Jump to content

Disabled cache


dr.gumpi
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Hi! Recently there has been a new cache publish in my vicinity. As the first stage disappeared before the first discovery, the owner has disabel it. Later, she set a new first stage and published coordinates in performed maintenance log, but then deleted it. Because some of us got notification of new coordinates and downloaded pq with her log, then went and actually find cache at the final stage where we also enroll in logbook. Despite over 3500 founds, this was the first time for me that the owner deleted found it log with the argument that we can not find and log finds of the cache, which was disabled. Groundspeak rules are that you can log "found it" on geocaching site if you actually find the cache and physical sign in the logbook. There are no other conditions. We did that, of course, after we got notification of new coordinates on which we relied on. Who's got right?

Link to comment

You found it didn't you? As long as your signature is in the logbook it doesn't matter if it's disabled or not. Even if you somehow come along the final and skip 2 other stages it's still a find. If you're that worried contact Groundspeak and they'll re-insate it. But if her issue is you logged it when it was disabled why not wait until she enables it. That's the simplest thing, and won't get her mad at you for "telling on her"

 

It's not like you have to go find it again, just log it again.

Link to comment

Good question.

 

There's no right answer I know of, unless Groundspeak have a view on that particular scenario. If cachers are threatening to not let finds stand, it may be Groundspeak that decides ultimately.

 

I suspect opinion in this thread will be divided (as ever) I really am not sure - I can see it from both sides. I'm erring toward letting the finds stand.

Link to comment

There is no problem with logging a disabled cache. Happens all the time. I did it last month because the PQ was a few weeks old. Email appeals@geocaching.com and they will reinstall and lock your log.

Agreed. And it's not clear from question, but it sounds as if he was with a group that may have gotten the FTF. All the more reason to appeal. The unreasonable one is the CO - since it was archived shortly after, why delete the log? It was physically found and the log was signed. Ta-da! A smiley! :)

Link to comment

And it's not clear from question, but it sounds as if he was with a group that may have gotten the FTF.

 

Yes, thats right. There is a huge discussin and a lot of arguing about it. Here is the cache: http://coord.info/GC4XCXJ Is in slovenian language, but google translate is a miracolous tool :D There are the people who found the cache and many other cachers on one side and the owner on the other :blink: .

Link to comment

And it's not clear from question, but it sounds as if he was with a group that may have gotten the FTF.

 

Yes, thats right. There is a huge discussin and a lot of arguing about it. Here is the cache: http://coord.info/GC4XCXJ Is in slovenian language, but google translate is a miracolous tool :D There are the people who found the cache and many other cachers on one side and the owner on the other :blink: .

Cache page looks like a drama-rant-fest, now it spilled into the forums. :lol:

Link to comment

As long as your signature is in the logbook it doesn't matter if it's disabled or not.

 

I'm not 100% sure that applies if it's disabled?

 

And why not? If they didn't want people to log archived and disabled caches, you wouldn't be able to log them. That's all the proof that's needed for my point.

Link to comment

And it's not clear from question, but it sounds as if he was with a group that may have gotten the FTF.

 

Yes, thats right. There is a huge discussin and a lot of arguing about it. Here is the cache: http://coord.info/GC4XCXJ Is in slovenian language, but google translate is a miracolous tool :D There are the people who found the cache and many other cachers on one side and the owner on the other :blink: .

 

I just want to point out the incredible joy I got out of reading the cache page after Chrome translated it to English. I hope that you work out your dispute with the cache-owner (it seems as though you have the upper-hand, sign log-get smiley). I do thank you for the enjoyable read.

Link to comment

And it's not clear from question, but it sounds as if he was with a group that may have gotten the FTF.

 

Yes, thats right. There is a huge discussin and a lot of arguing about it. Here is the cache: http://coord.info/GC4XCXJ Is in slovenian language, but google translate is a miracolous tool :D There are the people who found the cache and many other cachers on one side and the owner on the other :blink: .

Cache page looks like a drama-rant-fest, now it spilled into the forums. :lol:

15 long notes in a row is definitely a rant-fest, & I can say that without speaking Slovenian! :omnomnom:

 

We had a nice rant-fest near here over a pre-publication FTF, & guess what? A reviewer jumped in, locked the listing for a 2-day "cool-down," recommended deleting the debate-logs (which the CO did), & generally sanitized the whole thing.

