Archived caches

[+Therayburnclan]

Ok I have a question. If you found a cache that has been archived for over a year do you think it’s wrong to take the cache and place another one in its place with a new cache that you created

[+SeattleWayne]

Maybe try to contact the previous Cache Owner of that cache that you found and let them know you have their cache. It's probably pointless to do so, since it's been left out there for a year or so...

Then drop your cache and submit your cache listing to your local reviewer.

 

If you're talking about a Throw Down to log that archived cache as a Find, that is highly discouraged.

[+cerberus1]

15 minutes ago, Therayburnclan said:

Ok I have a question. If you found a cache that has been archived for over a year do you think it’s wrong to take the cache and place another one in its place with a new cache that you created

Maybe you can glean info from the cache page archival  as to why it was archived.  I'd at least make an attempt to contact the owner, as it's possible (though improbable) that it's now being used for another GPS-based game. 

No notice from the CO, okay to place in that area, and a nice enough spot, sure you can.   

[RuideAlmeida]

28 minutes ago, Therayburnclan said:

... place another one in its place with a new cache that you created

As long there are no others (or physical stages) closer than 161m. Try to return the cache to the previous owner, per courtesy.

[+J Grouchy]

52 minutes ago, Therayburnclan said:

Ok I have a question. If you found a cache that has been archived for over a year do you think it’s wrong to take the cache and place another one in its place with a new cache that you created

I revived an ammo can cache that the CO had archived six months earlier.  I would have left it in the original hiding spot even, but it was an offset cache and the calculated coordinates didn't meet the minimum distance requirement (by about 30 feet or so).  I just took the old box (even kept the old log book) and moved it down the hill, gave the CO an option to get it back (no response back) and went ahead and published it.  Even gave credit to the original on the page (GC5PBCJ).

[+boisestate]

We just did this with our most recently published multi cache. The original cache had 3 very cool locations in a fairly saturated area. The original CO was unable to maintain his great multi cache due to health reasons. I happened to check the cache page while it was in the final archive warning stage so I contacted the CO to ask about adoption. We got the COs OK to adopt but never heard back and the CO never initiated the adoption. The cache ended up getting archived so we prepared the "re-birth" using the same coords and added a few twist to the multi cache.

You can check out our cache page from our profile, it's currently our only multi cache (still yet to be found).

If you like the spot enough, I would definitely set up a new cache.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Maybe try to contact the previous Cache Owner of that cache that you found and let them know you have their cache. It's probably pointless to do so, since it's been left out there for a year or so...

I stumbled across an old cache that had been archived ten years earlier, but the container (a large plastic bucket) and its contents (which had become an interesting time capsule) were in excellent condition. I contacted the CO and was able to return it to him, and also released the TB that had been imprisoned in it for all that time, much to the delight of its owner.

So trying to contact the CO isn't pointless even if it's been archived for many years.

[+bflentje]

I don't plan on hiding a cache in its place but I just scored a cache that had been archived nearly five years ago. After that long I figured the owner wasn't interested in his geo-junk so I CITO'ed it. And managed to resurrect one my trackables to boot. :-)

[+Therayburnclan]

The only reason I want the old caches is for the swag. I am making a wooden container for all the stuff I have found in a cache. 

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, Therayburnclan said:

The only reason I want the old caches is for the swag. I am making a wooden container for all the stuff I have found in a cache. 

Curious, do you see a good number of wooden caches in your area?   They'd be lucky to last more than a season here. 

We never considered the deteriorating "stuff" we find in caches worthy for a new placement, guess some areas vary.  Cool.

 

Looking again, it seems you may be saying the "wooden container" is simply to hold all swag found, not as a cache placement . 

 - We've kept traded-for "swag" that was special to a cache, day, or individual, but never thought of just taking stuff.   Different.   

