Logging virts that don't exist anymore?

[+GrateBear]

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.

Perhaps I should have been a bit more exact--for those that no longer exist, i.e., totally gone, I would think the majority would feel logging them is absurd. But, those that do log them are in the same category as those who feel getting within 50' of a regular cache qualifies as a "find".

 

I was thinking more about virtuals that have been archived, but the "object", if you will, is still there. Why not let them be adopted? I do agree with the fact that there can be no new ones, as many would be about as exciting as a LPC.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

My point entirely. We have a huge thread dedicated to this nonsense.

[4wheelin_fool]

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.

 

My point entirely. We have a huge thread dedicated to this nonsense.

 

It may be entirely silly, but it is absolutely nothing to worry about, or get annoyed with IMO.

 

Stuff like this, however..

 

This was my first time looking for a geocache; I honestly didn't expect to find anything at the location. However, I was disappointed after searching the spot whee the indicator was on my phone I was not able to find the cache. My guess is that it had been muggled with, I will be placing a clear jar with a small pencil pad with pen at the location to replace the muggled cache.

Edited May 15, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

I'll also point out that both virtuals posted in the OP are now locked, although there are plenty others.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC61B9_tneigel-cache-not-by-tneigel

Edited May 15, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+briansnat]

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.

 

My point entirely. We have a huge thread dedicated to this nonsense.

 

It may be entirely silly, but it is absolutely nothing to worry about, or get annoyed with IMO.

 

 

It's not something that keeps me awake at night, but as an avid geocacher I'd like the game to stay focused on actual geocaching. If it becomes a couch potato game, or "I visited a spot where a cache once was" kind of thing then it isn't geocaching anymore. Those games may be fun for those involved, just as the first time a guy picked up a soccer ball and ran with it was probably fun, but it ain't the same game.

[+Kelux]

Hopefully he would un-archive the cache and then the original CO would allow you to adopt the cache.

 

Unfortunately is not allowed to unarchive a cache just to be given in adoption next.

[+Ambrosia]

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.

My husband is that far behind. I'm over a year and a half behind on some earthcaches because they require extra waypoints that I marked with a gps that I can't find. For a while, I was two years behind on logging a whole bunch of caches.

[William Webb Ellis]

If it becomes a couch potato game, or "I visited a spot where a cache once was" kind of thing then it isn't geocaching anymore. Those games may be fun for those involved, just as the first time a guy picked up a soccer ball and ran with it was probably fun, but it ain't the same game.

You keep bringing that up, as if your ability to geocache is effected when someone logs a couch potato virtual, or, as in this case, visits a location but doesn't find anything that fits your definition of find.

 

If you aren't going to find archived virtual caches, how are you effected by them being logged? If someone wants to play football, how are they effected because somewhere halfway around the world they play a different game and call it football?

 

If someone playing your kind of football changes mid-game to the other kind of football, you might find that a bit annoying. But if you if find it annoying because someone uses the online logs at Geocaching.com for a different reason than you, I suggest you get some better fitting underwear that doesn't bunch up so easily.

[+niraD]

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

I've been months behind in my logging before. And I know people who have been years behind.

 

But in addition to people who get behind in their logging, there are also people who log old finds on new accounts because they're dividing a team account into multiple individual accounts.

[team tisri]

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).

 

Someone who found a cache before it was published still has a bone fide find, as long as they signed the log to prove they were there. I don't know how you could possibly prove you removed the container, but even then if someone had left a throwdown it's possible people would still be finding the throwdown and signing the log. If someone can show they have signed the log where do they stand regarding claiming a find? It's just another issue created by throwdowns.

 

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.

 

It would make far more sense to automatically lock caches once they were archived. There's a case to allow a few days so people who found the cache but couldn't log it until the end of their trip away could still claim it but once it's been archived a month or so it seems reasonable to lock it so no new logs can be written.

[Mr.Yuck]

If it becomes a couch potato game, or "I visited a spot where a cache once was" kind of thing then it isn't geocaching anymore. Those games may be fun for those involved, just as the first time a guy picked up a soccer ball and ran with it was probably fun, but it ain't the same game.

You keep bringing that up, as if your ability to geocache is effected when someone logs a couch potato virtual, or, as in this case, visits a location but doesn't find anything that fits your definition of find.

 

If you aren't going to find archived virtual caches, how are you effected by them being logged? If someone wants to play football, how are they effected because somewhere halfway around the world they play a different game and call it football?

