[Feature] Allow Owners to lock diabled caches for logs of type "Found"

[+nah&fern]

Implementation:

 

- new logtype for owners: 'Lock cache against "Found it" logs"', respective 'Unlock...'

- applicable to disabled caches

- optionally, allow owners to automatically disable&lock a caches for a specified period of time each year

 

Rationale:

 

Sometimes, an owner disables a cache temporarily to protect its location. For instance, because local nature protection laws might forbid access to the area during a specified time period each year. Or because the owner got notified that some animals might be disturbed, e.g. birds breeding near the cache container. Etc.

 

With the current implementation, geocachers which search for a disabled cache can still log this as "Found" and therefore have no incentive to stay away from the cache location. Removing the cache temporarily is not allways an option, because the owner might not be able to remove the cache in time respective without causing a disturbance himself. Even if the cache container has been removed, some geocachers might bring their own cache container/logbook to claim a "found". Or cachers might try to log a "Found" with just a photo. All of this has happened to "disabled" caches.

 

But with a cache listing clearly visisble locked against "Found" logs, there would be an big incentive not to search such a cache, and instead to wait for the cache to be enabled again.

 

Optionally, it would be helpful for owners to be able specify a period of the year in which a cache should be disabled/locked automatically. Therefore, it could be ensured that this happens duly each year.

Edited December 18, 2012 by nah&fern

[+niraD]

I like the idea of being able to schedule the automatic disabling of a cache during sensitive times of the year. I know there are caches in areas that allow visitors (including geocachers) only during certain times of the year, and the owners of these caches could find such a schedule feature useful.

 

But I'm not sure how useful it would be to lock such caches, in addition to disabling them. If someone has already entered the area out of season, wouldn't they be more likely to just wait until the cache is unlocked? If someone is planning to enter the area out of season, wouldn't they be more likely to just wait until the cache is unlocked?

[+T.D.M.22]

I like the idea as well but I see one big problem; The "official unwritten rule" seems to be that if you sign the logbook you can claim a find on a cache-it being not yet published(have to wait until it's published) accidental finds, or a basic member logging a PMO cache. I think it would go the same as disabled caches-if the cache is there and you find it you can log it. And the fact that not everyone logs right away. Some may even forget about it until a month or more after. Perhaps a feature to change the co-ords when it is disabled would be better-unless they already have the location-it would prevent them from going into the cache area and possible hazards such as construction, or wildlife.

[+KreuterFee]

i like this feature too, because many areas in nature are sensible at certain seasons, or an area arround a cache should become some time to regenerate.

To remove the Logbook is only one side to protect the location, the other side is to allow the Cacheowner to lock the ability for cachers to log online.

Cachers trying to find the logbook at the location often ignore, that the cache is disable for some reason, in some cases they dropping a new logbook at the area, so they are allowed to log "found" online.

[+nah&fern]

The idea is: even if locking can not be 100% effective, it will still keep most cachers from entering the area. It sends a much stronger message than just a "disable".

 

By the way: if a well-known cache has some serious problems, reviewers often do not only "disable" a cache it but "lock" it as well. This happens with the same idea in mind: to prevent a rush of cachers which have it on their "to-do list".

 

Additionally, a cache which is locked against "Found" logs would protect the owner from trouble which can occur if his cache gets logged in a period with access restrictions.

[+Starglider]

I support this suggestion.

 

But why should a cache owner need to lock a disabled cache? Why the extra step?

When i disable a cache it is for a good reason so I don't see why a cache should be disabled but not locked for find logs.

 

I would find it more logical if it was always impossible to log a disabled cache as found.

This would be easier to implement since it would not require a "lock this disabled chace for finds"-Button.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Starglider

[+niraD]

When i disable a cache it is for a good reason so I don't see why a cache should be disabled but not locked for find logs.

Not everyone logs finds immediately with a smartphone in the field. Some people log finds later (e.g., using field notes and a computer with a real keyboard). Sometimes, it's later the same day. Sometimes, it's a few days later, or a week or two later. I know people who are (or who have been) months behind on their logging.

 

Given the hassle of unlocking a cache so these people can log it online, is it worth locking every disabled cache as soon as you disable it? Is it worth locking every disabled cache at all?