 

In other words, the truly interesting cache history was rewritten, Khrushchev-style. I disagree with that. If you like squeaky-clean, go to Disney's Magic Kingdom.

 

Dr. Gumpi, I commend you and the Slovenian reviewers for NOT following Khrushchev's example!

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds. If it is archived, then the CO also may delete finds, although they need to remove the container to stop it. Being disabled for other reasons is a grey area, but if they post that it is not findable, then the note should be respected. Disabled for maintenance? Log it. In this case it sounds like fair game. The app has a pop up that states, "This is not findable at this time", but will still navigate to it afterwards.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds.

Since this is hypothetical, what if someone visited using a PQ from yesterday when the cache was still enabled, didn't know it had been disabled for any of these reasons, and finds it. Would it be valid to delete their log?

 

Disabled for maintenance? Log it. In this case it sounds like fair game.

Agreed.

Link to comment

Did the cache Owner accidentally post the final coordinates to a Multicache to a log, then delete the log? You got the notification and went and found the cache? Yes, if you found the cache and signed the log, you are entitled to log it online. In all fairness, I would do the multi as intended and not rely on a mistake by the CO just to log another cache.

Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds. If it is archived, then the CO also may delete finds, although they need to remove the container to stop it. Being disabled for other reasons is a grey area, but if they post that it is not findable, then the note should be respected. Disabled for maintenance? Log it. In this case it sounds like fair game. The app has a pop up that states, "This is not findable at this time", but will still navigate to it afterwards.

 

I would think that if a caches is disabled rather than archived due to environmental issues, or lack of permission, or whatever, that it would be the CO's job to say why it is disabled on the cache page. Simply saying "disabled" or "I have to move it" is not sufficient. That could mean the CO has to put in a new logbook or that it's on private property with no permission and the landowner will shoot whoever comes to find it. Those reasons still don't warrant a log deletion, because the cacher would then know of the risks/problems, and the cacher chooses to break the law to find it(trespassing, entering a park after hours for example) otherwise any law broken could warrant a log deletion. Roll through a stop sign? Speed? Park in a no parking zone? Log deletion.

 

The cacher either caches knowing they could be breaking a law, and does it anyway, or inadvertently breaks the law.

 

As it was pointed out, even archived caches can be logged. If you don't want someone to find your cache, don't have the cache there to find.

Edited by T.D.M.22
Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds.

Since this is hypothetical, what if someone visited using a PQ from yesterday when the cache was still enabled, didn't know it had been disabled for any of these reasons, and finds it. Would it be valid to delete their log?

 

The finder is the only one responsible for their own behavior. It is their job to make sure the cache is active before finding it. They may have a darn good excuse, but that doesn't make them any less responsible. Personally, I might let the log stand, but if a different CO decides to delete it, they probably would be within their right. Usually ignorance of any law may cause someone to give discretion, but cannot be used as a defense. If the CO disables it for spurious or nonlegal reasons, the log would likely stay. However only Groundspeak can answer on what conditions they would allow a log to stand.

Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds.

 

Nope. If it is not possible to get at the cache for those reasons, it should be either physically removed by the CO or archived. Disabled does not mean off-limits.

Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds. If it is archived, then the CO also may delete finds, although they need to remove the container to stop it. Being disabled for other reasons is a grey area, but if they post that it is not findable, then the note should be respected. Disabled for maintenance? Log it. In this case it sounds like fair game. The app has a pop up that states, "This is not findable at this time", but will still navigate to it afterwards.

 

I would think that if a caches is disabled rather than archived due to environmental issues, or lack of permission, or whatever, that it would be the CO's job to say why it is disabled on the cache page. Simply saying "disabled" or "I have to move it" is not sufficient. That could mean the CO has to put in a new logbook or that it's on private property with no permission and the landowner will shoot whoever comes to find it. Those reasons still don't warrant a log deletion, because the cacher would then know of the risks/problems, and the cacher chooses to break the law to find it(trespassing, entering a park after hours for example) otherwise any law broken could warrant a log deletion. Roll through a stop sign? Speed? Park in a no parking zone? Log deletion.

