Jump to content

"Moving" type caches


Recommended Posts

Update

 

For anybody in England who's wanting to know what's happened to the Jacob's Moving Cache #1. CO changed the coords to Utah and the name to "Utah Moving Cache #1" about a week ago, but finds and new locations were still being logged in England, and then one in Utah.

 

I received notification this morning that three of my logs had been deleted, and checking the cache log it appears that all British logs since the cache was disabled have been deleted, including those with new coords in them. Two "Find" notes which are probably from Utah remain. I can only assume that the CO has decided to make it impossible for the original cache still to be found but has set up a new one in Utah. The other two original caches, #2 and 3, remain disabled and it raises the question of why he wanted to disable and possibly archive the original ones. Two e-mail replies from him give no indication of his thinking except that he didn't want "discussion" in his cache logs. Find and replace logs scarcely count as "discussion".

 

Frankly, I find this - how shall I put it? - annoying!

Link to comment

Only the cache owner knows why he replaced it with a new container in Utah; leaving the previous one in England and deleting any logs on the container which remains in England.

 

It seems it was happily travelling around England for a year. Then the owner disabled it with a note that he may archive it. Whilst the cache page should not be used as a forum, it is not unexpected that some of the hundreds of watchers added notes saying "please don't archive". These notes have all been deleted now.

 

Then he moved it to Utah.

 

The most logical explanation is he didn't want it in England anymore, he wanted it to return to Utah. That's a shame for those in England hoping to find it, but nothing that can be done about that.

Link to comment

Wow. I see this caused quite a stir, let me see if I can explain.

 

Over the many years of maintaining these caches I have been contacted many times by Groundspeak telling me that the caches have started to be "passed around" or taken to events and mass logged. That is not allowed and I have been told if I don't police it better and stop that from happening the caches would be archived.

 

Personally I hate deleting logs, but in hopes of keeping these unique caches alive I have tried to police them. I do not enjoy being the police and instead prefer to let people do what they want.

 

There was recently another rash of "illegal" behavior with the caches and I was faced with the need to stop it, I thought about just archiving the caches because it is not fun to babysit people who can not follow the simple rules on the cache page.

 

I temporarily disabled the caches and asked the people who had them to take the caches and either hide them as a new cache hide in a permanent place or take the contents and put them in another cache. I thought that way there would be no "litter" caused by leaving the caches places and I would have time to decide what to do.

 

I was of course ignored in my requests to those people, and the people who continued to find the cache while it was disabled.

 

I have so far decided to keep at least one alive and given it a fresh start closer to my home where I can hopefully keep a better eye on it.

 

I expect to get the other two going as well but the blatant refusal to my requests is starting to make it go back towards archiving all three.

 

Hope that helps?

Link to comment

Wow. I see this caused quite a stir, let me see if I can explain.

 

Over the many years of maintaining these caches I have been contacted many times by Groundspeak telling me that the caches have started to be "passed around" or taken to events and mass logged. That is not allowed and I have been told if I don't police it better and stop that from happening the caches would be archived.

 

Personally I hate deleting logs, but in hopes of keeping these unique caches alive I have tried to police them. I do not enjoy being the police and instead prefer to let people do what they want.

 

There was recently another rash of "illegal" behavior with the caches and I was faced with the need to stop it, I thought about just archiving the caches because it is not fun to babysit people who can not follow the simple rules on the cache page.

 

I temporarily disabled the caches and asked the people who had them to take the caches and either hide them as a new cache hide in a permanent place or take the contents and put them in another cache. I thought that way there would be no "litter" caused by leaving the caches places and I would have time to decide what to do.

 

I was of course ignored in my requests to those people, and the people who continued to find the cache while it was disabled.

 

I have so far decided to keep at least one alive and given it a fresh start closer to my home where I can hopefully keep a better eye on it.

 

I expect to get the other two going as well but the blatant refusal to my requests is starting to make it go back towards archiving all three.

 

Hope that helps?

