Pseudovirtual

[4wheelin_fool]

PS LOVE THE CAT

[+Happy Humphrey]

I was going to log the cache but was too late.

I hadn't actually found it (well, it's not there anyway) but I was in the area for a short time last week (not at the Olympics though), and I did see the cache zone on TV too. I could have logged it as a memento of my brief visit to London.

As there's nothing to find there's no need to physically visit the site, so I think that my criteria for a find were good enough.

[+Glenn]

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't.

 

Did you post this without reading any of the previous posts or are you just choosing to ignore any post that doesn't express the same opinion as you? You are acting as if this one cache is the only way that those attending the Olympics can share their experiences and photos. You'd know this isn't true if you read some of the previous posts.

 

Groundspeak asked all the COs with caches near Olympic venues to disable their caches. Groundspeak didn't ask for the caches to be turned in to virtual caches by allowing logging while they are disabled. How does the saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

[dodgydaved]

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't.

 

Did you post this without reading any of the previous posts or are you just choosing to ignore any post that doesn't express the same opinion as you? You are acting as if this one cache is the only way that those attending the Olympics can share their experiences and photos. You'd know this isn't true if you read some of the previous posts.

 

Groundspeak asked all the COs with caches near Olympic venues to disable their caches. Groundspeak didn't ask for the caches to be turned in to virtual caches by allowing logging while they are disabled. How does the saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

....and that was a fairly vitriolic put-down, Glenn from Seattle (10 years a member, 380 odd smileys and 2299 forum posts -------hmmmmm!)

[+SwineFlew]

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't.

 

Did you post this without reading any of the previous posts or are you just choosing to ignore any post that doesn't express the same opinion as you? You are acting as if this one cache is the only way that those attending the Olympics can share their experiences and photos. You'd know this isn't true if you read some of the previous posts.

 

Groundspeak asked all the COs with caches near Olympic venues to disable their caches. Groundspeak didn't ask for the caches to be turned in to virtual caches by allowing logging while they are disabled. How does the saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

....and that was a fairly vitriolic put-down, Glenn from Seattle (10 years a member, 380 odd smileys and 2299 forum posts -------hmmmmm!)

So you are saying people with low find dont have any voice?

[dodgydaved]

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't.

 

Did you post this without reading any of the previous posts or are you just choosing to ignore any post that doesn't express the same opinion as you? You are acting as if this one cache is the only way that those attending the Olympics can share their experiences and photos. You'd know this isn't true if you read some of the previous posts.

 

Groundspeak asked all the COs with caches near Olympic venues to disable their caches. Groundspeak didn't ask for the caches to be turned in to virtual caches by allowing logging while they are disabled. How does the saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

....and that was a fairly vitriolic put-down, Glenn from Seattle (10 years a member, 380 odd smileys and 2299 forum posts -------hmmmmm!)

So you are saying people with low find dont have any voice?

 

Not at all - just commenting on the put down nature of the post - not really necessary.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Locking a cache is an unusual step but my experience of what may be considered a controversial decision like this is that the cache logs become a forum which is not their purpose. We have a forum here for discussion and I'm glad people are using it to put forward their points of view.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer reviewer for geocaching.com

 

... I tried tide to log it, late Friday and early Staurday but was in a poor area for connection, when I got the log written Saturday, it wouldn't connect, then it appears locked.

 

Ok so no find for me, even though I have been to the spot, been in the park, taken photos, advised LOCOG etc etc, but what REALLY sucks, is that I now cannot log through the TBs I took quite a lot of time photographing in the Olympic Stadium and Aquatics Centre, and I'm sure that would have been nice for their owners for them to get the mileage and the "dip"

 

Had it not been locked, I could still have written a note and done this.

[I!]

Had it not been locked, I could still have written a note and done this.

If it's unarchived, post-Olympics, then you'll still be able to.

[+Glenn]

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't.

 

Did you post this without reading any of the previous posts or are you just choosing to ignore any post that doesn't express the same opinion as you? You are acting as if this one cache is the only way that those attending the Olympics can share their experiences and photos. You'd know this isn't true if you read some of the previous posts.

