Logging Archived Virtuals/EarthCaches?

[+ArtieD]

I was wondering what people thought about logging archived Virtuals or EarthCaches? I don't mean armchairing them at all...I mean you visit the site and answer the questions and/or take a picture.

 

I ask because I am thinking about going on the New Year's hike at a state park in the region and thought about picking up some EarthCaches along the way. There is one active EarthCache at nearby nearby natural area but there are also two archived ones that could be picked up along the trail to the active one.

 

The message on the cache owner's page says that it's okay to log caches that were legitimately found, so...do you think it's okay to do as long as you follow the logging requirements or they should be left alone?

[+webscouter.]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

[+ArtieD]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[jholly]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

The page may be locked, especially if it is the user I'm thinking of.

[+Kochibu]

Yeah. Go aheah, find them and log online afterwarts. But try first if it is even possible to post a "found it" log.

 

I really don't see any reason not to do, unless it was archieved because of environmental reasons.

[+webscouter.]

My initial thought was that if a land manager had asked it to be removed then I wouldn't log it.

 

If the cache owner had some things going on in his/her life and was archiving it to eliminate some stress but allowing finders that had already found it to log a find then I might.

[+GeoBain]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

 

So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again?

[+ArtieD]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

 

So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again?

 

No...I legitimately want to know if it's kosher to log a couple EarthCaches that are archived which are literally on the way to an active one.

[+SwineFlew]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

 

So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again?

 

If this is the case, IBTL. There is no need to wake up the sleeping bear.

[+Team Dennis]

I brought this issue up in a thread about a year or so ago. My question is if you actually do the leg work and complete the task as required can you log it as a find assuming of course that the cache is not locked to prevent armchair logging.

 

The general consensus was that a person COULD do it although doing so might really up the floodgates for bigger problems down the road and thus I did not move forward on actually doing it.

[+Manville Possum]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

 

So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again?

I would have guessed the same. Those listings should just be locked. All really late logs should be in by now. I still enjoy viewing those listings, but there is no use to abuse them. They are ownerless listings now. Also some users like myself have permission to list virtuals or earthcaches at some of those same locations, so when we do what would be the purpose to log a archived listing where a new listing exists?

[+ArtieD]

Also some users like myself have permission to list virtuals or earthcaches at some of those same locations, so when we do what would be the purpose to log a archived listing where a new listing exists?

 

That's great, but until there are new listings there why not log the ones that were there previously?

Edited December 14, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[+GeoBain]

Also some users like myself have permission to list virtuals or earthcaches at some of those same locations, so when we do what would be the purpose to log a archived listing where a new listing exists?

 

That's great, but until then why not log the ones that were there?

 

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Those listings should just be locked.

 

I agree. In this particular case it's almost punitive not to lock them since control was kind of the reason for the ban.

[+ArtieD]

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Fair enough, but his profile says that we are allowed to log any of his caches that have legitimately been found, hence my original question.

[+GeoBain]

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Fair enough, but his profile says that we are allowed to log any of his caches that have legitimately been found, hence my original question.

 

And since we all know you are very aware of what transpired it is obvious this is just another attempt to bring the CavScout debacle up again.

 

You know that phrase was placed there for a reason. Stop beating around the bush and just be honest about the reason for starting the thread.

[+ArtieD]

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Fair enough, but his profile says that we are allowed to log any of his caches that have legitimately been found, hence my original question.

 

And since we all know you are very aware of what transpired it is obvious this is just another attempt to bring the CavScout debacle up again.

 

You know that phrase was placed there for a reason. Stop beating around the bush and just be honest about the reason for starting the thread.

 

I thought I was very plain in my OP, but I'll spell it out for you again. I am attending an event and want to get some EC's while out. There is one active one out there I can grab with two archived ones I could get along the way to the active one. Is it kosher or not?

 

I don't see how I can make it any plainer. Who owns them does not matter. It could be you, Tom, Dick or Harry...the question remains the same.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[+GeoBain]

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Fair enough, but his profile says that we are allowed to log any of his caches that have legitimately been found, hence my original question.

 

And since we all know you are very aware of what transpired it is obvious this is just another attempt to bring the CavScout debacle up again.

 

You know that phrase was placed there for a reason. Stop beating around the bush and just be honest about the reason for starting the thread.

 

I thought I was very plain in my OP, but I'll spell it out for you again. I am attending an event and want to get some EC's while out. There is one active one out there I can grab with two archived ones I could get along the way to the active one. Is it kosher or not?

 

I don't see how I can make it any plainer. Who owns them does not matter. It could be you, Tom, Dick or Harry...the question remains the same.

