Jump to content

Logging virts that don't exist anymore?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I'm starting to see logs on old archived virtuals. I guess it's one thing if the object is still there, but I still think it's kind of cheesy, but when the object no longer exists?

 

What's wrong with that? Why just today I talked to someone who lives in a house that was torn down to make room for a parking lot. Ya, he sleeps in the 3rd floor bedroom :laughing:

 

I guess it's really no different than logging a cache that's not there, or leaving a throwdown...

Link to comment

Kinda like claiming a webcam when all you got is a selfie.

 

I guess if a person can justify to themselves why they deserve a smilie that's all that matters. It never ceases to amaze me what people can find ways to justify.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I've noticed this logging of archived caches (and uncirculated trackables) as well. I received a found log on one of our archived caches of a cacher who found a keychain on which the GC-code of this cache was printed. Of course this is the same as finding the cache that isn't there anymore without even being in the same country as the cache [;)].

 

I guess he just gave it a try to see whether his log would get deleted or not. I deleted his log, but probably lots of CO's won't bother, so this way they can score a lot of extra points/smileys for their statistics (sometimes needed for challenge caches). If you're having fun and that is your hobby instead of going out and find a real cache, why not? If an owner doesn't want these "logs" on his/her archived caches he should delete them. If Groundspeak doesn't want people to score points on archived caches they should simply lock them a month after archiving.

 

But we can give this cacher who "found" the virtual the benefit of the doubt: maybe he didn't notice the cache is archived, maybe he had it on his to do list all this time. According to the logging requirements the CO must have received an e-mail and since this CO is still active he can simply respond with a message to please delete the log since the cache isn't there and archived for several years now. I wonder what would happen next. If the CO did not receive an e-mail he should simply delete the log.

Link to comment

I'm starting to see logs on old archived virtuals. I guess it's one thing if the object is still there, but I still think it's kind of cheesy, but when the object no longer exists?

 

Maybe it's just a byproduct of challenge cache requirements, or of posting find counts for the more competitive types to obsess about them.

 

There are a few virtuals out there where the required information can be gleaned from logs or found using Street View. At least the guy you linked wrote a log as if he'd been to the site, is that really any different to the people who talk about how they "found the virtual as they were passing through" without actually going within 1000 miles of the place?

Link to comment

I'm starting to see logs on old archived virtuals. I guess it's one thing if the object is still there, but I still think it's kind of cheesy, but when the object no longer exists?

 

I've seen this on occasion, and more often on Earthcaches. Many old ones were archived when their owners failed to comply with coming up with an "educational task" when we were threatened with that in 2006 or 2007. But yes, quite cheesy if the object no longer exists.

Link to comment

I see many ownerless virts that are still active, why not just log them? I'm sure it's a all about the numbers thing. What I am seeing is virtual logs on my TB that are marked as missing. :laughing: I guess that is a different subject, but still virtually cheesey. B)

 

Yes, I received 4 logs like that on TBs which had disappeared 6 years ago. They never left the country and were logged from "an old list" on the other side of the world. I just deleted them.

Link to comment

I'm starting to see logs on old archived virtuals. I guess it's one thing if the object is still there, but I still think it's kind of cheesy, but when the object no longer exists?

 

Well, apparently Pete is obsessed with logging all old NJ virts. At least he's visiting the location. I was impressed when he was FTF on a cache that was archived for 7 years for having bad coords, but this is a little silly. :P

Link to comment

In fairness, I once logged an " archived" cache. It was in my PQ, I found the contianer and signed the log. When I went to log online, I found the status as " archived" Guess the Co had not yet picked up the container. :ph34r:

 

If I find an archived cache, and the CO failed to pick up the container and log, I would sign it and log it. That's a little different than an archived virtual that is no longer there. If I knew it was archived, I probably wouldn't be looking for it. However, if for some reason I knew it was archived but the container left out in the wilds, I would be inclined to remove the container.