Edited January 10, 2018 by cerberus1

[+SeattleWayne]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I stumbled across an old cache that had been archived ten years earlier, but the container (a large plastic bucket) and its contents (which had become an interesting time capsule) were in excellent condition. I contacted the CO and was able to return it to him, and also released the TB that had been imprisoned in it for all that time, much to the delight of its owner.

So trying to contact the CO isn't pointless even if it's been archived for many years.

Right. 

[+ibgpin]

On 1/9/2018 at 9:41 AM, Therayburnclan said:

Ok I have a question. If you found a cache that has been archived for over a year do you think it’s wrong to take the cache and place another one in its place with a new cache that you created

My opinion is, if the cache has been archived for over a year the CO is probably no longer interested in the cache and placing one in that location should be no problem.  If it interferes with an existing cache or a physical way point that's a different story.  Once a cache is archived other caches can be placed within 528 feet of that location so check to make sure there are no other hides within the guidelines.

[+J Grouchy]

I also think it's useful to note WHO archived the cache.  If it was the CO and the cache is still sitting there, there is a higher likelihood they have no intention of going to pick it up.  If a reviewer archived it - it's possible the CO may still want it.  CO archival generally points to a disinterest or inability to maintain and/or retrieve it.  Reviewer archival may or may not mean the CO has given up claim, but could just as easily mean the CO couldn't, for whatever reason, maintain it in a timely manner or maybe had not logged in for a long time but still meant to keep it up and running.  It's nothing definitive, but a CO archiving it is sort of an indication that they are giving up rights to it to some degree.

[+hzoi]

Just keep in mind that there are archived caches out there that are still in play.  The majority of these are caches that are cross-listed on other listing services, which I will not mention per forum rules but should be easily found by searching. 

Sometimes a CO may not know the cache is back.  I came across the final for a multi that had been archived after the container was taken -- unbenknownst to the CO, whoever took it had later returned it.  The CO was able to get the cache republished after resolving some proximity issues with the (subsequently published) multi I'd been hunting.

I have come across at least one archived cache that the CO was actively encouraging people to seek out.  It was based on finding four different trackables, which kept going missing, leading to the CO archiving it, but the CO reworked the trackable listings such that you could figure them out and then go find the final, which was still out there.

tl;dr: Just contact the CO first, to make sure it's truly abandoned and not just archived here on geocaching.com.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

I also think it's useful to note WHO archived the cache.  If it was the CO and the cache is still sitting there, there is a higher likelihood they have no intention of going to pick it up.  If a reviewer archived it - it's possible the CO may still want it.  CO archival generally points to a disinterest or inability to maintain and/or retrieve it.  Reviewer archival may or may not mean the CO has given up claim, but could just as easily mean the CO couldn't, for whatever reason, maintain it in a timely manner or maybe had not logged in for a long time but still meant to keep it up and running.  It's nothing definitive, but a CO archiving it is sort of an indication that they are giving up rights to it to some degree.

Another possibility is that some helpful soul has rehidden the cache in a "better" place than the CO put it, or it's drifted over time, so that the CO thinks it's gone missing and archives it when in fact it's still there in a slightly different place. I've had a container wash away in a major storm and archived the cache because in hindsight it was probably a bad place to put it, but the container's still out there somewhere, I just don't know where.

[+justintim1999]

According to the guidelines after a cache is archived it's suppose to be retrieved by the cache owner.    The fact that these containers are still being found disturbs me.

Question, why would someone search for a cache that's not suppose to be there.   Answer, because the majority of the time they are there and haven't been removed.  Yet the  location of the cache is allowed to remain on the site for all to see,  and these caches continue to be found despite the fact that in most cases they are in violation of Ground Speaks own guidelines.    I don't get it.

I do get the cross listing aspect of this whole thing and that's fine.

Is there a reason why cords to archived cache are still listed on Geocaching.com?

  

[+J Grouchy]

44 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

According to the guidelines after a cache is archived it's suppose to be retrieved by the cache owner.    The fact that these containers are still being found disturbs me.  