 

If someone playing your kind of football changes mid-game to the other kind of football, you might find that a bit annoying. But if you if find it annoying because someone uses the online logs at Geocaching.com for a different reason than you, I suggest you get some better fitting underwear that doesn't bunch up so easily.

 

It's affected, not effected. And posting with Sock Puppet accounts is a violation of the terms of service. And, unless you're using proxies, they can tie the sock to your real account in about 10 seconds.

[Captain Clorox]

Oh. It's Billy again.

 

I see your attempt at masking your true identity by penning a brief four sentence post.

 

I have X-Ray vision, though.

[+narcissa]

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

I've been months behind in my logging before. And I know people who have been years behind.

 

But in addition to people who get behind in their logging, there are also people who log old finds on new accounts because they're dividing a team account into multiple individual accounts.

 

^^This.

[team tisri]

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

I've been months behind in my logging before. And I know people who have been years behind.

 

But in addition to people who get behind in their logging, there are also people who log old finds on new accounts because they're dividing a team account into multiple individual accounts.

 

^^This.

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

If people want to split one account into two accounts it would make more sense to have a function to do that and copy all the logs rather than having to go through each one manually. It's hard to see it being required very often so it could even be a controlled thing where I'd need to make a formal request to split "team tisri" into "tisri 1" and "tisri 2".

[+Traditional Bill]

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

I've been months behind in my logging before. And I know people who have been years behind.

 

But in addition to people who get behind in their logging, there are also people who log old finds on new accounts because they're dividing a team account into multiple individual accounts.

 

^^This.

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

If people want to split one account into two accounts it would make more sense to have a function to do that and copy all the logs rather than having to go through each one manually. It's hard to see it being required very often so it could even be a controlled thing where I'd need to make a formal request to split "team tisri" into "tisri 1" and "tisri 2".

 

^^This^^

[+JPreto]

If you aren't going to find archived virtual caches, how are you effected by them being logged? If someone wants to play football, how are they effected because somewhere halfway around the world they play a different game and call it football?

 

I like the idea of football (or soccer for the Americans) be played with the feet and not with the hands (except for the goalkeeper, of course). If a group of people, a group of friends, play soccer with their hands is it legitimate to say they are playing soccer?

 

It would make far more sense to automatically lock caches once they were archived. There's a case to allow a few days so people who found the cache but couldn't log it until the end of their trip away could still claim it but once it's been archived a month or so it seems reasonable to lock it so no new logs can be written.

 

I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule".

 

It's affected, not effected. And posting with Sock Puppet accounts is a violation of the terms of service. And, unless you're using proxies, they can tie the sock to your real account in about 10 seconds.

True, with technology nowadays it would be kind of simple to see if a IP address of 2 different users matches but think about a family with 4 kids and they all geocache? They all have the same IP and they usually log one next to the other so it´s kind of difficult that way... Of course they usually also log the same caches, and my point goes here. Maybe this is the only way to see if the same person is using or not multiple accounts. Same IP, same or similar caches, OK! Same IP, caches 8000km appart in the same day, NOT OK!

 

The thing is when cases like this http://coord.info/GC3YEVE happen and you post a note on the cache, inform the reviewers and they say: "can´t do anything about it". Then you talk about this user to some Portuguese geocachers and everybody knows what he is doing to the game and no one does anything about it...

[+Ambrosia]

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

 

 

I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule".

 

Wow, caching is supposed to be a fun activity. Why penalize people like that? I'm sorry, but my health makes it difficult for me to keep up on my cache logs. If I had to stress about logging caches on some archived cache timeline, it just wouldn't happen anymore.

 

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

[+JPreto]

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

I agree on Groundspeak making it easy on people... really do. The problem is that people abuse that generosity and start on paths that were not supposed to be made.

 

Then again, all evolution comes from crossing unbeaten paths so... the ones I criticize are the ones that make the game evolve.

[+Ambrosia]

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

I agree on Groundspeak making it easy on people... really do. The problem is that people abuse that generosity and start on paths that were not supposed to be made.

 

Then again, all evolution comes from crossing unbeaten paths so... the ones I criticize are the ones that make the game evolve.

Sure, I agree that there can be some abuse. But it's so minor in the grand scheme of things. And there's a process in place - if it becomes a problem with a particular cache, the cache owner/Groundspeak/reviewer can take care of logs or lock the listing.

