Frustration with TB's that are not in caches

[cezanne]

There is a reason cache owners have the ability to mark Travel Bugs missing. The reason is that many travel bug owners leave the game or loose interest. In a perfect world the Travel Bug owner would monitor their Travel Bugs and mark them as missing accordingly.

 

Both as a cache owner and trackable owner I react more conservatively. I certainly would not mark one of my trackables as missing that has been dropped off on Tuesday and on Wednesday the cache owner or someone else notes that the trackable is not any longer in the cache.

 

Lets say for example you own a cache that gets many visits and lots of Travel Bug activity. Sooner or later your going to have a bunch of travel bugs listed in the cache that are not there.

 

Yes, of course that can and will happen for such caches. I know a cache with >13000 finds. The cache owner goes through the list of trackables several times a year and then marks those who have spent a longer time in the cache inventory and are not any longer there as missing. That behaviour makes perfect sense to me. It does not make sense to me however to perform such actions say on a weekly basis or react even more quickly for example for caches in front of the owner's home which he/she can check daily.

 

I would instantly stop to move along trackables if it happened frequently to me that I need to grab trackables from an unknown location because a cache owner marked them missing much too quickly and not taking into account the available background information (e.g. a write note that I have the trackable in my hands).

 

I've visited caches that have over a dozen trackables listed in the cache only to discover a couple still present. How as a cache owner do you handle that? Trying to keep a list of the trackables that were not in the cache at the time you were there and waiting to see if each one is picked up within a week or so is a lot of work. Not to mention the fact that during that week another 10 or 15 people may visit the cache and contribute to the travel bug total.

 

Yes, of course I would write down such a list. In my case the list would be short as I only hide caches that target for small audiences.

As I'm annoyed if I cannot retrieve a trackable I found from the right cache (due to it being marked missing too early or being grabbed away by an impatient person) I certainly try to avoid doing to others what annoys me.

 

If you own a cache that has hundreds of visits a year or one that gets 30, at some point you have to square the cache inventory. the question is should a cache owner be a travel bug manager and how much time should a cache owner devote to it. Should it be mandatory or voluntary?

 

In my opinion, voluntary, but if someone is doing it, they should do it in a way that does not harm the trackables more than it helps them.

[+justintim1999]

There is a reason cache owners have the ability to mark Travel Bugs missing. The reason is that many travel bug owners leave the game or loose interest. In a perfect world the Travel Bug owner would monitor their Travel Bugs and mark them as missing accordingly.

 

Both as a cache owner and trackable owner I react more conservatively. I certainly would not mark one of my trackables as missing that has been dropped off on Tuesday and on Wednesday the cache owner or someone else notes that the trackable is not any longer in the cache.

 

Lets say for example you own a cache that gets many visits and lots of Travel Bug activity. Sooner or later your going to have a bunch of travel bugs listed in the cache that are not there.

 

Yes, of course that can and will happen for such caches. I know a cache with >13000 finds. The cache owner goes through the list of trackables several times a year and then marks those who have spent a longer time in the cache inventory and are not any longer there as missing. That behaviour makes perfect sense to me. It does not make sense to me however to perform such actions say on a weekly basis or react even more quickly for example for caches in front of the owner's home which he/she can check daily.

 

I would instantly stop to move along trackables if it happened frequently to me that I need to grab trackables from an unknown location because a cache owner marked them missing much too quickly and not taking into account the available background information (e.g. a write note that I have the trackable in my hands).

 

I've visited caches that have over a dozen trackables listed in the cache only to discover a couple still present. How as a cache owner do you handle that? Trying to keep a list of the trackables that were not in the cache at the time you were there and waiting to see if each one is picked up within a week or so is a lot of work. Not to mention the fact that during that week another 10 or 15 people may visit the cache and contribute to the travel bug total.

 

Yes, of course I would write down such a list. In my case the list would be short as I only hide caches that target for small audiences.

As I'm annoyed if I cannot retrieve a trackable I found from the right cache (due to it being marked missing too early or being grabbed away by an impatient person) I certainly try to avoid doing to others what annoys me.

 

If you own a cache that has hundreds of visits a year or one that gets 30, at some point you have to square the cache inventory. the question is should a cache owner be a travel bug manager and how much time should a cache owner devote to it. Should it be mandatory or voluntary?

 

In my opinion, voluntary, but if someone is doing it, they should do it in a way that does not harm the trackables more than it helps them.

 

Doesn't it help the owner know that their trackable is no longer in the cache? I'd rather know that it was picked up at some point rather than sit there hoping that it's still in the cache.

 

I think your reading into the word "missing" to closely. When you mark a traveler as missing it doesn't require you to report how long it's been in the cache. How many people have visited the cache since it was dropped and who you think may have it. All that logs says is that the trackable was not present when you checked up on the cache.

 

I don't think It's "harming" the trackable as much as it's helping the cache. If the trackable is still out there then no harm done. Who ever has it will simply have to retrieve it from the unknown location and carry on. to me, leaving missing trackables in cache inventories is more harmful.

 

I think it's great you take the time to do this, I really do. I've done it on occasion myself. I just don't think that cache owners should think they have to as well.

[+dprovan]

You cut off the important part that shows the context. If mark missing is intended to be used immediately, then GS would need to change the language "unknown location" that results on the trackable page as "unknown location" in many cases is not appropriate (e.g. when the log book or even the online log provides the information that cacher X holds the trackable).

If the CO has confirmed that the TB is not in the cache, leaving it listed in the cache is absolutely the wrong thing to do. That is the one state the CO knows for a fact is wrong. The CO might be able to, in rare cases, guess who has the TB, and it makes sense for him to drag his feet if the last log was yesterday, but since the CO cannot put the cache in someone's hands, it is better than nothing for him to remove it from his cache in the common case where there's no evidence of a recent grab. He cannot officially tell the system where he suspects it is -- and I wouldn't want him to guess, anyway -- but he can put in his Missing log where he thinks it went.

 

It happens to me several times per year that I encounter a trackable in cache X which has not yet been logged into cache X. I take it along and write a note on the trackable page that the trackable is in my hands and I will wait with retrieving it from cache X when it has been dropped into cache X. I'm not willing to grab the trackable, neither from a cacher nor another cache Y nor from "unknown location". All three options are wrong and do not match the reality that I took it from cache X and there is no other way than waiting until the cachers before fixed everything and relying on that "mark missing" is not used as it is incorrect and this case and leads to a situation which cannot be fixed without ending up with logical inconsistencies. (There are ways to fix the mileage by creating a visit log - but again that would be wrong when it comes to which person did what with the trackable).

