Jump to content

Moving caches gone:


Followers 8

Recommended Posts

So what has changed since HQ sent me and many others this email promising that the YOSM would not be archived then ?

3 lies in one paragraph, takes some doing

 

Hello Mark,

 

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ. I'm sorry, but we cannot give an exception for YOSM. As you probably know, it is mislisted as a virtual and is really a locationless cache. If it had been listed correctly, it would have been archived long ago with all of the other locationless caches. It has had a very long life.

 

Fortunately for the YOSM fans in the UK, it is not being archived. None of the existing logs will be changed or removed. People who have already logged finds on it can continue to chase after it in each new location, but log with a note instead of a find. Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Sadly this duplicity can be expected from Groundspeak, a company that has proven time and time again that customer satisfaction is not of any interest to them whatsoever. They didn't even have the sense to avoid putting their lies in writing.

 

So, from this, do I understand it correctly that GCHQ has archived all the hitchhikers / traveling caches because some of their staff doesn't know their history and misunderstood what locationless caches were?

Edited by NLBokkie
Link to comment

 

People will soon get over these recent archived cache types because truthfully, not that many of us were actually effected in any way. :P

 

True. But.

 

For the first part, most of us who love geocaching will continue, even if GS got rid of every type except Traditional. They won't do that of course, but my point is that just because we will get over it, doesn't mean it is a good decision.

 

For the second part: Hard to quantify. Clearly, worldwide, these are a very small percentage of caches. In the UK specifically, there are around 30,000 active cachers (I'm counting active as has logged a cache in the past month). 3000 have found the "YOSM". Many of those are real fans of that cache. So it is less than 10% of UK cachers, but still a significant number of people are disappointed.

 

From another post, in the Netherlands and other countries, some of the other moving caches are popular.

 

Of course it is Groundspeak's call. They can get rid of all grandfathered types if they want. There is only one Ape cache, why not get rid of that? It wouldn't impact many people. It doesn't impact me, I don't think I'll ever go to Brazil. There is some value in these unusual, grandfathered caches.

 

+1 from me Mark.And I'll add that of that % of UK cachers who logged YOSM, the vast majority were paying customers.

 

I don't care for multi caches myself, and seldom bother with them.

If they were summarily archived tomorrow, would I dismiss the unhappiness of those who do enjoy that cache type because I wasn't "effected" (sic) myself ? No, because I am part of the caching community.

I'd draw the attention of those who dismiss this moving cache debate with a 'get over it' attitude simply because they have no personal interest in the caches in question to a famous quote by Pastor Niemöller.It starts "First they came for ... "

Caching is supposed to be a community, right? I mean . it even uses that label on the drop down menu to get to this forum ... a community is supposed to care about its members, rather than say 'me me me , what do I get out of it ?'

 

I've said it before, there is a total mis match between the two aspects of caching:

 

First, there's the community, based on the cache setters and reviewers who do the actual work for free for the community , providing (sometimes expensive, ingenious or craft intensive) caches, lavishing time and attention on cache pages and hides and maintenance. I seriously doubt anyone thinks 'ooh, I must go to the effort and expense of setting a cache in order to provide fodder for the database of a US commercial company so that they can rake in more profit from apps and advertising', but please do let us all know if that is why you placed a cache (you did place a cache, didn't you ? One the community likes, one with lots of favourite points? *)

 

And then on the other hand, there's the business. Which makes money from what ? Advertising, app sales, premium memberships, TB codes, I've no idea if there are other revenue streams. And its raison d'être is to host and maintain a database for the community.

 

Yes, groundspeaks apparent prioritizing of ease of profit over happiness of community is entirely up to them to choose.

If they want to spend profits on developer time to faff around making things superficially prettier to the minds of app users instead of actually sorting out long standing infrastructure problems , that's their choice.

If they are fixated on the casual user and the app market as the way forward, that's their choice.

If, as recent developments suggest, they just don't give a ( insert your own words here ) about the community, that's their choice too.

 

Groundspeak have nothing if the community falls apart.

Then when in inevitable consequence Groundspeak starts to fall apart, the community will cast around for alternatives, regroup , and keep on caching.

Because what we love is caching.

 

To sum up, Groundspeak is not caching, Groundspeak merely facilitates caching.

 

* like, for example , GC4C35 1504 fav.s ,or GC45CC 693 fav.s ...

Link to comment

So what has changed since HQ sent me and many others this email promising that the YOSM would not be archived then ?

3 lies in one paragraph, takes some doing

 

Hello Mark,

 

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ. I'm sorry, but we cannot give an exception for YOSM. As you probably know, it is mislisted as a virtual and is really a locationless cache. If it had been listed correctly, it would have been archived long ago with all of the other locationless caches. It has had a very long life.

 

Fortunately for the YOSM fans in the UK, it is not being archived. None of the existing logs will be changed or removed. People who have already logged finds on it can continue to chase after it in each new location, but log with a note instead of a find. Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Sadly this duplicity can be expected from Groundspeak, a company that has proven time and time again that customer satisfaction is not of any interest to them whatsoever. They didn't even have the sense to avoid putting their lies in writing.

