Jump to content

"Moving" type caches


Recommended Posts

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!

 

Wow, MrsLegoLegend and I had no idea what we were getting ourselves into by grabbing that cache last night. The forum has caught fire since then, so without trying to address all the issues at hand, I would like to respond to the Water Rat's accusation that all of the latest finders are cheating. A problem with judging cachers solely by their logs is you don't really know the context at all. First, drgw3128 and Utahsnowflake have been married for years. Both of them finding the same cache isn't quite like taking the cache to an event for all in attendance to sign. Or even like calling up a buddy to come sign the cache while its in your possession. Generally when you cache with someone else, it doesn't matter who actually spots the cache first, both tend to sign the log. Second, although we are friends with both of the previous hiders, literally all we received last night was a text containing a GC code. This message came after new coordinates had already been posted and the hundreds of cachers watching this cache had received a notification. Having found moving caches before, we actually ended up deciding not to go retrieve the cache last night since it was down in the town south of us. About an hour later, however, we got a FTF notification and that got us out the door.

 

Again, the purpose of this log is to point out that everybody accusing each other of cheating is kind of pointless when you don't have the whole story. That's just how this game works. Before throwing accusations, try to find out the whole story. And maybe take a few minutes to calm down and remember its just a game.

Link to comment

Anybody who has had their valid log deleted by the CO should contact GS and ask them to reinstate the log. CO's should only delete Found it logs if they are in violation of GS's Terms of use see link

 

Funny, I have been told by Groundspeak many times if I don't delete logs they will archive the cache - without that I would just let anyone log it... I don't like policing caches.

Link to comment

Anybody who has had their valid log deleted by the CO should contact GS and ask them to reinstate the log. CO's should only delete Found it logs if they are in violation of GS's Terms of use see link

 

Funny, I have been told by Groundspeak many times if I don't delete logs they will archive the cache - without that I would just let anyone log it... I don't like policing caches.

 

I did say valid logs....

 

Just because you disabled the cache doesn't mean that people weren't finding it and moving it as per the cache "rules" and hence they can ask for their logs to be reinstated.

Link to comment

Anybody who has had their valid log deleted by the CO should contact GS and ask them to reinstate the log. CO's should only delete Found it logs if they are in violation of GS's Terms of use see link

 

Funny, I have been told by Groundspeak many times if I don't delete logs they will archive the cache - without that I would just let anyone log it... I don't like policing caches.

 

I did say valid logs....

 

Just because you disabled the cache doesn't mean that people weren't finding it and moving it as per the cache "rules" and hence they can ask for their logs to be reinstated.

 

The few valid finds that were deleted had accompanying emails asking them to log the find without saying they hid the cache, so that they could both have a find and stop tricking people into thinking that cache was still the cache. Most deleted logs were from people who broke the rules.

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?

 

As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted.

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?

 

As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted.

 

If I had to guess there have been twenty to thirty times that a huge virtual jump from another part of the world to Utah has occurred, it's the way it goes with moving caches. I can't get attached to the container because they don't last, they get stolen, they get picked up and people forget to hide them, there are many reasons but every time a reason comes up I just start a new one. So do the other moving cache owners.

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!

 

Wow, MrsLegoLegend and I had no idea what we were getting ourselves into by grabbing that cache last night. The forum has caught fire since then, so without trying to address all the issues at hand, I would like to respond to the Water Rat's accusation that all of the latest finders are cheating. A problem with judging cachers solely by their logs is you don't really know the context at all. First, drgw3128 and Utahsnowflake have been married for years. Both of them finding the same cache isn't quite like taking the cache to an event for all in attendance to sign. Or even like calling up a buddy to come sign the cache while its in your possession. Generally when you cache with someone else, it doesn't matter who actually spots the cache first, both tend to sign the log. Second, although we are friends with both of the previous hiders, literally all we received last night was a text containing a GC code. This message came after new coordinates had already been posted and the hundreds of cachers watching this cache had received a notification. Having found moving caches before, we actually ended up deciding not to go retrieve the cache last night since it was down in the town south of us. About an hour later, however, we got a FTF notification and that got us out the door.