Disturbs you?  Really?

45 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Question, why would someone search for a cache that's not suppose to be there.   Answer, because the majority of the time they are there and haven't been removed.  Yet the  location of the cache is allowed to remain on the site for all to see,  and these caches continue to be found despite the fact that in most cases they are in violation of Ground Speaks own guidelines.    I don't get it.  

Fact is, many get archived because the CO either isn't around anymore or isn't responding to calls for maintenance or too many DNFs are piling up and the reviewer takes action.  In many cases, there is no proof that it is missing and CO inaction is enough to get it archived.  We all agree they should be taken out, but CO inaction being the reason it's archived is also the primary reason it's never taken away.  It's not hard to understand at all.

45 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Is there a reason why cords to archived cache are still listed on Geocaching.com?  

Maybe it WOULD be a good idea to remove the coordinates to archived caches...maybe preserving the listing in some netherworld on the site would be enough?

[+justintim1999]

24 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Disturbs you?  Really?

Fact is, many get archived because the CO either isn't around anymore or isn't responding to calls for maintenance or too many DNFs are piling up and the reviewer takes action.  In many cases, there is no proof that it is missing and CO inaction is enough to get it archived.  We all agree they should be taken out, but CO inaction being the reason it's archived is also the primary reason it's never taken away.  It's not hard to understand at all.

Maybe it WOULD be a good idea to remove the coordinates to archived caches...maybe preserving the listing in some netherworld on the site would be enough?

I completely understand why some archived caches are not removed.  I don't understand why access to them is still provided by GS.    I also see how allowing multiple hosting sites to list the same cache can throw a monkey wrench into removing these caches.    Since it's very difficult to confirm a cache has been removed and equally tough to determine if these caches are listed on other sites I'd think it makes sense to simply remove the cords from these caches if only to preserve the appearance of the guidelines being followed.

I'm disturbed to begin with so it doesn't take much.     

Edited January 11, 2018 by justintim1999
addition

[+redsox_mark]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

 

Is there a reason why cords to archived cache are still listed on Geocaching.com?

  

Archived caches are there for history, and the coordinates are part of that history.   

There are a number of reasons why I may look at an archived cache; and in most cases the coordinates are important to me.

1.  I sometimes like to look at my past finds, just to reminisce.    Which includes being able to see where they were.   Just knowing that the cache was in Texas (for example) but no indication where in Texas would not be as useful.

2.  I have looked at my archived finds locally, looking for places to hide a new cache.    It might not be in the exact same place,  but if I see Cache X was archived, and I remember enjoying that location, I may want to set a cache there.  Again, coordinates are useful so I can see where the location is.    (Of course I will also look to see why Cache X was archived to see if there is an issue with the location).

3.   I've found a cache accidently which doesn't seem to be listed.   This is harder, I may look at the finds of others who found other caches nearby to try and find out if it is an archived cache.    Coordinates let me confirm if I have discovered the cache page or not.

 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Is there a reason why cords to archived cache are still listed on Geocaching.com? 

We see it similar to redsox_mark, possible Groundspeak does too.  

We've used coords  for everything from placement/direction to others, to "close enough" parking.  Reference mostly.

 

[+justintim1999]

What if the history of the cache remained and the general location was indicated.   Would you necessarily need the exact coordinates?

[+cerberus1]

21 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What if the history of the cache remained and the general location was indicated.   Would you necessarily need the exact coordinates?

We have huge expanses of state game lands (we're allowed to be on) bordered by state parks (fees to place, and different "rules"), private communities (some DCNR properties are grandfathered within game lands), and working gas/oil/logging areas .  Many without a discernible boundary.  So yeah, the coordinates are important.

Some areas I like to visit share a driveway with a homeowner.  No one would know that property's there (certainly not how to get to it...) without coordinates, or a local.  