Thanks Jacob for this. It does help to understand your problem, although I think it would have been helpful if you had mentioned the abuse reason when you first disabled the cache - all you said was "maybe its time has come". And the kind of abuse you mention has very clearly NOT happened in UK with the #1 cache, so I am sorry that you felt you had to extend the action over here. (Granted there were a few instances of more than one member claiming the same find, but there were numerous "policing" responses to that by members over here anxious to see the rules observed. I trust you will exercise the same discipline over the two members claiming the recent find in Utah!)

 

I don't really think that you can claim finding a disabled cache as being abuse in anything like the same way. And removing those logs looks like a case of determining that the UK cache should be totally unfindable. And it certainly doesn't fall within the scope of "I deleted some logs that I thought were confusing people, notes that were just talking" which you wrote in your e-mail to me this morning!

 

However, this topic was intended to be about the wider issue of movable caches. Hope we can get back to it!

Link to comment

I agree that in general finding a disabled cache should be a legitimate find, but I do feel the UK cache should be unfindable after I have asked several people who were in possession of it to take it out of play for me. I can only assume they have the attitude of "what's he going to do? He's on the other side of the world" when they see my email asking them to take it out of play, agree to do so and then change their mind and put it out for more friends to find. Obviously I have no way of taking care of the finds on my cache when people act that way, so I thought it would be better to have it nearer to me geographically.

Link to comment

If British Cachers are so discourteous I wonder why Jacob Barlow didn't accept the help offered by the last British Finder of his cache and instead just deleted his note which is below and his found log.

 

 

 

Utah MOVING Cache #1 (GCA87C) on your watchlist has a new log:

 

Logged by: JF20938

Log Type: Write note

Date: 2/17/2015

Location: Utah, United States

Type: Unknown Cache

 

Log:

UK cache status

Those observing the logs in the last two weeks may recall that I posted the last set of UK coordinates. The container is still there and fully intact.

Nevertheless, I recognise that the lack of information for UK Geocachers is giving way to something less pleasant so I've decided to share what I know and offer my interpretation. I'm fortunate in one sense. I became aware of this cache only recently, so have spent less time-and-effort on it than many.

Don't misunderstand me; had I been following it for months, watching it come within reach only to have my plans dashed by a sudden move away, I'd be right with you. I'm not so bound-up in it but fully respect those who are.

Nevertheless, I too waited for the CO to explain his motivation and intent. With none forthcoming and very aware that I was last to hide the physical container, I made direct contact.

For reasons that I didn't challenge, the CO wanted to relocate his cache to Utah. I proposed two actions that he might take: 1) provide a TB-style 'mission' to allow it to return home under it's own steam or 2) allow me to mail it to him in Utah at my own expense.

Now, I realise neither of those would satisfy all UK Geocachers but they would, perhaps, deliver a more elegant closure to many. We could all shed a single tear and wave an empty logsheet as we wished the cache a safe voyage back home. ...or something like that.

The CO didn't take me up on my suggestion or offer. Our exchange stopped pretty quickly but I leave it open should he have a change of heart.

Now I see that he's deleted all UK entries following his own 'Disabled' post. That includes all offers- to-adopt and leaves all courteous questions unanswered. He has also deleted my Find log which I do find disappointing. I drove some distance to recover the cache; I really didn't anticipate that my search would ultimately prove futile.

I too had my moment of annoyance and resolved to submit a 'Needs Archiving' log. I've changed my mind, asking myself "what's the point?". This is just one of those rare Geocaching irritations like people logging a Find without signing the log or without even visiting the cache. In the end, it's hurting nobody.

I'm sorry if this comes across as sanctimonious. I seek neither thanks nor sympathy. I hope by concluding that the UK chapter is now over won't get me flamed either.

c'est la vie Rodney, c'est la vie - which probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense in Utah.

Happy caching, even if you're from the Beehive State,

John.

Link to comment

At last, we have a reasonable explanation as to the motives behind what has happened to this cache and why.

I am a relatively inexperienced cacher compared to most who have posted on this topic. but maybe my view will be shared by others?

I was extremely disappointed when this cache was disabled as I had been following it for some time. Then I became confused how a cache can have its location changed (without it actually travelling anywhere), than its name - just on what at first seemed like a whim. I now have a better understanding.