 

Again, the purpose of this log is to point out that everybody accusing each other of cheating is kind of pointless when you don't have the whole story. That's just how this game works. Before throwing accusations, try to find out the whole story. And maybe take a few minutes to calm down and remember its just a game.

 

Thanks for the explanation, sorry if I upset anyone. However this has come about because the cache which was legitimately in the UK was disabled by the cache owner due to what he assumed to be abuse based upon logs. As you say the problem with judging catchers solely by their logs is you don't really know the context at all. Unfortunately you innocently got caught up in this.

 

I have tried to make a proposal which could be satisfactory to all, subject to GS but am yet to hear a positive response. I am sorry that people who share an international fun hobby we cannot appear to agree.

Link to comment

On a moving cache, the CO is the arbiter of valid logs.

reference?

I don't really know anything about it, but logically, the only thing defining the location of a traveling cache is the CO's posted coordinates. Once the owner says it's in Utah, that box in the UK is literally no longer the cache, so a signature there is not proof of a find. The argument is the same, although admittedly a little weaker, if the CO disables the cache.

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?

 

As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted.

 

If I had to guess there have been twenty to thirty times that a huge virtual jump from another part of the world to Utah has occurred, it's the way it goes with moving caches. I can't get attached to the container because they don't last, they get stolen, they get picked up and people forget to hide them, there are many reasons but every time a reason comes up I just start a new one. So do the other moving cache owners.

You're quite correct, Jacob. Recently I was monitoring a moving cache in Pennsylvania (my review area) that had ground to a halt. The owner successfully "re-spawned" the traveler in North Carolina. Yay!

 

Now, if there were two containers in play at one time, sharing a single cache page?? That would be stopped pretty darn quickly.

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?

 

As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted.

 

If I had to guess there have been twenty to thirty times that a huge virtual jump from another part of the world to Utah has occurred, it's the way it goes with moving caches. I can't get attached to the container because they don't last, they get stolen, they get picked up and people forget to hide them, there are many reasons but every time a reason comes up I just start a new one. So do the other moving cache owners.

 

I personally did not see a reason this time, but it is your cache, so you can do what you want.

Link to comment

 

Now, if there were two containers in play at one time, sharing a single cache page?? That would be stopped pretty darn quickly.

 

And I imagine it wouldn't take an email message from a reviewer or GS to stop it. It looks to me that trying to keep track of what's going on with the cache, constantly updating coordinates, and ensuring the validity of the logs with just one container is a lot of work. I can't imagine it would be much fun for the CO of a moving cache to try and keep track of 2 containers in the same listing.

 

 

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?

 

As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted.

 

If I had to guess there have been twenty to thirty times that a huge virtual jump from another part of the world to Utah has occurred, it's the way it goes with moving caches. I can't get attached to the container because they don't last, they get stolen, they get picked up and people forget to hide them, there are many reasons but every time a reason comes up I just start a new one. So do the other moving cache owners.

You're quite correct, Jacob. Recently I was monitoring a moving cache in Pennsylvania (my review area) that had ground to a halt. The owner successfully "re-spawned" the traveler in North Carolina. Yay!

 

Now, if there were two containers in play at one time, sharing a single cache page?? That would be stopped pretty darn quickly.

 

Several of the times were when a person picks up the cache and waits a few months because life gets busy, eventually after having my emails ignored that long I will "re-spawn" a new version and after it get moved a couple of times that person will suddenly put the other back out. Which I guess technically makes two, but in my mind the old one is done when the new one is made.

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?

 

As I said in making my suggestion. There are already two of these caches, one, the original still safely hidden in England, the clone or new one in Utah. Therefore the movement across the ocean was virtual not physical. Since GS haven't intervened in this the assumption is that this is permitted.

 

If I had to guess there have been twenty to thirty times that a huge virtual jump from another part of the world to Utah has occurred, it's the way it goes with moving caches. I can't get attached to the container because they don't last, they get stolen, they get picked up and people forget to hide them, there are many reasons but every time a reason comes up I just start a new one. So do the other moving cache owners.