I think the interaction of carriers is entirely unrelated to the discussion of the CO's ability to mark a TB missing. But in my opinion, in explaining why you delay grabbing the TB when it hasn't been logged in, you end up showing why the delay does nothing but confuse the situation even more. Let me ask you: when you delay grabbing the TB, how often does it actually show up in the cache where you found it? In my experience, if it isn't logged in when I go to grab it, in most cases it will never be logged in, so my delay simply creates confusion that I could have cleared up right away with the small price of possibly forcing someone to post a note to explain their drop instead of being able to post an actual drop.

[cezanne]

If the CO has confirmed that the TB is not in the cache, leaving it listed in the cache is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

 

Yes and no. There is need for making a distinction between missing from a cache and at an unknown location. GS is not using proper terminology and is handling things not in a good way.

 

That is the one state the CO knows for a fact is wrong. The CO might be able to, in rare cases, guess who has the TB,

 

In cases where there exists an explicit note on the trackable page or in the cache log book, there is no need to make a guess at all.

 

and it makes sense for him to drag his feet if the last log was yesterday, but since the CO cannot put the cache in someone's hands, it is better than nothing for him to remove it from his cache in the common case where there's no evidence of a recent grab. He cannot officially tell the system where he suspects it is -- and I wouldn't want him to guess, anyway -- but he can put in his Missing log where he thinks it went.

 

Even if such an option existed, it should not be used as the only way to have all the actions in the proper order is to wait.

 

I think the interaction of carriers is entirely unrelated to the discussion of the CO's ability to mark a TB missing.

 

I do not think so as as soon as grabs or mark missing is used, the order of actions is not any longer the correct one and is not reflecting the reality.

 

But in my opinion, in explaining why you delay grabbing the TB when it hasn't been logged in, you end up showing why the delay does nothing but confuse the situation even more.

 

I'm not confusing anything at all. I contribute to clarity as I write a note on the trackable page (and also add a comment to my cache log) where I explicitey write that I took the trackable X and that I need to wait until it gets logged into the cache where I took it from. I did neither take it from another cacher nor from another cache.

 

Let me ask you: when you delay grabbing the TB, how often does it actually show up in the cache where you found it?

 

So far in all cases I encountered as I also was able to find out who was currently having the trackable and I wrote e-mails to these persons.

Sometimes it needed a reminder and sometimes it took some time, but it always worked out.

 

In my experience, if it isn't logged in when I go to grab it, in most cases it will never be logged in, so my delay simply creates confusion that I could have cleared up right away with the small price of possibly forcing someone to post a note to explain their drop instead of being able to post an actual drop.

 

That definitely does not match my experience and it also happened to me that I have been contacted and asked to drop a trackable so that someone else could log it. That's not at all uncommon as for example if I take along a trackable in the morning and then return home in the evening someone living much closer to the cache or someone who returned home immediately or someone with mobile internet will log before me.

 

It's extremely common that when taking a trackable from a cache that got dropped off the same day that the trackable will not yet be logged. At tourist spots a delay of more than a day is not uncommon too.

Edited January 27, 2016 by cezanne

[+justintim1999]

Not to be picky but you assume that the cache owner is going to take the time to read your note. What if they don't? what if they only read the "didn't find it" logs and the "maintenance" logs which are really the only ones that need to be monitored to successfully maintain a cache.

 

Lets say I'm on vacation and for some reason I don't have the ability to log my finds or Travelers for three or four days. I would probably write a note explaining the situation. If for some reason the traveler was marked missing in that time, no problem, I'd just retrieve it from the land of the lost and be on my way. Actually I would be impressed that a cache owner actually checked up on one of their caches and took the time to square up the cache inventory. I wouldn't think of questioning them on why they didn't investigate the logs before they marked the traveler as missing.

[cezanne]

Not to be picky but you assume that the cache owner is going to take the time to read your note. What if they don't? what if they only read the "didn't find it" logs and the "maintenance" logs which are really the only ones that need to be monitored to successfully maintain a cache.

 

Yes, I assume that every person who moves a trackable to an "unknown location" first checks the trackable page. Otherwise, it would be better to stay away from taking any actions with the trackable.

 

As a side note: If it were my decision, I never had introduced NM logs - it encourages too many cache owners to not read every log.

 

I'd just retrieve it from the land of the lost and be on my way.

 

I have already explained that I do have an issue with grabbing a TB from an unknown location, a wrong cache or a cacher and not to retrieve it from the cache where I took it from. The result is simply plain wrong.

[+justintim1999]

Not to be picky but you assume that the cache owner is going to take the time to read your note. What if they don't? what if they only read the "didn't find it" logs and the "maintenance" logs which are really the only ones that need to be monitored to successfully maintain a cache.

 

Yes, I assume that every person who moves a trackable to an "unknown location" first checks the trackable page. Otherwise, it would be better to stay away from taking any actions with the trackable.

 

As a side note: If it were my decision, I never had introduced NM logs - it encourages too many cache owners to not read every log.

 

I'd just retrieve it from the land of the lost and be on my way.

 

I have already explained that I do have an issue with grabbing a TB from an unknown location, a wrong cache or a cacher and not to retrieve it from the cache where I took it from. The result is simply plain wrong.

 

Shouldn't the cache owner have the right to remove any trackable that's listed but not in the cache? Why should I stay away from any action because someone may or may not have picked it up and hasn't logged it. It almost sounds like the actual geocaches are the side game, not the other way around.

 

I agree that it takes a little more work to retrieve a travel bug from another location other than the cache it should be in but It takes a lot less time to log a missing trackable than it dose to hunt down a cache only to find that a trackable that's suppose to be in there isn't.

[cezanne]

Shouldn't the cache owner have the right to remove any trackable that's listed but not in the cache?

 

If that is the sole purpose the implementation should be different.

The model suggested by TheBlorenges (greying out trackables in a first step) is much nicer and does not come along with the drawback that cachers are forced to log actions which do not match with the reality.

 

It almost sounds like the actual geocaches are the side game, not the other way around.

 

I never regarded the trackable inventory of geocaches as being a key part of the actual geocache. Caches should be visited in their own right and not because someone wants to collect a particular trackable icon.

 

I agree that it takes a little more work to retrieve a travel bug from another location other than the cache it should be

 

My major argument is not related to the invested work. Be assured that contacting other cachers and asking them to act so that the records of the trackable are correct certainly costs more time than any

sort of immediate grab action ever could cost.

