Add "Archived" to search option for Pocket Queries?

[+Team Chevelle]

Could a status of "archived" be added as an option for Pocket Queries? I'd like to be able to just find archived caches in my area. Many people do this to double-check that the litter has all been picked up and such, for example. Could this status check be added fairly easily?

 

Thanks.

 

- John...

[+Sissy-n-CR]

How would you handle the caches that were archived because you have to trespass to access or were too dangerous to continue? (Or both?)

 

If you hadn't been there, how would you know that the cache is gone or you just can't find it?

 

The best thing would be for cachers to check the archived caches they've found via their Nearest Found Cache list and go from there.

 

Otherwise, I don't think it would be prudent for TPTB to release archived caches in PQs unless you've already found them.

 

CR

 

[+Team Chevelle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

How would you handle the caches that were archived because you have to trespass to access or were too dangerous to continue? (Or both?)

---

 

Um, well, I'd actually READ the logs and information as to why it was archived. I happened to look at 3 or 4 today -- all that were archived because a few people logged that they couldn't find it -- usually including at least one that said they found parts of the cache lying on the ground in various places.

 

Then the Admin would archive it -- and usually say "if anyone is around this cache, please pick up whatever you see so that it isn't just litter."

 

quote:

---

If you hadn't been there, how would you know that the cache is gone or you just can't find it?

---

 

Again, I'd read the logs -- and there are many cases where it's obvious that the cache is gone and has been archived because people found it to be gone and/or scattered about the countryside.

 

quote:

---

The best thing would be for cachers to check the archived caches they've found via their Nearest Found Cache list and go from there.

---

 

Well, based on what I looked at today -- that isn't cutting it. The Michigan Geocaching Organization, for example, actively encourages its members to seek out archived caches near them and make sure, when abandoned, that the garbage is picked up. I just don't see this as a bad idea...

 

quote:

---

Otherwise, I don't think it would be prudent for TPTB to release archived caches in PQs unless you've already found them.

---

 

Well, I disagree. And, to be honest, I think you're beiing really negative unnecessarily about something that would be for the good 99% of the time. I just don't see the <1% situations that you've mentioned being worth making them non-searchable for some reason!

 

Sheesh...

 

- John...

[+Frolickin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Goggan:

I just don't see the <1% situations that you've mentioned being worth making them non-searchable for some reason!

---

Many many caches are submitted that never see the light of day for a variety of reasons. They are archived. If they begin showing up in PQs, there is going to be chaos. That accounts for more than 1%, I suspect.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

[+Sissy-n-CR]

John,

 

I really don't see TPTB opening up archived caches to just anybody. I can see if you've found it, but to anyone other than the owners and finders, I doubt very seriously.

 

I'd like to second Frolickin on the archived caches that never made it.

 

If you're eally wanting to clean up cache sites, talk to your local caching group and see what you can do as a group.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt TPTB will be opening up archived caches to a cacher with as few finds as your profile shows you to have.

 

While I'm being negative, I'm also being realistic.

 

CR

 

[+Team Chevelle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

John,

 

I _really_ don't see TPTB opening up archived caches to just anybody. I can see if you've found it, but to anyone other than the owners and finders, I doubt very seriously.

---

 

That just seems stupid! They were already out there! If they are caches that existed publicly and weren't closed by the owners, I don't see why they shouldn't be easy to look up!

 

quote:

---

I'd like to second Frolickin on the archived caches that never made it.

---

 

Well, yes. I hadn't really considered those "archived" -- I simply wasn't familiar with that. I agree those shouldn't be shown. It would not be difficult to query ones that have been archived that had to exist (i.e. have at least one log or something). It shouldn't be a problem to NOT show those ones. And, almost maybe not show those closed by their owner. Basically, just "abandoned" or "lost" caches...

 

quote:

---

If you're eally wanting to clean up cache sites, talk to your local caching group and see what you can do as a group.

---

 

Um, that's mainly my point. My local group has a list of dozens of caches with this abandoned/lost status that need to be checked. I was just thinking it would be convenient to try to locate ones near me -- since they currently are just a big list that is not easy to sort through...

 

quote:

---

Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt TPTB will be opening up archived caches to a cacher with as few finds as your profile shows you to have.

---

 

Ok, I'm obviously missing something here. I don't see why this is big, secret information. Please someone explain to me what the heck is so special about these archived caches if they had to be archived due to people not finding them repeatedly and/or people finding them as destroyed/lost/unknown. I mean, if they made it into the system and were active -- and they weren't closed by the owner -- I just don't understand why they wouldn't be available.

 

Again, I'm probably missing something -- so hopefully someone will explain it (beyond the examples given so far -- which could easily not be shown, of course).

 

quote:

---

While I'm being negative, I'm also being realistic.

---

 

I see it as mostly just negative at this point. But, hopefully, someone can show me some legitimate reasons to hide a once active cache that has suddenly disappeared that the owner never closed...