 

I personally did not see a reason this time, but it is your cache, so you can do what you want.

Maybe we're looking at different Listings, but it seems like a small number of the locals did not appreciate the cache being in their "backyard". That sounds like reason enough to me. The small number of ones that I've encountered, "back in the day" had geographic restrictions in the Description. Maybe it's better off in Utah where JB can keep an eye on it.

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!

 

Wow, MrsLegoLegend and I had no idea what we were getting ourselves into by grabbing that cache last night. The forum has caught fire since then, so without trying to address all the issues at hand, I would like to respond to the Water Rat's accusation that all of the latest finders are cheating. A problem with judging cachers solely by their logs is you don't really know the context at all. First, drgw3128 and Utahsnowflake have been married for years. Both of them finding the same cache isn't quite like taking the cache to an event for all in attendance to sign. Or even like calling up a buddy to come sign the cache while its in your possession. Generally when you cache with someone else, it doesn't matter who actually spots the cache first, both tend to sign the log. Second, although we are friends with both of the previous hiders, literally all we received last night was a text containing a GC code. This message came after new coordinates had already been posted and the hundreds of cachers watching this cache had received a notification. Having found moving caches before, we actually ended up deciding not to go retrieve the cache last night since it was down in the town south of us. About an hour later, however, we got a FTF notification and that got us out the door.

 

Again, the purpose of this log is to point out that everybody accusing each other of cheating is kind of pointless when you don't have the whole story. That's just how this game works. Before throwing accusations, try to find out the whole story. And maybe take a few minutes to calm down and remember its just a game.

 

Thanks for the explanation, sorry if I upset anyone. However this has come about because the cache which was legitimately in the UK was disabled by the cache owner due to what he assumed to be abuse based upon logs. As you say the problem with judging catchers solely by their logs is you don't really know the context at all. Unfortunately you innocently got caught up in this.

 

I have tried to make a proposal which could be satisfactory to all, subject to GS but am yet to hear a positive response. I am sorry that people who share an international fun hobby we cannot appear to agree.

 

I understand the frustration of having the cache suddenly taken away from the UK and placed in Utah. I'd be confused and baffled too. I get it. What bothers me though is how many are channeling that frustration to the fact that my husband and I were together when we found the moving cache, and were together when we placed it, yet were accused of cheating by passing it from one friend to another. And alerting other local cachers to the presence of the moving cache in the area is not cheating either. It's excitement and sharing the news of a rare cache in the area. I'm sure you'd do the same.

Edited by utahsnowflake
Link to comment

I totally agree with what Utahsnowflake has said. Most of us will never have the opportunity to find Jacobs Moving Cache but if we do why not share our good fortune with friends ? It's a game not a competition.

However the problem is that apparently JacobBarlow has used this possible sharing as a reason to remove the cache from the UK. Thus it appears that there is now a double standard applied to the way it is played. This is what has incensed a significant number of the geocaching community in the UK many who had never heard of Jacob's cache before.

 

Had JacobBarlow simply said it is my cache and I don't want it to leave Utah this would have been accepted, albeit perhaps reluctantly. We now have the ridiculous situation where the same two caches are both in play, which is against GS rules.

 

I have offered a solution which would be permissible.

 

Let's not fall out over this, it is just a game. I'm sure if we were to meet up either in the US or UK we would at least share a beer or whatever your drink of choice.

Edited by The Water Rat
Link to comment
However the problem is that apparently JacobBarlow has used this possible sharing as a reason to remove the cache from the UK.

If you believe the good in people rather than the bad, this isn't a problem. Take his word for why he moved it, and this apparent problem goes away.

 

We now have the ridiculous situation where the same two caches are both in play, which is against GS rules.

But both caches AREN'T in play. Someone just grab and toss the UK container, please - then all can move on. :)

 

Let's not fall out over this, it is just a game.

Exactly.

Edited by TriciaG
Link to comment

Anybody who has had their valid log deleted by the CO should contact GS and ask them to reinstate the log. CO's should only delete Found it logs if they are in violation of GS's Terms of use see link

 

Funny, I have been told by Groundspeak many times if I don't delete logs they will archive the cache - without that I would just let anyone log it... I don't like policing caches.