 

Groundspeak asked all the COs with caches near Olympic venues to disable their caches. Groundspeak didn't ask for the caches to be turned in to virtual caches by allowing logging while they are disabled. How does the saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

....and that was a fairly vitriolic put-down, Glenn from Seattle (10 years a member, 380 odd smileys and 2299 forum posts -------hmmmmm!)

 

Just calling it as I see it. It is natural to be a little bitter when your posts are ignored. I pointed out three ways that people at the Olympics can share their photos and experiences. One of the ways would even increase their find count. There are even other posts that suggest ways I didn't think of to share photos and experiences. There is no need to subvert the guidelines as each suggestion is will within' geocaching guidelines. The facts are simple to understand and there is no gray area here. The CO was encouraging people to log his cache as found without signing the log book.

 

Thanks for pointing out that I am a long time active geocacher that is involved in the forums, both helping my fellow geocachers when they have a question that I can answer and helping to influence Geocaching policy. Although those forum post numbers a little off. The last time, and maybe last two times, that the forum went through a major update our post counts were reset. I know tozainamboku from the forums and he usually makes good arguments but this time he seems to have totally ignored all the previous posts.

[dodgydaved]

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't.

 

Did you post this without reading any of the previous posts or are you just choosing to ignore any post that doesn't express the same opinion as you? You are acting as if this one cache is the only way that those attending the Olympics can share their experiences and photos. You'd know this isn't true if you read some of the previous posts.

 

Groundspeak asked all the COs with caches near Olympic venues to disable their caches. Groundspeak didn't ask for the caches to be turned in to virtual caches by allowing logging while they are disabled. How does the saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

....and that was a fairly vitriolic put-down, Glenn from Seattle (10 years a member, 380 odd smileys and 2299 forum posts -------hmmmmm!)

 

Just calling it as I see it. It is natural to be a little bitter when your posts are ignored. I pointed out three ways that people at the Olympics can share their photos and experiences. One of the ways would even increase their find count. There are even other posts that suggest ways I didn't think of to share photos and experiences. There is no need to subvert the guidelines as each suggestion is will within' geocaching guidelines. The facts are simple to understand and there is no gray area here. The CO was encouraging people to log his cache as found without signing the log book.

 

Thanks for pointing out that I am a long time active geocacher that is involved in the forums, both helping my fellow geocachers when they have a question that I can answer and helping to influence Geocaching policy. Although those forum post numbers a little off. The last time, and maybe last two times, that the forum went through a major update our post counts were reset. I know tozainamboku from the forums and he usually makes good arguments but this time he seems to have totally ignored all the previous posts.

 

Fair enough, point taken.

[+Glenn]

what REALLY sucks, is that I now cannot log through the TBs I took quite a lot of time photographing in the Olympic Stadium and Aquatics Centre, and I'm sure that would have been nice for their owners for them to get the mileage and the "dip"

 

Had it not been locked, I could still have written a note and done this.

 

You can still upload the photos to the TB page. Just go to the TBs page, make a "Write note" log, then upload the photos to that log. If want to "get the mileage" I am sure there are other geocaches that you can visit or an event nearby that you can attend and "dip" the TB into. I highly recommend going to an event as they tend to be a lot of fun. Geocaches get archived all the time. Don't let this one geocache put a kink in your plan. If you choose to "dip" the TB one of the many nearby disabled caches, which I don't recommend, remember to log it as a note and not a find. That is unless you actually signed the log then log it as a find.

[dodgydaved]

what REALLY sucks, is that I now cannot log through the TBs I took quite a lot of time photographing in the Olympic Stadium and Aquatics Centre, and I'm sure that would have been nice for their owners for them to get the mileage and the "dip"

 

Had it not been locked, I could still have written a note and done this.

 

You can still upload the photos to the TB page. Just go to the TBs page, make a "Write note" log, then upload the photos to that log. If want to "get the mileage" I am sure there are other geocaches that you can visit or an event nearby that you can attend and "dip" the TB into. I highly recommend going to an event as they tend to be a lot of fun. Geocaches get archived all the time. Don't let this one geocache put a kink in your plan. If you choose to "dip" the TB one of the many nearby disabled caches, which I don't recommend, remember to log it as a note and not a find. That is unless you actually signed the log then log it as a find.

 

 

Great advice there Wendy - especially the bit about an event being fun!!