 

The cacher either caches knowing they could be breaking a law, and does it anyway, or inadvertently breaks the law.

 

As it was pointed out, even archived caches can be logged. If you don't want someone to find your cache, don't have the cache there to find.

 

There is a big difference between trespassing and breaking park rules, versus driving and parking offenses. Not just law breaking, but law associated with the property. Weighing the differences between respecting local laws and getting a smiley in an online game should not be too difficult.

Link to comment

I agree you have every right to log the smiley. However you have over 3500 finds. It would come down to how much you want the find. Are you willing to make a possible local cacher mad about it over 1 more smiley? Go threw all the trouble of contacting ground speak about it? I would also probably be upset about the time spent for nothing but if it was not for our streak or something would probably just let it go not to cause any trauma.

Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds.

 

Nope. If it is not possible to get at the cache for those reasons, it should be either physically removed by the CO or archived.

 

I agree.

 

Disabled does not mean off-limits.

 

Sometimes it does.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE-IMPORTANT NOTE-IMPORTANT NOTE

 

Roomy Mine is the home of hibernating mammals and should not be entered during fall and winter months. As such, do not seek this cache from Sept 1st through April 30th. Any logs during this time will be deleted. Entering the mine is illegal during this time and you may be subject to prosecution.

Link to comment

Thank you guys for all the answers. I send the question to the Groundspeak some days ago and I'm still waiting for their reply. And about the late discussion. The only reason that the cache was disabled, was beacause of the box on the first stage, which was muggled (stolen). Later, the owner, put another box on new location and when she was contacting the reviewer, the coordinates sliped in public. There was nothing against the law or some other (even geocaching) rules and its location with the first box and neither was with a new one.

Edited by dr.gumpi
Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds. If it is archived, then the CO also may delete finds, although they need to remove the container to stop it. Being disabled for other reasons is a grey area, but if they post that it is not findable, then the note should be respected. Disabled for maintenance? Log it. In this case it sounds like fair game. The app has a pop up that states, "This is not findable at this time", but will still navigate to it afterwards.

THIS!!!

 

Just because the cache is disabled doesnt mean you can keep on finding it or look for it!

 

When I was in the deep south, this cache was disable. So what did I do? I emailed the CO and told him there was some last minute plans and I just happen going to be in that area. He emailed me back and said come on down and find it. That cache was on my to do list for a long time and my parents change their plans to get on I-10(I was their driver) to head back to Oregon, so I was in the area to do it. To the CO that read this, again, thank you so much for letting me find it. You rock!

 

If he would had said No, I would wouldn't stop at New Orleans. Because he said yes, we had lunch there and over 50 bucks went into the area.

 

So my advice about finding disabled caches, email the CO first. It will go a long way.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

Thank you guys for all the answers. I send the question to the Groundspeak some days ago and I'm still waiting for their reply. And about the late discussion. The only reason that the cache was disabled, was beacause of the box on the first stage, which was muggled (stolen). Later, the owner, put another box on new location and when she was contacting the reviewer, the coordinates sliped in public. There was nothing against the law or some other (even geocaching) rules and its location with the first box and neither was with a new one.

I know a story very similar to yours and GS and the reviewer sided with the CO. :ph34r: I dont know what GS will do about this case, but I wont be surprise if they sided with the CO. Major gray line here.

Link to comment

Disabled could mean many things. Like has been mentioned in some of the posts, a disabled cache could be inappropriate to search for in some cases, but in others I think it's fine. Ok examples would be if the cache is disabled because the log is wet or the container is cracked. I see people logging caches like that all the time. The owner disables it as a courtesy to finders, until the owner can make a maintenance visit, but people can still find it and log it if they want.

Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds.

 

Nope. If it is not possible to get at the cache for those reasons, it should be either physically removed by the CO or archived. Disabled does not mean off-limits.

I know a case here... the cache is in a wildlife area for birds thats only open to the public once a week during the winter. Yes, the CO can delete your found it logs and the cache page is not disable. In the summer the cache is available 24/7. Its just a few months out of the years that cache is only available once a week.

Link to comment

If its disabled for being off limits, due to disturbing wildlife, trespassing, or legal reasons then the CO certainly can delete finds.

 

Nope. If it is not possible to get at the cache for those reasons, it should be either physically removed by the CO or archived.