[team tisri]

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

 

 

I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule".

 

Wow, caching is supposed to be a fun activity. Why penalize people like that? I'm sorry, but my health makes it difficult for me to keep up on my cache logs. If I had to stress about logging caches on some archived cache timeline, it just wouldn't happen anymore.

 

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

 

Not trying to be funny here, but how long do you need to write a log on a cache? I'm not saying you have to log it the exact same day you found it but I really struggle to understand how someone can be months behind logging their finds. The only way this would be a problem for you would be if you found a cache and didn't try to log it until two months after it had been archived.

 

Ultimately I suppose the key question is whether it's considered more of a problem if people do "only" have a couple of months to log a find, or if people are able to log finds against a cache that has long since been archived.

[+narcissa]

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

 

 

I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule".

 

Wow, caching is supposed to be a fun activity. Why penalize people like that? I'm sorry, but my health makes it difficult for me to keep up on my cache logs. If I had to stress about logging caches on some archived cache timeline, it just wouldn't happen anymore.

 

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

 

Not trying to be funny here, but how long do you need to write a log on a cache? I'm not saying you have to log it the exact same day you found it but I really struggle to understand how someone can be months behind logging their finds. The only way this would be a problem for you would be if you found a cache and didn't try to log it until two months after it had been archived.

 

Ultimately I suppose the key question is whether it's considered more of a problem if people do "only" have a couple of months to log a find, or if people are able to log finds against a cache that has long since been archived.

 

It seems fairly obvious that preventing honest geocachers from logging legitimate finds is a bigger problem than allowing the odd dishonest geocacher to log an illegitimate find. Inappropriate logs can always be removed. Automatically locking geocaches just means more admin work, because so many cachers will be asking for permission to log.

 

Some people go on long vacations, and don't log until they're home.

 

Some people get busy with their non-geocaching lives, and fall behind.

 

Some people start out geocaching with a group account and then decide to split off into their own account.

 

It's just not necessary to be so punitive over something so unimportant.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are a more than a few in my field notes from 2012 I haven't logged yet. However, if they end up locked for some reason and I cant log them, so what? If they were really that important, they would have been logged by now. I think the online logging business has evolved into some bizarre creature separate from the actual game anyhow. Owners should have the ability to lock their own hides, as being archived obviously does not necessarily mean anything in some cases..

[+Traditional Bill]

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

I agree on Groundspeak making it easy on people... really do. The problem is that people abuse that generosity and start on paths that were not supposed to be made.

 

Then again, all evolution comes from crossing unbeaten paths so... the ones I criticize are the ones that make the game evolve.

Sure, I agree that there can be some abuse. But it's so minor in the grand scheme of things. And there's a process in place - if it becomes a problem with a particular cache, the cache owner/Groundspeak/reviewer can take care of logs or lock the listing.

 

I don't think regular "physical" caches should be locked out after archival. There are those who seek out archived caches simply to clean up "geo litter". If they want to claim a smiley in the process, who cares? They found the cache after all. The folks who clean up the litter of the irresponsible owners who don't remove their archived caches are doing a service to the game board. Caches like that should remain unlocked unless there's an issue.

 

It's the archived virtuals that I believe are the most subject to abuse, although I can see where Ambrosia is coming from. The "archived logger" in the OP is a local in my area and as I said before, he has a habit of cleaning up and claiming finds on archived caches. I think it's lame that he logs archived virtuals in which the object of intention is gone, but that's his prerogative.

 

I'm not opposed to locking archived virtuals after a period of time, but is it absolutely necessary? Look at the example in the OP. It took 10 years for the archived virtual to suffer "log abuse" After it was archived. And it's only one log. I hardly think that's a problem that warrants locking the cache, although I do believe it could set bad examples for cachers that are "only in it for the smilies". I'd be lying if I said fake logging didn't annoy me. I'd also be lying if I said I haven't spoken my piece about it a few times. At the end of the day though, the important thing is that nobody is logging any of my archived caches and I'm not logging anything that I haven't legitimately found and that's really all that matters.

[+Ambrosia]

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

 

 

I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule".

 

Wow, caching is supposed to be a fun activity. Why penalize people like that? I'm sorry, but my health makes it difficult for me to keep up on my cache logs. If I had to stress about logging caches on some archived cache timeline, it just wouldn't happen anymore.

