Found an abandoned cache - now what?

[BFG99]

Well, I didn't expect this to happen.

 

I use a Garmin eTrex Vista HCx that, for reasons I won't get into here, cannot connect to a computer or the Internet to download cache locations. So I enter them manually. Just about every time I go out, I review the intended targets to make sure they're still valid. But somehow I missed one today.

 

I tracked down, found and signed Sumac Attack, GC4FKET. I thought nothing was amiss till I came onto this site to log it...and couldn't find it. I'm guessing it was disabled some time ago and, sure enough, the last log before mine was 31 July 2014.

 

So, what should I do now? Can I count it as a find? If so how do I log it? Should I pick up the cache and discard it? I thought that disabling a cache included removing it...

[+wimseyguy]

Yes, you can log archived caches as long as they aren't locked. The owner of that cache appears to have dropped out of the game. He only found one cache last year, and none in 2014. As mentioned in that disable log he had a baby so perhaps that new addition has taken up his spare time. Disabling a cache merely posts that status on the listing page, the owner still has to physically remove it, or not.

 

In most cases I wouldn't tell anyone to remove a cache from the playing field. But I think you can do so with this one. If it's in good shape you can recycle it for a hide of your own, if it isn't then discarding would probably be OK.

[+Michaelcycle]

Yes, you can log archived caches as long as they aren't locked. The owner of that cache appears to have dropped out of the game. He only found one cache last year, and none in 2014. As mentioned in that disable log he had a baby so perhaps that new addition has taken up his spare time. Disabling a cache merely posts that status on the listing page, the owner still has to physically remove it, or not.

 

In most cases I wouldn't tell anyone to remove a cache from the playing field. But I think you can do so with this one. If it's in good shape you can recycle it for a hide of your own, if it isn't then discarding would probably be OK.

 

That CO logged on to the site less than two weeks ago. I would email him/her and ask what they want you to do with the container. And, yes, you can log it as a find since you found it.

[BFG99]

Will do, thanks. Interestingly I couldn't get that cache to pull up in Search even with the GC code or coordinates, with disabled caches set to Display. But I was able to get to it via manual URL entry. I must have something set wrong in Search.

 

I'll let the owner know and see what they want done. Thanks.

[+mertat]

Just a note - you actually logged a find on this on 7/27/2014.

[BFG99]

Yeah, I noticed that too. I must have found it then too and failed to log it for some reason on my handheld. Can't say why; I pretty much always log on the handheld first, then go home and update the website. Strange.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BFG99

[Pup Patrol]

Will do, thanks. Interestingly I couldn't get that cache to pull up in Search even with the GC code or coordinates, with disabled caches set to Display. But I was able to get to it via manual URL entry. I must have something set wrong in Search.

 

I'll let the owner know and see what they want done. Thanks.

 

http://coord.info/GC4FKET

 

It's not "disabled", it is "archived". Two distinctly different situations.

 

I found the listing using the old search and the gc code.

 

The cache owner logged into the site at the beginning of this month. Perhaps he now has more time to deal with geocaching, given a chance.

 

B.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[BFG99]

Ahh, I didn't know about the coord.info URL. Thanks.

[+noncentric]

Just a note - you actually logged a find on this on 7/27/2014.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I must have found it then too and failed to log it for some reason on my handheld. Can't say why; I pretty much always log on the handheld first, then go home and update the website. Strange.

You have now logged this cache twice. While the website allows cachers to log a cache as 'found' multiple times, it's considered bad form to do so. Plenty of cachers revisit a cache when they're just passing by, or if they drop trackables, in which case a "Write Note" log would be the best log type to use if the cache is re-found.