 

My message is that if one is forced to grab a trackable from unknown or another place than the one one retrieved the trackable from, the history gets distorted and I find that very annoying.

 

Some cachers log events and caches with the date of the day when they write the log and do not mind that this is not the truth - I of course use the date of my visit even if I write the online log sometimes days later. Correctness of my logs and gc-actions is important to me. That's also a reason why I have an issue with offering the permission to write a find log for one of my caches when the cache was gone.

 

 

in but It takes a lot less time to log a missing trackable than it dose to hunt down a cache only to find that a trackable that's suppose to be in there isn't.

 

I do not get what you are saying here. Do you say that someone visits a cache only to find a particular trackable? If so, then it's you who accuses me of putting higher value into trackables than into the actual caches?

Moreover, I have often said before that even if cache owners would check their caches once per day, the trackable inventory can never be reliably used to decide whether you visit a cache or not.

[+justintim1999]

Shouldn't the cache owner have the right to remove any trackable that's listed but not in the cache?

 

If that is the sole purpose the implementation should be different.

The model suggested by TheBlorenges (greying out trackables in a first step) is much nicer and does not come along with the drawback that cachers are forced to log actions which do not match with the reality.

 

It almost sounds like the actual geocaches are the side game, not the other way around.

 

I never regarded the trackable inventory of geocaches as being a key part of the actual geocache. Caches should be visited in their own right and not because someone wants to collect a particular trackable icon.

 

I agree that it takes a little more work to retrieve a travel bug from another location other than the cache it should be

 

My major argument is not related to the invested work. Be assured that contacting other cachers and asking them to act so that the records of the trackable are correct certainly costs more time than any

sort of immediate grab action ever could cost.

 

My message is that if one is forced to grab a trackable from unknown or another place than the one one retrieved the trackable from, the history gets distorted and I find that very annoying.

 

Some cachers log events and caches with the date of the day when they write the log and do not mind that this is not the truth - I of course use the date of my visit even if I write the online log sometimes days later. Correctness of my logs and gc-actions is important to me. That's also a reason why I have an issue with offering the permission to write a find log for one of my caches when the cache was gone.

 

 

in but It takes a lot less time to log a missing trackable than it dose to hunt down a cache only to find that a trackable that's suppose to be in there isn't.

 

I do not get what you are saying here. Do you say that someone visits a cache only to find a particular trackable? If so, then it's you who accuses me of putting higher value into trackables than into the actual caches?

Moreover, I have often said before that even if cache owners would check their caches once per day, the trackable inventory can never be reliably used to decide whether you visit a cache or not.

 

Having the option of "greying" out or clearly indicating that a trackable is not currently in a cache would be great. Unfortunately that option doesn't exist. Currently. the only action given cache owners is marking the traveler missing.

 

I don't think that the history of a trackable is the responsibility of the cache owner. Lets not forget that the cache owner is not responsible for the trackables current condition. The issue stems from a 3rd party who has not logged the trackable correctly. It becomes the cache owners issue if they continue to allow the trackable to appear in the cache inventory when it's clearly not there. the cause and effect of all this starts with properly logging trackables in a timely manor. Any issues with that should be handled by the traveler's owner. Your asking cache owners to take "extra" steps that are not required of them. People who want to take the time to do that can but it shouldn't be expected.

 

I do think that some cachers visit caches specifically to pick up travelers. Many others will notice that a cache supposedly has a traveler in it and will attempt to pick it up when they visit. We all agree that cache inventories will never be 100% accurate but that's no excuse for not trying to keep it accurate.

[cezanne]

I don't think that the history of a trackable is the responsibility of the cache owner.

 

I never said so.

However please respect that for me as a cacher it is very important to do things correctly. I hate workaround solutions that result in something that contradicts the truth.

 

The issue stems from a 3rd party who has not logged the trackable correctly.

 

Not necessarily. There is no requirement to log in the field and to rush home immediately. It is not forbidden to log later after coming home.

 

Your asking cache owners to take "extra" steps that are not required of them. People who want to take the time to do that can but it shouldn't be expected.

 

They could just as well wait a few days with marking trackables that recently got dropped off or do nothing at all (that's the better choice in my opinion than marking trackables missing too

quickly). That does not take time at all.

 

I do think that some cachers visit caches specifically to pick up travelers. Many others will notice that a cache supposedly has a traveler in it and will attempt to pick it up when they visit. We all agree that cache inventories will never be 100% accurate but that's no excuse for not trying to keep it accurate.

 

I try to keep the history of trackables accurate in the sense that it is correct when you look at all the logs in the past. A trackable that has been retrieved from cache A on May 1 but logged as retrieved only on May 3 will have the correct history with what I suggest. If it is moved to an unknown location on May 2, the trackable history is wrong while not having won anything with respect to the cache.

[+justintim1999]

I don't think that the history of a trackable is the responsibility of the cache owner.

 

I never said so.

However please respect that for me as a cacher it is very important to do things correctly. I hate workaround solutions that result in something that contradicts the truth.

 

The issue stems from a 3rd party who has not logged the trackable correctly.

 

Not necessarily. There is no requirement to log in the field and to rush home immediately. It is not forbidden to log later after coming home.

 

Your asking cache owners to take "extra" steps that are not required of them. People who want to take the time to do that can but it shouldn't be expected.

 

They could just as well wait a few days with marking trackables that recently got dropped off or do nothing at all (that's the better choice in my opinion than marking trackables missing too

quickly). That does not take time at all.

 

I do think that some cachers visit caches specifically to pick up travelers. Many others will notice that a cache supposedly has a traveler in it and will attempt to pick it up when they visit. We all agree that cache inventories will never be 100% accurate but that's no excuse for not trying to keep it accurate.

 

I try to keep the history of trackables accurate in the sense that it is correct when you look at all the logs in the past. A trackable that has been retrieved from cache A on May 1 but logged as retrieved only on May 3 will have the correct history with what I suggest. If it is moved to an unknown location on May 2, the trackable history is wrong while not having won anything with respect to the cache.

 

The correct thing for a cache owner to do is maintain their cache. That includes accuracy of the trackable inventory.

 

Again, by waiting to mark trackables missing you become start becoming a trackable manager which is not what a cache owner is suppose to be doing. Waiting for any period of time or doing nothing at all is extenuating the problem.