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We have huge expanses of state game lands (we're allowed to be on) bordered by state parks (fees to place, and different "rules"), private communities (some DCNR properties are grandfathered within game lands), and working gas/oil/logging areas .  Many without a discernible boundary.  So yeah, the coordinates are important.

Some areas I like to visit share a driveway with a homeowner.  No one would know that property's there (certainly not how to get to it...) without coordinates, or a local.  

If the archived cache page had everything on it, parking coordinates, trail heads ect, why would it be necessary to show where the exact location of the archived cache  was?   If someone wanted to access that area, all the information to do so is still there.   If they intended on placing a new cache in the area they'd need to go through the process of identifying boundaries and making sure the cache is placed on approved land.   At least they should be doing that.

Not trying to be confrontational.  Maybe I'm not understanding the answer.

 

[+redsox_mark]

25 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If the archived cache page had everything on it, parking coordinates, trail heads ect, why would it be necessary to show where the exact location of the archived cache  was?   If someone wanted to access that area, all the information to do so is still there.   If they intended on placing a new cache in the area they'd need to go through the process of identifying boundaries and making sure the cache is placed on approved land.   At least they should be doing that.

Not trying to be confrontational.  Maybe I'm not understanding the answer.

 

Many (I would say most) caches don't have parking coordinates or other waypoints.   For the first 2 examples I gave, I guess having "partially scrambled" coordinates within 100 metres of the real coordinates would be OK, though doesn't seem worth the effort to create.   For the 3rd case (I've accidently found a cache, is it this one?), actual coordinates are needed.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

why would it be necessary to show where the exact location of the archived cache  was?

Finds on archived caches can be used for challenge caches (as long as the cache was active when found).

How am I going to verify that an archived cache met a location-based challenge cache's requirements if I don't know the exact location where the archived cache was?

[+justintim1999]

34 minutes ago, niraD said:

Finds on archived caches can be used for challenge caches (as long as the cache was active when found).

How am I going to verify that an archived cache met a location-based challenge cache's requirements if I don't know the exact location where the archived cache was?

Is the "exact" location of the archived cache necessary?    Would a 300 foot radius be sufficient to satisfy most challenge cache requirements?     

[+NYPaddleCacher]

35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Is the "exact" location of the archived cache necessary?    Would a 300 foot radius be sufficient to satisfy most challenge cache requirements?     

It would if it were a "find a cache in N counties" challenge.  My only find in the state of Nevada was at the back of a casino parking lot.  It was no more than a couple of feet from the fence on the California/Nevada border and was originally incorrectly listed as being in California.  It's been archived since 2009.  State and Country based challenges can use the countryID or stateID, but for a counties based challenge the county is derived from the coordinates.  

[+niraD]

35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Is the "exact" location of the archived cache necessary?    Would a 300 foot radius be sufficient to satisfy most challenge cache requirements?     

Yes, the exact location is necessary.

I can't speak for "most" challenge cache requirements, but for the one I am working on (a USGS quad challenge, which is grandfathered), I have sometimes gone geocaching specifically to pick up caches that qualify for new quads. The easiest way to do this is to find the corner where 3 or 4 new-to-me quads meet, and then find the nearest caches in each direction. Those caches are 528 feet apart from each other, by definition. But individual caches may be just a couple hundred feet (or a couple dozen feet) into the quadrangle that I care about.

Moving archived caches to an arbitrary location that is only a 300 foot radius from their real location will break these kinds of statistics and challenges.

This is a game of location. It shouldn't be a surprise that exact locations are important to statistics and history.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Yes, the exact location is necessary.

I can't speak for "most" challenge cache requirements, but for the one I am working on (a USGS quad challenge, which is grandfathered), I have sometimes gone geocaching specifically to pick up caches that qualify for new quads. The easiest way to do this is to find the corner where 3 or 4 new-to-me quads meet, and then find the nearest caches in each direction. Those caches are 528 feet apart from each other, by definition. But individual caches may be just a couple hundred feet (or a couple dozen feet) into the quadrangle that I care about.