[+Starglider]

When i disable a cache it is for a good reason so I don't see why a cache should be disabled but not locked for find logs.

Not everyone logs finds immediately with a smartphone in the field.

You are assuming that this kind of lock would make it impossible to log finds for dates before the cache was disabled.

[+niraD]

You are assuming that this kind of lock would make it impossible to log finds for dates before the cache was disabled.

Fair enough. I was assuming that this kind of lock would work the way the current locks work.

 

So what do you expect someone who found the cache while it was disabled to do? Do you expect them to forgo the smiley? Or do you expect them to log their find on a date before the cache was disabled?

[+KreuterFee]

You are assuming that this kind of lock would make it impossible to log finds for dates before the cache was disabled.

Fair enough. I was assuming that this kind of lock would work the way the current locks work.

 

So what do you expect someone who found the cache while it was disabled to do? Do you expect them to forgo the smiley? Or do you expect them to log their find on a date before the cache was disabled?

 

If someone decide to lock a cache for founds, he must remove the logbook too.

The People with unlogged founds, have then to wait until the Owner unlock the Cache.

[+Schmiitt]

So what do you expect someone who found the cache while it was disabled to do? Do you expect them to forgo the smiley? Or do you expect them to log their find on a date before the cache was disabled?

It is about to lessen the incentive to visiting the area during a certain period of time. A lot of people won't go there if they can't log the cache. Some people will go there anyway.

 

I support the idea.

[AZcachemeister]

I don't think it will help the situation.

Some people will have old data in their GPSr/phone/PDA, and not know the cache is disabled. They could go to the 'off-limits' area anyway and find the cache.

They won't know it's disabled and locked until they get home to log the find, but the 'damage' is already done.

Even if the cache is archived won't prevent 'stale data' cachers from visiting.

 

I suggest making the cache a multi, and removing a preliminary stage (or two) so the final location isn't revealed and can't be reached until it is OK to do so.

[+Der Zappo]

I like the idea as well but I see one big problem; The "official unwritten rule" seems to be that if you sign the logbook you can claim a find on a cache-

The official rule also says : local laws must be followed.

If the Cache is locked from time to time because of local laws doesn´t allow trespassing, there exists i.m.o. no right to log. Cause you had not the right to be on the place.

 

Its really foolish, to urge the Owner to act within the law , without giving him any TOOL to ensure this.

And its also foolish, to allow stupid searching cachers to log in FORBIDDEN times - and to punish the OWNER.

 

This is just another proof, that GC isnt able to ensure the lowest requirements for handling "geocaching". It seems, that no one ther thinks about the easiest things.

 

Greetings

 

Zappo

[+Der Zappo]

Some people will have old data in their GPSr/phone/PDA, and not know the cache is disabled. They could go to the 'off-limits' area anyway and find the cache.

They won't know it's disabled and locked until they get home to log the find, but the 'damage' is already done.

First: If someone goes on the road without a current listing, its HIS fault.

Second: If there exists a law, whitch doesnt allow tresspassing by time to time, this is not written everywhere outside on each caves entrance.

Its common to "civilian" people, to be informed abaout the actual law - and to act according to it.

 

Nevertheless - its MY Cache - and if its MY opinion, to lock it from time to time - depending par example from a situation at the cache- , it would be usefull to have any tool.

 

Greets

 

Zappo

[+OHail]

<snip>

First: If someone goes on the road without a current listing, its HIS fault.

 

Not always. Everyone does not have the ability to get notifications while on the road or sets them up if one has the capability. Also, I have found some caches which were active when I loaded my GPSr the night before I went out and found them the next day only to discover they had been disabled or archived by the time I got back home.

[+Der Zappo]

....Not always......

OK, "not always" is definitely right. But it seems to me, that the situation "today looked at, tomorrow disabled" is an exception. But I fear, this theme is a little bit off topic.

 

I prefere the solution:

 

"Please connect the "disable" funktion with an automatic impossibilty to log "found".

 

This seems to me easy to solve - and easy to understand.

 

Gruß

 

Zappo

[+Starglider]

So what do you expect someone who found the cache while it was disabled to do? Do you expect them to forgo the smiley? Or do you expect them to log their find on a date before the cache was disabled?

