorer for having done something so poorly conceived.

[+buttaskotch]

Oh boy, vacation caches are really a pain to have around. Every time I go out to the coast to cache, I run into those alot. I am quick to hit the need archived button if I find the container in bad shape and the CO isn't caching anymore. The coastal people that live out there do take care of their own caches alot better and I search for their more if I can help it.

 

We do have a cache deep in the mountain and its a 14ish miles round trip from the nearest trailhead and only see around 2-4 cachers a year or less and some years, zero. When I went back there last fall to find it, I took maintenance supplies with me. Its an ammo can so its low maintenance in that case. I clean it up and the seals so its good to go for a couple more years. The CO isn't around anymore and the cache taken care of by the cachers that go back there. With this cache, I am ok if the community take care of it but not a cache in a high vacation spot.

I found this on a different forum post called, "Placing a cache that you cannot maintain": I don't understand why you would do an NA on a cache you have never seen nor been to but you will work to keep one that is near you in good shape that falls within the guidelines you quoted?

 

Edited to add bold

+1