 

4.7. How do I delete a duplicate log?

[+Twinklekitkat]

Archived caches can also be brought up through the recently viewed tab. Click on your username in the top right and a list of choices will appear across the top (left to right) starting with Quick View (which will be bolded as that is the default view). Select Recently Viewed which is about 4 or 5 choices to the right. A list of the 20 or so most recently viewed caches by you will present to the page. At the top of the list will be a search box where you can enter a GC code if known. This will take you right to that cache page. This can only be done if you know the GC number. If you do not know the number you will need to use Project-GC to find it. Once you are on the cache page you can log it if not locked like others have mentioned.

 

I just recently found a cache that had been archived for 2+ years and claimed a find. It was a puzzle that was archived due to some of the waypoints no longer being available. I had solved it prior to archive. The real draw for me to look for it was twofold. I was near it looking for another cache and there was a travel bug in I wanted to rescue. Mission accomplished. Travel Bug rescued and geo-litter removed.

[BFG99]

You have now logged this cache twice. While the website allows cachers to log a cache as 'found' multiple times, it's considered bad form to do so. Plenty of cachers revisit a cache when they're just passing by, or if they drop trackables, in which case a "Write Note" log would be the best log type to use if the cache is re-found.

 

4.7. How do I delete a duplicate log?

 

Ordinarily I'd agree - I can and have deleted duplicate logs twice before for that reason - but this is an exceptional case. It seems prudent to speak with the owner or reviewer/archiver before I do so. I have left messages with both.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BFG99

[+Twinklekitkat]

How is it exceptional? It doesn't warrant a find in my book. A found it for the first find in 2014 and a NOTE you found it again in 2016 and took the container because it's archived and is now litter. Maybe explain you were looking because it was loaded in your GPS unit.

[BFG99]

I did leave such a note if you look at the cache's page.

 

I'm going to remove the duplicate log after speaking with the owner or archiver so the point is moot anyway.

[Keystone]

Logging two finds on the same cache is not a Reviewer issue.

Finding an archived cache that had been left in the wild is not a Reviewer issue.

Posting a note to the cache listing and emailing the owner is all that's needed.

[BFG99]

People, I understand that. There is no need for the self-appointed Guardians of Good Form routine. As mentioned above, I have deleted duplicate logs in the past for this reason, and will do so again here when it makes sense to.

 

I haven't deleted the duplicate log on this one yet because I referenced both logs in my correspondence with the two other parties. And I didn't delete them yet because the first log, which was the next to last one before archival, and the current log provide good reference dates for the other parties. Thus I have a valid reason not to delete yet. I wasn't expecting to have to give that explanation so hope we can drop it now.

 

As soon as the matter is resolved I will delete the duplicate. It will be okay, really...the website isn't going to fall apart.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BFG99

[Keystone]

I'm not self-appointed.

[BFG99]

Heh, good point! Still, I will delete in due time...

Edited April 18, 2016 by BFG99

[+justintim1999]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

[Pup Patrol]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

 

It's an old story, repeated often.

 

The cache listing is archived.

 

The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival.

 

CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there.

 

Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Nothing new here.

 

B.

[+justintim1999]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

 

It's an old story, repeated often.

 

The cache listing is archived.

 

The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival.

 

CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there.

 

Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Nothing new here.

 

B.

 

But why dose Groundspeak even allow it to be found when the rules state that it's suppose to be removed?

[+narcissa]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

 

It's an old story, repeated often.

 

The cache listing is archived.

 

The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival.

 

CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there.

 

Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Nothing new here.

 

B.

 

But why dose Groundspeak even allow it to be found when the rules state that it's suppose to be removed?

 

Which rule states that a privately owned geocache is supposed to be removed just because it's not longer listed on Geocaching.com?

[+justintim1999]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

 

It's an old story, repeated often.

 

The cache listing is archived.

 

The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival.

 

CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there.

 

Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Nothing new here.

 

B.

 

But why dose Groundspeak even allow it to be found when the rules state that it's suppose to be removed?

 

Which rule states that a privately owned geocache is supposed to be removed just because it's not longer listed on Geocaching.com?