Link to comment

I've seen this on occasion, and more often on Earthcaches. Many old ones were archived when their owners failed to comply with coming up with an "educational task" when we were threatened with that in 2006 or 2007. But yes, quite cheesy if the object no longer exists.

I think it's cheesy to log a "Found It" on an archived EarthCache or Virtual, even if the object still exists. I figure one reason why the owner might have archived the cache is because they no longer want to go to the trouble of verifying the finds, so I respect that.

Link to comment

I'm starting to see logs on old archived virtuals. I guess it's one thing if the object is still there, but I still think it's kind of cheesy, but when the object no longer exists?

 

Well, apparently Pete is obsessed with logging all old NJ virts. At least he's visiting the location. I was impressed when he was FTF on a cache that was archived for 7 years for having bad coords, but this is a little silly. :P

 

Seriously, what is the point of visiting a virtual if the object is no longer there? . I think virts are only tangentially related to geocaching in the first place, but at least with virts you use your GPS to find an object. There is a resemblance to geocaching. If that something is no longer there then I don't see how it can even be called geocaching. And how does one even send verification emails if the object isn't there anymore?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Seriously, what is the point of visiting a virtual if the object is no longer there? .

 

The point is, the location was still worth visiting.

 

Isn't what is supposed to make most virtuals worth visiting the object itself?

 

In the examples I linked to, one was a pen of ostriches in a suburban backyard. Kind of neat. The other was a fossil dinosaur footprint in front of a library. Without the ostriches, you just have someone's backyard. Without the fossil footprint all you have is non-descript sidewalk in front of a non-descript library. I noticed that cacher also logged another long gone virtual in my neighborhood. The original virtual was a 15 ft high replica of the Statue of Liberty on someone's front lawn. Kind of cool to see something like that. That has been gone for years and when he visited it all that was there was a flagpole. A flagpole on a suburban front lawn is really worth going out of your way to visit? Seriously?

 

I suspect this practice has absolutely nothing to do with finding locations worth visiting.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Seriously, what is the point of visiting a virtual if the object is no longer there? .

 

The point is, the location was still worth visiting.

 

Wow! That's bizarre! The ostriches are not there anymore. That was the point of the virt. There's nothing there any more! Here's a place where there used to be ostriches?!?!? The house has been torn down. There's nothing there anymore.

Maybe Brian led him on by not deleting logs on archived virts?

A paean to virts that used to be? Okay. But don't log them if they're gone.

Maybe it's a challenge? Find and log 138 archived virtual caches?

Some of the logs are quite bizarre. Elephant's butt? But there's already a virt for the elephant. So it was archived. With no finds. A duplicate virtual.

I will have to accept a paean to NJ virtuals.

Link to comment

Have logged archived virtuals, but the object was still there and the CO gave permission.

 

If the virtual is no longer there and you are logging it after that fact, I admit, its ridiculous. Course, we are not limited to virtuals, I bet if you watched the 2010 Lost and Found Event, folks, especially from Europe, are logging that all the time. I have no idea why that one is not locked.

 

Otherwise, not sure why folks occasionally give grief for those who log archived caches. I logged that one virtual that was archived in my area and got guff for it. Its ridiculous to be rude to people because they logged a cache that had the object still there, the CO allowed the find, I visited the cache site, the only difference was, it was archived vs not. Worry about world hunger or recycling more than getting upset about some things.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

I've seen this on occasion, and more often on Earthcaches. Many old ones were archived when their owners failed to comply with coming up with an "educational task" when we were threatened with that in 2006 or 2007. But yes, quite cheesy if the object no longer exists.

I think it's cheesy to log a "Found It" on an archived EarthCache or Virtual, even if the object still exists. I figure one reason why the owner might have archived the cache is because they no longer want to go to the trouble of verifying the finds, so I respect that.

 

In the case of The Earthcaches I have seen, they were archived for not meeting the demand of coming up with an educational task. These are no longer compliant with the earthcache guidelines, so if you want to be a stickler (which I generally am), they are non-compliant caches. By the way, I looked it up, and it was December 2006 that there was a mass archival of earthcaches where owners failed to add the educational task, after being given about 2 months to do so via a warning note posted to their cache page.