 

If you think he really wants you to log those caches, go ahead. But you know who wrote that message and you also know that he's not really ok with it.

 

Package it anyway you wish, this has nothing to do with you going to an active one and these happening to be on the way. You have been very vocal over in the earthcache section about this subject.

 

BTW, why did you not post this thread there? Worried that you would get shut down too quickly there?

[+ArtieD]

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Fair enough, but his profile says that we are allowed to log any of his caches that have legitimately been found, hence my original question.

 

And since we all know you are very aware of what transpired it is obvious this is just another attempt to bring the CavScout debacle up again.

 

You know that phrase was placed there for a reason. Stop beating around the bush and just be honest about the reason for starting the thread.

 

I thought I was very plain in my OP, but I'll spell it out for you again. I am attending an event and want to get some EC's while out. There is one active one out there I can grab with two archived ones I could get along the way to the active one. Is it kosher or not?

 

I don't see how I can make it any plainer. Who owns them does not matter. It could be you, Tom, Dick or Harry...the question remains the same.

 

If you think he really wants you to log those caches, go ahead. But you know who wrote that message and you also know that he's not really ok with it.

 

Package it anyway you wish, this has nothing to do with you going to an active one and these happening to be on the way. You have been very vocal over in the earthcache section about this subject.

 

BTW, why did you not post this thread there? Worried that you would get shut down too quickly there?

 

Look, I am not going to argue with you. If you want to view it that way, it's your call. The way I figure if I can get a three-fer deal on EarthCache finds instead of one, it sure looks appealing. I merely asked the community what they thought of it.

 

If you wish to continue this nonsense, PM me so this thread can get back on topic.

[+GeoBain]

Look, I am not going to argue with you. If you want to view it that way, it's your call. The way I figure if I can get a three-fer deal on EarthCache finds instead of one, it sure looks appealing. I merely asked the community what they thought of it.

 

If you wish to continue this nonsense, PM me so this thread can get back on topic.

 

I've been on target, no need to PM you. Not my fault if my answer concerns you.

 

I'll state it again. You know who wrote that phrase. You also know as long as the cache is not archived locked that you can go right ahead and log it to your heart's content.

 

You also know the CO is not happy about that phrase being added and that he doesn't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry logging those caches.

 

With that knowledge in hand, do what you feel is right.

Edited December 14, 2011 by GeoBain

[+ArtieD]

Look, I am not going to argue with you. If you want to view it that way, it's your call. The way I figure if I can get a three-fer deal on EarthCache finds instead of one, it sure looks appealing. I merely asked the community what they thought of it.

 

If you wish to continue this nonsense, PM me so this thread can get back on topic.

 

I've been on target, no need to PM you. Not my fault if my answer concerns you.

 

I'll state it again. You know who wrote that phrase. You also know as long as the cache is not archived that you can go right ahead and log it to your heart's content.

 

You also know the CO is not happy about that phrase being added and that he doesn't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry logging those caches.

 

With that knowledge in hand, do what you feel is right.

 

Well, I thank you for your input, no matter how obviously biased and off-target it is.

[+bflentje]

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Fair enough, but his profile says that we are allowed to log any of his caches that have legitimately been found, hence my original question.

 

And since we all know you are very aware of what transpired it is obvious this is just another attempt to bring the CavScout debacle up again.

 

You know that phrase was placed there for a reason. Stop beating around the bush and just be honest about the reason for starting the thread.

 

OMG

[+GeoBain]

Here, I'll try it a different way.

 

The message on the cache owner's page says that it's okay to log caches that were legitimately found, so...do you think it's okay to do as long as you follow the logging requirements or they should be left alone?

 

I think it is fine if you believe the cache owner wishes you do log them, you have met the requirements, and the listing has not been locked.

[+CanadianRockies]

If the cache log should be verified (as most EarthCaches, virtuals, and webcams should), then I think it's cheesy to log a "Found It" for an archived one. How do you know your answers/pictures are adequate if nobody is monitoring those caches?

[+Manville Possum]

Because CavScout was stripped of the ability to monitor those caches.

 

Fair enough, but his profile says that we are allowed to log any of his caches that have legitimately been found, hence my original question.

I would consider a legitimate find on a EarthCache, finding a active listing and completing the cache owners logging requirements as approved by the GSA reviewer that published it. And if archived listings are being abused, then they should be locked to prevent it.

[jholly]

If the cache log should be verified (as most EarthCaches, virtuals, and webcams should), then I think it's cheesy to log a "Found It" for an archived one. How do you know your answers/pictures are adequate if nobody is monitoring those caches?