 

- John...

[+Dave_W6DPS]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Goggan:

 

Well, yes. I hadn't really considered those "archived" -- I simply wasn't familiar with that. I agree those shouldn't be shown. It would not be difficult to query ones that have been archived that had to exist (i.e. have at least one log or something). It shouldn't be a problem to NOT show those ones. And, almost maybe not show those closed by their owner. Basically, just "abandoned" or "lost" caches...

 

quote:

---

If you're eally wanting to clean up cache sites, talk to your local caching group and see what you can do as a group.

---

 

Um, that's mainly my point. My local group has a list of dozens of caches with this abandoned/lost status that need to be checked. I was just thinking it would be convenient to try to locate ones near me -- since they currently are just a big list that is not easy to sort through...

 

quote:

---

Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt TPTB will be opening up archived caches to a cacher with as few finds as your profile shows you to have.

---

 

Ok, I'm obviously missing something here. I don't see why this is big, secret information. Please someone explain to me what the heck is so special about these archived caches if they had to be archived due to people not finding them repeatedly and/or people finding them as destroyed/lost/unknown. I mean, if they made it into the system and were active -- and they weren't closed by the owner -- I just don't understand why they wouldn't be available.

 

Again, I'm probably missing something -- so hopefully someone will explain it (beyond the examples given so far -- which could easily not be shown, of course).

 

quote:

---

While I'm being negative, I'm also being realistic.

---

 

I see it as mostly just negative at this point. But, hopefully, someone can show me some legitimate reasons to hide a once active cache that has suddenly disappeared that the owner never closed...

 

- John...

---

 

The purpose of archiving caches is to exclude them from the part of the database being actively searched. The reasons for archiving vary, but the purpose stays the same.

 

In another post you think that those of us who periodically run PQs, as they are designed to run, are wasting bandwidth.

 

Now you want to make active badnwidth and server time available to search through archived caches, which you would apparently like to have presorted based on the reason for archiving. That information would need to be added to the database to be searchable.

 

You further make reference to lists of archived caches already available, that could be used to find the caches you want to check out. "My local group has a list of dozens of caches with this abandoned/lost status that need to be checked. I was just thinking it would be convenient to try to locate ones near me -- since they currently are just a big list that is not easy to sort through..." So, you want ot do the right thing, but there are limits on how much effort you want to put into it. You would prefer the site resources be realigned to help.

 

I think there are higher priorities for search features. Particularly considering that you are asking for features to allow you to search for caches that were specifically removed from the searchable database.

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Goggan:

I see it as mostly just negative at this point

---

 

Whatever, Dude.

 

How about just taking it on faith that TPTB have made archived caches unavailable for a good reason and leave it at that.

 

CR

 

[+Team Chevelle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:

The purpose of archiving caches is to exclude them from the part of the database being actively searched. The reasons for archiving vary, but the purpose stays the same.

---

 

Hmmm... I would think that the purpose would be to exclude them from most searches since people are generally looking for caches that they can visit -- since that's kinda the point... In 95+% of the cases, I would think that people wouldn't want that data -- and therefore it makes sense to exclude them by default. It doesn't mean that there might not be a reason to allow people to search them though.

quote:

---

In another post you think that those of us who periodically run PQs, as they are designed to run, are wasting bandwidth.

---

Again, you're really taking this too far. I said that running stored PQs that don't get used are a waste. I agree it must be done in order for people to keep things up to date. I therefore don't blame people for wasting bandwidth and yet you keep acting like I do. That was a seperate issue, and I don't see that you need to bring it up here -- it's unrelated really.

quote:

---

Now you want to make active badnwidth and server time available to search through archived caches,

---

These would be in stored PQs, of course -- so they would run whenever was convenient. I don't see that it would be any significant load -- since that's why PQs run that way, as we've thoroughly discussed.

quote:

---

which you would apparently like to have presorted based on the reason for archiving. That information would need to be added to the database to be searchable.

---

Well, that is why I was asking about it. I find it hard to believe that it would be difficult to add query parameters that simply check to see if an archived cache ever had any logs (i.e. made it into the system at all) and whether or not it was closed by the owner (which I assume is easily checked, please correct me if I am wrong). It should not need any additional data that isn't already there. Especially since other options already allow you to check for some of that (such as if it has ever been found or not).

quote:

---

You further make reference to lists of archived caches already available, that could be used to find the caches you want to check out. "My local group has a list of dozens of caches with this abandoned/lost status that need to be checked. I was just thinking it would be convenient to try to locate ones near me -- since they currently are just a big list that is not easy to sort through..." So, you want ot do the right thing, but there are limits on how much effort you want to put into it. You would prefer the site resources be realigned to help.

---

Um, it would waste a lot more site resources -- and during the DAY at the BUSY times -- to manually pull up the 50 or so caches and then try to determine their location and information. It has little to do with being lazy or the amount of effort I'm willing to put in. And it certainly wouldn't be more strain on the server -- it would be less -- and in off-peak times.