People new to caching, and perhaps those with a relatively low level of experience look to those more experienced cacher's, like this CO to help us make the most from our hobby. The lack of information given on the cache page when the change was made, which is where everyone who was interested was 'watching' the cache, is for me what caused the problem. I just hope that others who may have felt as disappointed as me find this forum and read Jason Barlow's explanation.

I remain disappointed in the action, but if this is what GS allow, and what the CO wants, what can we do! The UK's loss, and Utah's gain.

Link to comment

Wow. I see this caused quite a stir, let me see if I can explain.

-snip -

I expect to get the other two going as well but the blatant refusal to my requests is starting to make it go back towards archiving all three.

Thanks for that.

Hinted that was happening, though assured it wasn't by another poster.

I don't see folks being any less rude on this side of the pond.

Good luck. I believe you'll need it.

Link to comment

.

 

...Groundspeak might well wish to keep a tight control on the number...

 

...subject to whatever controls are deemed necessary.

 

... I don't think that Groundspeak wants to be put in a position of controlling anything, but would be perfectly content to have things rolling along without any intervention whatsoever.

 

 

I can say from experience you are wrong on that point. I would say Groundspeak is prone to KGB-type controlling behavior, at least sometimes, probably many times.

 

I started a Traveling Cache series that kept the fun aspect of traveling without incorporating the normal problems associated with other so named caches.

 

It began with chapter one of the series for which a large, unique container was placed in "Spot A." After ten finds or more anyone was welcome to move the container and create a new chapter in the series.

 

This required placing a new, standard container and log book in Spot A, and seeking regular approval before moving the traveling container to its new location, "Spot B." So there was never a problem with a missing container in an approved location nor was there a problem with a new cache being placed in an unapproved spot. Everything worked fine as the container moved six times (with the original log book) while six new caches were created. It created some fun elements and moments along the way.

 

Then, abruptly, with no explanation, Groundspeak shut the series down. There was no dialogue, no explanation, no appreciation for the investment we all made to keep the series active and running smoothly. They just shut it down.

 

So to summarize, we had a unique series of caches, approved through proper channels, enjoyed by many, causing no problems whatsoever, not violating any rule, conceived and maintained in a manner so as to honor all guidelines, placed and owned by some of the areas top cache owners ... shut down abruptly by the KGB.

 

That's just one example of many I know of, probably the worst considering how many people were involved. So, yes, Groundspeak is into "controlling" and while it may be their right, it has lost them some nice caches that many would be enjoying today, and it has ultimately lost them some paying members and quality cache owners who found better things to do with their time and money than feed it to a company that treated them so rudely.

 

.

Link to comment

 

I expect to get the other two going as well but the blatant refusal to my requests is starting to make it go back towards archiving all three.

 

Hope that helps?

 

i was told some time ago that there is no way to control how or who finds your (my) cache.

 

in the case of yours, and one in particular that i was watching, it was getting pretty silly and obvious over the past 6-8 months what was becoming a more frequent happenstance. i truly don't know how that cache made it out of texas last year when the promise (threat) of taking it and dropping it at the Mega event was offered.

Link to comment

.

 

emmett has ground his axe across a number of threads over the years. The comment here is off topic because true moving caches were last hidden in early 2003, after which no new ones were published.

 

The subject heading is 'Moving" type caches. I posted a response to a comment on Groundspeak's handling of these type of caches with the actual details of how the series I started was handled by Groundpseak. How is that off topic?

 

.

Link to comment

Wow. I see this caused quite a stir, let me see if I can explain.

-snip -

I expect to get the other two going as well but the blatant refusal to my requests is starting to make it go back towards archiving all three.

Thanks for that.

Hinted that was happening, though assured it wasn't by another poster.

I don't see folks being any less rude on this side of the pond.

Good luck. I believe you'll need it.

 

Although it may be a small segment of the community it is good to hear some are grateful for Jacob's efforts. We have attempted to find these caches on a few occasions, and came close in multiple states. Sure it's not fun to DNF an attempted find, but this is part of the game. It is sad to see the negative comments overwhelm the efforts to keep these caches in play. In some regard when you find these caches you become responsible much like a CO to get it back in the game. If this means moving it across town, or across a continent it would be to the benefit of all to take some responsibility to care for these caches as requested.