I think that is the whole point, free smiley regardless of what you log. Besides the log is irrelevant, which should not contain the answers, what is relevant is the email to the owner that gives the answers needed so the owner knows you found and understood the EC. Since the archived cache is ownerless it is impossible to comply with the logging requirements. Logging a "Found it" can be accomplished just by walking by and not bothering with reading the page and understanding was is being presented. Like I said free smiley.

[+ArtieD]

Good points. I agree that it would be cheesy to log such a cache that cannot have the answers verified. I guess I'll let them be. If I am going to get a smiley I'm going to earn it the right way.

 

Thanks for the input.

[AZcachemeister]

I would bet the listings are locked, but I haven't checked.

If indeed the listings are not locked, that means you (we, I, us, everyone) is free to log them if we so choose.

Personally (considering the situation/history) I think I would probably just enjoy the geology lesson and post a note thanking the owner on the premise that he would still get the eMail. (again, assuming the listing isn't locked)

[Keystone]

Apart from the title and a portion of the initial post, this thread isn't really about virtual caches but rather just earthcaches. Therefore I am moving this thread from the Geocaching Topics forum to the Earthcaching forum. I am pretty certain that it's the only forum section where we say "debacle."

[+Touchstone]

I am pretty certain that it's the only forum section where we say "debacle."

 

I think your sig line needs to be updated

 

Do you have questions? We've got answers! | Groundspeak Knowledge BooksHelp Center

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

This whole topic is just to bring up an old issue of the massive archiving of a certain cachers 203 earthcaches. There is no problem with the earthcaches and if you legitimately found them and make a reasonable attempt to answer (in your own mind) the questions, there is no reason why you shouldn't log the find(s).

Because I don't know the reason for the ban I'll stay away from that topic, but once again archiving 203 earthcaches was wrong. We have found several (while they were active) and most are well worth the trip!

Thanks.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

 

So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again?

 

We cannot look into anyone's mind, but we believe you hit the nail on the head!

Maybe this quote will give us a clue as to intent, "I agree that it would be cheesy to log such a cache that cannot have the answers verified."

Edited December 15, 2011 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+Flintstone5611]

Taking a big step back and looking at this without all the personalization, I am scratching my head. If I am out finding caches and I find an archived traditional and sign the log, then I will log it online as well(unless it is locked). Why should ECs be any different? I understand the issues revolving around land ownership or environmental sensitivity, but if it is because TPTB wanted to mete our some spankings then go find that cache. What is cheesy about it?

[+ArtieD]

Taking a big step back and looking at this without all the personalization, I am scratching my head. If I am out finding caches and I find an archived traditional and sign the log, then I will log it online as well(unless it is locked). Why should ECs be any different? I understand the issues revolving around land ownership or environmental sensitivity, but if it is because TPTB wanted to mete our some spankings then go find that cache. What is cheesy about it?

 

Now see, you raise a valid point as well. I suppose you're right...I can see the point that there's no reason that these caches shouldn't be found just because they got archived because the user got banned.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[+CanadianRockies]

I understand the issues revolving around land ownership or environmental sensitivity, but if it is because TPTB wanted to mete our some spankings then go find that cache. What is cheesy about it?

Your answers to the logging requirements are supposed to be verified by the CO. If the EarthCache has been archived, then there's a reasonable chance that the CO will not receive (or will ignore) the answers that you email them. Thus, they will be unable to verify them (or have decided they no longer want to verify them).

 

Unless the cache has been locked, nothing is stopping you from logging a "Found It." To me, however, this seems to be a cheesy way to get a smiley.

Edited December 15, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+ArtieD]

The debate on the topic at hand is interesting. I find validity with both viewpoints. It's all academic to me, though, because I won't be able to make it to that area after all.

[+ArtieD]

To further the discussion, is logging an archived EarthCache any different than logging one that's been disabled (for reasons other than the area is off-limits)?

[+Lostby7]

I would think a lot would depend on why the cache was archived in the first place.

 

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues.

 

So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again?

My thought as well. For some doing this just never seems to get old. I question the rational for logging his caches... If it's archived, leave it alone.

 

*EDIT for rethinking my comments. Just because I assume things doesn't mean I need to post them.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Lostby7

[+GeoBain]

The debate on the topic at hand is interesting. I find validity with both viewpoints. It's all academic to me, though, because I won't be able to make it to that area after all.

 

Big surprise.

[+ArtieD]

The debate on the topic at hand is interesting. I find validity with both viewpoints. It's all academic to me, though, because I won't be able to make it to that area after all.