 

I did say valid logs....

 

Just because you disabled the cache doesn't mean that people weren't finding it and moving it as per the cache "rules" and hence they can ask for their logs to be reinstated.

 

The few valid finds that were deleted had accompanying emails asking them to log the find without saying they hid the cache, so that they could both have a find and stop tricking people into thinking that cache was still the cache. Most deleted logs were from people who broke the rules.

Link to comment

Jacob- I have only just read this. I had the first found log after you disabled it- ZoeHannah. I didn't get an email from you (I did send you one asking you what you would like me to do with the cache, but as I said, I had no reply)

 

I completely appreciate that the cache is yours, and for you to make a choice on what you do with it. But I am also sorry that I have had my log deleted when I did find the cache. Having seen this post today, I would have logged my cache without the found co-ords if you had asked me to. I don't think I broke the rules- certainly not intentionally. Would love to have had this cache as one I had found, but doesn't seem to be the case.

Link to comment

We had great fun chasing this when it was in Suffolk UK. Most of my caching is done with my daughter Abi (11) and my cousin monkeysawus and her son (6). We were both watching it very closely and were lucky enough to find it. So as we are both cachers how do we keep within the rules. So we decided one would post the N co-ords and the other the E co-ords. At no time did we consider hiding and finding so each other could have it seperately. We all thought long and hard about where to place it and decided some old ley lines would be appropriate. Found together and placed together. Our cachers of the future were very fired up by this cache and it was a great couple of weeks following and finding the cache, indeed the children were in awe. And as always with caching they learnt something along the way about historic ley lines and why there was a dragon in Scole.

 

Jacob Thank you for the chance we thoroughly enjoyed the experience and indeed felt privileged.

 

It is a great shame that there can't be one again in the UK. Not a reflection on you, Jacob, just a shame there can't be another one started and kept in UK.

Link to comment

I totally agree with what Utahsnowflake has said. Most of us will never have the opportunity to find Jacobs Moving Cache but if we do why not share our good fortune with friends ? It's a game not a competition.

However the problem is that apparently JacobBarlow has used this possible sharing as a reason to remove the cache from the UK. Thus it appears that there is now a double standard applied to the way it is played. This is what has incensed a significant number of the geocaching community in the UK many who had never heard of Jacob's cache before.

 

Had JacobBarlow simply said it is my cache and I don't want it to leave Utah this would have been accepted, albeit perhaps reluctantly. We now have the ridiculous situation where the same two caches are both in play, which is against GS rules.

 

I have offered a solution which would be permissible.

 

Let's not fall out over this, it is just a game. I'm sure if we were to meet up either in the US or UK we would at least share a beer or whatever your drink of choice.

 

There is no problem. A new cache exists elsewhere because some people did not listen to the owner, and believed that there was nothing he could do. Insisting incorrectly that they were his rules, or that there are two hides, is absurd. The cache is now replaced elsewhere. Yall didn't expect that to happen, so archival is requested? :rolleyes:

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.

Hey, as the CO of one of my favorit caches (Log Into It), I will let you in on a secret (not very secret actualy, and I am sure you know about it already). If any of you guys in Edmonton want a tast of a moving cache, we have 2 down here in Calgary owned by OutForTheHunt.

 

Two of their rules for these caches are that they must stay in Calgary City Limits, and no logging at events. Like JacobBarlow experienced OutForTheHunt has had to delete logs from 'finders' at events.

 

I must say that I am always a bit supprised that a CO would be willing to do the constant administrative work of keeping a moving cache alive. It seems to me like a lot of boaring work. As a result, we always thank OutForTheHunt whenever we log these caches.

Link to comment

We had great fun chasing this when it was in Suffolk UK. Most of my caching is done with my daughter Abi (11) and my cousin monkeysawus and her son (6). We were both watching it very closely and were lucky enough to find it. So as we are both cachers how do we keep within the rules. So we decided one would post the N co-ords and the other the E co-ords. At no time did we consider hiding and finding so each other could have it seperately. We all thought long and hard about where to place it and decided some old ley lines would be appropriate. Found together and placed together. Our cachers of the future were very fired up by this cache and it was a great couple of weeks following and finding the cache, indeed the children were in awe. And as always with caching they learnt something along the way about historic ley lines and why there was a dragon in Scole.