[+MartyBartfast]

I highly recommend going to an event as they tend to be a lot of fun.

Grandmother => eggs => suck

[+tozainamboku]

I'm a little upset that Graculus saw fit to lock the listing as well as archive it. I suspect a few Olympic tourist may have "found" this cache and haven't log it yet. They will be quite disappointed to find the listing locked when they get home, and most likely think it unfair that the people who logged it before it was locked get a smiley but they don't.

 

Did you post this without reading any of the previous posts or are you just choosing to ignore any post that doesn't express the same opinion as you? You are acting as if this one cache is the only way that those attending the Olympics can share their experiences and photos. You'd know this isn't true if you read some of the previous posts.

 

Groundspeak asked all the COs with caches near Olympic venues to disable their caches. Groundspeak didn't ask for the caches to be turned in to virtual caches by allowing logging while they are disabled. How does the saying go? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

....and that was a fairly vitriolic put-down, Glenn from Seattle (10 years a member, 380 odd smileys and 2299 forum posts -------hmmmmm!)

Glenn and I often have different views in the forums and it's not the first time he's come off sounding vitriolic. However, I don't take it personally.

 

In fact I missed the earlier post where it was indicated that Groundspeak had asked cache owners to disable traditional caches near Olympics venues for the period. It doesn't change my opinion so I really don't understand why he brings it up.

 

I pointed out that I understood Groundspeak's actions in archiving the cache. It seems he felt the need to point something out because I said I was a bit upset that the page got locked. I found Graculus's post explaining concerns that the cache page would turn in a discussion as a reasonable answer. From previous debates with Glenn, I will assume that he feels those who did take up the cache owner's offer to log the find have "cheated" in some way and now have a "score" that includes an illegal find on an illegal cache. Since I don't view the find count as a score, I'm much less bothered that the cache owner allowed these post than I am that the reviewers action will undoubtedly disappoint someone who expected to be able to log this cache.

[+Griff Grof]

Well, I like the idea of having a separate reviewing process for Virtuals as well as Earthcaches. No one, hardly, does Waymarking. Can't Groundspeak integrate Waymarking into Geocaching.com. I think they're wasting their time with challenges, as was said in a previous reply the masses want virtuals, quality virtuals, and I reckon, one day, Groundspeak will finally give in. Be that 1 year, 10 years or 100 years.

 

I do see why this cache was archived though, but it was a nice one for people visiting the Olympics while it lasted.

[+Glenn]

Glenn and I often have different views in the forums and it's not the first time he's come off sounding vitriolic. However, I don't take it personally.

 

In fact I missed the earlier post where it was indicated that Groundspeak had asked cache owners to disable traditional caches near Olympics venues for the period. It doesn't change my opinion so I really don't understand why he brings it up.

 

I pointed out that I understood Groundspeak's actions in archiving the cache. It seems he felt the need to point something out because I said I was a bit upset that the page got locked. I found Graculus's post explaining concerns that the cache page would turn in a discussion as a reasonable answer. From previous debates with Glenn, I will assume that he feels those who did take up the cache owner's offer to log the find have "cheated" in some way and now have a "score" that includes an illegal find on an illegal cache. Since I don't view the find count as a score, I'm much less bothered that the cache owner allowed these post than I am that the reviewers action will undoubtedly disappoint someone who expected to be able to log this cache.

 

And I have to explain it again. It isn't about scores. Geocaching doesn't have a scoring system. It's about logging a disabled cache. Caches are disabled for a reason be it hunting season, a winter closure, construction, Olympics, etc. As a CO myself when I disable a cache listing I am sending the signal that for whatever reason the cache shouldn't be searched for until the cache listing is enabled. If other COs are disabling cache listing but then telling people to go head and find the cache and log it anyways they are sending a mixed message. Attempting to find a cache with a disabled listing at an Olympic venue could, at worst, get you detained for a couple of hours. Attempting to find a cache with a disabled listing due to, for example, possibility of avalanche in the are could get you killed. It is best to not get people in the habit of ignoring the fact that the cache listing is disabled.

[+Happy Humphrey]

No one, hardly, does Waymarking.

You're kidding! Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no-one does it...

[+simplysup]

I blame I!

[+Griff Grof]

No one, hardly, does Waymarking.