 

Big surprise.

 

What is your deal? I ask a legit question and you've posted nothing but snarky dross...

Edited December 15, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[+GeoBain]

The debate on the topic at hand is interesting. I find validity with both viewpoints. It's all academic to me, though, because I won't be able to make it to that area after all.

 

Big surprise.

 

What is your deal? I ask a legit question and you've posted nothing but snarky crap.

 

The big deal is you already knew the answer to the question. You didn't post to ask an honest question. You posted to keep garbage stirred up.

[+ArtieD]

The debate on the topic at hand is interesting. I find validity with both viewpoints. It's all academic to me, though, because I won't be able to make it to that area after all.

 

Big surprise.

 

What is your deal? I ask a legit question and you've posted nothing but snarky crap.

 

The big deal is you already knew the answer to the question. You didn't post to ask an honest question. You posted to keep garbage stirred up.

 

No, I didn't. I have read threads from the past and there seems to have been a debate about the whole action. Some say to treat them like archived traditionals and go ahead while others say that you shouldn't because the original owner cannot verify. I would love to get an official response from TPTB on the issue so the answer can come forth once and for all.

 

I'm sorry you are so myopic that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

[+Lostby7]

The debate on the topic at hand is interesting. I find validity with both viewpoints. It's all academic to me, though, because I won't be able to make it to that area after all.

 

Big surprise.

 

What is your deal? I ask a legit question and you've posted nothing but snarky dross...

Pot meet kettle.

[+ArtieD]

The debate on the topic at hand is interesting. I find validity with both viewpoints. It's all academic to me, though, because I won't be able to make it to that area after all.

 

Big surprise.

 

What is your deal? I ask a legit question and you've posted nothing but snarky dross...

Pot meet kettle.

 

[+GeoBain]

I would love to get an official response from TPTB on the issue so the answer can come forth once and for all.

 

I'm sorry you are so myopic that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

 

I see quite clearly. You might say I have xray vision.

 

If you really want an official response, might I suggest you email contact@geocaching.com directly?

[+ArcherDragoon]

Taking a big step back and looking at this without all the personalization, I am scratching my head. If I am out finding caches and I find an archived traditional and sign the log, then I will log it online as well(unless it is locked). Why should ECs be any different? I understand the issues revolving around land ownership or environmental sensitivity, but if it is because TPTB wanted to mete our some spankings then go find that cache. What is cheesy about it?

 

Now see, you raise a valid point as well. I suppose you're right...I can see the point that there's no reason that these caches shouldn't be found just because they got archived because the user got banned.

Course...the difference being one does not just stumble across an Earthcache (or a virtual for that matter) in the woods and wonder what they found. In my opinion, once an Earthcache is archived, it is gone...

.

.

.

Late logs are one thing...this scenario is another...for me the answer is no...sorry, not acceptable...

 

(Statements above are my opinion and my opinion only...questions was asked and this is how I would answer...)

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

There is no rule that a cache owner must verify answers to posed questions. Some don't even acknowledge any kind of logs. A lot of EC owners do not send anything to the finder archived or not! If you find a cache and you can log it on GS then do so if you wish.

The only thing that prevents logging the cache is when it is locked and that may be the real goal of the OP............................................to get the caches locked! The caches shouldn't have been archived in the first place so there in no need to lock them.

Again, as Geobain said, the OP already knew his answer.

[+ArtieD]

The only thing that prevents logging the cache is when it is locked and that may be the real goal of the OP............................................to get the caches locked! The caches shouldn't have been archived in the first place so there in no need to lock them.

 

Oh yes...it's all a big conspiracy!

 

Speaking of going down roads that should have been left alone...haven't we heard the same from you a few too many times?

Edited December 15, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian

[+Harry Dolphin]

The difference, to me, is fulfilling the requirements for the cache. If you sign the log at an archived cache, you have fulfilled the requirements for logging that cache.

The requirement for an EarthCache is sending the information to the CO. You cannot do that if the CO is banned, so you cannot fulfill the requirements.

There was a local cacher who got banninated around 2004. All of his caches were archived and locked. (Some rather interesting virtuals among them!) Perhaps this is what should happen in this case. Or in the case of any cache that is archived! Allowing time for late logging.

[+Manville Possum]

I may have a misunderstanding about locking listings, but if mine were archived and it were not my choice to do so, I would want them locked and to only be viewed. Am I missing something about locking listings?

[+geoaware]

It is my personal opinion that once an EarthCache has been archived it is like it does not exist, and therefore you should not log it.