Link to comment

Interesting topic, and one that I'm sure will have many cachers on both sides. Personally, I find it rather disappointing when a virtual that is still in existence is archived. I've seen some where the CO says "time to let this one go", which is puzzling as not much has to be done to keep it going. Some of it may be because I've seen some archived by the reviewer because the CO hadn't been active for a long time. I could understand that if it was a cache that required upkeep. It would be nice of these could be adopted, but that's not an option.

 

And, I have to say that I have done a couple, but for what some may see as an odd reason. About 3 years ago, I ran PQs for all the states with the then existing virtual caches. Recently I visited one of them, the reason was still there, so (shame, shame) logged it as a find. I'm now in the process of re-doing my PQs. Crazy? Maybe. But so many of the virtuals are really interesting places/sites to see.

 

For those that no longer exist, yes, rather cheesy to log them.

Link to comment

I'm starting to see logs on old archived virtuals. I guess it's one thing if the object is still there, but I still think it's kind of cheesy, but when the object no longer exists?

 

Well, apparently Pete is obsessed with logging all old NJ virts. At least he's visiting the location. I was impressed when he was FTF on a cache that was archived for 7 years for having bad coords, but this is a little silly. :P

 

Seriously, what is the point of visiting a virtual if the object is no longer there? . I think virts are only tangentially related to geocaching in the first place, but at least with virts you use your GPS to find an object. There is a resemblance to geocaching. If that something is no longer there then I don't see how it can even be called geocaching. And how does one even send verification emails if the object isn't there anymore?

 

Well, I cant answer that as I find it silly. :P What is the point of driving from parking lot to parking lot for 8 hours on a beautiful Saturday lifting up lamppost skirts? Some people do things only for numbers or icons because that is the fun part for them. I know someone who was doing the obsessive LPC/guardrail quest only so they could get on a numbers site to be listed once they had 200 finds. Then they continued for a while to find a few thousand, but now I don't think they have much interest in doing any geocaching anymore. I think a geocache makes any area more interesting, but if the number count or icon is the only reason for the visit, eventually a burnout point will be reached or death by boredom.

 

They are not going to spend several hours hiking to find only a few caches because the left part of their brain will tell them that its a waste of time, as they could get dozens in the same time frame. So then they go on a quest to find the great multitude of numbers, and the right side of their brain eventually tells them that it isn't any fun. Unless they admit to themselves that they wasted a great deal of time boosting their numbers, their brain is stuck in a mind numbing stalemate and they eventually find another activity.

 

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with it, but if it becomes popular eventually it will cause all archived virts to be locked. If someone wants to stop people from logging a regular cache, then the container is physically removed. Although the target of the virt was removed, this seems different because there never was a container and the cacher has not realized that the object was the equivalent substitution. My opinion is that any cache should have the option for the owner to lock them once archived if they want to. Suppose it eventually becomes popular to place a throwdown on an archived cache site? Its asinine, but stranger things have happened.

Link to comment

Seriously, what is the point of visiting a virtual if the object is no longer there? .

 

The point is, the location was still worth visiting.

 

Isn't what is supposed to make most virtuals worth visiting the object itself?

 

Maybe he logged it just for the smilie or maybe not. But there is a certain thrill in visiting an archived cache, even if what people originally searched for is long gone. I've visited locations of archived caches and have been thrilled to find a piece of faded flagging tape from a cache that was archived 10 years earlier. That, in conjunction with reading the logs on the cache page can be much more interesting than if it had been a normal cache. Hard to explain why I find that exciting, but I'm sure I'm not alone.

Link to comment

Isn't what is supposed to make most virtuals worth visiting the object itself?

Not necessarily - it depends what you mean by the "object".

 

I've been to virtuals where I needed to extract information from a notice board to claim the find. I've seen some which were archived - often years ago - when the notice board was removed or changed or whatever (for example, in Dalby Forest in Yorkshire). Just because the notice board isn't there doesn't necessarily make the place not worth visiting, but does make the log requirements impossible to meet directly.