 

Thanks Jacob for searching for a solution that will keep these going. When we make our way into the area these caches are restricted to we hope to search for them again. Great old, unique caches likes these make the game enjoyable.

Link to comment

In response to HauptGirls comment - I think you misunderstand the motivation here. One year ago Jacob explicitly gave permission to CoralTeach to bring #1 over to UK, so clearly distance wasn't felt to be a problem at that time. The UK caching fraternity welcomed that hugely (I don't know of any others circulating over here) and huge gratitude was felt towards him for this.

 

Until Jacob's post yesterday there has never been the slightest hint of the kind of abuses which he is now claiming have taken place here, nor of any requests to return the cache. Until a couple of days ago he had posted nothing in the cache log during all of that time apart from periodic Update Coordinates logs, although a public request to stop placing the cache and to contact him would have been an obvious place to start, and the cryptic comment on 29 January this year that "Deciding what to do with this cache. It's time may have come", with no other explanation of why he might have felt that. The result was numerous offers to adopt the cache and take over the responsibility, together with continued expressions of gratitude for Jacob's work to date.

 

Any negativity now is the result of unexplained actions which have led to considerable confusion here, together with belated statements which simply don't match the publicly available facts.

Link to comment

Jacob accuses UK catchers of abusing the rules.

 

Isn't it abuse when a US catcher gives another a heads up on a placement ? Or simply just travels with a catcher whilst they hide it ? It just seems that this was an excuse to get the cache back in the US.

 

 

Utah MOVING Cache #1 (GCA87C) on your watchlist has a new log:

 

Logged by: LegoLegend

Log Type: Write note

Date: 2/17/2015

Location: Utah, United States

Type: Unknown Cache

 

Log:

Grabbed this tonight with MrsLegoLegend! Thanks utahsnowflake for the heads up! I thought this cache was gone. It was larger than we anticipated. We'll be placing it soon! Thanks Jacob!

 

 

 

Utah MOVING Cache #1 (GCA87C) on your watchlist has a new log:

 

Logged by: drgw3128

Log Type: Found it

Date: 2/17/2015

Location: Utah, United States

Type: Unknown Cache

 

Log:

Along with Utahsnowflake for the hide, now we can officially log it. (New coordinates are in her log.) Many thanks for the awesome revived cache!

Edited by The Water Rat
Link to comment

I don't really want to get involved in this but I think it needs to be said that the person who had the cache at the time it was disabled received no emails about what to do with it even though emails were sent to the CO asking for direction. The cacher was very concerned about doing the right thing, not least about what to do with all the TBs that were travelling with the cache.

 

The CO can do what he likes with his cache but don't lie about it being the discourteous UK cachers making him do it.

 

Lou

Link to comment

I agree with the water rat above, I saw todays logs in the cache and it is clear that this new cache is just being passed around groups of friends.

At least when it was in the UK was being treated as per Jacobs rules.

I have decided to remove it from my watch list, I think it should really be archived now, the one that is being found now is a completely new cache. It seems to go against the whole spirit of the original cache by being able to be replaced.

Link to comment

I agree with the water rat above, I saw todays logs in the cache and it is clear that this new cache is just being passed around groups of friends.

At least when it was in the UK was being treated as per Jacobs rules.

I have decided to remove it from my watch list, I think it should really be archived now, the one that is being found now is a completely new cache. It seems to go against the whole spirit of the original cache by being able to be replaced.

 

Considering the cache was in the UK for almost a year, how about we wait a year (assuming the cache isn't archived before then) before judging how the cache is being treated rather than just look at two logs.

 

In an earlier post someone wrote, "It's the UKs loss, and Utahs gain". It doesn't seem like some people in the UK realize that it's not the UKs cache to lose. It belongs to Jacob and despite getting attacked by others and getting pressure from Groundspeak it sounds to me like he's doing what he feels necessary with *his* cache to keep it viable.

 

 

Link to comment

Can we get this thread away from the particular cache and CO please and back to the question - should they be allowed?