 

Jacob Thank you for the chance we thoroughly enjoyed the experience and indeed felt privileged.

 

It is a great shame that there can't be one again in the UK. Not a reflection on you, Jacob, just a shame there can't be another one started and kept in UK.

What would be great is if Groundspeak would launch a few around the world. I think a lot of cachers would appreciate that.

Link to comment
I must say that I am always a bit supprised that a CO would be willing to do the constant administrative work of keeping a moving cache alive.
I agree.

Just changing coords each time seems like a real pain in the can and keeping tabs on hand-it-to-me logs, forget it.

 

But maybe not all are on top of things.

Bernie's moving cache (GC2179), had over 60 people sign it at the avalanche event in Quebec over the weekend.

It was held and brought over from another event to get there, with the CO changing the coords to that event...

Link to comment

What would be great is if Groundspeak would launch a few around the world. I think a lot of cachers would appreciate that.

 

Probably too big a headache for Groundspeak to watch over, given Jacob's experience.

This.

 

The idea is great, but harder to deal with when we've now got a much more diverse user base. Many may have known what to do "back in the day", but people who are just joining the game these days via the phone apps ahve no context to know what a grandfathered "moving cache" is.

Link to comment

What would be great is if Groundspeak would launch a few around the world. I think a lot of cachers would appreciate that.

 

Probably too big a headache for Groundspeak to watch over, given Jacob's experience.

This.

 

The idea is great, but harder to deal with when we've now got a much more diverse user base. Many may have known what to do "back in the day", but people who are just joining the game these days via the phone apps have no context to know what a grandfathered "moving cache" is.

I think newer folks in general don't know how these work.

Many logs say, "logged the cache? I thought it was a TB" or similar.

- Of course if they found it hidden like they're supposed to be, maybe it wouldn't be so difficult to figure out...

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment

I just want to put my 2 cents in here. I emailed Groundspeak for the definitive answer in terms of adoption for this and other "moving" caches. They are all classified as Traditional caches and adoption should not be a problem. Locationless caches have all been disabled. There are no "grandfathered" Locationless caches as they have been converted to Traditional caches. Therefore, anytime anyone who owns a travelling cache wants to adopt it out, they can. At least, that's what the Groundspeak Lackey told me.

Link to comment

I just want to put my 2 cents in here. I emailed Groundspeak for the definitive answer in terms of adoption for this and other "moving" caches. They are all classified as Traditional caches and adoption should not be a problem. Locationless caches have all been disabled. There are no "grandfathered" Locationless caches as they have been converted to Traditional caches. Therefore, anytime anyone who owns a travelling cache wants to adopt it out, they can. At least, that's what the Groundspeak Lackey told me.

Though I like traveling caches I don't see why they would allow adoptions. They want them gone like Webcams and Virtuals. You can't adopt those. Adopting out a Traveling cache would just be prolonging their life. Not something reviewers want. I have seen where some got archived just because cachers bickering over them. I am amazed that the Jacob caches have lasted this long. WTG Jacob. It's great that he can not keep them (hopefully) closer to home.

Link to comment

I just want to put my 2 cents in here. I emailed Groundspeak for the definitive answer in terms of adoption for this and other "moving" caches. They are all classified as Traditional caches and adoption should not be a problem. Locationless caches have all been disabled. There are no "grandfathered" Locationless caches as they have been converted to Traditional caches. Therefore, anytime anyone who owns a travelling cache wants to adopt it out, they can. At least, that's what the Groundspeak Lackey told me.

Though I like traveling caches I don't see why they would allow adoptions. They want them gone like Webcams and Virtuals. You can't adopt those. Adopting out a Traveling cache would just be prolonging their life. Not something reviewers want. I have seen where some got archived just because cachers bickering over them. I am amazed that the Jacob caches have lasted this long. WTG Jacob. It's great that he can not keep them (hopefully) closer to home.