Moving archived caches to an arbitrary location that is only a 300 foot radius from their real location will break these kinds of statistics and challenges.

This is a game of location. It shouldn't be a surprise that exact locations are important to statistics and history.

Having an exact location on an active cache is no surprise.   Allowing people to continue finding caches that are not suppose to exist anymore is.  

To me it seems like we're capitulating.   On one hand we want to reinforce retrieving the container when a player is done.   On the other we're allowing people to continue finding those caches that were left behind.   Not a big deal.  

You know me,  I'm a stickler for consistency      

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Is the "exact" location of the archived cache necessary?    Would a 300 foot radius be sufficient to satisfy most challenge cache requirements?     

I'm not sure what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Is logging of archived caches such a widespread problem where you are?

For your interest, here's some statistics going back over the last 3 years on caches I've logged (found, DNF or WN) or owned that have since been archived.

• Missing and archived by CO - 25
• Missing and archived by reviewer after NM - NA - reviewer disable - no CO response - 17
• Removed and archived by CO - 16
• Temp Disabled by CO for too long - prompt by reviewer - no CO response - archived by reviewer - 9
• Archived by CO, may or may not have been removed or missing - 4
• Archived by HQ (moving caches) - 3

Make of this what you will, but note no mention of CHS - it doesn't seem to be having any impact here on removing bad or missing caches. Out of all those, I only saw one case where someone had logged a find post archival, where it appeared the cache hadn't been removed by the CO.

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We have huge expanses of state game lands (we're allowed to be on) bordered by state parks (fees to place, and different "rules"), private communities (some DCNR properties are grandfathered within game lands), and working gas/oil/logging areas .  Many without a discernible boundary.  So yeah, the coordinates are important.

Some areas I like to visit share a driveway with a homeowner.  No one would know that property's there (certainly not how to get to it...) without coordinates, or a local.  

10 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If the archived cache page had everything on it, parking coordinates, trail heads ect, why would it be necessary to show where the exact location of the archived cache  was?   If someone wanted to access that area, all the information to do so is still there.   If they intended on placing a new cache in the area they'd need to go through the process of identifying boundaries and making sure the cache is placed on approved land.   At least they should be doing that.

Not trying to be confrontational.  Maybe I'm not understanding the answer.

Some of us like to walk a bit, and parking and trailhead may be miles away.  Rare for us to see parking, trailhead, etc. on lengthy hikes, most here don't coddle others that way.  I didn't mention placing a new cache because of  "what if" responses...

If I'm heading to a distant cache and remember that an old, archived one was close, that may help me figure how to get to the new one without issue.

Why is that a problem?

 

[+cerberus1]

14 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I completely understand why some archived caches are not removed.  I don't understand why access to them is still provided by GS.     

Really?  You don't have friends with kids?

When we started, most our friends had kids.  Young adults now, it's about time they get their own account.   If they didn't have access to those archived caches, they couldn't get their find count accurate by backdating.  For some, that's a big deal...

[+WarNinjas]

10 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Is the "exact" location of the archived cache necessary?    Would a 300 foot radius be sufficient to satisfy most challenge cache requirements?     

I would think a better solution would be to not let cachers log a cache after it has been archived,  Before removing the coords from its history.  Not that I think we shouldn't be able to log archived caches for some reasons but I definitely don't want all the coords from the caches I have found to start getting removed. 

[+Curly_McWurly]

This archived cache GC2TJKV needs locking. Despite repeated logs form the Cache owner asking people not to look for it, people are still logging it and have now turned it into a Virtual since the cache itself is now gone.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Curly_McWurly

[+on4bam]

1 hour ago, Curly_McWurly said:

This archived cache GC2TJKV needs locking. Despite repeated logs form the Cache owner asking people not to look for it, people are still logging it and have now turned it into a Virtual since the cache itself is now gone.