 

The majority of the time a trackable goes missing is due to cacher error. The vast majority of missing logs are issued against trackables that have been missing for months. You seem to be stuck on the one or two travelers that get caught up in a totally random situation like the one I posted originally. I can see if a cache gets many visits and the cache owner is marking trackables missing every day then yes that could be an issue. That situation is few and far between and is not the norm. the norm is having missing trackables sitting in cache inventories indefinitely.

 

Of the thousands of trackables moved every day consider this. What are the chances that a trackable is picked up a day or two before a cache maintenance run? Take that number and figure in that this would have to happen during the one or two times a year a cache owner actually visits the cache for maintenance. How many cache owners never visit their caches for maintenance and of those who do how many actually take the time to adjust the trackable inventory? How many of those travelers would not be logged with a day or two of being picked up? What would happen if the trackable owner actually marked their own trackable missing?

 

I think you see where I'm going here. Were talking about an extremely small number of trackables that would be adversely effected by the cache owner marking them as missing. On the flip side the cache owner could remove thousands of missing and abandoned trackables from the game.

 

If cachers moved and logged trackables correctly and trackable owners watched them and marked them as missing when appropriate the cache owner wouldn't be in a position to have to clean up the mess.

[cezanne]

 

If cachers moved and logged trackables correctly and trackable owners watched them and marked them as missing when appropriate the cache owner wouldn't be in a position to have to clean up the mess.

 

Not true when you look at it from your short term perspective. Not everyone lives in an area with not too many caches and cachers. In my area it is very likely for a large group of caches (of course not the remote ones) that within two days of a maintenance visit several cachers have been at the cache. Some caches are like an event on weekends - you cannot visit them without meeting several other cachers.

 

It would be crazy as trackable owner to react that quickly when one can almost sure that everything will be alright within 2 days. Also one can hardly blame cachers as logging trackables incorrectly if they wait until they get home.

[+justintim1999]

 

If cachers moved and logged trackables correctly and trackable owners watched them and marked them as missing when appropriate the cache owner wouldn't be in a position to have to clean up the mess.

 

Not true when you look at it from your short term perspective. Not everyone lives in an area with not too many caches and cachers. In my area it is very likely for a large group of caches (of course not the remote ones) that within two days of a maintenance visit several cachers have been at the cache. Some caches are like an event on weekends - you cannot visit them without meeting several other cachers.

 

It would be crazy as trackable owner to react that quickly when one can almost sure that everything will be alright within 2 days. Also one can hardly blame cachers as logging trackables incorrectly if they wait until they get home.

 

It is true when your looking at it from the long term perspective. The number of caches in an area has little to do with what were discussing. If you live in an area with few caches and cachers than I'm sure it would be quite easy to figure out if a trackable is missing and who has it. If your the owner of 30 caches in areas the get lots of activity, than managing trackables in those caches gets a little more complicated.

 

It's pretty simple to know when one of your trackables has gone missing. The signs are all there. Most trackable owners know that it's missing way before the cache owner makes it official.

 

Lets face it, there are way more trackables that correctly get marked as missing than ones that slip through the cracks.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Two things:

 

First, how the hell do you expect a TB owner to know when his or her TB is not in a cache? All he or she has to go by are logs that mention that it might not be there, and no way to confirm it unless he HAPPENS to live nearby, and mine certainly aren't nearby. You're saying the TB owner should keep track of it and not rely on the CO! Are you reading your own posts?

 

Second, I swear I've never seen people who fundamentally agree with each other argue practically identical positions against each other across so many posts!

 

-------------------------

 

Whew! No insult intended, but this thread is painful!

[+justintim1999]

Two things:

 

First, how the hell do you expect a TB owner to know when his or her TB is not in a cache? All he or she has to go by are logs that mention that it might not be there, and no way to confirm it unless he HAPPENS to live nearby, and mine certainly aren't nearby. You're saying the TB owner should keep track of it and not rely on the CO! Are you reading your own posts?

 

Second, I swear I've never seen people who fundamentally agree with each other argue practically identical positions against each other across so many posts!

 

-------------------------

 

Whew! No insult intended, but this thread is painful!

 

 

I thought this was a discussion not an argument. I haven't taken anything cezanne has posted personally. We happen to disagree about the cache owners timing on marking a traveler missing. I feel if you visit your cache and a trackable is not in the cache you have a right to mark it as missing right away. cezanne believes you should wait to see if it was recently picked up.

 

cacher logs are useful but the cache owners logs is what's definite.

 

As painful as this thread may be you've obviously read all the posts. You must have an opinion?

[+TheAuthorityFigures]

Like the Topic Starter I love to travel Travel Bugs to other caches. I wish there was a filter on the site by wich I can see in wich caches TB's are present. So that I don't have to look alle individuel caches in an area to see wich ones have a TB in the inventory.

Is it possible to make a filter like the ones you have to search cache types? Or make a symbol like a little star on caches on the map that have a TB in it.

It would please a lot of people!

 

Pocket query and filter caches with listed TB's. The problem with this as I discovered in my area is that after looking at all these caches closely, nearly all of them listing a trackable hadn't actually had it in the cache... many of them for years. I messaged the TO and CO owners if I noticed a TB listed in the inventory but after reading the cache log and the tb log to find numerous post saying the tb isn't in the cache. I got some response from CO's and TO's thanking me for giving them a heads up, and they marked it missing. But overall most didn't reply (inactive CO's and TO's), so I e-mailed a list of TB's in caches in my area to Eartha who was nice enough to mark these long lost tb's as missing thus taking them out of the cache inventory. The caches in my area are getting a bit closer to being accurate in their inventory listings.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Two things:

 

First, how the hell do you expect a TB owner to know when his or her TB is not in a cache? All he or she has to go by are logs that mention that it might not be there, and no way to confirm it unless he HAPPENS to live nearby, and mine certainly aren't nearby. You're saying the TB owner should keep track of it and not rely on the CO! Are you reading your own posts?

 

Second, I swear I've never seen people who fundamentally agree with each other argue practically identical positions against each other across so many posts!

 

-------------------------

 

Whew! No insult intended, but this thread is painful!

 

 

I thought this was a discussion not an argument. I haven't taken anything cezanne has posted personally. We happen to disagree about the cache owners timing on marking a traveler missing. I feel if you visit your cache and a trackable is not in the cache you have a right to mark it as missing right away. cezanne believes you should wait to see if it was recently picked up.

 

cacher logs are useful but the cache owners logs is what's definite.