 

In the case of the ostriches, I might tend to agree. It doesn't strike me as a particularly astounding location either. Silbury Hill, however, would still be worth visiting, as would the Pooh Sticks bridge or the Tower of London - all virtuals I've done.

Link to comment

Isn't what is supposed to make most virtuals worth visiting the object itself?

Not necessarily - it depends what you mean by the "object".

 

I've been to virtuals where I needed to extract information from a notice board to claim the find. I've seen some which were archived - often years ago - when the notice board was removed or changed or whatever (for example, in Dalby Forest in Yorkshire). Just because the notice board isn't there doesn't necessarily make the place not worth visiting, but does make the log requirements impossible to meet directly.

 

In the case of the ostriches, I might tend to agree. It doesn't strike me as a particularly astounding location either. Silbury Hill, however, would still be worth visiting, as would the Pooh Sticks bridge or the Tower of London - all virtuals I've done.

There is a different between a virtual cache and waymark.

 

When virtual caches were publishable, they were supposed to be a specific object that could be located with GPS coordinates. They were not simply interesting places to visit. The idea was that you found the object (even if it was large and fairly obvious) in much the same way as you would find a physical cache.

 

There were two problems with this. The first was that some people could not get their heads around the idea that you could find something large and obvious. The second was that, without a Waymarking site, people who just wanted to take you to an interesting place used virtual caches do to this. Some virtual cache had nothing to find. In other cases, the reviewers would not publish the virtual cache without a target, so people picked silly things like bullentin boards or ostriches that might not remain at ground zero for a very long time.

 

That would be OK, if virtual cache could just be archived if the target went missing. But because virtuals were grandfathered and new ones couldn't be placed, there has been a reluctance to archive any virtual cache. Now if the target is gone, people will visit the spot and happilly log a find. Nobody wants to remember the idea was that the virtual cache was meant as a substitute for a physical cache in a place where you couldn't hide physical caches.

Link to comment

Isn't what is supposed to make most virtuals worth visiting the object itself?

Not necessarily - it depends what you mean by the "object".

 

I've been to virtuals where I needed to extract information from a notice board to claim the find. I've seen some which were archived - often years ago - when the notice board was removed or changed or whatever (for example, in Dalby Forest in Yorkshire). Just because the notice board isn't there doesn't necessarily make the place not worth visiting, but does make the log requirements impossible to meet directly.

 

In the case of the ostriches, I might tend to agree. It doesn't strike me as a particularly astounding location either. Silbury Hill, however, would still be worth visiting, as would the Pooh Sticks bridge or the Tower of London - all virtuals I've done.

There is a different between a virtual cache and waymark.

 

When virtual caches were publishable, they were supposed to be a specific object that could be located with GPS coordinates. They were not simply interesting places to visit. The idea was that you found the object (even if it was large and fairly obvious) in much the same way as you would find a physical cache.

 

There were two problems with this. The first was that some people could not get their heads around the idea that you could find something large and obvious. The second was that, without a Waymarking site, people who just wanted to take you to an interesting place used virtual caches do to this. Some virtual cache had nothing to find. In other cases, the reviewers would not publish the virtual cache without a target, so people picked silly things like bullentin boards or ostriches that might not remain at ground zero for a very long time.

 

I went and took a look at all my virtual cache finds and only one of them didn't involve a specific object. Instead, the task was to take a photo from a specific vantage point so that "object" was, in fact, the view. Since it was the only one I could find like that in my finds I consider it an exception and as I see it, the point of this thread is logging a virtual that isn't the same as it was originally intended.

 

 

Link to comment

...the task was to take a photo from a specific vantage point so that "object" was, in fact, the view.

Don't know when that virtual was published, but at least as far back as the "wow" requirement, views were explicitly called out as not being a valid virtual target.