You're kidding! Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no-one does it...

 

I do understand it very well actually, and I'm not kidding - the Waymarks around here?... Set three years ago and never logged. I didn't say no one does it, I said hardly anyone does Waymarking, which is very true in comparison to Geocaching.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Griff Grof

[+tozainamboku]

 

And I have to explain it again. It isn't about scores. Geocaching doesn't have a scoring system. It's about logging a disabled cache. Caches are disabled for a reason be it hunting season, a winter closure, construction, Olympics, etc. As a CO myself when I disable a cache listing I am sending the signal that for whatever reason the cache shouldn't be searched for until the cache listing is enabled. If other COs are disabling cache listing but then telling people to go head and find the cache and log it anyways they are sending a mixed message. Attempting to find a cache with a disabled listing at an Olympic venue could, at worst, get you detained for a couple of hours. Attempting to find a cache with a disabled listing due to, for example, possibility of avalanche in the are could get you killed. It is best to not get people in the habit of ignoring the fact that the cache listing is disabled.

People hunt and log disabled caches and even archived caches all the time. I've done it a few times myself. Sometimes I have the cache loaded in GPS and didn't know the owner had disabled or archived it. Sometimes I'll have read the note on the page and decide the the cache is probably still there and that it would be safe and legal to search for it. I've found caches that were disable or archived and I've logged them as found. I've even found a virtual that was archived and locked because of couch potato logs. I can't log it on geocaching.com but I still count is as a find.

 

I don't doubt that some puritans will say I've cheated. However this is the way I play the game.

 

I understand the reason Groundspeak asked for caches to be disabled during the Olympics. I would hope that containers were removed as well, so that if accidentally found they would not cause an incident. The reason this cache got archived wasn't because the owner allowed people to log it when it was disabled. It was archived because TPTB did not want to make a exception that would allow a temporary virtual cache.

Edited August 13, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Happy Humphrey]

I do understand it very well actually, and I'm not kidding - the Waymarks around here?... Set three years ago and never logged. I didn't say no one does it, I said hardly anyone does Waymarking, which is very true in comparison to Geocaching.

As you know, most waymarks aren't meant to be logged; it's the category that gets "logged". And a search from one of your caches reveals 9800 waymarks, so it's hardly inactive. It might quieten down in any area once all the popular categories have been exhausted (e.g. all the trig points have been logged and all the Victorian post boxes found).

Obviously it's going to attract fewer people than geocaches; geocaching "virtuals" and locationless were always of minority appeal and many moaned about them being mixed in with geocaching - hence the effort to separate them. But Groundspeak have "brought them back" twice so I can't see why people keep on asking for what we already have.

Coming back on topic; I guess that plenty of Olympic "challenges" have been set and logged so those that need to record their visit have a means anyway without having to resort to a pseudovirtual "cache".

[+Glenn]

People hunt and log disabled caches and even archived caches all the time. I've done it a few times myself. Sometimes I have the cache loaded in GPS and didn't know the owner had disabled or archived it. Sometimes I'll have read the note on the page and decide the the cache is probably still there and that it would be safe and legal to search for it. I've found caches that were disable or archived and I've logged them as found. I've even found a virtual that was archived and locked because of couch potato logs. I can't log it on geocaching.com but I still count is as a find.

I agree that logging a disable isn't something unique to this cache. There are other disabled caches nearby that haven't been archived or had their logs locked. Why not? Take a look at the cache in question and the others nearby. I commend probbins2000 in being proactive enough to disable the cache on his own. It looks like most of the other caches had to be disabled by Groundspeak due to inattentive owners (on a side note I wonder how many of the COs that Groundspeak had to disabled their caches are going to enable their caches once the Olympics have packed up and left). However probbins2000's disable log reads "Please feel free to log as found but cache has been removed" and he added "please log the cache even though its been disabled. To log this cache as found please add a photo of yourself on or around the park or just leave your greetings." to the cache description. This is a different scenario than just having old data or logging a cache at a much later date or writing a note in order to "dip" a TB.

[+Bear and Ragged]

No one, hardly, does Waymarking.

You're kidding! Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no-one does it...

 

I do understand it very well actually, and I'm not kidding - the Waymarks around here?... Set three years ago and never logged. I didn't say no one does it, I said hardly anyone does Waymarking, which is very true in comparison to Geocaching.

