Logging Archived Virtual Caches

[+TerraViators]

I've noticed several archived virtual caches that cachers continue to log as found, some several years old. Is this proper etiquette? Are there GS rules against this or is the ruling at the CO's discretion?

[+G & C]

I don't think this is the same thing, but once I found notes for a virtual that I had written down and forgotten to log. It had been archived about a month earlier, and I logged it for the date that I was actually there.

 

Years later though, that seems a little abusive towards the system. Heck, how would you even find archived virtuals from years ago?

[+va griz]

Sounds like system abuse to me because presumably there is no way to verify the find. That said, I have visited archived Virtuals because they were interesting places. I enjoyed it, but did not log it.

[+baloo&bd]

If they are logging them with current dates after the cache has been archived for several years, that is probaly not good. If they are logging finds, some several years old, it probably is not an issue. Many cachers don't get caught up on their logs for months, if not years.

 

This assumes they met the requirements, including verification with the CO.

Edited April 28, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+hzoi]

Out of curiosity, how many of the recent loggers are from Europe?

[+Team Dennis]

I brought up a similar question sometime last year. I asked whether or not it was acceptable if I could log an archived virtual if I could prove that I went to the intended spot, gathered the needed info and sent an email to the CO. The general consensus was that it could be done but it probably was not a good idea...which is a position that I agree with.

[+Walts Hunting]

Log it. The worst thing that can happen is your log is deleted. The cache police will not come for you.

[+geodarts]

I have not logged archived virtuals, unless the listing was archived after I visited the cache. For the purposes of this game there really is nothing to find when a virtual is archived. Some people do it, however. Some even do it without visiting the location.

[Mr.Yuck]

Log it. The worst thing that can happen is your log is deleted. The cache police will not come for you.

 

However, if your cache log contains the phrase "Greetings From Germany", they actually will come for you. Just kidding, but I have in fact seen archived virtuals locked because of armchair logs after archival.

 

I suppose I'm somewhat guilty. A famous one time No. 1 cacher in the world had 6 or 7 virtuals in a history-filled City I was about to visit, and nixed all the virtuals like 2 weeks before my trip! I was like "what's up with that?", and emailed her. She told me to log them all anyways, but I only took her up on one. Just doesn't feel right for me logging archived virts.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+lamoracke]

only logged 2 archived virtuals. One was from a road trip where it was archived the day before I got there but I had no way of knowing that, so I logged it...and one I logged years after it was archived but I got the okay from the CO as the info to log it was still on site and I was there.

 

There is one more virtual, long archived, that I have considered to log but given the CO has not been online in years, I just do not feel it would be right.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It's one thing to log an archived cache (of any type) when it was archived after finding it or because it was archived after you ran a pocket query or even because you're 3 months behind in logging caches.

 

It's something else entirely to go out searching the website for archived caches and going out to see if they're still there. The reasons for archiving may vary (trespassing, cache gone, sensitive area, owner failed to maintain, etc) but regardless of the reason, it isn't a cache anymore. If it was it would be available to everyone through the search feature, not just those that want to do the extra work to look them up.

[+roziecakes]

It's something else entirely to go out searching the website for archived caches and going out to see if they're still there. The reasons for archiving may vary (trespassing, cache gone, sensitive area, owner failed to maintain, etc) but regardless of the reason, it isn't a cache anymore. If it was it would be available to everyone through the search feature, not just those that want to do the extra work to look them up.

 

I agree! There's a good number of folks who do this, and I could never figure out why. I always assume that something's been archived for a good reason.

[+BlueDeuce]

It's something else entirely to go out searching the website for archived caches and going out to see if they're still there. The reasons for archiving may vary (trespassing, cache gone, sensitive area, owner failed to maintain, etc) but regardless of the reason, it isn't a cache anymore. If it was it would be available to everyone through the search feature, not just those that want to do the extra work to look them up.

 

I agree! There's a good number of folks who do this, and I could never figure out why. I always assume that something's been archived for a good reason.

 

Any archived cache being virtually logged, yes including virtual caches, will likely be locked down by Groundspeak once they are aware of the situation and feel people are abusing the system.

[+TerraViators]

If they are logging them with current dates after the cache has been archived for several years, that is probaly not good. If they are logging finds, some several years old, it probably is not an issue. Many cachers don't get caught up on their logs for months, if not years.

 

This assumes they met the requirements, including verification with the CO.

They are being logged with current dates - logged with dates after the archival date.

[+TerraViators]

Out of curiosity, how many of the recent loggers are from Europe?