 

Don't disagree but for info the CO has put a link on the cache page directing 'discussion' on it here, rather than the cache page. That's how I just found myself here...and I guess others will do the same.

 

Perhaps the CO should link to an alternative discussion thread?

Link to comment

I agree with the water rat above, I saw todays logs in the cache and it is clear that this new cache is just being passed around groups of friends.

At least when it was in the UK was being treated as per Jacobs rules.

I have decided to remove it from my watch list, I think it should really be archived now, the one that is being found now is a completely new cache. It seems to go against the whole spirit of the original cache by being able to be replaced.

That's odd, on post 57, the CO himself says that's not so.

 

If there's anything that goes against the "spirit" of the original cache, it's the way the cache was misused by others.

Sad that the CO had to make it a "completely new cache" to comform to his (and Groundspeak's) wishes...

Link to comment

Can we get this thread away from the particular cache and CO please and back to the question - should they be allowed?

Well, to be fair, you did start off by mentioning this CO's hides as early as the second sentence...

 

If you're referring to "Even better would be a clear statement that new ones will be allowed", just this thread should kinda tell you it's not gonna happen. :)

Link to comment

Well in the absence of GS making a decision on whether virtual flits across the pond are permissible. Wouldn't it be nice if in the spirit of international co- operation and a shared interest in geocaching that we agreed to share Jacob six months on each side of the pond. We already have two Jacobs in existence. It's for Jacob Barlow to decide of course as the cache owner but I think it would satisfy nearly all if such a compromise were possible. I certainly think the UK has enough interest in ensuring that Jacob' s rules are complied with.

Link to comment

I have been 'watching' this cache ever since it (the UK - and in my view the 'true' cache container) was creeping close to my home location.

 

So, I've seen all many of the notes, logs, etc, and only come across this thread today.

 

Whatever the reasons behind the CO doing what he's done, right or wrong, what has happened for me seems to go against the spirit of what this cache type is about - to move in the hands of the last cacher to find it.

 

Much as it pains me to say, I think this one has gone away from what it was originally and it's time has come to be archived.

Link to comment

Much as it pains me to say, I think this one has gone away from what it was originally and it's time has come to be archived.

 

Wouldn't I be the only person who knows what it was originally? This exact thing has happened many, many times over the years - not only with all of my movies caches but with all the others as well.

Link to comment

I agree with the water rat above, I saw todays logs in the cache and it is clear that this new cache is just being passed around groups of friends.

At least when it was in the UK was being treated as per Jacobs rules.

I have decided to remove it from my watch list, I think it should really be archived now, the one that is being found now is a completely new cache. It seems to go against the whole spirit of the original cache by being able to be replaced.

That's odd, on post 57, the CO himself says that's not so.

 

If there's anything that goes against the "spirit" of the original cache, it's the way the cache was misused by others.

Sad that the CO had to make it a "completely new cache" to comform to his (and Groundspeak's) wishes...

I'm aware that he said that. And that's a big part of the trouble. NEVER while it was over here did he indicate that he saw any abuse (in fact I don;'t recall him ever posting anything other than coord updates until his "Mayube its time has come" post.) And neither in this thread nor in e-mails I've had from him has he cited any abuse at all in UK, apart from his claim that he repeatedly asked those who had found it to return it to him. A claim which more than one recent finder has denied and one said he offered to pay postage to US and was ignored. So his claim about abuse needs some clear substantiation.

 

And by the way - not much point asking those who've found it to return it to him; they've probably already moved it on. A note in the cache page would have been more to the point.

 

So it seems we can't get away from this particular CO!

Link to comment

Much as it pains me to say, I think this one has gone away from what it was originally and it's time has come to be archived.

 

Wouldn't I be the only person who knows what it was originally? This exact thing has happened many, many times over the years - not only with all of my movies caches but with all the others as well.

We can only go on what's written on the cache page (although, to be fair, what is there today is very different from what was there last week!)

 

Don't know what exactly has happened many times in the past, though if it's been suddenly relocated frequently then I'll leave it to speak for itself.

Link to comment

This is getting a bit silly I feel.