The "it's all about the numbers" kind of geocacher will log the find on a different date, no doubt.

There is no way to keep these people from visiting a cache.

Even if you remove the logbook some will bring their own film can and still log a find.

If you remove stages of a multicache some will know ways to get the missing information.

 

But in case of places that are illegal to visit at certain times of the year you can at least prevent the online logs that

encourage other geocachers to do the same things and that show the whole world where and when geocachers break the law.

[+Schmiitt]

I don't think it will help the situation.

Some people will have old data in their GPSr/phone/PDA, and not know the cache is disabled. They could go to the 'off-limits' area anyway and find the cache.

No. Or at least almost. If the GPX data include the dates than the GPSr/phone/PDA can (after an software update) react automatically to this information and disable the cache without any internet connection.

Of course there are two variables.

* How old are your GPX data? (With or without the date)

* Is your GPSr/phone/PDA able to evaluate this information?

That's all.

[AZcachemeister]

Some people will have old data in their GPSr/phone/PDA, and not know the cache is disabled. They could go to the 'off-limits' area anyway and find the cache.

They won't know it's disabled and locked until they get home to log the find, but the 'damage' is already done.

First: If someone goes on the road without a current listing, its HIS fault.

Second: If there exists a law, whitch doesnt allow tresspassing by time to time, this is not written everywhere outside on each caves entrance.

Its common to "civilian" people, to be informed abaout the actual law - and to act according to it.

 

Nevertheless - its MY Cache - and if its MY opinion, to lock it from time to time - depending par example from a situation at the cache- , it would be usefull to have any tool.

 

Greets

 

Zappo

 

Yes, if my data is stale/old, it is my fault.

 

But, it would be my own ethics that stop me from entering...not the fact that the cache was disabled and locked...which I wouldn't know about until I got home.

[+tozainamboku]

The main issue I have with suggestions like this it that it reinforces the idea that the online find log is some kind of reward for finding a cache. I know that some people are motivated by the smiley and that a tiny number may even think that the smiley is so valuable that they should break laws or local regulations. But to lock the cache to prevent a log only reinforces that misguided view. It isn't going to stop someone looking for the cache and either backdating the find or waiting till the listing is unlocked to record the find.

 

Disabling a cache with a note indicating it should not be hunted should be more than enough to let people know that an area is closed. If you feel you must do more, just post a note after someone logs pointing out that they went into a closed area and not only risked getting in trouble themselves, but possibly a black-eye for all geocachers with the land manager.

 

I had a cache in a closed area once that was found by some volunteers who were patrolling the area for the forest service. They were finding many of the caches in the area, especially those on or near the fire roads they were patrolling. I couldn't imagine locking the listing and preventing those finds.

[+BlueDeuce]

Exactly.

[+Don_J]

When i disable a cache it is for a good reason so I don't see why a cache should be disabled but not locked for find logs.

Not everyone logs finds immediately with a smartphone in the field. Some people log finds later (e.g., using field notes and a computer with a real keyboard). Sometimes, it's later the same day. Sometimes, it's a few days later, or a week or two later. I know people who are (or who have been) months behind on their logging.

 

Given the hassle of unlocking a cache so these people can log it online, is it worth locking every disabled cache as soon as you disable it? Is it worth locking every disabled cache at all?

 

Additionally, some of us a very careful to log our caches in the order that we find them. This keeps certain statistic accurate. Even if I'm only one day behind in logging, If I can't log a cache because the owner locked it, I can't log any of the caches that I found after that cache. Its sounds like a good idea, but in reality there are too many stumbling blocks to overcome.

[+Don_J]

....Not always......

OK, "not always" is definitely right. But it seems to me, that the situation "today looked at, tomorrow disabled" is an exception. But I fear, this theme is a little bit off topic.

 

I prefere the solution:

 

"Please connect the "disable" funktion with an automatic impossibilty to log "found".

 

This seems to me easy to solve - and easy to understand.

 

Gruß

 

Zappo

 

What if I'm spending five days in the desert, camping and finding caches? I don't have the ability to refresh my data or log my caches until I am back at home. I'll point out what has already been pointed out, not all of us have smartphones, or travel with wifi enabled laptops. We do not have instant access to fresh data. Telling me that I have to wait to log a cache that I have legitimately found, is just not going to fly.