 

4.22. My Geocache Needs to be Archived

 

While we never permanently delete a geocache from our system, you can archive it. Go to your geocache listings, and select the cache(s) that you would like to archive. On your geocache's page, just click "Archive," enter any comments, and submit the log entry. This will remove your geocache listing from search results.

 

To archive a geocache is to remove the listing permanently. A geocache owner can archive their own listing. A geocache owner cannot unarchive it.

 

Once your geocache has been archived, please be sure to remove the physical container from its hiding spot as soon as possible.

[+narcissa]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

 

It's an old story, repeated often.

 

The cache listing is archived.

 

The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival.

 

CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there.

 

Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Nothing new here.

 

B.

 

But why dose Groundspeak even allow it to be found when the rules state that it's suppose to be removed?

 

Which rule states that a privately owned geocache is supposed to be removed just because it's not longer listed on Geocaching.com?

 

4.22. My Geocache Needs to be Archived

 

While we never permanently delete a geocache from our system, you can archive it. Go to your geocache listings, and select the cache(s) that you would like to archive. On your geocache's page, just click "Archive," enter any comments, and submit the log entry. This will remove your geocache listing from search results.

 

To archive a geocache is to remove the listing permanently. A geocache owner can archive their own listing. A geocache owner cannot unarchive it.

 

Once your geocache has been archived, please be sure to remove the physical container from its hiding spot as soon as possible.

 

That's from the help centre. It's not really a rule. Groundspeak can't force you to physically remove a geocache that you own. They can politely request that you do, based on the assumption that the vast majority of archived caches are never posted elsewhere.

[Keystone]

The Help Center is full of helpful advice. The quoted excerpt is helpful, but it is not a "rule" in the sense of having consequences through enforcement. If it were a "rule" then cache owners could be banned from the website, be prohibited from hiding new caches, or other consequences if it were proven they'd left an archived cache out in the field. I don't see that happening.

 

There are lots of reasons not to prohibit logging a find on an archived cache. At times I've been more than a month behind in logging, and I know others who are more than a year behind. And, I'll never forget when my daughter announced she wanted her own separate account at around age 12. We had to go back and re-log every cache we found together online with her new account, including the archived ones.

[+justintim1999]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

 

It's an old story, repeated often.

 

The cache listing is archived.

 

The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival.

 

CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there.

 

Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Nothing new here.

 

B.

 

But why dose Groundspeak even allow it to be found when the rules state that it's suppose to be removed?

 

Which rule states that a privately owned geocache is supposed to be removed just because it's not longer listed on Geocaching.com?

 

4.22. My Geocache Needs to be Archived

 

While we never permanently delete a geocache from our system, you can archive it. Go to your geocache listings, and select the cache(s) that you would like to archive. On your geocache's page, just click "Archive," enter any comments, and submit the log entry. This will remove your geocache listing from search results.

 

To archive a geocache is to remove the listing permanently. A geocache owner can archive their own listing. A geocache owner cannot unarchive it.

 

Once your geocache has been archived, please be sure to remove the physical container from its hiding spot as soon as possible.

 

That's from the help centre. It's not really a rule. Groundspeak can't force you to physically remove a geocache that you own. They can politely request that you do, based on the assumption that the vast majority of archived caches are never posted elsewhere.

 

Just because Groundspeak can't enforce it doesn't mean it's not a rule. I understand that some of these containers are probably listed on another site but if I had to guess I'd say the majority of them were simply abandoned. When you place a cache you agree to do certain things. To me this is one of them.

[+justintim1999]

The Help Center is full of helpful advice. The quoted excerpt is helpful, but it is not a "rule" in the sense of having consequences through enforcement. If it were a "rule" then cache owners could be banned from the website, be prohibited from hiding new caches, or other consequences if it were proven they'd left an archived cache out in the field. I don't see that happening.