 

I'm sure whatever country or state this thing find itself in, there will be some "abuse". A cacher finds it, and before re-hiding it they let a friend sign the log. Both cachers post that they found it.

 

I can't comment on if there was more abuse while it was in England than other places.

Link to comment

Likely the NA will be dismissed by a Reviewer as 'sour grapes'. The CO of this cache is doing what he interprets as what GS wants of him as CO. I wouldn't doubt that he has had contact with GS regarding these moving caches of his.

Possibly. But I find it difficult to see how GS can think things will be better in US - where it appears abuse is rife - than they were in UK - where it was minimal!

Link to comment

Likely the NA will be dismissed by a Reviewer as 'sour grapes'. The CO of this cache is doing what he interprets as what GS wants of him as CO. I wouldn't doubt that he has had contact with GS regarding these moving caches of his.

Possibly. But I find it difficult to see how GS can think things will be better in US - where it appears abuse is rife - than they were in UK - where it was minimal!

 

Yeah, you keep saying how minimal it was. I guess we will pretend. :)

Link to comment

Likely the NA will be dismissed by a Reviewer as 'sour grapes'. The CO of this cache is doing what he interprets as what GS wants of him as CO. I wouldn't doubt that he has had contact with GS regarding these moving caches of his.

Possibly. But I find it difficult to see how GS can think things will be better in US - where it appears abuse is rife - than they were in UK - where it was minimal!

 

Yeah, you keep saying how minimal it was. I guess we will pretend. :)

Jacob - you've never stated clearly what the abuse was. There was some double-logging. What else? When did it go to an event? When was it pocketed? Those logs (I think) are still there, so give us the details, because I'm afraid we simply don't believe you. Just like we don't believe your claim that nobody would cooperate after disabling - two of those members (and there weren't many) say they wrote to you asking what you wanted them to do; neither received a reply.

 

Sorry. It appears all the regulars here believe what you tell them. I'm afraid nobody in UK does.

Link to comment

...ensuring that Jacob' s rules are complied with.

 

I don't have any rules, Groundspeak does.

 

Quite correct JacobBarlow, GS makes the rules you have to ensure they are complied with, I apologise.

However what most people on this side are interested in is a reply to my suggestion that Jacob' s cache is shared between the US and the UK.

 

Will you consider this ?

Link to comment

...ensuring that Jacob' s rules are complied with.

 

I don't have any rules, Groundspeak does.

 

Quite correct JacobBarlow, GS makes the rules you have to ensure they are complied with, I apologise.

However what most people on this side are interested in is a reply to my suggestion that Jacob' s cache is shared between the US and the UK.

 

Will you consider this ?

How do you propose this be accomplished? Are you or someone else going to travel from USA to UK to accomplish this?

Link to comment

...ensuring that Jacob' s rules are complied with.

 

I don't have any rules, Groundspeak does.

 

Quite correct JacobBarlow, GS makes the rules you have to ensure they are complied with, I apologise.

However what most people on this side are interested in is a reply to my suggestion that Jacob' s cache is shared between the US and the UK.

 

Will you consider this ?

 

The cache is currently in Utah. Anyone from the UK is welcome go there to find it.

 

GS probably isn't going to take the sour grapes NA log from someone in the UK seriously but if the CO tried to clone the cache so that it could be found in different places I suspect that he and a reviewer (or someone from GS) would be having a chat.

 

Link to comment

I'm following #3.

 

It appears the original container which made it to Edmonton has been abandoned by the owner. It's been de-magic'd. Since the coords are now in Utah, it appears he has a replacement container.

 

The cache did move a couple or three times while in Edmonton, while the listing was disabled. The CO removed those logs. The cache listing now has "Utah" in the title, which it didn't before.

 

I say this in case people are wondering what the heck's going on. There are gaps on the cache page.

 

The CO has taken his magic and gone home.

Link to comment

Like the UK example, the "rest of the story" for the moving cache in Canada is told by the archived logs. Reading the archived logs on both listings, plus this forum thread, I would not blame the owner for archiving the listings and just being done with it all. Keeping the caches active within the CO's home area will hopefully prove to be a better solution than archival. And that's the CO's prerogative.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...