 

So, from this, do I understand it correctly that GCHQ has archived all the hitchhikers / traveling caches because some of their staff doesn't know their history and misunderstood what locationless caches were?

 

I'll let others discuss what defines a travelling cache as I wouldn't presume to know. Perhaps others can explain more helpfully.

 

The point the OP was making that I agree with is simply that Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Link to comment

So, from this, do I understand it correctly that GCHQ has archived all the hitchhikers / traveling caches because some of their staff doesn't know their history and misunderstood what locationless caches were?

No, I don't think that's a fair characterization. While it's true that there are many Lackeys who joined the Geocaching HQ team after the era when new moving caches and new locationless caches could be created, there are also many veterans -- both Lackeys and Reviewers -- who were "there when it happened."

Link to comment

Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

Link to comment

 

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

 

You mean all this time I could've been earning money?!?!

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

 

1)Fortunately for the YOSM fans in the UK, it is not being archived.

2) People who have already logged finds on it can continue to chase after it in each new location, but log with a note instead of a find.

3)Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change.

Link to comment

Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

 

1)Fortunately for the YOSM fans in the UK, it is not being archived.

2) People who have already logged finds on it can continue to chase after it in each new location, but log with a note instead of a find.

3)Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change.

 

Yes, according to the cache page of GC45CC Ye Old Survey Monuments at the time of writing, "This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes". Erm, is something wrong with my web browser? The reality and the email seem to be at odds.

Edited by Harris Tweed
Link to comment

Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

 

I was being kind. They lied.

Link to comment

Not that anyone foresaw this, but in hindsight the removal of the "update coordinates" functionality sort of telegraphed this, didn't it?

 

 

Not sure what you mean. What removal?

 

Far as I know, it's still an option. Only problem is you can't update the coordinates to anything further than 0.1 mile from the previous posted coordinates...so updating for the traveling caches essentially requires a reviewer.

 

That has always been the case (well at least since 2009 when I started), a CO can only move a cache 0.1 miles. But the moving caches were an exception, the CO could do it. I never saw anything saying the COs of these moving caches couldn't update the coordinates anymore. Though that is moot now.

I was under the impression that the Update Coordinates functionality was removed from the new logging experience.

Link to comment

Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

 

1)Fortunately for the YOSM fans in the UK, it is not being archived.

2) People who have already logged finds on it can continue to chase after it in each new location, but log with a note instead of a find.

3)Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change.

 

1) It HAS been archived.

2) No they can't log a note, it's been locked.

3) See 2)

 

Here's the proof :-

https://coord.info/GC45CC

 

While they were at it Groundspeak also archived this, which was originally a similar travelling virtual like YOSM but in reality hasn't moved in years:-

 

https://coord.info/GCH600

Link to comment

People will soon get over these recent archived cache types because truthfully, not that many of us were actually effected in any way. :P

 

Sorry, but I so don't agree with that. We apparently live in an area with plenty of these artefacts - still 15 to 20 of them around in the Benelux. And there are a lot of geocachers around here that are trying to "collect" all those within our borders. Except now they can't do that anymore. And the feeling is really not the same between hunting for traveling caches, complete with interesting / fun history and its own logbook or finding just another trackable.

 

And yes, some really are artefacts. Just take a look at Don & John Juan for example. Finding hitchhikers is was extremely popular over here. They are were in a class of their own.

 

I see now that it's owner choose to convert it to a TB and it still gets to travel. So other than changing from a moving cache to a moving TB, what has changed. It's still the same artifact isn't it? :)

Link to comment

Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

 

1)Fortunately for the YOSM fans in the UK, it is not being archived.

2) People who have already logged finds on it can continue to chase after it in each new location, but log with a note instead of a find.

3)Newer geocachers that have not yet attempted it, will be able to log their first find on the listing, and continue to log visits via a note. None of the fun experience needs to change.

 

1) It HAS been archived.

2) No they can't log a note, it's been locked.

3) See 2)

 

Here's the proof :-

https://coord.info/GC45CC

 

While they were at it Groundspeak also archived this, which was originally a similar travelling virtual like YOSM but in reality hasn't moved in years:-

 

https://coord.info/GCH600

 

I was counting the lies out for the numerically challenged ...

Link to comment

I should probably add to that:

I was counting the lies out for the numerically challenged, and I wondered what possible benefit there was to be had from trying to clearly explain a point of view to people who show no trace of empathy or flexibility of thought.

 

So I left my comment as just copy/paste of the 3 lies, them went and did something more constructive instead.

Link to comment

I am surprised that Groundspeak has kept the Benchmarking portion of geocaching.com. I wonder how long before that gets the axe? I say this as someone who does log benchmarks, but who realizes not many others do.

 

I think there are more geocachers interested in Benchmarking than the moving caches, and from what I gather it was mostly geocachers in the UK.