[+Schmiitt]

What if I'm spending five days in the desert, camping and finding caches? I don't have the ability to refresh my data or log my caches until I am back at home. I'll point out what has already been pointed out, not all of us have smartphones, or travel with wifi enabled laptops. We do not have instant access to fresh data. Telling me that I have to wait to log a cache that I have legitimately found, is just not going to fly.

Again, if your (then old) data will contain the locking date then your GPS device will automatically show you the lock state!

btw you didn't find the cache legitimately because you had no right to enter the area.

[+Der Zappo]

.....What if I'm spending five days in the desert, camping and finding caches? I don't have the ability to refresh my data or log my caches until I am back at home. I'll point out what has already been pointed out, not all of us have smartphones, or travel with wifi enabled laptops. We do not have instant access to fresh data. Telling me that I have to wait to log a cache that I have legitimately found, is just not going to fly.....

...not all of us have smartphones - ok. Me too. I also spend sometimes a few days each year in the woods, where I cannot refresh my dates.

So - if any area will be forbidden during these days, I have no chance to recognize. If it not depends on a seasonal law, which I had to know.

 

So far, so good.

 

But - if sh*t happens, and I enter a forbidden area - would it be better, if I sign my fault in a log? At home - where I DO have refreshed dates?

 

And as an Owner: We do have a agreement with the landowner, that the cache is ok, but should be disabled for environmental reasons from time to time. How can I guarantee this whithout having a tool?

 

And why is in this case the Owner the one, who gets the punishment? And not the logger?

 

Gruß Zappo

Edited December 20, 2012 by Der Zappo

[+Don_J]

What if I'm spending five days in the desert, camping and finding caches? I don't have the ability to refresh my data or log my caches until I am back at home. I'll point out what has already been pointed out, not all of us have smartphones, or travel with wifi enabled laptops. We do not have instant access to fresh data. Telling me that I have to wait to log a cache that I have legitimately found, is just not going to fly.

Again, if your (then old) data will contain the locking date then your GPS device will automatically show you the lock state!

btw you didn't find the cache legitimately because you had no right to enter the area.

 

First, I don't know of any GPS device that does that. Second, my 60CS sure the heck doesn't. You can twist it any way you like, but it's a good idea that has bad consequences. Luckily, despite all of the discussion, Groundspeak is not likely to ever implement such an idea.

 

Edit to Add: I am talking a about a situation where I did find the cache before the so called cut off date, but could not attempt to log it until after that date. In the case of an extended vacation, that is more than possible.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Don_J

[AZcachemeister]

I still assert that making it a multi (and removing stage 1 when the cache is disabled) is the ONLY reliable way to prevent cachers from (accidentally or intentionally) visiting the sensitive area in the off season.

 

I would also say that if simply disabling the cache when it should not be visited is not preventing cachers from going there anyway, you should probably archive the cache.

[+niraD]

I still assert that making it a multi (and removing stage 1 when the cache is disabled) is the ONLY reliable way to prevent cachers from (accidentally or intentionally) visiting the sensitive area in the off season.

That isn't even 100% certain. I've taken multiple trips to find some of the multi-caches I've found. I've had a multi-cache archived after I got the final coordinates from stage 1, but before I ever searched for the final. It's possible for someone to get the coordinates during the open season, and return to search for the final during the off season.

[+MAntunes]

...

 

I would also say that if simply disabling the cache when it should not be visited is not preventing cachers from going there anyway, you should probably archive the cache.

 

Even with the archival of the cache listing it is not possible to prevent visitors to go to the site and to log the find, if the container is still in the place.

 

I think that the best to do, without giving up of the cache, is to add visible information in the cache listing, and in owner's maintenance logs, that the site should not be visited at specific times of the year. And warn local authorities/land managers that some less civilized persons - geocachers or not - may not completely follow the site access restrictions.

 

If this is not a solution, then archive the cache and remove the container. A cache is not more important than the respect for Nature or other type of site constraints - religious, cultural, historic , etc...