 

A trail is a trail, a beach is a beach, a view is a view; but a trail, beach, or view is NOT a virtual cache
the point of this thread is logging a virtual that isn't the same as it was originally intended.

Absolutely. The issue is that one of the reasons that virtual were granfathered in the first place was that is was difficult to explain that a virtual cache meant there was an object to find and not just an interesting place to visit. The "Wow" requirement made such a big deal about virtual caches being in "wow" locations that basic idea of having something to find was lost. Now when someone logs an archived virtual where the target to find is no longer there, we see people say "It's ok because it still may be an interesting place to visit". It may be an interesting place to visit (even worthy of being a waymark), but is isn't a virtual cache.

Link to comment
Interesting topic, and one that I'm sure will have many cachers on both sides...

 

There are many cachers on both sides of question of logging caches that no longer exist? If that is so, this game no longer resembles the one I signed up for.

 

Geocaching has changed so much since I first signed up for it, albeit in other ways.

 

The obvious question is why the site allows caches that have been archived for so long to be logged at all.

Link to comment

...the task was to take a photo from a specific vantage point so that "object" was, in fact, the view.

Don't know when that virtual was published, but at least as far back as the "wow" requirement, views were explicitly called out as not being a valid virtual target.

 

November 2002. In terms of the wow factor for all of the virtuals I've found it's probably the lowest.

 

Link to comment

What surprised me the most was that this is an experienced cacher. I was expecting to see either 'greetings from Germany' or Joined 2014 on his profile. I agree that it's interesting that he's visiting the sites of long gone and archived listings, but it's just odd and wrong that he's claiming a find for this behavior.

 

Since the target object isn't there, why limit it to virts? He might as well do this with any type of cache that is missing and archived.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

...the task was to take a photo from a specific vantage point so that "object" was, in fact, the view.

Don't know when that virtual was published, but at least as far back as the "wow" requirement, views were explicitly called out as not being a valid virtual target.

 

November 2002. In terms of the wow factor for all of the virtuals I've found it's probably the lowest.

 

Eh, not the greatest Virt, I admit. I've done a lot of caching in Central and Northern New Jersey (by 2004 standards that is, when almost all the trips occurred), and that owner was quite highly respected in those parts. There are still a ton of non-wow virts out there. Some of more more recent ones I've done include a rather ordinary fountain, such as there are probably a dozen or more of in the downtown area of any major city, and a State Historical Marker on a community College campus. They are targets, of course. :)

Link to comment

What surprised me the most was that this is an experienced cacher. I was expecting to see either 'greetings from Germany' or Joined 2014 on his profile. I agree that it's interesting that he's visiting the sites of long gone and archived listings, but it's just odd and wrong that he's claiming a find for this behavior.

 

Since the target object isn't there, why limit it to virts? He might as well do this with any type of cache that is missing and archived.

 

He is local to my area. It's not uncommon to see him log archived caches. In fact, he makes it a point to spend days hunting archived caches. I've never seen him log an archived cache where the container wasn't there. I have seen logs though where he has found an archived cache, logged it as such and removed the container there after. Also..... The Virtual thing. He likes logging archived Virtuals for some reason.

 

To each their own, I suppose. I'm more or less in agreement with briansnat on the issue though.

Link to comment

I've heard about it, but to large degree just have no idea how people find these archived virtuals in the first place. Personally I find it really hard to find the listings for old archived caches unless I'd found them in the past, which can be frustrating if you're trying to hide something and are just curious to see what's been hidden there in the past (particularly in high-Muggle areas where caches can go missing).

 

In similar vein, I maintain several Earthcaches in remote locations and often get folks asking me if they can log them from their trips years ago as they have a photo at that spot. (I figure the allure of retroactively logging Laos or Tibet is also a big draw on these!) I always say no though because by definition you need to do other tasks to log an Earthcache, and you couldn't have done them before the Earthcache was placed there, and that does not seem fair to me.

 

A few weeks ago I then had someone argue with this reasoning "but I asked a few reviewers and they said they wouldn't have a problem with such a request!" I kinda wanted to write back "tough $#!#!" because geez, who cares what they said? (Assuming they said that at all and he wasn't just making it up...)