 

There are lots of reasons not to prohibit logging a find on an archived cache. At times I've been more than a month behind in logging, and I know others who are more than a year behind. And, I'll never forget when my daughter announced she wanted her own separate account at around age 12. We had to go back and re-log every cache we found together online with her new account, including the archived ones.

 

It's good a practice and should be enforced. By not enforcing it aren't we basically turning a blind eye to geo-litter?

 

Leave it available to log for two months. If you haven't logged it by then well....

 

I'm sure there is a way transfer finds to a new account without the ability to log archived caches.

Edited April 18, 2016 by justintim1999

[+narcissa]

I'm sure there is a way transfer finds to a new account without the ability to log archived caches.

 

Enlighten us.

[+justintim1999]

I'm sure there is a way transfer finds to a new account without the ability to log archived caches.

 

Enlighten us.

 

I wish I could. I'm sure there is someone at Groundspeak much smarter than I who could develop a way to do it.

[+narcissa]

I'm sure there is a way transfer finds to a new account without the ability to log archived caches.

 

Enlighten us.

 

I wish I could. I'm sure there is someone at Groundspeak much smarter than I who could develop a way to do it.

 

Oh, so you want them to spend time and money to *develop* this new feature for "new" accounts to bulk log geocaches that were already logged by an older account.

 

You don't see anything, uh, massively problematic about that?

[+justintim1999]

I'm sure there is a way transfer finds to a new account without the ability to log archived caches.

 

Enlighten us.

 

I wish I could. I'm sure there is someone at Groundspeak much smarter than I who could develop a way to do it.

 

Oh, so you want them to spend time and money to *develop* this new feature for "new" accounts to bulk log geocaches that were already logged by an older account.

 

You don't see anything, uh, massively problematic about that?

 

Nope. I see the game being updated to implement the rules (real or implied) which already exist.

 

If something is morally and ecologically right than Groundspeak and the caching community should support it.

[Keystone]

I'd rather that the programmer figure out a way for me to download "new search" results as a pocket query in just a few keystrokes, but that's just me.

[+narcissa]

I'm sure there is a way transfer finds to a new account without the ability to log archived caches.

 

Enlighten us.

 

I wish I could. I'm sure there is someone at Groundspeak much smarter than I who could develop a way to do it.

 

Oh, so you want them to spend time and money to *develop* this new feature for "new" accounts to bulk log geocaches that were already logged by an older account.

 

You don't see anything, uh, massively problematic about that?

 

Nope. I see the game being updated to implement the rules (real or implied) which already exist.

 

If something is morally and ecologically right than Groundspeak and the caching community should support it.

Just to be clear, please verify:

 

- You think it's "morally" right for anyone with a new account to be able to bulk find caches on a back-dated basis, based on someone else's list of finds.

- It's not "morally" right for someone to take a couple of months to get around to writing a thoughtful and detailed log on a cache that they legitimately found if that cache has been archived by the time they get to it.

- It is "morally" right for Groundspeak to assume ownership of geocaches that have been listed on their website.

 

Again, you don't see anything at all wrong with this approach?

 

How much do you think we'll have to pay for premium membership to support this labour-intensive, highly punitive model of enforcement?

[+justintim1999]

I'd rather that the programmer figure out a way for me to download "new search" results as a pocket query in just a few keystrokes, but that's just me.

 

That would be nice but I would rather see abandoned cache containers being removed from the game.

[+justintim1999]

I'm sure there is a way transfer finds to a new account without the ability to log archived caches.

 

Enlighten us.

 

I wish I could. I'm sure there is someone at Groundspeak much smarter than I who could develop a way to do it.

 

Oh, so you want them to spend time and money to *develop* this new feature for "new" accounts to bulk log geocaches that were already logged by an older account.

 

You don't see anything, uh, massively problematic about that?

 

Nope. I see the game being updated to implement the rules (real or implied) which already exist.

 

If something is morally and ecologically right than Groundspeak and the caching community should support it.