 

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

 

Not trying to be funny here, but how long do you need to write a log on a cache? I'm not saying you have to log it the exact same day you found it but I really struggle to understand how someone can be months behind logging their finds. The only way this would be a problem for you would be if you found a cache and didn't try to log it until two months after it had been archived.

 

Ultimately I suppose the key question is whether it's considered more of a problem if people do "only" have a couple of months to log a find, or if people are able to log finds against a cache that has long since been archived.

I know that if you had spoken to me about this maybe eight years ago, I would have probably thought it odd, too. I always logged my caches the minute I had access to a computer. I was pretty OCD about it. My logs are very important to me, because they are a record/diary of my life, basically.

 

But because of my health, I regularly get up to two years behind on logging some finds. A lot of it occurs when I take a big trip, and rack up a bunch (well, a bunch for me) of caches and get home and am overwhelmed by the amount of logs, especially if there are a lot of EC and Virts like my last couple trips were.

 

I think that it's not something people can fully understand until they are there. Every person is different and going through different stuff in life. If we're not experiencing it, we can't really know. And because of that, I think that the few logging abuses that occur out there are just not worth it.

[team tisri]

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

 

 

I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule".

 

Wow, caching is supposed to be a fun activity. Why penalize people like that? I'm sorry, but my health makes it difficult for me to keep up on my cache logs. If I had to stress about logging caches on some archived cache timeline, it just wouldn't happen anymore.

 

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

 

Not trying to be funny here, but how long do you need to write a log on a cache? I'm not saying you have to log it the exact same day you found it but I really struggle to understand how someone can be months behind logging their finds. The only way this would be a problem for you would be if you found a cache and didn't try to log it until two months after it had been archived.

 

Ultimately I suppose the key question is whether it's considered more of a problem if people do "only" have a couple of months to log a find, or if people are able to log finds against a cache that has long since been archived.

 

It seems fairly obvious that preventing honest geocachers from logging legitimate finds is a bigger problem than allowing the odd dishonest geocacher to log an illegitimate find. Inappropriate logs can always be removed. Automatically locking geocaches just means more admin work, because so many cachers will be asking for permission to log.

 

Some people go on long vacations, and don't log until they're home.

 

Some people get busy with their non-geocaching lives, and fall behind.

 

Some people start out geocaching with a group account and then decide to split off into their own account.

 

It's just not necessary to be so punitive over something so unimportant.

 

I wouldn't say it's obvious at all. If it were obvious we wouldn't be having the discussion. In the context of this discussion, who is going to remove the inappropriate logs? If a virtual has been archived, especially if it has been archived by someone other than the owner, the chances are the owner isn't watching it anyway.

 

People go on long holidays but we're talking about locking a cache two months after it's archived. Not very many people take holidays that long and of those that do I suspect very few are offline the entire time. People get busy with lives outside of geocaching, but if they can't get around to logging finds for two months or more it's hard to take them seriously if they then complain they can't log them. Splitting group accounts is equally unlikely to be a particularly regular activity.

 

I really struggle to see how it can be described as being "punitive" to require online logs to be written within a couple of months of finding the cache. Ultimately all the automatic lock is going to say to people who don't log is that if they don't log for a long time, and if the cache is archived in the meantime, and if they then go another two months before attempting to log it, they miss out on a smiley face on a map. But the smiley face wouldn't show on the map because the cache was archived, so all they would miss out on is their stats showing 2,894 finds rather than 2,893.

[+tozainamboku]

I find it strange that people can be so concerned about other people using an online WIGAS log to share some experience they had with a archived cache.

 

Certainly the "official" view is that archived don't show up in searches, in pocket queries, or in the apps. TPTB don't intend for people to be searching for archived caches. On the other hand TPTB realize that some people get behind in recording their WIGAS logs and so you can post to most archived caches. They also recognize that sometimes teams split up and people want to record the finds they had when they were part of a team. In this case you might be logging a cache that was archived years ago.

 

Unofficially people do discover the locations of archived caches and may search in those areas. For physical caches they may find the container is still there. For virtual cache they may find they can still get the answers to the questions originally on the cache page. Some people will even argue that searching out physical caches that have been archived gives them an opportunity to remove the abandoned cache containter. Some players may choose to enter an online log to share their experience finding archived caches with whomever might still have a watch on this cache. Or they may want to count these finds in their WIGAS count.

 

While some individuals may choose not to count finds on archived caches, others will. "There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find."