 

I list Benchmarks on the Waymarking site, but if Benchmark data goes away from geocaching.com, I'll just use the NGS site. :)

Link to comment

I am surprised that Groundspeak has kept the Benchmarking portion of geocaching.com. I wonder how long before that gets the axe? I say this as someone who does log benchmarks, but who realizes not many others do.

 

I think there are more geocachers interested in Benchmarking than the moving caches, and from what I gather it was mostly geocachers in the UK.

 

I list Benchmarks on the Waymarking site, but if Benchmark data goes away from geocaching.com, I'll just use the NGS site. :)

 

Eh, isn't Benchmarking a US-only thing? The world is a bit larger than just the US. Here, there are no Benchmarks to begin with. And hunting hitchhikers was very popular. Especially as there were quite a few still around here in the European mainland.

Edited by NLBokkie
Link to comment

I am surprised that Groundspeak has kept the Benchmarking portion of geocaching.com. I wonder how long before that gets the axe? I say this as someone who does log benchmarks, but who realizes not many others do.

 

I think there are more geocachers interested in Benchmarking than the moving caches, and from what I gather it was mostly geocachers in the UK.

 

I list Benchmarks on the Waymarking site, but if Benchmark data goes away from geocaching.com, I'll just use the NGS site. :)

 

Eh, isn't Benchmarking a US-only thing? The world is a bit larger than just the US. Here, there are no Benchmarks to begin with. And hunting hitchhikers was very popular. Especially as there were quite a few still around here in the European mainland.

 

No, Benchmarking is not a US only thing. The UK has some of the most interesting ones, some really old historic survey markers. I don't think they are called Benchmarks in the UK, but Ordnance Survey markers.

German Trigpoints

Edited by Manville Possum
Link to comment

I should probably add to that:

I was counting the lies out for the numerically challenged, and I wondered what possible benefit there was to be had from trying to clearly explain a point of view to people who show no trace of empathy or flexibility of thought.

 

So I left my comment as just copy/paste of the 3 lies, them went and did something more constructive instead.

I presume you're referring to me as being numerically challenged and having no trace of empathy or flexibility of thought. If so, then thank you for helping me count to three (something that can cause me to break out in a sweat some days) as well as using relatively small words. If you have any more helpful tips, I invite you to share them with me personally over private message or email, where I can then demonstrate my complete flexibility of thought without restraint of forum rules or decorum. Otherwise, let's keep it civil and not needlessly belittle each other, shall we? (After all, according to your forum title, "Bullies are beneath contempt," right?)

 

As far as empathy, no, I do not empathize with you over the loss of these ridiculous "virtuals," which never should have existed in the first place and maybe should have just been outright archived as unworkable back when when virtuals were grandfathered and locationless caches were killed off and locked. But they were allowed to continue to exist as...whatever the heck they were. Not really virtuals, not really waymarks, not really locationless caches, not really moving caches, just confusing messes that were allowed to sidestep all existing rules and permit in some cases hundreds of finds by individuals who really should just have been using trigpointing.uk (or the Canadian counterpart to trigpointing.uk, whatever that might be) instead of cluttering things up here for the past decade and change.

 

As far as flexibility of thought, the bleating from the survey monuments and brass cap crowd has shown none, so I do find it humorous that you expect some from those who disagree that the brass cap and YOSM caches were, to borrow a phrase from a former client of mine, "the best thing since sliced chicken." You've abandoned all semblance of objectivity on this.

 

For the previous statements on YOSM not getting archived to be three lies (see? I can count! or at least repeat the numbers I see), there had to have been a decision at the time that it would be archived. I've seen no proof of that, and I challenge you to provide it in order to back up your charge. There's no indication that the same Groundspeak employee who sent that message was involved in the decision to archive moving caches.

 

But again, I am forgetting that Groundspeak = puppy stompers, so of course they did it all with malice aforethought, rubbing their hands together and cackling the whole time. (Sorry -- sarcastic empathy is as close as I can get to actual empathy on this one.)

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment
I am surprised that Groundspeak has kept the Benchmarking portion of geocaching.com. I wonder how long before that gets the axe? I say this as someone who does log benchmarks, but who realizes not many others do.

IIRC, a Reviewer once said that benchmarks were added to the site to help sorta "fill in" , until cache numbers increased.

Unlike the brass cap caches and similar though, they never counted as a find (but a separate record was kept).

I believe that's why those other "benchmark-like" caches were started in the first place.

- A "where's mine?", "only in the US?" thing maybe...

I'd guess the little coding to keep that benchmark record might be affected in time, but folks around here aren't rushing to find them either.

We like to find them too, but most we've found aren't listed on the site. :)

Link to comment

I am surprised that Groundspeak has kept the Benchmarking portion of geocaching.com. I wonder how long before that gets the axe? I say this as someone who does log benchmarks, but who realizes not many others do.

 

I think there are more geocachers interested in Benchmarking than the moving caches, and from what I gather it was mostly geocachers in the UK.