 

As painful as this thread may be you've obviously read all the posts. You must have an opinion?

 

I do! See post #10. That's why this thread's on my watchlist.

 

I also think that some reasonability must be applied - it doesn't make any sense to rush to mark a TB missing until it's been missing for a while. How you determine that, that's up to you.

 

Oh, snap! Did I just add fuel to the thread I jokingly made fun of?

[+fizzymagic]

First, how the hell do you expect a TB owner to know when his or her TB is not in a cache?

 

I don't care. Not my problem. Its the owner's TB, not mine.

 

You're saying the TB owner should keep track of it and not rely on the CO!

 

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

It's not my job as a cache owner to keep track of other peoples' property that was put into my cache without my consent. I really wish that it weren't that way; I wish that the geocaching community could work together to make trackables a fun part of the game, but unfortunately there are a lot of entitled TB owners that think everybody else should drop everything for their TB. Those people have pretty much ruined it for the rest of us.

[Keystone]

The caches in my area are getting a bit closer to being accurate in their inventory listings.

And it feels good to have made the geocaching world just a tiny bit better while we await a more elegant solution, doesn't it? I sure think so:

 

 

Fun Fact: Less than 100 of those "marked missing" logs arose from personal visits to a cache (under my player account).

Fun Fact: Though I've decided thousands of times to mark a trackable missing after studying logs saying "didn't see any trackables," I've been wrong less than 10 times that I know of (that is, the trackable I marked missing was actually still in the cache, and someone pointed that out to me). When that's happened, the finder does a grab log and the game moves on.

[cezanne]

Though I've decided thousands of times to mark a trackable missing after studying logs saying "didn't see any trackables,"

 

I guess that you did that after several such logs and not when a person who visits a cache at a day with several other visitors mentions that

he/she did not encounter a certain trackable.

 

I've been wrong less than 10 times that I know of (that is, the trackable I marked missing was actually still in the cache,

 

I'm rather talking of those cases where someone still needs to log a trackable and less than 2 days have passed since the retrieval.

 

When that's happened, the finder does a grab log and the game moves on.

 

A grab is incorrect however. By the way what happens if a mark missing log is deleted? Does it bring the system back to normal?

If so that could be a solution not requiring implementation work. However, due to my experiences with trackables I'm sceptic. Deleting logs typically causes chaos.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

First, how the hell do you expect a TB owner to know when his or her TB is not in a cache?

 

I don't care. Not my problem. Its the owner's TB, not mine.

 

You're saying the TB owner should keep track of it and not rely on the CO!

 

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

It's not my job as a cache owner to keep track of other peoples' property that was put into my cache without my consent. I really wish that it weren't that way; I wish that the geocaching community could work together to make trackables a fun part of the game, but unfortunately there are a lot of entitled TB owners that think everybody else should drop everything for their TB. Those people have pretty much ruined it for the rest of us.

 

I don't understand the apparent hostility. Where's the harm or cost to you?

 

"Without your consent"? TB's are an official part of the game, and if you place caches large enough to hold them - I think that pretty much constitutes 'consent'.

 

You complain about entitled TBO's who think that everybody should drop everything for their TB, and I don't see where you've gotten that, either. The post of mine that you quoted pretty much says that I'd help out a TBO if I can, but when I get around to it, not on a 'drop everything' basis.

 

So, don't play the TB game if you don't want to, but please don't refer to me with adjectives such as 'entitled' for wanting to.

 

By the way, are you the 'fizzy' that wrote 'FizzyCalc'? Love it, thanks. I use it a lot, even for other pursuits.

[Keystone]

Based on my experience in marking thousands of trackables missing, in many cases it would be easy for the trackable owner to do the research needed to conclude that their trackable is not in the cache, without actually visiting the cache. Some examples:

 

1. The trackable was dropped in May 2015. In August 2015 the cache was stolen by a muggle. The owner replaced the cache in September 2015, saying "new container" in their owner maintenance log. That TB is toast.

 

2. The trackable was dropped in June 2012. There are six logs between then and now saying "didn't see any trackables in the cache." There's no reason to believe they're lying.

 

3. The trackable was dropped six months ago into a popular tourist cache that's visited many times each week, and which is big enough to hold maybe two trackables with items attached. Other TB's have been dropped, retrieved and moved along, all typically within one to seven days of being placed in the cache. The one from six months ago is toast.

 

What the esteemed namesake of FizzyCalc and the Fizzy Challenge is saying is "figure that out yourself" which he is entitled to do. Other cache owners choose to keep their trackables inventory accurate, whereas Fizzy is not concerned about the inventory. Me? I like weeding through trackable inventories during long conference calls at work, so I don't fall asleep at my desk.

[+Cardinal Red]

First, how the hell do you expect a TB owner to know when his or her TB is not in a cache?

 

I don't care. Not my problem. Its the owner's TB, not mine.

 

You're saying the TB owner should keep track of it and not rely on the CO!

 

That is exactly what I am saying.

 

It's not my job as a cache owner to keep track of other peoples' property that was put into my cache without my consent. I really wish that it weren't that way; I wish that the geocaching community could work together to make trackables a fun part of the game, but unfortunately there are a lot of entitled TB owners that think everybody else should drop everything for their TB. Those people have pretty much ruined it for the rest of us.

 

I don't understand the apparent hostility. Where's the harm or cost to you?

 

"Without your consent"? TB's are an official part of the game, and if you place caches large enough to hold them - I think that pretty much constitutes 'consent'.

 

You complain about entitled TBO's who think that everybody should drop everything for their TB, and I don't see where you've gotten that, either. The post of mine that you quoted pretty much says that I'd help out a TBO if I can, but when I get around to it, not on a 'drop everything' basis.

 

So, don't play the TB game if you don't want to, but please don't refer to me with adjectives such as 'entitled' for wanting to.

 

By the way, are you the 'fizzy' that wrote 'FizzyCalc'? Love it, thanks. I use it a lot, even for other pursuits.

 

Fizzy and I are of a like mind on this issue, but I can only speak for myself. I am a Geocacher. I am a Geocache owner. What I am NOT is a trackable babysitter. I don't care anything about tracables, except to possibly on occasion help out a fellow Geocacher on my own terms on my schedule. As far as consent goes - I DO NOT HIDE MICRO'S. That does not imply anything other than I am not a fan of Micro's. Do not in any way associate the word consent with my belief that you should not need a microscope to find a Geocache.