What this cache needs is a CO that, instead of posting notes, deletes found logs.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I found a multi final years after it was archived. I unknowingly placed a new cache nearby and someone DNF my cache but spotted an old ammo can. I searched and found the old cache. The Reviewer confirmed what cache it was from and I removed it. Old CO said keep it and it's now rehiden with an explanation on the cache page where the container came from.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Hunting archived caches is generally not a bad thing given that many are abandoned in the field. Rather than leave them as geo-trash, find them and remove the container if the CO fails to do so. But once the physical container is gone no more Finds.

Cross-listing issue might be an issue in Europe, but seems ultra rare in the US and in any event most caches get archived because the CO gets lazy or quits the game abruptly. If the CO has a reason for leaving the archived container in place they should say so in a log.

Removing abandoned geo-trash is more important than worrying about fringe situations.

Edited January 12, 2018 by JL_HSTRE
Clarification

[+justintim1999]

8 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Really?  You don't have friends with kids?

When we started, most our friends had kids.  Young adults now, it's about time they get their own account.   If they didn't have access to those archived caches, they couldn't get their find count accurate by backdating.  For some, that's a big deal...

Why couldn't they still receive credit for the finds?  What dose removing or editing the cords have to do with what your saying?

[+justintim1999]

32 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Hunting archived caches is generally not a bad thing given that many are abandoned in the field. Rather than leave them as geo-trash, find them and remove the container if the CO fails to do so. But once the physical container is gone no more Finds.

Cross-listing issue might be an issue in Europe, but seems ultra rare in the US and in any event most caches get archived because the CO gets lazy or quits the game abruptly. If the CO has a reason for leaving the archived container in place they should say so in a log.

Removing abandoned geo-trash is more important than worrying about fringe situations.

I agree with you on the geo-trash.   As a matter of fact it's a big part of what I'm arguing here.   Retrieving your cache after the party's over should be a significant point of emphasis.  Allowing finds on caches that were suppose to have been removed undermines that.  

To me the cross listing argument is bogus and just an excuse for not picking up after yourself.

The only real benefit to allowing finds on archived caches is to verify that the CO did indeed leave the cache to rot.   

    

[+Rebore]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I agree with you on the geo-trash.   As a matter of fact it's a big part of what I'm arguing here.   Retrieving your cache after the party's over should be a significant point of emphasis.  Allowing finds on caches that were suppose to have been removed undermines that.  

To me the cross listing argument is bogus and just an excuse for not picking up after yourself.

The only real benefit to allowing finds on archived caches is to verify that the CO did indeed leave the cache to rot.   

    

I really don't get your point. Obscuring the coordinates won't magically remove the geo-trash, it also makes it nearly impossible for anybody else to pick it up.

Locking the listing for finds after archival is also not a good idea, what if I found it before that but didn't have time to log it online? Team splits, children who found caches with their parents and created their own account, there are perfectly fine reasons to log archived caches as found - if you found them.

That said, I think the system as it is now doesn't need any tweaking. You can't search for archived caches unless you know the GC number. If there is a problem with bogus logs on an archived cache, HQ can lock it. I'm quite sure the proposed solutions to the problem I don't understand would cause more trouble than there is now.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Rebore

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, WarNinjas said:

I would think a better solution would be to not let cachers log a cache after it has been archived, 

Remembered that you often mention caching with your kids.  Have they always had their own accounts?  If not,  why wouldn't that kid who remembers that special spot visited with Dad now not able to log it when creating one?   We know only a handful of people who created kid accounts.  Most let their kids decide for themselves if they wanted to continue with the hobby. 

[+justintim1999]

33 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Remembered that you often mention caching with your kids.  Have they always had their own accounts?  If not,  why wouldn't that kid who remembers that special spot visited with Dad now not able to log it when creating one?   We know only a handful of people who created kid accounts.  Most let their kids decide for themselves if they wanted to continue with the hobby. 

Unfortunately I've cached with my kids about 3 times in 7 years.   Our first caching experience was together.  The bug choose to bite me. 