Just to be clear, please verify:

 

- You think it's "morally" right for anyone with a new account to be able to bulk find caches on a back-dated basis, based on someone else's list of finds.

- It's not "morally" right for someone to take a couple of months to get around to writing a thoughtful and detailed log on a cache that they legitimately found if that cache has been archived by the time they get to it.

- It is "morally" right for Groundspeak to assume ownership of geocaches that have been listed on their website.

 

Again, you don't see anything at all wrong with this approach?

 

How much do you think we'll have to pay for premium membership to support this labour-intensive, highly punitive model of enforcement?

 

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

If archived containers are "supposed" to be removed and removing them is a good idea then why do we continue to allow them to be logged? Why are we not doing more to encourage cache owners to remove them. Slow logging and transferring finds to a new account doesn't seem as important to me as the growing impact leaving these caches will have on the environment.

Edited April 18, 2016 by justintim1999

[+Manville Possum]

I'd rather that the programmer figure out a way for me to download "new search" results as a pocket query in just a few keystrokes, but that's just me.

 

That would be nice but I would rather see abandoned cache containers being removed from the game.

 

Only allowing ammo cans to be used as geocache containers may help.

[+narcissa]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

[BFG99]

Wow, good discussion. I'm learning a lot here.

 

*grabs popcorn*

[+justintim1999]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

Edited April 18, 2016 by justintim1999

[+justintim1999]

Wow, good discussion. I'm learning a lot here.

 

*grabs popcorn*

 

Butter on mine please. I may also need a coke

[Ridler & Cmokica]

The Help Center is full of helpful advice. The quoted excerpt is helpful, but it is not a "rule" in the sense of having consequences through enforcement. If it were a "rule" then cache owners could be banned from the website, be prohibited from hiding new caches, or other consequences if it were proven they'd left an archived cache out in the field. I don't see that happening.

 

There are lots of reasons not to prohibit logging a find on an archived cache. At times I've been more than a month behind in logging, and I know others who are more than a year behind. And, I'll never forget when my daughter announced she wanted her own separate account at around age 12. We had to go back and re-log every cache we found together online with her new account, including the archived ones.

 

So, logging an archived cache is OK?

 

But what happens if the owner who didn't remove the archived geocache, decides to delete your found it log(s)?

[+narcissa]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

[+justintim1999]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

[+narcissa]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

There's really nothing stopping you from doing that; many cachers do. It's just not realistic to expect Groundspeak to santion it, however, since they do not own the caches.

[+justintim1999]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

There's really nothing stopping you from doing that; many cachers do. It's just not realistic to expect Groundspeak to santion it, however, since they do not own the caches.

 

If it's already happening why not make it an official part of the game? How about the volunteer archive verification unit? All kidding aside it's something that should be addressed.

[Pup Patrol]

So, logging an archived cache is OK?

 

Yes, if the listing is not locked.

 

But what happens if the owner who didn't remove the archived geocache, decides to delete your found it log(s)?

 

Is this a hypothetical question? It's hard for me to imagine a cache owner who didn't remove the archived listing's container, yet would rouse themselves enough to delete a "found it" log.

 

If you found the cache container, signed the log book, then there is no legitimate reason for the online "found it" log to be deleted.

 

If it is, then you can appeal to Groundspeak to reinstate the find.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.12. Log Deletion

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=204

 

B.

[+Harry Dolphin]

So, what should I do now? Can I count it as a find? If so how do I log it? Should I pick up the cache and discard it? I thought that disabling a cache included removing it...

 

Did you sign the log the first time you found it?

This one took me an embarrassingly long time to find - nearly 45 minutes - but in the end I did manage to come up with it. I did not check the container thoroughly so cannot comment on whether it's damaged.

Doesn't sound like it if you didn't check the container. You should probably turn that one into a note.

Did you sign the log the second time you found it? In that case it would be a valid find.