[+Der Zappo]

....I think that the best to do, without giving up of the cache, is to add visible information in the cache listing, and in owner's maintenance logs, that the site should not be visited at specific times of the year. And warn local authorities/land managers that some less civilized persons - geocachers or not - may not completely follow the site access restrictions....

 

The notice in the listing doesnt stop cachers from searching. I often think, no one reads listings.

 

But the facts are: A less civilized cacher searches and logs a cache during the disable-time, which was written in the listing. And then - the Reviewer archives the cache. So its the Owner, who gets the punishment. And the logger, who has definitely broke the law and the rules of geocaching will go on whithout any restriction.

 

I think, thats not fair. For the Owner, but also for the others civilized cachers, that follow the rules.

 

.... A cache is not more important than the respect for Nature or other type of site constraints - religious, cultural, historic , etc...

Right. But a cache is one of the ways, to point at these locations - with a listing, that contains the rules, which are useful at this place. And with a community, which is able to respect these rules. And THATS the Problem.

 

Gruß Zappo

[team tisri]

The idea is: even if locking can not be 100% effective, it will still keep most cachers from entering the area. It sends a much stronger message than just a "disable".

 

By the way: if a well-known cache has some serious problems, reviewers often do not only "disable" a cache it but "lock" it as well. This happens with the same idea in mind: to prevent a rush of cachers which have it on their "to-do list".

 

Additionally, a cache which is locked against "Found" logs would protect the owner from trouble which can occur if his cache gets logged in a period with access restrictions.

 

I can't help thinking that the people it would deter are most likely to be the ones who would see a disabled cache and not go looking for it.

 

Deleting the logs could work but all it means is those who are so inclined will wait and log the find later.

 

One problem that none of these proposed solutions will address is how to deal with the holiday cacher who is using a pocket query several days old and who hasn't seen the update to the cache page to show it shouldn't be sought due to a restriction. If the restriction isn't apparent on the ground then you've got a situation where a cacher hunted and found a cache in good faith but is then denied their smiley for what becomes little more than political reasons.

 

If the restriction is apparent on the ground then anyone who presses on regardless deserves to forfeit their smiley.

[+Schmiitt]

First, I don't know of any GPS device that does that. Second, my 60CS sure the heck doesn't. You can twist it any way you like, but it's a good idea that has bad consequences. Luckily, despite all of the discussion, Groundspeak is not likely to ever implement such an idea.

No current available software does that. But if the information was available the apps/GPSr could implement this feature too.

btw I do not see any bad consequences!

[+Schmiitt]

One problem that none of these proposed solutions will address is how to deal with the holiday cacher who is using a pocket query several days old and who hasn't seen the update to the cache page to show it shouldn't be sought due to a restriction. If the restriction isn't apparent on the ground then you've got a situation where a cacher hunted and found a cache in good faith but is then denied their smiley for what becomes little more than political reasons.

Kidding? The whole thread is about that. If the dates are available in the listing (i.e. defined data area/GPX tag) than every pocket query would contain the information. No matter how the pocket query is. And the updated software could automatically evaluate this information.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I like the idea as well but I see one big problem; The "official unwritten rule" seems to be that if you sign the logbook you can claim a find on a cache-it being not yet published(have to wait until it's published) accidental finds, or a basic member logging a PMO cache. I think it would go the same as disabled caches-if the cache is there and you find it you can log it.

 

In the context of this suggestion we're talking about caches that are temporarily disabled because, effectively the land manager has withdrawn permission to access the area where the cache is located. That would mean that finding a way to sign the log would most likely require trespassing. Yes, there is the guideline which states that if the physical log has been signed that the cache can be logged online. There's also the geocachers creed which states that we should observe all laws & rules of the area and respect property rights.

 

One would hope that a feature which allows a cache owner to lock out found it logs while a cache is disabled wouldn't be necessary, but I would support the idea of providing a mechanism for a CO to temporarily lock the listing from found it logs if necessary.

[+niraD]

Well, if you're requesting an update to the GPX format, then good luck. There are a few other features that a lot of people have wanted for a while, that are waiting for an update to the GPX format that was promised earlier this year.