Link to comment

I've heard about it, but to large degree just have no idea how people find these archived virtuals in the first place. Personally I find it really hard to find the listings for old archived caches unless I'd found them in the past, which can be frustrating if you're trying to hide something and are just curious to see what's been hidden there in the past (particularly in high-Muggle areas where caches can go missing).

 

In similar vein, I maintain several Earthcaches in remote locations and often get folks asking me if they can log them from their trips years ago as they have a photo at that spot. (I figure the allure of retroactively logging Laos or Tibet is also a big draw on these!) I always say no though because by definition you need to do other tasks to log an Earthcache, and you couldn't have done them before the Earthcache was placed there, and that does not seem fair to me.

 

A few weeks ago I then had someone argue with this reasoning "but I asked a few reviewers and they said they wouldn't have a problem with such a request!" I kinda wanted to write back "tough $#!#!" because geez, who cares what they said? (Assuming they said that at all and he wasn't just making it up...)

 

I agree with you there. You shouldn't be able to "retroactively" log an earthcache just because you've been there before. There was actually a thread about this posted in the earthcache forum last year.

 

If you were the 5 years ago before the earthcache was published, and can remember every little detail to the point where you can provide the logging requirement from memory, then who am I to argue? I wouldn't rightfully be able to delete that log if they have given adequate answers, whether I agree or not.

 

I firmly believe that after archival, Virtuals and earthcaches should be locked. Sometimes, a virtual is archived by the CO for the pure fact that they do not want to/cannot maintain the logs anymore (i.e. - making sure cachers provided the right answers, making sure everyone that has logged provided the answers). This leaves those archived listings open to what I like to call "+1 abuse", especially if the CO is no longer active.

 

My opinion on finding physical caches that have been archived, however, is significantly different. If you go in search of an archived container and find it, there's no reason why you should not log that as found. For example, I had GC1NQKG stored in my GPS before it was archived and didn't realize it was even archived until I started looking for it on the map. I suppose the CO misinterpreted a prior log and thought the cache was removed when it was actually in pristine condition. Instead of removing the cache, I ended up relisting The container (with the owner's permission) as my own - GC4G9P4

 

So there's at least one "logging an archived cache story" that turned out with a happy ending.

Edited by Traditional Bill
Link to comment
Interesting topic, and one that I'm sure will have many cachers on both sides...

 

There are many cachers on both sides of question of logging caches that no longer exist? If that is so, this game no longer resembles the one I signed up for.

 

If the rules of the game allow that, people will do it to get a +1 smile!!! If the CO is absent even better!!!

 

I wrote my own guidelines of geocaching in my profile, and one of them relates to this:

 

2. Game starts when the cache is published in Geocaching.com and ends when it is archived in Geocaching.com.

 

In my opnion, an archived cache is no longer part of the game so, no logs should be allowed. If a guy wants +1 is very easy do get a lot in one day. Just search for absent COs and log a found in any date. Even better if it is before the date of archiving and just mention: "I came here with my old friend 6 years ago but only logging now!" I saw this in some caches here in Brazil!

 

If Groundspeak allows, people will do it... simple... B)

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

My opinion on finding physical caches that have been archived, however, is significantly different. If you go in search of an archived container and find it, there's no reason why you should not log that as found. For example, I had GC1NQKG stored in my GPS before it was archived and didn't realize it was even archived until I started looking for it on the map. I suppose the CO misinterpreted a prior log and thought the cache was removed when it was actually in pristine condition. Instead of removing the cache, I ended up relisting The container (with the owner's permission) as my own - GC4G9P4

 

So there's at least one "logging an archived cache story" that turned out with a happy ending.

I like your attitude of trying to restore a relic or a good cache but wouldn´t it be better to just "adopt" the cache?

 

As you say in the new cache description:

 

The cache container and it's original contents have been re listed with the permission of the one and only programmer64.