 

I list Benchmarks on the Waymarking site, but if Benchmark data goes away from geocaching.com, I'll just use the NGS site. :)

 

Eh, isn't Benchmarking a US-only thing? The world is a bit larger than just the US. Here, there are no Benchmarks to begin with. And hunting hitchhikers was very popular. Especially as there were quite a few still around here in the European mainland.

 

No, Benchmarking is not a US only thing. The UK has some of the most interesting ones, some really old historic survey markers. I don't think they are called Benchmarks in the UK, but Ordnance Survey markers.

German Trigpoints

 

I think NLBokkie meant benchmarking in the context of what's supported by geocaching.com; if so, that's accurate.

Link to comment

... maybe should have just been outright archived as unworkable

 

... instead of cluttering things up here for the past decade and change.

 

Unworkable? they seem to have worked pretty well for 15 years.

 

2 caches out of 3,000,000+ ! I think you need to keep a sense of proportion.

I'd like to think I am keeping a sense of proportion: 2 caches didn't follow the same rules as the other 3 million and now they're gone. A few dozen others went with them. Life goes on for me as before.

 

In the grand scheme of things, it would appear to be the YOSM/brass cap crowd that has lost perspective on this, but then I admit I'm not objective on this anymore, so I'll let others judge.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

... maybe should have just been outright archived as unworkable

 

... instead of cluttering things up here for the past decade and change.

 

Unworkable? they seem to have worked pretty well for 15 years.

 

2 caches out of 3,000,000+ ! I think you need to keep a sense of proportion.

Exactly. So from now on, changes to the logging process and the coordinate update process can be made by Geocaching HQ without having to make programmatic exceptions for two caches out of 3,000,000.

Link to comment

I am surprised that Groundspeak has kept the Benchmarking portion of geocaching.com. I wonder how long before that gets the axe? I say this as someone who does log benchmarks, but who realizes not many others do.

 

I think there are more geocachers interested in Benchmarking than the moving caches, and from what I gather it was mostly geocachers in the UK.

 

I list Benchmarks on the Waymarking site, but if Benchmark data goes away from geocaching.com, I'll just use the NGS site. :)

 

Eh, isn't Benchmarking a US-only thing? The world is a bit larger than just the US. Here, there are no Benchmarks to begin with. And hunting hitchhikers was very popular. Especially as there were quite a few still around here in the European mainland.

 

No, Benchmarking is not a US only thing. The UK has some of the most interesting ones, some really old historic survey markers. I don't think they are called Benchmarks in the UK, but Ordnance Survey markers.

German Trigpoints

 

I think NLBokkie meant benchmarking in the context of what's supported by geocaching.com; if so, that's accurate.

 

Very likely, and they would be correct. I enjoy finding historic survey markers and the such. Not Geocachers are Waymarkers that enjoy Benchmarking, so I'm easily confused. Bottom line, I get the coordinates and data from some place online. B)

 

At the present, I'm bored with geocaching and going out in remote locations where the big rattle snakes live looking for metal disks under 60 years of dirt and roots is exciting. :D

Link to comment

... maybe should have just been outright archived as unworkable

 

... instead of cluttering things up here for the past decade and change.

 

Unworkable? they seem to have worked pretty well for 15 years.

 

2 caches out of 3,000,000+ ! I think you need to keep a sense of proportion.

Exactly. So from now on, changes to the logging process and the coordinate update process can be made by Geocaching HQ without having to make programmatic exceptions for two caches out of 3,000,000.

Glad someone's happy, maybe the release quality will now show a magical improvement.

Link to comment

2 caches didn't follow the same rules as the other 3 million and now they're gone.

 

A little more than two: I will miss our local g.S.F.R?T. Moving Cache and had hoped to do a few more along those lines when I have more time to travel. But, yes, a few handfuls out of 3 million. Although I am not sure that 3 million is a good thing (leaving that discussion for another day), I am sure that preserving some of the things that are quirky about this game is important to many of us. Having a few things that don't necessarily follow the rules, rather than the rush for the common denominator, touches upon the spirit that brought many of us into the game. So I am sad to see them go, and disappointed by the way it has handled.

 

Although I am more familiar with the cache above, I looked at the YOSM cache age and could not see that either require "programmatic exceptions." So a few out of 3 million seems like more of a matter of policy rather than one of resources. And it's that policy that I think is unfortunate.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

2 caches didn't follow the same rules as the other 3 million and now they're gone.

 

A little more than two: I will miss our local g.S.F.R?T. Moving Cache and had hoped to do a few more along those lines when I have more time to travel. But, yes, a few handfuls out of 3 million. Although I am not sure that 3 million is a good thing (leaving that discussion for another day), I am sure that preserving some of the things that are quirky about this game is important to many of us. Having a few things that don't necessarily follow the rules, rather than the rush for the common denominator, touches upon the spirit that brought many of us into the game. So I am sad to see them go, and disappointed by the way it has handled.

 

Although I am more familiar with the cache above, I looked at the YOSM cache age and could not see that either require "programmatic exceptions." So a few out of 3 million seems like more of a matter of policy rather than one of resources. And it's that policy that I think is unfortunate.