[+L0ne.R]

39 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Remembered that you often mention caching with your kids.  Have they always had their own accounts?  If not,  why wouldn't that kid who remembers that special spot visited with Dad now not able to log it when creating one?   We know only a handful of people who created kid accounts.  Most let their kids decide for themselves if they wanted to continue with the hobby. 

People who start their own new account could create a bookmark list to remember the archived caches they once visited.  But it would mean they'd have to become PMs. Otherwise, they'd have to set up a bookmark list on their own computer. 

I personally think GC should run a periodic sweep and lock archived caches that are being logged after archival in an abusive manner, like the GC2TJKV example.

[+dprovan]

12 hours ago, WarNinjas said:

I would think a better solution would be to not let cachers log a cache after it has been archived,

I'm not the first person to ask here, but for some reason the question keeps getting ignored: What problem? Lots of talk about whether it would be better to routinely lock archived caches, or eliminate them from the database entirely, or just mask their coordinates, but I don't understand why anyone thinks any of those things are needed. The problems people are talking about seem insignificant compared to the various run-of-the-mill ways archived cache listing with accurate coordinates are useful.

This is exactly the kind of minor complaints about imaginary problems that convinced GS to essentially wipe out challenge caches and completely change how problem caches are identified. Now I'm worried that archived cache listings will be similarly wiped out to fix these "obviously" terrible yet completely unidentified problems.

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, Curly_McWurly said:

This archived cache GC2TJKV needs locking. Despite repeated logs form the Cache owner asking people not to look for it, people are still logging it and have now turned it into a Virtual since the cache itself is now gone.

Sounds like the CO doesn't know he can ask GS to lock it. If it bothers you, from what you're describing, I think GS would lock it no matter who brought it to their attention.

This one bad example with a simple solution that would even make the CO happy isn't an argument for a change in how archived listings are handled, just in case that was your point.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Remembered that you often mention caching with your kids.  Have they always had their own accounts?  If not,  why wouldn't that kid who remembers that special spot visited with Dad now not able to log it when creating one?   We know only a handful of people who created kid accounts.  Most let their kids decide for themselves if they wanted to continue with the hobby. 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

People who start their own new account could create a bookmark list to remember the archived caches they once visited.  But it would mean they'd have to become PMs. Otherwise, they'd have to set up a bookmark list on their own computer. 

I personally think GC should run a periodic sweep and lock archived caches that are being logged after archival in an abusive manner, like the GC2TJKV example.

This is off-topic to the OP simply wondering if he can take a cache that's archived, and my reply to another who thought not being able to log archived caches a good solution... 

Not sure what a bookmark list has to do with it.  There was no mention of remembering archived caches, but the desire to log them.

 

[+SeattleWayne]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Sounds like the CO doesn't know he can ask GS to lock it. If it bothers you, from what you're describing, I think GS would lock it no matter who brought it to their attention.

This one bad example with a simple solution that would even make the CO happy isn't an argument for a change in how archived listings are handled, just in case that was your point.

Sad that it only takes one cacher to log a find on an archived cache which create a snowball effect. 

 

Edit: Why doesn't the CO just delete Found it! logs? 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by SeattleWayne

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The only real benefit to allowing finds on archived caches is to verify that the CO did indeed leave the cache to rot.

What about people behind in their logging, who found the physical cache before it was archived but hadn't got around to logging it before the CO pulled the plug? There are some around here who don't log for weeks or even months after their finds. I suppose you could just disallow logs dated after the archival but that would be too easily rorted.

Edited January 12, 2018 by barefootjeff
Spelling

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not the first person to ask here, but for some reason the question keeps getting ignored: What problem?

I think the problem is that something bothers the self-described "sticklers". Therefore, Something Must Be Done About It™

[+Rebore]

30 minutes ago, niraD said:

I think the problem is that something bothers the self-described "sticklers". Therefore, Something Must Be Done About It™