 

And an update to the GPX format won't help those with older devices. They'll either download their PQs in the older formats, or they'll download their PQs in the new format and their devices will ignore the new data fields.

 

I still think disabling the cache is your best bet. If you want extra assurance, then disable it a week or so before people need to stop searching for the cache.

[+Don_J]

First, I don't know of any GPS device that does that. Second, my 60CS sure the heck doesn't. You can twist it any way you like, but it's a good idea that has bad consequences. Luckily, despite all of the discussion, Groundspeak is not likely to ever implement such an idea.

No current available software does that. But if the information was available the apps/GPSr could implement this feature too.

btw I do not see any bad consequences!

 

What apps. My GPSr does not have a app. Third time, NOT EVERYONE HAS A SMARTPHONE!

 

There are hundreds of handheld GPS models. Do you expect the manufacturers to upgrade the firmware on all of them, just to keep some guy who doesn't read cache pages or signs on the ground, out of a park after it's closed for the season?

 

You guys are trying to change the world over what looks like to be a local issue.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

One problem that none of these proposed solutions will address is how to deal with the holiday cacher who is using a pocket query several days old and who hasn't seen the update to the cache page to show it shouldn't be sought due to a restriction. If the restriction isn't apparent on the ground then you've got a situation where a cacher hunted and found a cache in good faith but is then denied their smiley for what becomes little more than political reasons.

Kidding? The whole thread is about that. If the dates are available in the listing (i.e. defined data area/GPX tag) than every pocket query would contain the information. No matter how the pocket query is. And the updated software could automatically evaluate this information.

 

Don't hold your breath. We've been waiting four years for the new GPX version and a revision of the PQ page. Again, suppose that they do add an "auto-disable" date to the GPX. What the heck are the majority of handheld GPS units going to do with it?

 

BTW, the day that my GPS unit tells me that I'm not allowed to set a waypoint, I'm throwing it in the trash. This is one of those ideas that will have almost no effect on those that are intent on breaking the rules, yet becomes highly restrictive on those that follow them. I don't need you, your cache page, my GPS or anyone else to tell me the difference between right and wrong. If the sign says, "No Entry after Nov 1", and I'm reading it on Nov 2, I don't need my GPS to tell me that I should not enter.

[+Don_J]

I like the idea as well but I see one big problem; The "official unwritten rule" seems to be that if you sign the logbook you can claim a find on a cache-it being not yet published(have to wait until it's published) accidental finds, or a basic member logging a PMO cache. I think it would go the same as disabled caches-if the cache is there and you find it you can log it.

 

In the context of this suggestion we're talking about caches that are temporarily disabled because, effectively the land manager has withdrawn permission to access the area where the cache is located. That would mean that finding a way to sign the log would most likely require trespassing. Yes, there is the guideline which states that if the physical log has been signed that the cache can be logged online. There's also the geocachers creed which states that we should observe all laws & rules of the area and respect property rights.

 

One would hope that a feature which allows a cache owner to lock out found it logs while a cache is disabled wouldn't be necessary, but I would support the idea of providing a mechanism for a CO to temporarily lock the listing from found it logs if necessary.

 

If the manager has withdrawn permission, archive the cache. If the area has a re-occurring extended period where it is off limits, perhaps a cache isn't needed there. Or the cache can be archived and unarchived by the reviewer when needed. Personally, if I were in this situation, I would archive the cache and then set up an identical listing with a reviewer note stating that the area is closed until such date and the cache will be submitted then.

[team tisri]

One problem that none of these proposed solutions will address is how to deal with the holiday cacher who is using a pocket query several days old and who hasn't seen the update to the cache page to show it shouldn't be sought due to a restriction. If the restriction isn't apparent on the ground then you've got a situation where a cacher hunted and found a cache in good faith but is then denied their smiley for what becomes little more than political reasons.

Kidding? The whole thread is about that. If the dates are available in the listing (i.e. defined data area/GPX tag) than every pocket query would contain the information. No matter how the pocket query is. And the updated software could automatically evaluate this information.

 

Don't hold your breath. We've been waiting four years for the new GPX version and a revision of the PQ page. Again, suppose that they do add an "auto-disable" date to the GPX. What the heck are the majority of handheld GPS units going to do with it?