 

There are aspects of the game that I think many fellow Geocachers get wrong. I have had to come to the conclusion that there really isn't much I can do about it. A little bit of influence from time to time at best. I think on this issue you will have to come to the same conclusion.

 

And the way I read it, Fizzy did not specifically address YOU as entitled. Unless you have demanded immediate action from a cache owner to fix your trackable problem, he was not pointing the finger directly at you. On the other hand, if the shoe fits .....

 

As for you final question. Yes, Fizzy is the author of FizzyCalc. A very handy tool for many different applications. One of the most recent features was added when I asked him about a better all purpose solution, even outside of FizzyCalc. In response, he incorporated it into FizzyCalc in practically no time. Thanks Fizzy. I recommend it to everyone.

[cezanne]

You complain about entitled TBO's who think that everybody should drop everything for their TB, and I don't see where you've gotten that, either. The post of mine that you quoted pretty much says that I'd help out a TBO if I can, but when I get around to it, not on a 'drop everything' basis.

 

So, don't play the TB game if you don't want to, but please don't refer to me with adjectives such as 'entitled' for wanting to.

 

As has been said before the entitled certainly is not referring to you. It is true that some trackable owners can be very annoying. Some complain if one has not yet dropped off their trackable after one week, others complain when their trackable spends a longer time in a cache etc

 

When I started with geocaching everything was much more relaxed. Noone was expected to log a find immediately, also not in the case of the FTF.

And less pressure was exercised regarding how long someone kept a trackable (I'm not talking about months) or how long someone needed to maintain a cache.

 

As I understand it fizzymagic once did not have an aversion against trackables - this only started by receiving mails by trackable owners that he found to be annoying. I know many cachers who stopped to move along trackables due to the troubles one could end up with. I need to admit that sometimes I'm also close to giving up and those who advocate fast mark mission actions rather push me into that direction.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't understand the apparent hostility. Where's the harm or cost to you?

 

Read my post earlier in this thread about my experiences with travel bugs early in my caching career. I have received a number of rather unpleasant emails and other communications from TB owners who didn't like how long it took me to move their items.

 

"Without your consent"? TB's are an official part of the game, and if you place caches large enough to hold them - I think that pretty much constitutes 'consent'.

 

Sorry, but GC.com is a listing service, not an arbiter of the game. They sell travel bugs for people who would like to play a side game, but nowhere is hosting travel bugs explicitly a requirement for caches to be listed on this site. I don't forbid the placement of TBs in my caches, but if they are there I don't have any responsibility for them.

 

You complain about entitled TBO's who think that everybody should drop everything for their TB, and I don't see where you've gotten that, either.

 

You must not have seen emails like the ones I got. As I said in my original post, I will sometimes help out a TB that is stuck in a rarely-visited cache as a favor to the owner, or move a TB to another country if it needs to go there. What I will not do is take responsibility for TBs in caches that I own.

 

It does not sound like you have ever sent hectoring emails such as I have described -- so I would not characterize you as "entitled." It is a minority of TB owners who have made the entire side game so unpleasant.

 

And yes, I wrote FizzyCalc. I'm glad people use it!

[+fizzymagic]

Here's an example of an email I received in 2010. Names have been deleted to protect the innocent:

 

I am contacting you about the TravelBug/Geocoin above that has gone missing from the cache above. As the owner of either the trackable or the cache you can mark the item as missing. By marking the trackable as missing it will remove it from the cache inventory. If the trackable turns up at a later date the person who finds it can still register it with no problems. The Groundspeak Weekly Newsletter recently included a link to these instructions on how to mark a trackable missing: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=152

I am starting a project to see if I can help get the inventory of all the caches in the area corrected. I am sending this note to ask you for your help in this effort. If you have questions please feel free to let me know.

 

No, this was not from GC headquarters. It was from a TB owner. While it is not rude, it is pretty officious and it did annoy me a lot.

[Keystone]

I am starting a project to see if I can help get the inventory of all the caches in the area corrected.

Also, there are some windmills in La Mancha which ought to be looked at.

[+dibug]

I actually found tb at garage sells and did not know

what they were before becoming a cacher. Now I really dig thru stuff to see if i can find them.

[+Manville Possum]

I actually found tb at garage sells and did not know

what they were before becoming a cacher. Now I really dig thru stuff to see if i can find them.

 

I see them listed on eBay and you can bid to be the next "caretaker".

[+TeamRabbitRun]

I don't understand the apparent hostility. Where's the harm or cost to you?

 

Read my post earlier in this thread about my experiences with travel bugs early in my caching career. I have received a number of rather unpleasant emails and other communications from TB owners who didn't like how long it took me to move their items.

 

"Without your consent"? TB's are an official part of the game, and if you place caches large enough to hold them - I think that pretty much constitutes 'consent'.

 

Sorry, but GC.com is a listing service, not an arbiter of the game. They sell travel bugs for people who would like to play a side game, but nowhere is hosting travel bugs explicitly a requirement for caches to be listed on this site. I don't forbid the placement of TBs in my caches, but if they are there I don't have any responsibility for them.

 

You complain about entitled TBO's who think that everybody should drop everything for their TB, and I don't see where you've gotten that, either.

 

You must not have seen emails like the ones I got. As I said in my original post, I will sometimes help out a TB that is stuck in a rarely-visited cache as a favor to the owner, or move a TB to another country if it needs to go there. What I will not do is take responsibility for TBs in caches that I own.

 

It does not sound like you have ever sent hectoring emails such as I have described -- so I would not characterize you as "entitled." It is a minority of TB owners who have made the entire side game so unpleasant.

 

And yes, I wrote FizzyCalc. I'm glad people use it!

 

OK, so I guess maybe my GC experience has been, um, politer. I've had some unfunny email contacts from other players, but I try not to let them bother me. Not enough time for that. I maintain my own perspective.

 

I've sent the occasional email looking for my TBs, but try to make them as 'easy' as possible on the recipient. Almost never gotten a response. Pretty much given up on that by now - and two out of my four TBs are missing.

 

The way I see it, I don't treat the TB stuff as a side-game. It may have been added to the game later, but when I learned how to play it was part of what attracted me, so I don't mind the TB 'presence-maintenance' thing.

 

S'all good; we agree on the end effect. Nice to meet you - Cache on!

[+justintim1999]

I think we've arrived at a few basic conclusions.

 

(1) Trackables are a side game.

 

(2) A cache owners responsibility is to maintain their caches. If they choose to take the time to investigate missing travelers they can but It shouldn't be expected.