[BFG99]

To answer the above post: it currently only has my signature once. I looked on the paper and could not find my 7/27/14 signature. It's possible that page was missing or damaged however as the log was only partially intact. Or it's possible I never signed it the first time though I cannot say why - maybe the paper was wet then and wouldn't accept a signature? Maybe I used a pen and it had faded like several of the ones from 2014 had? Who knows now. As mentioned, this second time the cache was badly damaged - and the log only had a Ziplock bag with a hole in it protecting it from the elements.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BFG99

[+ZeppelinDT]

 

If archived containers are "supposed" to be removed and removing them is a good idea then why do we continue to allow them to be logged?

 

I think you just answered your own question. Allowing archived caches to be logged creates an incentive for cachers to go out and find them and remove them. In my experience, most people who have already found a cache don't have much interest in going out to revisit those caches after they're archived to make sure they've been removed. However, there are always new cachers joining the game who never got those archived caches the first time around. By allowing logs on archived caches, new cachers can go out and remove some geo-litter while logging a find at the same time. This is actually exactly how things work in my caching community. We've got a running bookmark list of archived caches that we suspect may not have been removed, and anybody who is interested can look at that list, find caches they never logged and then go out to look for them. If they aren't there, then we confirm they've been removed and they get taken off the list. If they are there, then we log them as found and remove the geolitter, so the trash gets removed, the cache gets taken off the bookmark list and the person who searched for it logs a find. Everybody wins. Why on Earth would anybody find this procedure objectionable? I personally have searched for probably 30-40 archived caches and, of those searches, I've logged 14 finds, and not only have those old caches all been removed, most of them have been repurposed as new hides.

 

(And, just for the record, I always reach out to the original CO first and ask if they want their containers back before I repurpose them and claim them as my own. Most of the time I don't get a response, and when I do, I am always told by the CO that they don't want it back. I have never once had an owner tell me they want their cache back).

[+noncentric]

Possible solution -- Allow finds on archived caches, but only if the date on the 'Found It' log is prior to the date of the 'Archived' log. This would allow people who are still catching up on Field Notes to log their find from weeks/months ago. Of course, cachers who found the archived cache could backdate their logs, so not a perfect solution.

 

Just because Groundspeak can't enforce it doesn't mean it's not a rule. I understand that some of these containers are probably listed on another site but if I had to guess I'd say the majority of them were simply abandoned. When you place a cache you agree to do certain things. To me this is one of them.

Consider this. Many caches are archived because the CO is no longer active in the hobby. They haven't logged into the website or logged a find in many months, and sometimes they haven't even verified their email accounts. If these CO's are no longer involved in geocaching and their caches are archived by Reviewers, then do you really think they're going to go out and retrieve the cache they've abandoned? And how do you expect Groundspeak to 'enforce' the retrieval?

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

This is something that you can do now. Create a notification for Archivals within your 20-mile radius and this will give you a 'hit list' for your monthly clean-up day. There are no rules preventing you from moving forward with something that you feel passionate about.

[knowschad]

The big issue here is the cache owner not retrieving the cache after archiving it. I'm not quite sure how someone can log a find on a cache that's not suppose to be there in the first place, yet you can.

 

It's an old story, repeated often.

 

The cache listing is archived.

 

The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival.

 

CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there.

 

Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked.

 

Happens all the time.

 

Nothing new here.

 

B.

 

But why dose Groundspeak even allow it to be found when the rules state that it's suppose to be removed?

 

Which rule states that a privately owned geocache is supposed to be removed just because it's not longer listed on Geocaching.com?

 

Or, to put it a bit more politely, Groundspeak has no control over whether or not a cache owner actually retrieves an archived cache. I wish that weren't the case, but there is no denying that it is a fact of life. Cache owners lose interest, cache owners get sick or even die....

 

I'm not a big fan of the "privately owned" thing when it comes to clearly abandoned geo-junk. If you can, go back and retrieve the littler. If it makes you feel better, email the CO and let them know that you have it.