 

I agree.

 

Disabled does not mean off-limits.

 

Sometimes it does.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE-IMPORTANT NOTE-IMPORTANT NOTE

 

Roomy Mine is the home of hibernating mammals and should not be entered during fall and winter months. As such, do not seek this cache from Sept 1st through April 30th. Any logs during this time will be deleted. Entering the mine is illegal during this time and you may be subject to prosecution.

 

Yes... we got a cache similar to that... http://coord.info/GC90D

 

It get disable every year. The way I read it, it should be disable right now.

 

No need to archived it.

 

Two cases here that its OFF LIMIT when the cache page said disabled.

 

I found more... a whole bunch of them all in one area is off limits. http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=43.923117&lng=-121.002483#?ll=43.923117,-121.002483&z=14 Many of them are disabled right now.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

The only reason that the cache was disabled, was beacause of the box on the first stage, which was muggled (stolen). Later, the owner, put another box on new location and when she was contacting the reviewer, the coordinates sliped in public. There was nothing against the law or some other (even geocaching) rules and its location with the first box and neither was with a new one.

 

If I understand the situation correctly (which I'm not sure of) I would feel ashamed to find a multi cache in this manner and would not even have visited the cache. I would have left the chance and time for the cache hider to move the cache again.

For me this is not a question of the guidelines and of logging disabled caches, it is one of geocaching ethics.

Not everything that can be done, needs to be done.

 

As logging disabled caches are regarded, there are many caches in my country that are disabled in Winter time due to hibernating bats. The cache containers stay there and the caches are just disabled. Logging such caches as found it would endager essentially almost all cave and tunnel caches.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Later, she set a new first stage and published coordinates in performed maintenance log, but then deleted it. Because some of us got notification of new coordinates and downloaded pq with her log, then went and actually find cache at the final stage where we also enroll in logbook.

 

We didn't know, that she deleted the maintenanace log, before we found the cache. So we went on the location in good faith. So I really don't know what could be here a problem from an ethical point of view?

Link to comment

We didn't know, that she deleted the maintenanace log, before we found the cache. So we went on the location in good faith. So I really don't know what could be here a problem from an ethical point of view?

 

But from the way her logs are formulated (the two you cite) it is quite evident that she chose the wrong log type and believed to talk to a reviewer without the other cachers seeing the log.

While that of course is her mistake, I still feel that an experienced and considerate cacher would write to the cache owner and tell her about the mistake and not run out and go find the cache.

 

I'm not saying that your found it log should not stand. I'm just saying that such a behaviour does not comply with me idea of geocaching ethics.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I agree you have every right to log the smiley. However you have over 3500 finds. It would come down to how much you want the find. Are you willing to make a possible local cacher mad about it over 1 more smiley? Go threw all the trouble of contacting ground speak about it? I would also probably be upset about the time spent for nothing but if it was not for our streak or something would probably just let it go not to cause any trauma.

You make a good point, but I think the same thinking goes double for the CO. Someone found the cache, possibly with the help of her slip up. Is that really such a big deal the she feels she has to annoy them by rejecting their finds?

Link to comment

Thank you guys for all the answers. I send the question to the Groundspeak some days ago and I'm still waiting for their reply. And about the late discussion. The only reason that the cache was disabled, was beacause of the box on the first stage, which was muggled (stolen). Later, the owner, put another box on new location and when she was contacting the reviewer, the coordinates sliped in public. There was nothing against the law or some other (even geocaching) rules and its location with the first box and neither was with a new one.

I know a story very similar to yours and GS and the reviewer sided with the CO. :ph34r: I dont know what GS will do about this case, but I wont be surprise if they sided with the CO. Major gray line here.

 

Really? I would think that if a cache owner accidentally revealed the final coordinates to their multicache, that's on them.

 

Regardless of what this CO said, it's obvious that they deleted the log because the OP didn't find the cache in the way that the CO intended.

Link to comment

The guidelines say as long as the log is signed, you can claim a find, the only exception is if the log is unsignable eg. wet.

Ever since the guidelines were changed to eliminate most ALRs, there has been, IMO, a total misunderstanding of the guidelines.