 

BTW, the day that my GPS unit tells me that I'm not allowed to set a waypoint, I'm throwing it in the trash. This is one of those ideas that will have almost no effect on those that are intent on breaking the rules, yet becomes highly restrictive on those that follow them. I don't need you, your cache page, my GPS or anyone else to tell me the difference between right and wrong. If the sign says, "No Entry after Nov 1", and I'm reading it on Nov 2, I don't need my GPS to tell me that I should not enter.

 

GPX or no GPX this is pretty much what I'm saying (although I also agree that the GPX file format is unlikely to change and even if it did the change does nothing to reach those with older units and who don't use smartphone apps)

 

If I've got a hugely long cache page that says somewhere in the text "Don't hunt in November because the area is closed" there's a good chance I won't see it if I'm skimming the cache page in the field. If I get to a park entrance and it says "PARK CLOSED - DO NOT ENTER" then I won't enter whatever the cache page says. If it looks like a public park and doesn't have anything obvious on the ground to say I'm not allowed in then the chances are I'll look for the cache.

 

Ultimately those who cache with a bit of common sense and personal responsibility (which is probably the vast majority of cachers) don't need to be told not to enter a park that's obviously closed. Those who lack common sense and personal responsibility will see a cache listing and figure that it might be two days into the closed season but it's just them and they'll just nip in and grab the cache and it will be OK.

 

This change doesn't seem to be necessary for caches placed in hunting grounds in the US where doing stupid stuff at the wrong time could result in being mistaken for a deer and shot, so I'm not sure why it's necessary anywhere else.

 

It's probably also worth noting (and maybe even making it part of a formal response to a landowner withdrawing permission) that the site will be updated but the most likely outcome is a tapering off of visitors rather than an instant cessation, simply because people won't know the cache is gone until they update their PQs or recheck the web site.

[AZcachemeister]

Implementation:

 

- new logtype for owners: 'Lock cache against "Found it" logs"', respective 'Unlock...'

- applicable to disabled caches

- optionally, allow owners to automatically disable&lock a caches for a specified period of time each year

 

Rationale:

 

Sometimes, an owner disables a cache temporarily to protect its location. For instance, because local nature protection laws might forbid access to the area during a specified time period each year. Or because the owner got notified that some animals might be disturbed, e.g. birds breeding near the cache container. Etc.

 

With the current implementation, geocachers which search for a disabled cache can still log this as "Found" and therefore have no incentive to stay away from the cache location. Removing the cache temporarily is not allways an option, because the owner might not be able to remove the cache in time respective without causing a disturbance himself. Even if the cache container has been removed, some geocachers might bring their own cache container/logbook to claim a "found". Or cachers might try to log a "Found" with just a photo. All of this has happened to "disabled" caches.

 

But with a cache listing clearly visisble locked against "Found" logs, there would be an big incentive not to search such a cache, and instead to wait for the cache to be enabled again.

 

Optionally, it would be helpful for owners to be able specify a period of the year in which a cache should be disabled/locked automatically. Therefore, it could be ensured that this happens duly each year.

 

There is a similar situation in rock climbing, where certain crags are closed due to nesting raptors. The guidebooks clearly state the closure dates, but nobody 'owns' the climbing routes. If you are caught climbing there at the wrong time, you get a ticket with a hefty fine. You still climbed the route, and can check it onto your 'done' list.

 

In the case Der Zappo describes, the land manager must understand there is only so much a Geocache owner can do to prevent Geocaching visits to the site. If they cannot accept this, permission should not be granted in the first place. Certainly the location exists all the time, and people other than Geocachers can find out about it and perhaps visit illegally? Would the land manager expect you to become the security guard in exchange for permission for the cache?

 

While the ability for the owner to lock a cache from logs could provide an extra level of warning in some cases, I think there is an unacceptable potential for abuse by cachers locking a cache to prevent logs by someone they don't like, or perhaps turning a cache into an ALR or code-word cache where the listing is only unlocked briefly for certain VIP cachers to log it.

 

Since a reviewer can lock a listing, perhaps the best option is to get them involved...in which case it would at least always be done fairly. I don't know if a reviewer lock can be reversed, so maybe that isn't an option.