 

Yeah, I've been told specifically by Groundspeak that they won't allow moving caches to be adopted because they want them to phase and and not exist anymore, but obviously others have recently been told otherwise.

Link to comment

I'm just sorry I started this (which doesn't mean I'm changing any of the views I've expressed.) But I've learned a lot about the caching community; not much of it pleasant.

I agree.

With all the "but we aren't logging this way" posts to find it may not be so, I agree.

Why, another floating around, The Cuckoo cache, shows the same logs too.

"What a surprise to have this cache set up home in our event. Thanks to The Wombles for bringing it along for people to find. Lovely coins inside it this time as well."

Sheesh.

Link to comment

 

With all the "but we aren't logging this way" posts to find it may not be so, I agree.

Why, another floating around, The Cuckoo cache, shows the same logs too.

"What a surprise to have this cache set up home in our event. Thanks to The Wombles for bringing it along for people to find. Lovely coins inside it this time as well."

Sheesh.

 

The Cuckoo cache is per design attached to a TB. The cache owner (who is "The Wombles") encourages taking it to events. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Link to comment

As the owner of Burning Bert I can tell there ar 68 moving caches in the world known to me. Of which 5 are in some way virtual caches. http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=72286de7-86a3-41e0-bad6-4b790cc22936

 

It's not allowed to adopt. But it has happened the last few years with some moving caches. They didn't get archived.

Thanks for that. :)

I only had 38.

Think I'll add the others that are State/Country/World-wide, and skip the "remain in this park", or "in this County" ones.

Link to comment
Utah MOVING Cache #1 was recently archived by Geocaching HQ Admin.
Huh... "Due to problems with an ALR and duplicate containers on two continents, this cache unfortunately must be archived."

 

The "duplicate containers" argument might have merit, but where's the ALR? All I see is an explanation for how traveling caches work, and a rephrasing of Groundspeak's ban on pocket caches.

Link to comment
Utah MOVING Cache #1 was recently archived by Geocaching HQ Admin.
Huh... "Due to problems with an ALR and duplicate containers on two continents, this cache unfortunately must be archived."

 

The "duplicate containers" argument might have merit, but where's the ALR? All I see is an explanation for how traveling caches work, and a rephrasing of Groundspeak's ban on pocket caches.

I'm guessing that's an interpretation based on "re-Review" for the cache to be re-enabled once the 2-continent issue is resolved.

Link to comment
Utah MOVING Cache #1 was recently archived by Geocaching HQ Admin.
Huh... "Due to problems with an ALR and duplicate containers on two continents, this cache unfortunately must be archived."

 

The "duplicate containers" argument might have merit, but where's the ALR? All I see is an explanation for how traveling caches work, and a rephrasing of Groundspeak's ban on pocket caches.

 

It was probably all the "you took our toy away so I'm going to post a NA log so nobody else gets to play with it" whining from a few UK cachers that eventually caused GS to cave.

Link to comment
It was probably all the "you took our toy away so I'm going to post a NA log so nobody else gets to play with it" whining from a few UK cachers that eventually caused GS to cave.
Well, yeah. But there's still no ALR.

+1

Might even be an employee new enough to not even know it's supposed to move around?

Get a gazillion "whaaaa, Whaaaa" emails, and act on 'em w/o thinking it through.

I thought I remember the CO saying the re-claiming and replacing new was a standard approved by HQ, and agreed on a post or two later, by another aware how it's done.

- So shouldn't the "two continents" thing have been okay too?

Link to comment
Utah MOVING Cache #1 was recently archived by Geocaching HQ Admin.
Huh... "Due to problems with an ALR and duplicate containers on two continents, this cache unfortunately must be archived."

 

The "duplicate containers" argument might have merit, but where's the ALR? All I see is an explanation for how traveling caches work, and a rephrasing of Groundspeak's ban on pocket caches.

I'm guessing that's an interpretation based on "re-Review" for the cache to be re-enabled once the 2-continent issue is resolved.

It won't be unarchived. Like Virtuals and Webcams. Once it's archived it's goodbye.

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...