 

+1. Exactly how I feel.

 

The discussion here seems to focus mainly on the Brass Cap and YOSM caches, but there really are plenty more. Just see this list of 19 traveling caches, all within the Benelux. Only 2 of them are virtuals that could be put in the same category as Brass Cap / YOSM, but all 19 are affected . . . As far as I can see, none of these would need any form of "programmatic exception". They've been working just fine for years.

Edited by NLBokkie
Link to comment

... maybe should have just been outright archived as unworkable

 

... instead of cluttering things up here for the past decade and change.

 

Unworkable? they seem to have worked pretty well for 15 years.

 

2 caches out of 3,000,000+ ! I think you need to keep a sense of proportion.

Exactly. So from now on, changes to the logging process and the coordinate update process can be made by Geocaching HQ without having to make programmatic exceptions for two caches out of 3,000,000.

 

Such exceptions were not the reason the moving caches were all archived, it was because of the supposed disproportionate number of complaints generated by them, or do you know different? If so maybe GS are lying about it (as someone suggested earlier) after all......

Link to comment

... maybe should have just been outright archived as unworkable

 

... instead of cluttering things up here for the past decade and change.

 

Unworkable? they seem to have worked pretty well for 15 years.

 

2 caches out of 3,000,000+ ! I think you need to keep a sense of proportion.

Exactly. So from now on, changes to the logging process and the coordinate update process can be made by Geocaching HQ without having to make programmatic exceptions for two caches out of 3,000,000.

Such exceptions were not the reason the moving caches were all archived, it was because of the supposed disproportionate number of complaints generated by them, or do you know different? If so maybe GS are lying about it (as someone suggested earlier) after all......

Each of the reasons for the recent changes for Traveling Caches are summarized in this Help Center article, so I would simply refer you to that article. From personal experience as a Community Volunteer Reviewer, I've observed each of the listed symptoms in action over the years, so I regard the article as a helpful and truthful summary. Not every reason applies to every affected cache listing, but all of the reasons are valid.

Link to comment

Perhaps it comes down to philosophy. Given the small number of caches, if this list is reasonably accurate, I would have chosen to handle any problems on a case-by-case basis rather a blanket archival. I would rather preserve as much of our collective experience and history as I can, even if there are only a few caches at issue than archive without regard to the particular problems (or the lack thereof) associated with a cache. But I suppose people would then be raising even more complaints about being unfair.

Link to comment

Perhaps it comes down to philosophy. Given the small number of caches, if this list is reasonably accurate, I would have chosen to handle any problems on a case-by-case basis rather a blanket archival. I would rather preserve as much of our collective experience and history as I can, even if there are only a few caches at issue than archive without regard to the particular problems (or the lack thereof) associated with a cache. But I suppose people would then be raising even more complaints about being unfair.

That was the approach followed for many years. For the caches that generated complaints and listing guideline compliance problems, the approach was not sustainable. At the point where the archive decision is made for the caches deemed chronically problematic, then the last sentence of your post kicks in.

Link to comment

Groundspeak stated categorically in numerous emails to customers that YOSM would not be archived, then they archived it. They grudgingly agreed that we would be allowed to add a note after any initial find (not great) but they simply lied. An error? Change of mind? Calculated strategy?

Only the last one would make the earlier statement a lie, for what it's worth. But I know it's cool to assume malice on Groundspeak's part --after all, it's now widely known that the game we all profess to enjoy is being run by a consortium composed of mad scientists and professional puppy stompers.

 

I was being kind. They lied.

 

There are more diplomatic ways of putting it - perhaps somewhere in the EULA are the terms "subject to change without notice", "user accepts Groundspeak/Geocaching.com may change things as they fit without giving written notice", "Votes will be tallied, but players votes count for little to nothing" or possibly "At the end of the day we'll do what we feel is in the best interests of the game, the players and keeping the peace (among players as well as staff, as some staff have become quite passionate about it and the water cooler can be replaced, but teeth can.")

Link to comment

 

That was the approach followed for many years. For the caches that generated complaints and listing guideline compliance problems, the approach was not sustainable. At the point where the archive decision is made for the caches deemed chronically problematic, then the last sentence of your post kicks in.

 

That is fine, but what isn't clear is why now. I don't expect we will ever know.

 

The timing and communication could have been handled better. Specifically for Brass Caps and YOSM, the recent history:

 

1. These caches happily existing and being found.

2. New logging changes means they can not continue to be logged as they have been in the past.

3. Requests from many UK (and I assume Canadian cachers) asking if they can continue as they have been (logging multiple finds on one GC). This includes requests from some UK reviewers.

4. The result of point 3 was statements from Groundspeak saying no, you can't continue to log multiple finds. But they won't be archived, you can log notes.

5. (Around 2 weeks later): Caches archived.

Link to comment
So from now on, changes to the logging process and the coordinate update process can be made by Geocaching HQ without having to make programmatic exceptions for two caches out of 3,000,000.