They are geocachers local to my area.

[Mr.Yuck]

Out of curiosity, how many of the recent loggers are from Europe?

They are geocachers local to my area.

 

Do they log them with "Greetings from Texas"? OK, sorry, I've already gotten enough mileage out of that. I'm lazy, but I'm sure a 2001 joiner from the Pacific NW started a thread within the last month or two about people emailing him and asking if they could log his archived virtuals. I suppose if the owner is active and you get a response, I would have much less of a problem with it than people logging virts with long gone owners. I don't know, I haven't even seen any of this, or knew it was all the rage.

[+Icenians]

Does it really matter?

[+rufnredy]

eems like it is a frog solution ... when a cache is archived, it should be automatically locked at that point and only opened for specific reasons by a lackey ... then no problem ...

[+baloo&bd]

eems like it is a frog solution ... when a cache is archived, it should be automatically locked at that point and only opened for specific reasons by a lackey ... then no problem ...

 

Wouldn't work. As mentioned, there are many who log weeks, months or even years after finding caches. No reason to punish those people for the few that misuse the system, especially a misuse that doesn't adversely affect other users.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

eems like it is a frog solution ... when a cache is archived, it should be automatically locked at that point and only opened for specific reasons by a lackey ... then no problem ...

 

Wouldn't work. As mentioned, there are many who log weeks, months or even years after finding caches. No reason to punish those people for the few that misuse the system, especially a misuse that doesn't adversely affect other users.

Bah, if you aren't logging your caches in real-time from the field with your smart phone you deserve to be punished for being behind in your logging. What good does logging NM weeks, months or even years after finding a cache that needs maintenance?

[+Team Teebow]

As the owner of an active virtual I would delete any log that was posted after the virtual was archived. I had to change the requirements for my virtual because it was becoming an arm chair find and that wasn't its intent.

[+releasethedogs]

but if the only requirement is to post a photo and you do that, what is the harm. I mean if it is not armchair logged is it really a big deal?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

but if the only requirement is to post a photo and you do that, what is the harm. I mean if it is not armchair logged is it really a big deal?

What if the reason the cache was archived is that the property manager doesn't want anyone in that particular area? There are many reasons for archival and they aren't necessarily listed on the cache page for all to see.

 

Cache is archived = Don't go looking for it anymore

[+geodarts]

but if the only requirement is to post a photo and you do that, what is the harm. I mean if it is not armchair logged is it really a big deal?

What if the reason the cache was archived is that the property manager doesn't want anyone in that particular area? There are many reasons for archival and they aren't necessarily listed on the cache page for all to see.

 

Cache is archived = Don't go looking for it anymore

 

So if you want to log an archived virtual cache, it is better to armchair it. This not only avoids potential problems with land managers, but it has the added benefit of not placing an active virtual cache in danger of being archived due to armchair logging. I suppose that if this was perceived as a problem, I would start a feedback issue asking Groundspeak to lock caches 30 days after being archived (giving people a reasonable chance to catch up on logging). Otherwise, I would just mutter under my breath if I happened to notice that it was being done.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

but if the only requirement is to post a photo and you do that, what is the harm. I mean if it is not armchair logged is it really a big deal?

What if the reason the cache was archived is that the property manager doesn't want anyone in that particular area? There are many reasons for archival and they aren't necessarily listed on the cache page for all to see.

 

Cache is archived = Don't go looking for it anymore

 

So if you want to log an archived virtual cache, it is better to armchair it.

No cache should ever be armchair logged.

[+geodarts]

but if the only requirement is to post a photo and you do that, what is the harm. I mean if it is not armchair logged is it really a big deal?

What if the reason the cache was archived is that the property manager doesn't want anyone in that particular area? There are many reasons for archival and they aren't necessarily listed on the cache page for all to see.

 

Cache is archived = Don't go looking for it anymore

 

So if you want to log an archived virtual cache, it is better to armchair it.

No cache should ever be armchair logged.

 

I can't argue with that. But if (despite all the reasons why it should not be done) you are going to do it . . . . then I would rather see it happen on an archived cache.

[+releasethedogs]

I'm not saying armchair them. that is always wrong. What I am saying is there are plenty of virtual caches which were only archived because the owner stopped logging in to geocaching for some reason. Many of these caches just have you post a photo of what ever you are meant to be visiting. If you follow all the requests that the owner had, whats the harm? How is that arm chair logging? Unless i am mistaken, that means you just find a random cache and log it with out ever visiting it. Am I correct in this thought?