 

Then wouldn´t it be better to just adopt it instead of creating a new listing? Just a thought...

 

Anyway, liked your attitude but still don´t agree in logging a cache that is archived.

Link to comment

My opinion on finding physical caches that have been archived, however, is significantly different. If you go in search of an archived container and find it, there's no reason why you should not log that as found. For example, I had GC1NQKG stored in my GPS before it was archived and didn't realize it was even archived until I started looking for it on the map. I suppose the CO misinterpreted a prior log and thought the cache was removed when it was actually in pristine condition. Instead of removing the cache, I ended up relisting The container (with the owner's permission) as my own - GC4G9P4

 

So there's at least one "logging an archived cache story" that turned out with a happy ending.

I like your attitude of trying to restore a relic or a good cache but wouldn´t it be better to just "adopt" the cache?

 

As you say in the new cache description:

 

The cache container and it's original contents have been re listed with the permission of the one and only programmer64.

 

Then wouldn´t it be better to just adopt it instead of creating a new listing? Just a thought...

 

Anyway, liked your attitude but still don´t agree in logging a cache that is archived.

 

I gather the listing was archived already and "unarchiving" a cache requires reviewer action. As far as I know, you can't adopt an archived cache.

Link to comment

I gather the listing was archived already and "unarchiving" a cache requires reviewer action. As far as I know, you can't adopt an archived cache.

 

So, the easy way then? :ph34r:

 

And yes, the procedure (I am not a reviewer and never un-archived a cache, so maybe I am wrong) it is to contact the CO and say the cache is there. If the CO doens´t want the cache any more would be to contact a reviewer and explain the situation. Hopefully he would un-archive the cache and then the original CO would allow you to adopt the cache.

 

The problem would be if the CO is absent, I think there is no way to un-archive those caches... :(

Link to comment

My opinion on finding physical caches that have been archived, however, is significantly different. If you go in search of an archived container and find it, there's no reason why you should not log that as found. For example, I had GC1NQKG stored in my GPS before it was archived and didn't realize it was even archived until I started looking for it on the map. I suppose the CO misinterpreted a prior log and thought the cache was removed when it was actually in pristine condition. Instead of removing the cache, I ended up relisting The container (with the owner's permission) as my own - GC4G9P4

 

So there's at least one "logging an archived cache story" that turned out with a happy ending.

I like your attitude of trying to restore a relic or a good cache but wouldn´t it be better to just "adopt" the cache?

 

As you say in the new cache description:

 

The cache container and it's original contents have been re listed with the permission of the one and only programmer64.

 

Then wouldn´t it be better to just adopt it instead of creating a new listing? Just a thought...

 

Anyway, liked your attitude but still don´t agree in logging a cache that is archived.

 

I gather the listing was archived already and "unarchiving" a cache requires reviewer action. As far as I know, you can't adopt an archived cache.

 

The CO does not cache anymore and had no interest in going through the "unarchival" process in order to transfer the cache to me. Therefore, it was just easier for me to create an entire new listing.

Link to comment

I've heard about it, but to large degree just have no idea how people find these archived virtuals in the first place. Personally I find it really hard to find the listings for old archived caches unless I'd found them in the past, which can be frustrating if you're trying to hide something and are just curious to see what's been hidden there in the past (particularly in high-Muggle areas where caches can go missing).

 

In similar vein, I maintain several Earthcaches in remote locations and often get folks asking me if they can log them from their trips years ago as they have a photo at that spot. (I figure the allure of retroactively logging Laos or Tibet is also a big draw on these!) I always say no though because by definition you need to do other tasks to log an Earthcache, and you couldn't have done them before the Earthcache was placed there, and that does not seem fair to me.

 

A few weeks ago I then had someone argue with this reasoning "but I asked a few reviewers and they said they wouldn't have a problem with such a request!" I kinda wanted to write back "tough $#!#!" because geez, who cares what they said? (Assuming they said that at all and he wasn't just making it up...)