 

Seeing as almost every change Groundspeak applies to the site makes it worse, I am sad to hear this.

Link to comment

HQ has been monitoring this discussion, and we feel some clarification is needed.

 

The misunderstanding here is based on two separate unconnected causes that occurred weeks apart, each with separate effects.

 

The first cause was changing the logging system to allow only one find per cache. This is the way it should always have been. But in the early days, no one at HQ anticipated anyone would want to log a cache again and again. If we had known it would be misused, the system would have been updated long ago to allow only one find log per cache.

 

After the change to the logging system, many people who enjoyed Brass Cap and YOSM wrote to HQ with concern that the caches had been ended, which was not the case. As the emails quoted in previous posts said, finders could continue to visit them and log subsequent visits with notes. We did not have any plan to archive them at that time.

 

The second cause, which happened weeks later, was the coordinate update log being limited to 0.10 mile or 161m for all geocaches. This made it impossible for owners of moving caches to maintain their cache page with accurate coordinates. With the cache owners unable to do this necessary ongoing update and the other problems detailed in the history of traveling caches, the decision was made to archive them all rather than to prolong the pain.

 

Caches like Brass Cap and YOSM are locationless caches, but were listed as the wrong cache type when published. They only existed for this long because of that error, and should have been archived at the end of 2005 with the rest of the old locationless caches. Those locationless caches can still be listed and visited on Waymarking.com. See U.K. and Ireland Trigpoints and Canadian Benchmarks.

 

Moving caches have always been a confusing mix of common cache types, with nothing to unify them other than appearing on some bookmark lists. As a group, they caused an inordinate amount of issues for caches that represented less than .003% of active geocaches, and added nothing unique to anyone's statistics. Changing them to a unique trackable series allows them to continue traveling without the problems, and provides HQ with an opportunity to give them something they have never had - a unique icon that would only appear on the profiles of people that moved or discovered them as trackables. A winged ammo can seemed like the perfect image to honor their previous existence as traveling caches. We love the new icon.

Link to comment

HQ has been monitoring this discussion, and we feel some clarification is needed.

 

The misunderstanding here is based on two separate unconnected causes that occurred weeks apart, each with separate effects.

 

The first cause was changing the logging system to allow only one find per cache. This is the way it should always have been. But in the early days, no one at HQ anticipated anyone would want to log a cache again and again. If we would have known it would be misused, the system would have been updated long ago to allow only one find log per cache.

 

After the change to the logging system, many people who enjoyed Brass Cap and YOSM wrote to HQ with concern that the caches had been ended, which was not the case. As the emails quoted in previous posts said, finders could continue to visit them and log subsequent visits with notes. We did not have any plan to archive them at that time.

 

The second cause, which happened weeks later, was the coordinate update log being limited to 0.10 mile or 161m for all geocaches. This made it impossible for owners of moving caches to maintain their cache page with accurate coordinates. With the cache owners unable to do this necessary ongoing update and the other problems detailed in the history of traveling caches, the decision was made to archive them all rather than to prolong the pain.

 

Caches like Brass Cap and YOSM are locationless caches, but were listed as the wrong cache type when published. They only existed for this long because of that error, and should have been archived at the end of 2005 with the rest of the old locationless caches. Those locationless caches can still be listed and visited on Waymarking.com. See U.K. and Ireland Trigpoints and Canadian Benchmarks.

 

Moving caches have always been a confusing mix of common cache types, with nothing to unify them other than appearing on some bookmark lists. As a group, they caused an inordinate amount of issues for caches that represented less than .003% of active geocaches, and added nothing unique to anyone's statistics. Changing them to a unique trackable series allows them to continue traveling without the problems, and provides HQ with an opportunity to give them something they have never had - a unique icon that would only appear on the profiles of people that moved or discovered them as trackables. A winged ammo can seemed like the perfect image to honor their previous existence as traveling caches. We love the new icon.

 

Thank you. It's great to hear it from someone in HQ. Good summary of the history and reasons for the changes.

Link to comment

After the change to the logging system, many people who enjoyed Brass Cap and YOSM wrote to HQ with concern that the caches had been ended, which was not the case. As the emails quoted in previous posts said, finders could continue to visit them and log subsequent visits with notes. We did not have any plan to archive them at that time.

 

The second cause, which happened weeks later, was the coordinate update log being limited to 0.10 mile or 161m for all geocaches. This made it impossible for owners of moving caches to maintain their cache page with accurate coordinates. With the cache owners unable to do this necessary ongoing update and the other problems detailed in the history of traveling caches, the decision was made to archive them all rather than to prolong the pain.

Your timing on this was not good. You said there was no plan to archive the caches and things would continue as they were, just with note writing. Then only a few weeks later they're archived for good with no warning. Did you really think this seemed fair?

 

Caches like Brass Cap and YOSM are locationless caches, but were listed as the wrong cache type when published. They only existed for this long because of that error, and should have been archived at the end of 2005 with the rest of the old locationless caches. Those locationless caches can still be listed and visited on Waymarking.com. See U.K. and Ireland Trigpoints and Canadian Benchmarks.