 

Also, that currently list is maintained by hand -- it isn't a very good way to do it at all. I think the concept is great -- trying to make sure abandoned/lost caches do not become litter. I think if it was easier for others to check these -- so that groups like MiGO didn't have to maintain them by hand -- it would be a significant benefit to the sport.

quote:

---

I think there are higher priorities for search features. Particularly considering that you are asking for features to allow you to search for caches that were specifically removed from the searchable database.

---

 

There may be higher priorities. It was just a suggestion. Not a demand. Again, I feel like making a suggestion on something that I think would do a great deal of good (since it intent was to reduce geo-trash/litter from abandoned caches) gets me attacked and told that I'm apparently making demands. It was just a simple suggestion. Nothing more.

 

- John...

[+Team Chevelle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

How about just taking it on faith that TPTB have made archived caches unavailable for a good reason and leave it at that.

---

 

Fine. Nice attitude. I was hoping for something better than what a poor parent tells a 10-year-old. :-(

 

Again, it was just a suggestion. Why is it so difficult for people here to discuss things instead of feeling that every suggestion is an attack that needs to be defended?

 

- John...

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Goggan:

Fine. Nice attitude. I was hoping for something better than what a poor parent tells a 10-year-old. :-(

 

Again, it was just a suggestion. Why is it so difficult for people here to discuss things instead of feeling that every suggestion is an attack that needs to be defended?

---

 

Probably because someone is acting like a two year old and keeps asking "but, why?"

 

That above response is because the parent gets tired of explaining themselves to someone who refuses to accept the answer they were given.

 

I'll tell you what, email Jeremy directly and ask him why?

 

CR

 

[+Team Chevelle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

Probably because someone is acting like a two year old and keeps asking "but, why?"

---

Actually, that isn't what happened at all. I've never acted that way. Situations were suggested where they wouldn't want people to see those archived caches (such as ones that never made it in) and I explained that those could easily be excluded -- and wondered if it might therefore still be possible for mainly the abandoned/lost ones.

 

It was a discussion and question -- not a "but why?" continuation as you imply.

quote:

---

That above response is because the parent gets tired of explaining themselves to someone who refuses to accept the answer they were given.

---

You appear to not understand how normal discussions work then. We were discussing the merits and problems and possible solutions to those problems. There was no answer given that I refused to accept.

quote:

---

I'll tell you what, email Jeremy directly and ask _him_ why?

---

Ok -- I can do that. I just thought posting the question was what was the right things to do.

 

- John...

[Keystone]

Here is a good reason not to have an easy way to search for archiving caches. When a cache is placed without permission from the land owner/manager, and a complaint is received, the complaint often requests asks to remove all references to the cache location from the website. Or, land managers with permit policies sometimes say that the permit is good for a period of time, after which all references to the cache must be removed from the website. That's the case in PA where I live.

 

It would be pretty hard to be responsive to these legitimate requests if the archived caches still showed up in the search results. They are meant to disappear from view except that the logs of prior finders need to be preserved, so an archived cache can still be spotted through searching on a user's finds.

 

John Goggan, I would encourage you to make full use of the fine resources provided on the MiGO website for archived/orphaned caches. Their system is far better than what's available in most other places. You have two great admins up in your State. The Missouri admin also does such a listing on his website. Other admins are considering following their good examples.

 

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

Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime!

[+Team Chevelle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

Here is a good reason not to have an easy way to search for archiving caches. When a cache is placed without permission from the land owner/manager, and a complaint is received, the complaint often requests asks to remove all references to the cache location from the website. Or, land managers with permit policies sometimes say that the permit is good for a period of time, after which all references to the cache must be removed from the website. That's the case in PA where I live.

---

Ah! Agreed. That would be a problem. I didn't realize that there weren't any different statuses applied to archived caches (i.e. "never approved" versus "lost" versus "abandoned" versus "owner request removal") -- that sort of thing. Without that, I agree that I can't think of a way to filter those ones out (like I could for "never approved", for example, that I mentioned above).

 

Thank you for the info.

quote:

---

John Goggan, I would encourage you to make full use of the fine resources provided on the MiGO website for archived/orphaned caches.

---

Agreed. I hope to do that. I just saw the list and thought "that's a great idea" since geocaches being considered "litter" was one of my issues when I started looking into this sport. But then, with the big list, I was a bit overwhelmed and started thinking that if a GPX could be generated of all of that data easily, then it would really help -- and be easier for other groups to also do it (with someone like the MiGO group having to handle it manually).

 

So, that is why I thought I'd suggest it. But I agree that, without more data, it likely isn't feasible at this point. Maybe we'll see something in the future where the data is opened up just to specific organizing leaders (such as the MiGO admin(s)) -- so that they could easily generate the data and filter out what couldn't be shared publicly...

 

Thanks again!

 

- John...