 

The incident in the OP is a more complex. Here a cacher went to an archived virtual cache where the target you needed to find was no longer there. They logged it as found, presumably because they felt the purpose of the virtual was not to find a cache, but just to take you to a location. Of course there have also been examples with physical caches, where someone posts a find because they were at the actual location and felt the only reason for the DNF was that there wasn't anything to find in the first place. Here I agree somewhat with briansnat; this is not what I understand geocaching to be about. The point is to find something. If there is nothing to find you visited a nice place, but you still didn't find anything. However there's still no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get my knickers in a twist because someone wants to get a WIGAS for not finding anything.

[+niraD]

If people want to split one account into two accounts it would make more sense to have a function to do that and copy all the logs rather than having to go through each one manually. It's hard to see it being required very often so it could even be a controlled thing where I'd need to make a formal request to split "team tisri" into "tisri 1" and "tisri 2".

It isn't always about splitting an account either. For example, a friend of mine recently decided to create a geocaching.com account, and I sent him a list of all the caches he had found with me, and the dates he found them. He wanted to log those finds online. He certainly didn't want a copy of all 1000+ of my finds, most of which had been made without him present.

[team tisri]

If people want to split one account into two accounts it would make more sense to have a function to do that and copy all the logs rather than having to go through each one manually. It's hard to see it being required very often so it could even be a controlled thing where I'd need to make a formal request to split "team tisri" into "tisri 1" and "tisri 2".

It isn't always about splitting an account either. For example, a friend of mine recently decided to create a geocaching.com account, and I sent him a list of all the caches he had found with me, and the dates he found them. He wanted to log those finds online. He certainly didn't want a copy of all 1000+ of my finds, most of which had been made without him present.

 

So it still comes back to a decision whether we want to let people post logs against caches that aren't there any more or restrict people who, for whatever reason, didn't log a find within several months of making the find.

 

In the example of your friend he could still log all the caches that were still active. If one of them had been archived more than a couple of months previously an automatic log would prevent him from logging it.

 

Personally I don't really see it as a huge deal either way, although I'd lean towards automatic logging even if only because it seems silly to be able to write a log on something that hasn't been there for months.

[+briansnat]

So it still comes back to a decision whether we want to let people post logs against caches that aren't there any more or restrict people who, for whatever reason, didn't log a find within several months of making the find.

 

There are way too many arguments for not locking archived caches and only one that I can think of one for locking them. I don't think it's worth it if many geocachers need to be inconvenienced to prevent a few bogus logs. Let the cache owners handle the phony logs if they are inclined and if they are not, or they are absentee, then there is nothing to do other than perhaps get a little chuckle over the things some people will do to inflate their numbers.

[4wheelin_fool]

So it still comes back to a decision whether we want to let people post logs against caches that aren't there any more or restrict people who, for whatever reason, didn't log a find within several months of making the find.

 

There are way too many arguments for not locking archived caches and only one that I can think of one for locking them. I don't think it's worth it if many geocachers need to be inconvenienced to prevent a few bogus logs. Let the cache owners handle the phony logs if they are inclined and if they are not, or they are absentee, then there is nothing to do other than perhaps get a little chuckle over the things some people will do to inflate their numbers.

 

If the CO absolutely does not want any more traffic to the area it should be locked. They can always remove a phyisical container to prevent this, but in the case of virtuals they cannot. In some cases the CO may not be able to visit the location to remove the container, as it may not be legal, or they are phisically unable to. Many believe archived means the end of it, and perhaps it should be, as archived really seems to mean inactive.

[+tozainamboku]

If the CO absolutely does not want any more traffic to the area it should be locked.

I'm not quite following why a cache owner would need to control the traffic to the area once the cache is archived. Sure you have a few people who may intentionally seek out archived locations, but I don't see that this is that great a number. I will also venture, despite the cacher in the OP, that people who visit archived locations will do so whether or not the page has been locked. Either they won't know the page is locked till after they have visited, or they they really don't care about a WIGAS log and are more interested in the adventure of visiting a place that once had a geocache.

 

It seems to me the one argument for locking cache pages is that keeps people's knickers from getting twisted if someone visits the location and uses a Found log to record this.

[+briansnat]

So it still comes back to a decision whether we want to let people post logs against caches that aren't there any more or restrict people who, for whatever reason, didn't log a find within several months of making the find.