So why was this not addressed at publication and/or why was it not addressed sometime in the past 12 years? 12 YEARS! Part of the pain with this is that the Brass Cap and YOSM caches have remained practically unchanged for SO long until now.

 

The biggest concern for me is that I went out on an epic adventure on Monday to find a brass cap. After a 12 hour day I returned home, only to see that the page was locked and I could not write up and share my story. An email to HQ asking for one final note to the page was met with a quick "nope". Many others I spoke with were left in the same predicament - after a long weekend with many finds to log (Monday is a holiday in Canada), the page was suddenly archived.

 

To summarize:

1) You broke what I'd consider to be a promise by saying the pages weren't going to be archived. That only lasted a few weeks then ended without warning.

2) Your communication was awful. We would have at least appreciated a warning that the caches were going to be archived. We wouldn't have been happy about it, but it would have been better than no warning at all. Especially since I planned a huge geocaching trip only to have the pages locked on the same day.

3) Your willingness to correct the remaining issues is non-existent. There was no offer to let me write one final note on the log page.

4) It's a big slap in the face to some historic caches and amazing cache owners. It could have been handled in a MUCH more professional way.

 

I'm disappointed that this is shaken off as an acceptable way to treat your clientele.

Link to comment

After the change to the logging system, many people who enjoyed Brass Cap and YOSM wrote to HQ with concern that the caches had been ended, which was not the case. As the emails quoted in previous posts said, finders could continue to visit them and log subsequent visits with notes. We did not have any plan to archive them at that time.

 

The second cause, which happened weeks later, was the coordinate update log being limited to 0.10 mile or 161m for all geocaches. This made it impossible for owners of moving caches to maintain their cache page with accurate coordinates. With the cache owners unable to do this necessary ongoing update and the other problems detailed in the history of traveling caches, the decision was made to archive them all rather than to prolong the pain.

Your timing on this was not good. You said there was no plan to archive the caches and things would continue as they were, just with note writing. Then only a few weeks later they're archived for good with no warning. Did you really think this seemed fair?

 

Caches like Brass Cap and YOSM are locationless caches, but were listed as the wrong cache type when published. They only existed for this long because of that error, and should have been archived at the end of 2005 with the rest of the old locationless caches. Those locationless caches can still be listed and visited on Waymarking.com. See U.K. and Ireland Trigpoints and Canadian Benchmarks.

So why was this not addressed at publication and/or why was it not addressed sometime in the past 12 years? 12 YEARS! Part of the pain with this is that the Brass Cap and YOSM caches have remained practically unchanged for SO long until now.

 

The biggest concern for me is that I went out on an epic adventure on Monday to find a brass cap. After a 12 hour day I returned home, only to see that the page was locked and I could not write up and share my story. An email to HQ asking for one final note to the page was met with a quick "nope". Many others I spoke with were left in the same predicament - after a long weekend with many finds to log (Monday is a holiday in Canada), the page was suddenly archived.

 

To summarize:

1) You broke what I'd consider to be a promise by saying the pages weren't going to be archived. That only lasted a few weeks then ended without warning.

2) Your communication was awful. We would have at least appreciated a warning that the caches were going to be archived. We wouldn't have been happy about it, but it would have been better than no warning at all. Especially since I planned a huge geocaching trip only to have the pages locked on the same day.

3) Your willingness to correct the remaining issues is non-existent. There was no offer to let me write one final note on the log page.

4) It's a big slap in the face to some historic caches and amazing cache owners. It could have been handled in a MUCH more professional way.

 

I'm disappointed that this is shaken off as an acceptable way to treat your clientele.

 

Every attempt at caching has a potential for disappointment. You might trek for 20 miles only to find the cache destroyed or missing or inaccessible. There is never a guarantee you'll end up being able to log a cache...but do you regret going? Or would you say you had a good time anyway?

 

Hyperbole like "slap in the face" just comes off sounding a bit petty. There would have always been someone to complain about the timing no matter when they decided to act. You or someone else. If they'd given 30 days warning, people would have been complaining about it not being 60.

Link to comment

Every attempt at caching has a potential for disappointment. You might trek for 20 miles only to find the cache destroyed or missing or inaccessible. There is never a guarantee you'll end up being able to log a cache...but do you regret going? Or would you say you had a good time anyway?

See, that's just it. I had an amazing time and I want to share the story, but I have absolutely no opportunity to do so there. It would be a fantastic final log to let the cache page go out with a bang. Just like how I've had some incredible experiences going out and DNFing a cache. But I always log the experience online at the end of the day, regardless of the outcome! I've never experienced the disappointment of not being able to log at least SOMETHING at the end of the day.

 

Hyperbole like "slap in the face" just comes off sounding a bit petty. There would have always been someone to complain about the timing no matter when they decided to act. You or someone else. If they'd given 30 days warning, people would have been complaining about it not being 60.