 

(3) If you agree with #2 than marking a traveler as missing as soon as you can confirm that it is not in the cache is acceptable.

 

I think fizzymagic makes a good point. "It is a minority of TB owners who have made the entire side game so unpleasant." This is true with all aspects of Geocaching. We tend to focus on the horror stories and think that that's the norm. It's sad that we let a few people ruin the game for us instead of focusing on the many more who play the game right and find great enjoyment doing so.

[cezanne]

I think we've arrived at a few basic conclusions.

 

(3) If you agree with #2 than marking a traveler as missing as soon as you can confirm that it is not in the cache is acceptable.

 

The cache owner can do that but if he/she marks missing a trackable which has just been retrieved say a few hours ago, it can easily happen that the person who retrieved the trackable reacts annoyed and will in the future not help any longer trackables.

 

Never forget that not all of those who currently still move along trackables do it because they are interested into trackables per se or play a game. I move along trackables only to help their owners. It's not a game for me at all.

[+justintim1999]

I think we've arrived at a few basic conclusions.

 

(3) If you agree with #2 than marking a traveler as missing as soon as you can confirm that it is not in the cache is acceptable.

 

The cache owner can do that but if he/she marks missing a trackable which has just been retrieved say a few hours ago, it can easily happen that the person who retrieved the trackable reacts annoyed and will in the future not help any longer trackables.

 

Never forget that not all of those who currently still move along trackables do it because they are interested into trackables per se or play a game. I move along trackables only to help their owners. It's not a game for me at all.

 

Understood. The well being of trackables is important but not over the integrity of the cache (inventory) itself. We seem to basically agree. You think that the cache owner is responsible for the well being of the trackables that pass through his/her cache. I think that it's voluntary and shouldn't be a requirement therefor cache owners should never receive negative e-mails from trackable owners.

Edited February 1, 2016 by justintim1999

[cezanne]

The well being of trackables is important but not over the integrity of the cache (inventory) itself. We seem to basically agree. You think that the cache owner is responsible for the well being of the trackables that pass through his/her cache. I think that it's voluntary and shouldn't be a requirement therefor cache owners should never receive negative e-mails from trackable owners.

 

I did not say anything about the cache owner being responsible for trackables. Moreover, what I wrote was not from the perspective of a trackable owner, but a cacher who has moved on trackables owned by others for more than 13 years. At some point when the annoyances caused are too large, I will stop taking trackables too (like many other cachers have done so already - sometimes trackables stay in caches around here for months, in particular TBs).

 

The integrity of the cache inventory is nothing which is a thing of hours. It fully makes sense to me to act like e.g. described by Keystone and select such trackables as missing. Marking a trackable missing directly after a cache visit (maybe even out in the field) in my opinion just results in confusion and anger. Of course you are free to act like this but you surely will annoy other cachers.

[+justintim1999]

The well being of trackables is important but not over the integrity of the cache (inventory) itself. We seem to basically agree. You think that the cache owner is responsible for the well being of the trackables that pass through his/her cache. I think that it's voluntary and shouldn't be a requirement therefor cache owners should never receive negative e-mails from trackable owners.

 

I did not say anything about the cache owner being responsible for trackables. Moreover, what I wrote was not from the perspective of a trackable owner, but a cacher who has moved on trackables owned by others for more than 13 years. At some point when the annoyances caused are too large, I will stop taking trackables too (like many other cachers have done so already - sometimes trackables stay in caches around here for months, in particular TBs).

 

The integrity of the cache inventory is nothing which is a thing of hours. It fully makes sense to me to act like e.g. described by Keystone and select such trackables as missing. Marking a trackable missing directly after a cache visit (maybe even out in the field) in my opinion just results in confusion and anger. Of course you are free to act like this but you surely will annoy other cachers.

 

If you expect (expect is the key word) a cache owner to do anything but log a traveler missing from their cache then you are talking about the cache owner taking some level of responsibility.

 

For the record I've been a cache owner for about 3 years and have marked many trackables missing after a maintenance run. The only issue I've had is the one I mentioned in the beginning.

[cezanne]

If you expect (expect is the key word) a cache owner to do anything but log a traveler missing from their cache then you are talking about the cache owner taking some level of responsibility.

 

I only wish (better word than expect) that all cachers would take into account in all their actions that not everyone is able or willing to log trackables and caches instantly. That is nothing tied to cache owners and to cache maintenance, but also refers to complaints about cachers who are first at a cache but do not log their find instantly, to cachers who grab a trackable instantly if they find it in a cache and it is not yet logged into this cache etc

 

For the record I've been a cache owner for about 3 years and have marked many trackables missing after a maintenance run. The only issue I've had is the one I mentioned in the beginning.

 

Maybe in your area it's less likely that a trackable that you do not encounter in a cache has been retrieved very recently.

[+justintim1999]

If you expect (expect is the key word) a cache owner to do anything but log a traveler missing from their cache then you are talking about the cache owner taking some level of responsibility.

 

I only wish (better word than expect) that all cachers would take into account in all their actions that not everyone is able or willing to log trackables and caches instantly. That is nothing tied to cache owners and to cache maintenance, but also refers to complaints about cachers who are first at a cache but do not log their find instantly, to cachers who grab a trackable instantly if they find it in a cache and it is not yet logged into this cache etc

 

For the record I've been a cache owner for about 3 years and have marked many trackables missing after a maintenance run. The only issue I've had is the one I mentioned in the beginning.

 

Maybe in your area it's less likely that a trackable that you do not encounter in a cache has been retrieved very recently.

 

That's what it comes down to. Cachers and cache owners being as responsible as possible.

 

No matter how diligent you are about logging, swapping and maintaining trackables their going to go missing. The issue of marking a travel bug missing right away after a maintenance run is such a small part of this problem. As a matter of fact it's a big part of the solution. If you told me that 50% of trackables marked missing by a cache owner were recently picked up and simply not logged right away than I'd say there's a problem and we need to take a look at it. I'm guessing it's less than 1%. Now if you told me that 99% of cache inventories were accurate I'd know you were pulling my leg.

 

If we could get cache owners to remove missing trackables from cache inventories we would be well on our way to making the activity much more enjoyable.

[+Luckyone80]

Ok I am currently in the situation where I am a CO and one of my caches lists it has 2 TB and a Geocoin in it. I have left notes on each of their pages saying that they were no longer in my cache. I didn't know what else to do until I found this post and you all are saying that I as the CO have the ability to log somewhere that the trackables are not in my cache. Can someone please tell me how to do that? I have went to the pages for each trackable to log a note but there was not an option in the drop down that said "Not in Cache". Is it on MY cache page somewhere? Thanks for any help!