 

There are way too many arguments for not locking archived caches and only one that I can think of one for locking them. I don't think it's worth it if many geocachers need to be inconvenienced to prevent a few bogus logs. Let the cache owners handle the phony logs if they are inclined and if they are not, or they are absentee, then there is nothing to do other than perhaps get a little chuckle over the things some people will do to inflate their numbers.

 

If the CO absolutely does not want any more traffic to the area it should be locked. They can always remove a physical container to prevent this, but in the case of virtuals they cannot. In some cases the CO may not be able to visit the location to remove the container, as it may not be legal, or they are physically unable to. Many believe archived means the end of it, and perhaps it should be, as archived really seems to mean inactive.

 

Removing a physical cache is no guarantee the visits will end either. What's to keep this guy from deciding to visit the old locations of archived physical caches and logging those next? It's really not that much of a difference. On the rare occasions this stuff happens it can be handled by log deletions. If it becomes an issue, for instance if it lands on some list in Germany, then by all means have Groundspeak lock it, but auto locking of caches after a certain period of time is the typical solution in search of a problem.

Edited May 17, 2014 by briansnat

[+narcissa]

 

If people get more than a couple of months behind on their logging, too bad if a cache got archived in the meantime.

 

 

 

I think if everybody knew that after a month an archived cache is locked their wouldn´t be a problem. It was just a matter of people knowing this and if they forgot to log it, well, they forgot... I would support this "one month rule".

 

Wow, caching is supposed to be a fun activity. Why penalize people like that? I'm sorry, but my health makes it difficult for me to keep up on my cache logs. If I had to stress about logging caches on some archived cache timeline, it just wouldn't happen anymore.

 

Groundspeak has kept logging open for a reason - no need to make things difficult for people.

 

Not trying to be funny here, but how long do you need to write a log on a cache? I'm not saying you have to log it the exact same day you found it but I really struggle to understand how someone can be months behind logging their finds. The only way this would be a problem for you would be if you found a cache and didn't try to log it until two months after it had been archived.

 

Ultimately I suppose the key question is whether it's considered more of a problem if people do "only" have a couple of months to log a find, or if people are able to log finds against a cache that has long since been archived.

 

It seems fairly obvious that preventing honest geocachers from logging legitimate finds is a bigger problem than allowing the odd dishonest geocacher to log an illegitimate find. Inappropriate logs can always be removed. Automatically locking geocaches just means more admin work, because so many cachers will be asking for permission to log.

 

Some people go on long vacations, and don't log until they're home.

 

Some people get busy with their non-geocaching lives, and fall behind.

 

Some people start out geocaching with a group account and then decide to split off into their own account.

 

It's just not necessary to be so punitive over something so unimportant.

 

I wouldn't say it's obvious at all. If it were obvious we wouldn't be having the discussion. In the context of this discussion, who is going to remove the inappropriate logs? If a virtual has been archived, especially if it has been archived by someone other than the owner, the chances are the owner isn't watching it anyway.

 

People go on long holidays but we're talking about locking a cache two months after it's archived. Not very many people take holidays that long and of those that do I suspect very few are offline the entire time. People get busy with lives outside of geocaching, but if they can't get around to logging finds for two months or more it's hard to take them seriously if they then complain they can't log them. Splitting group accounts is equally unlikely to be a particularly regular activity.

 

I really struggle to see how it can be described as being "punitive" to require online logs to be written within a couple of months of finding the cache. Ultimately all the automatic lock is going to say to people who don't log is that if they don't log for a long time, and if the cache is archived in the meantime, and if they then go another two months before attempting to log it, they miss out on a smiley face on a map. But the smiley face wouldn't show on the map because the cache was archived, so all they would miss out on is their stats showing 2,894 finds rather than 2,893.

 

As far as I'm concerned, fraudulent logs may annoy people, but they don't actually cause any harm. You can always report this activity to a reviewer to get an archived cache locked if it's being abused.

 

Arbitrary time limits that block legitimate cachers from logging legitimate finds will tick people off.

 

I know plenty of very serious, dedicated geocachers who find lots of geocaches, faithfully maintain their own geocaches, attend events, and answer emails from other geocachers... but happen to be months behind in logging because they make time for the important stuff first. Sometimes, it's because they are devoted to writing thoughtful logs on every find, and that takes time.

 

You want to penalize these people for having different priorities than you. Are you really just so bothered by the mere idea of a false log that you want to spoil the game for anybody who doesn't cache the same way you do?