 

The guidelines basically forbid cache owners from creating additional requirements for an online log on a cache. They do not prevent cache owners from deleting logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. They most certainly don't require caches owners to delete logs simply because the physical log is unsigned and there is no enumeration of "excetptions" such as a physical log being wet.

 

What isn't clear is whether there may be cases where logging a find on a disabled that was knowingly found while disabled is an inappropriate or off-topic log. There have been numerous discussions about cachers who knowing violate local laws to find a cache and whether or not these logs should be allowed to stand, particularly when the online log flaunts that the finder broke laws.

 

The answer from Groundspeak:

 

"You are correct. If the log book has been signed, the smiley should stand. I have gone ahead and restored your log and will be reminding the geocache owner about logging guidelines."

I appears that in this case Groundspeak has chosen to side with the finder. I personally would have preferred that Groundspeak staid out of this fight, or had told the finder that even though the cache owner was being a jerk, the best approach would be to let it go. It is just one smiley and not worth the effort to fight over it.

 

When the no ALR rule was changed, I stated that Groundspeak had changed fundamentally how they would have to respond in disputes over found it logs. I suspect that now they have at least one full time customer service representative whose job is to restore deleted logs and send emails "reminding the geocache owner about logging guidelines".

 

Rather than geocachers learning to respect the cache owner's opinion about whether it is fair to find a multi when the coordinates of the final were accidentally leaked, or whether one should search for a geocache where the owner has told the land manager that the cache would be disabled during rutting season of the endangered big horn sheep; cachers are now taught to log finds anyhow, and quote the guidelines when a cache owner deletes the online find.

Link to comment

The guidelines say as long as the log is signed, you can claim a find, the only exception is if the log is unsignable eg. wet.

Ever since the guidelines were changed to eliminate most ALRs, there has been, IMO, a total misunderstanding of the guidelines.

 

The guidelines basically forbid cache owners from creating additional requirements for an online log on a cache. They do not prevent cache owners from deleting logs that are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. They most certainly don't require caches owners to delete logs simply because the physical log is unsigned and there is no enumeration of "excetptions" such as a physical log being wet.

 

What isn't clear is whether there may be cases where logging a find on a disabled that was knowingly found while disabled is an inappropriate or off-topic log. There have been numerous discussions about cachers who knowing violate local laws to find a cache and whether or not these logs should be allowed to stand, particularly when the online log flaunts that the finder broke laws.

 

The answer from Groundspeak:

 

"You are correct. If the log book has been signed, the smiley should stand. I have gone ahead and restored your log and will be reminding the geocache owner about logging guidelines."

I appears that in this case Groundspeak has chosen to side with the finder. I personally would have preferred that Groundspeak staid out of this fight, or had told the finder that even though the cache owner was being a jerk, the best approach would be to let it go. It is just one smiley and not worth the effort to fight over it.

 

When the no ALR rule was changed, I stated that Groundspeak had changed fundamentally how they would have to respond in disputes over found it logs. I suspect that now they have at least one full time customer service representative whose job is to restore deleted logs and send emails "reminding the geocache owner about logging guidelines".

 

Rather than geocachers learning to respect the cache owner's opinion about whether it is fair to find a multi when the coordinates of the final were accidentally leaked, or whether one should search for a geocache where the owner has told the land manager that the cache would be disabled during rutting season of the endangered big horn sheep; cachers are now taught to log finds anyhow, and quote the guidelines when a cache owner deletes the online find.

 

Personally, if I accidentally leaked the final coordinates to my multi, and I didn't want anyone to run out and log it, I'd move the darn thing. Since it was a brand new cache and apparently, no one had found the first stage, I wouldn't have to worry about anyone having the original final coordinates except for those that noted my mistake.

 

If I made a mistake that allowed someone to find my multi final while skipping other stages, I personally wouldn't fault anyone for taking advantage of that mistake.

 

To the OP, you got your log restored. I agree with Toz that in a perfect world, Groundspeak shouldn't have to get involved in these matters, but the fact is that there are some cache owners out there that seem to have control issues. I have never had one of my find logs deleted, so I honestly don't know if I could take the, "high road", if it were to happen to me, especially if my name is in the log book. If it did happen, I may just fight for that log as a matter of principle. Afterwards, I would not even bother to seek any other caches from that particular owner because it's inevitable that there will be a conflict in the future.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...