 

A few years go on the way to a vacation in Maine we stopped that the Delorme HQ and I found a couple of traditionals near the parking lot. For some reason, I didn't have the virtual cache located there in my GPS so I was unaware that it existed (and it still does) at the time of my visit. During my visit, I was able to gather all the information necessary to log the cache except for a photo of me and my GPS with the notable object in the building. I even spent an hours or so in the map store, bought a couple of map books and a t-shirt. When I was logging the other Maine caches I had found I discovered the existence of the virtual, but since I hadn't met all the criteria and wasn't aware that a virtual caches existed during my visit I didn't (and still haven't) logged a "Found It".

 

As far as I know, a reviewer can not resolve disputes and reinstate a found it log if you delete one if you feel that someone didn't meet the criteria for your cache. Only someone at appeals@Groundspeak.com can do that.

Link to comment

I wrote my own guidelines of geocaching in my profile, and one of them relates to this:

 

2. Game starts when the cache is published in Geocaching.com and ends when it is archived in Geocaching.com.

You are free to make up personal rules you apply to your own geocaching. You are not able to force your rules on anybody else.

 

To a limited degree (defined in the guidelines) a cache owner may enforce some rules on the use of the online logs for their cache. The guidelines primarily limit when an owner can delete a found log. It's not clear that a cache owner you would be allowed to delete the log of someone who found their cache before it got published, or even one found after you archived it unless they can show that they have removed the containter so there is nothing to find (and therefore no log to sign).

 

If an owner is not active, there is generally no one to delete online. I would assume that Groundspeak reserves the right to delete some logs. I suspect that they use this to delete spam or logs containing inappropriate language Rather than deleting logs, what they seem to prefer is to lock cache pages of some archived caches to prevent logs. The one use I have seen for this has been to deal with couch potato logging of virtuals. I am not certain what, if any, other practices TPTB would consider as reasons to lock a cache page.

Link to comment

You are free to make up personal rules you apply to your own geocaching. You are not able to force your rules on anybody else.

On other people´s caches: no I can´t...

 

It's not clear that a cache owner you would be allowed to delete the log of someone who found their cache before it got published, or even one found after you archived it unless they can show that they have removed the containter so there is nothing to find (and therefore no log to sign)

On my caches: yes I can, if they don´t go against the guidelines of the game...

 

I mention that Groundspeak allows people to log on archived caches (it´s a fact, not a rule), and sometimes Groundspeak blocks some caches if they are abused and the CO is absent (also a fact, not a rule).

Link to comment

The cache container and it's original contents have been re listed with the permission of the one and only programmer64.

Then wouldn´t it be better to just adopt it instead of creating a new listing? Just a thought...

 

Anyway, liked your attitude but still don´t agree in logging a cache that is archived.

I gather the listing was archived already and "unarchiving" a cache requires reviewer action. As far as I know, you can't adopt an archived cache.

The CO does not cache anymore and had no interest in going through the "unarchival" process in order to transfer the cache to me. Therefore, it was just easier for me to create an entire new listing.

Also, there's this Groundspeak policy:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

Link to comment
Interesting topic, and one that I'm sure will have many cachers on both sides...

 

There are many cachers on both sides of question of logging caches that no longer exist? If that is so, this game no longer resembles the one I signed up for.

 

Geocaching has changed so much since I first signed up for it, albeit in other ways.

 

The obvious question is why the site allows caches that have been archived for so long to be logged at all.

Because people get behind in their logging of finds.

Link to comment
Interesting topic, and one that I'm sure will have many cachers on both sides...

 

There are many cachers on both sides of question of logging caches that no longer exist? If that is so, this game no longer resembles the one I signed up for.

 

Geocaching has changed so much since I first signed up for it, albeit in other ways.

 

The obvious question is why the site allows caches that have been archived for so long to be logged at all.

Because people get behind in their logging of finds.

 

In the OP's example..... The Cacher would've been behind ten years in their logs. :-D

 

That's a good question though..... is anyone ever more than a year behind in their logs, if that? Maybe a conversation for a new thread.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...