[cezanne]

I have went to the pages for each trackable to log a note but there was not an option in the drop down that said "Not in Cache". Is it on MY cache page somewhere? Thanks for any help!

 

It's on the trackable page (check it for a trackable in your cache): Actions Mark missing - click go. It's not among the log types.

[+Luckyone80]

I have went to the pages for each trackable to log a note but there was not an option in the drop down that said "Not in Cache". Is it on MY cache page somewhere? Thanks for any help!

 

It's on the trackable page (check it for a trackable in your cache): Actions Mark missing - click go. It's not among the log types.

 

Ahh, gotcha! Thank you so much!

[+Lubby25]

I'll mention, gently, that you have no idea how many times cache owners, reviewers, or trackable owners DO Mark Missing.

 

You might want to add a post to this thread, in support of a website feature that would allow cachers to get missing trackables off cache pages.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=284690

\

 

That is a great idea! And, yes, as a cache owner I do know that many of us are responsible and when notified of a missing bug (or when doing maintenance) we do mark the bug missing. It just seems that more caches have missing bugs than actually have the bugs that are marked and it gets frustrating!

[+Lubby25]

If you get no results from the CO, or the TO, you can email me with link for the Trackable's page, and I can mark it missing.

 

I'm wondering whether there is any rule about trackables that says that a trackable owner cannot virtually log a trackable into a cache if the cache owner agrees (might be that trackable owner and cache owner coincide, but not necessarily). For example, I've seen cachers who use a personal trackable to mark their most recent FTF.

 

Marking such trackables as missing is certainly not pleasing the trackable owner.

 

Personally I think it should in most cases be sufficient to provide cache owners and trackable owners with the power to mark trackables as missing.

 

I would say that then there should be a different symbol for virtual trackables or they should just bookmark the cache on an FTF list like everyone else does. TB's are supposed to be movable, thus the word "travel" in their name.

[+Lubby25]

I do wish all CO's felt the same way that I do that keeping the trackable inventory correct is part of the CO's responsibility,

 

I would be very careful with marking trackables (which are not my own) as missing and would do it as a CO only under exceptional circumstances

(e.g. when a cache of mine got muggled and the trackable owner did not react to a message from me within a reasonable amount of time, say

a month).

 

There are many cachers out there who happen to have huge logging backlogs and some (among them well respected cachers with many finds and many years of experience)

made it a habit to retrieve trackables from the inventory only when they already found the time to place a trackable in a new cache (some do this to

avoid being pushed by trackable owners).

 

Setting the status of trackables to missing can create quite some chaos and affects the travel history of a trackable.

 

So while I ultimately might act as a cache owner and mark a trackable as mising, I would certainly act much later than the point of time when it might help people who

visit caches with the hope to find a specific trackable in the cache.

 

If they are "respected" cachers then they should follow the rules and log their finds or not pick them up and also drop them at a cache. Why do they need to hoard them? I have had respected cachers carry my TB's all over the country bragging about their visits when the TB page clearly states that the goal is to only go to one cache with each new retriever. That doesn't impress me at all! I also attach a laminate tag to my TB's with clear instructions.

[+Lubby25]

Like the Topic Starter I love to travel Travel Bugs to other caches. I wish there was a filter on the site by wich I can see in wich caches TB's are present. So that I don't have to look alle individuel caches in an area to see wich ones have a TB in the inventory.

Is it possible to make a filter like the ones you have to search cache types? Or make a symbol like a little star on caches on the map that have a TB in it.

It would please a lot of people!

 

Use the old search. They show up on that search. It is only in the new interface that they don't.

[+ramblingduck]

I like to find trackables and will go out of my way to a cache if a tb is listed in the inventory, but I have learned to read a few logs and check the TB page to see how long it's been there and if anybody mentions not finding it. Have definitely still found a few that other catchers claimed were no longer in the cache still. One vote for not marking them missing and removing from the inventory, is a long list of TBs in a cache inventory is usually a good sign of a highly muggled cache and I tend not to drop any TBs into a cache like that. It might be nice to have some sort of ghosting option where the TB remains in the inventory of the cache it went missing from, but is greyed out so folks no it isn't present, but would still be able to see the caches with high tb mortality rates.

[+Jazzbird51]

I won a TB and put it in my cache. The finder (7 finds) took it but clearly doesnt know what to do with it. As the cache owner I have emailed twice but if its still in the inventory for another week I will mark it missing. This is disappointing behaviour from a new cacher. I rather like the idea of changing the title of the TB to Hops The Frog PERMANENTLY SQUASHED and marking it as missing.

[+cerberus1]

I won a TB and put it in my cache. The finder (7 finds) took it but clearly doesnt know what to do with it. As the cache owner I have emailed twice but if its still in the inventory for another week I will mark it missing. This is disappointing behaviour from a new cacher. I rather like the idea of changing the title of the TB to Hops The Frog PERMANENTLY SQUASHED and marking it as missing.

Looks like your basic member has correctly logged your one frog hopper now.

- Possible your emails got them to log it, though maybe I wouldn't have been so quick to mail, as its logging hasn't even reached the two week mark.

 

- Yet a premium member with 73 finds still has the other bunny hopper since Sept, of last year.

That one's not marked missing.

 

Isn't that odd...

[+Jazzbird51]

Yes, perhaps the second email prompted action which is good!?

I was a bit quick to ask, you're right, but annoying that the TB appeared to be there as children enjoy this cache.

Most of the Trackables I've released are now marked as missing, but one came to light buried deep in a premium members caching bag. They couldn't apologise enough and even put some extra miles on it to make up the journey. Sadly it's gone to ground again.

Ah well.?

[+cerberus1]

Most of the Trackables I've released are now marked as missing...

Yeah...

She lost a dozen or so coins. all our other trackables sent out are gone too.

Different it seems than many, most of ours were kept by those playing some time, and leaving the hobby, rather than the new kid just starting out.

- Souvenirs I guess...

[+MMarshall]

Just checking my PQ on GSAK, and I notice at least 2 dozen trackables marked as missing. Many different caches, many different owners, some of the TB's were mine!

 

Since there are so many, I am assuming GC must have a system that is "sweeping" TB's out of caches if they haven't been logged in a long time.

 

Anyone know anything about this?

 

Mikey

O-