 

There are two sides to Waymarking.

Finding the Waymark and listing it.

Visiting the Waymark.

 

I listed an object, which a local cacher used as a question as part of a multi cache...

Any cacher using the Nearest Waymarks search feature on the cache page could have solved the multi prior to visiting the location!

[+probbins2000]

Hi everyone,

 

I am the owner (or was) of the cache near the 2012 site. Firstly i just wanted to apologise for causing this issue.

 

I can assure you that i did not mean to break the rules or cause any trouble, all i wanted to do was make a cache that people could log during the games. I had intended to replace the cache and put things back to a normal cache after the games.

 

I have worked on London 2012 & Sochi 2014 for many years and it is something i feel personally very proud of, I just wanted to share a little with fellow caches from around the world.

 

I was contacted by a reviewer and told the cache was locked. I totally respect and understand this decision even though i am a bit disappointed.

 

sorry everyone

 

Peter

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

Everyone seems to have missed the biggest geocaching crime here.

The owner logged his own cache as found!

Shame on him! Boo! Hiss! Send him to the stocks!

[+Glenn]

Hi everyone,

 

I am the owner (or was) of the cache near the 2012 site. Firstly i just wanted to apologise for causing this issue.

 

I can assure you that i did not mean to break the rules or cause any trouble, all i wanted to do was make a cache that people could log during the games. I had intended to replace the cache and put things back to a normal cache after the games.

 

I have worked on London 2012 & Sochi 2014 for many years and it is something i feel personally very proud of, I just wanted to share a little with fellow caches from around the world.

 

I was contacted by a reviewer and told the cache was locked. I totally respect and understand this decision even though i am a bit disappointed.

 

sorry everyone

 

Peter

 

Thanks for posting here. No need to apologize. Chalk it up as a learning experience. Who knows, maybe this will get Groundspeak to rethink their stand on virtual caches.

 

In cases like this it is difficult to get the cache unarchived. Besides I don't think you'd really want to because of all the extra work there will be in policing the logs for "virtual logs" after the physical cache is replaced. But you should be able to submit a new cache listing.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can assure you that i did not mean to break the rules or cause any trouble, all i wanted to do was make a cache that people could log during the games. I had intended to replace the cache and put things back to a normal cache after the games.

I'm sure that most people would agree that you didn't cause any real trouble. As I understand it, there was no cache for people to log so it did cause a little confusion (how can you log "Found it" for a cache that isn't there - makes no sense).

 

This did make an interesting point for discussion though, so thanks for creating a little interest and helping clarify a few points.

 

What's Sochi 2014, by the way?

[+pklong]

 

I am the owner (or was) of the cache near the 2012 site. Firstly i just wanted to apologise for causing this issue.

 

 

No need to apologise, it was a great idea that allowed the Geocaching community to join in with the Olympic spirit without risking causing a security scare. Sadly it was always going to be archived and locked as soon as it came to the attention of TPTB or those who take Geocaching too seriously.

 

 

What's Sochi 2014, by the way?

 

 

Let me Google that for you.

 

I'd be pissed if I showed up to what I thought was a traditional cache, search for and not find the container or log, then find out that it was an improperly listed virtual. How hard is it to list it properly?

 

So you would go searching for a cache without reading its title or cache page or noting that it is disabled. Not a responsible way to Geocache.

[+probbins2000]

Sochi 2014 is the Russian winter Olympics.

[+Happy Humphrey]

 

What's Sochi 2014, by the way?

 

 

Let me Google that for you.

 

I know I could have Googled it easily, but I thought I'd give the CO an opportunity to explain as he seems to have a connection.

[+nthacker66]

What is pathetic is the CO attempting to subvert the guidelines for listing a cache at geocaching.com. No one found his cache. Cachers who are in London for the Olympics or otherwise can have a great time without pretending to find this cache or posting random drivel on the page.

 

Oh dear...subversion? Very dramatic!

Cachers who are in London for the Olympics can have a great time AND post on this cache (sorry, could). What a pleasent post you have recorded to describe your fellow cachers posts/pictures as 'random drivel'. Well done.

 

We need an icon of a frog towing the line of the groudnspeak logo ;-)