There's a very clear difference between zero days notice and any number greater than zero (30 days would have been fair?). I don't think anyone would agree that no warning whatsoever is fair.

 

EDIT: I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Edited by brendan714
Link to comment

I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Sure, archiving would be "enough" if one can count on geocachers to only log archived listings legitimately (like being behind on logging finds, or when splitting up a team account into individual accounts). Is that a safe assumption to make? As my response, every non-legitimate log on a virtual or webcam cache post-archival is hereby incorporated by reference into this post. The archived Project APE caches are locked for similar reasons.

Link to comment

I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Sure, archiving would be "enough" if one can count on geocachers to only log archived listings legitimately (like being behind on logging finds, or when splitting up a team account into individual accounts). Is that a safe assumption to make? As my response, every non-legitimate log on a virtual or webcam cache post-archival is hereby incorporated by reference into this post. The archived Project APE caches are locked for similar reasons.

If that's your argument, then why aren't ALL caches locked after being archived?

 

And what about legitimate finds on the day of archiving, like mine? Too bad, so sad? If so, that's not the right attitude.

 

Besides, we're not even talking about a find. We're talking about writing a note to the page to share a story (remember multiple founds were eliminated - and I'd found that cache multiple times). What's the concern over me (or anyone) posting a note to the page to share a story of a brass cap adventure, legitimate find or not?

Link to comment

I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Sure, archiving would be "enough" if one can count on geocachers to only log archived listings legitimately (like being behind on logging finds, or when splitting up a team account into individual accounts). Is that a safe assumption to make? As my response, every non-legitimate log on a virtual or webcam cache post-archival is hereby incorporated by reference into this post. The archived Project APE caches are locked for similar reasons.

If that's your argument, then why aren't ALL caches locked after being archived?

 

Simple. There are valid finds on archived caches. For example: https://coord.info/GLMP0CFY ...(I found that cache more than a year after it was archived).

 

Since the brass caps/YOSM are essentially virtual caches, the excuse would always be that "the monuments are still there, so I should still be able to log them".

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Sure, archiving would be "enough" if one can count on geocachers to only log archived listings legitimately (like being behind on logging finds, or when splitting up a team account into individual accounts). Is that a safe assumption to make? As my response, every non-legitimate log on a virtual or webcam cache post-archival is hereby incorporated by reference into this post. The archived Project APE caches are locked for similar reasons.

If that's your argument, then why aren't ALL caches locked after being archived?

Simple. There are valid finds on archived caches. For example: https://coord.info/GLMP0CFY ...(I found that cache more than a year after it was archived).

Exactly my point. So why lock the brass cap & YOSM pages when there is potential for legitimate finds? The potential for illegitimate found logs is not a good argument for locking a cache page. So why were they archived AND locked?

Link to comment
Every attempt at caching has a potential for disappointment. You might trek for 20 miles only to find the cache destroyed or missing or inaccessible. There is never a guarantee you'll end up being able to log a cache...but do you regret going? Or would you say you had a good time anyway?

 

Hyperbole like "slap in the face" just comes off sounding a bit petty. There would have always been someone to complain about the timing no matter when they decided to act. You or someone else. If they'd given 30 days warning, people would have been complaining about it not being 60.

 

The journey is what it's about to me as well. There have been caches that I've visited but never found, or at least didn't find on my first visit. My attitude there is that I get another chance to visit that spot later.

 

I can certainly understand the frustration with the Brass Caps and the YOSM, but I also understand what CathyH had to say as well. While I agree that these caches should have been archived because they were considered locationless caches, I think they should have been archived 12 years ago with those that were actually listed as locationless.

 

As far as the original reason for this thread, the moving caches. I'm planning on traveling to Saint Louis and had my eye on the moving cache there in Forest Park. I'll still visit that park because there's so much to see there, it's just that there's one less cache there to be found. That one was listed as a multi with the first waypoint staying in one spot, but a waypoint after that being the one that moved. I can certainly understand why all moving caches had to come under a blanket action though.

 

-The Happy Hodag!

Link to comment

I guess the big question is, why is the page locking necessary? Wouldn't just archiving be enough?

Sure, archiving would be "enough" if one can count on geocachers to only log archived listings legitimately (like being behind on logging finds, or when splitting up a team account into individual accounts). Is that a safe assumption to make? As my response, every non-legitimate log on a virtual or webcam cache post-archival is hereby incorporated by reference into this post. The archived Project APE caches are locked for similar reasons.

If that's your argument, then why aren't ALL caches locked after being archived?

Simple. There are valid finds on archived caches. For example: https://coord.info/GLMP0CFY ...(I found that cache more than a year after it was archived).

Exactly my point. So why lock the brass cap & YOSM pages when there is potential for legitimate finds? The potential for illegitimate found logs is not a good argument for locking a cache page. So why were they archived AND locked?

 

Read the rest of my post:

 

Since the brass caps/YOSM are essentially virtual caches, the excuse would always be that "the monuments are still there, so I should still be able to log them".
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 8
×
×
  • Create New...