Jump to content

Archived caches


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

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.

I was saying that would be the better idea then deleting the coords.  I was not saying that I think they should be locked.  I have logged finds on a few archived caches. There is at least one cacher I know who likes to go after caches that have been archived but are still there.  It can be fun at times.

Link to comment
15 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. 

I wish I had created my daughter her own account and maybe someday she will make her own.  It would be so hard to figure out what ones she was at now.  I also don't want archived caches locked.  I don't have a problem with logging a archived cache if I have found it.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

My guess, because he would get some angry emails.

I had a cacher try to claim a find on one of my caches (which I had disabled days prior to their find claim) and I deleted his Found it! log. And yeah, I got a nasty email and threats they'd take it up with HQ. So be it. HQ never contacted me and I never heard from the cacher again. 

Link to comment
On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 11:50 PM, WarNinjas said:

I would think a better solution would be to not let cachers log a cache after it has been archived, 

11 hours ago, WarNinjas said:

I wish I had created my daughter her own account and maybe someday she will make her own.  It would be so hard to figure out what ones she was at now.  I also don't want archived caches locked.  I don't have a problem with logging a archived cache if I have found it.

Curious, don't you think not allowing cachers to log an archived cache is, in effect,  locking it?   :)

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, WarNinjas said:

I was saying that would be the better idea then deleting the coords.  I was not saying that I think they should be locked.  I have logged finds on a few archived caches. There is at least one cacher I know who likes to go after caches that have been archived but are still there.  It can be fun at times.

I have to admit, I like to find archived caches, and that's one reason the issue is close to my heart. But in general, I just get sick of GS being talked into draconian actions to fix nonexistent problems.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
12 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Curious, don't you think not allowing cachers to log an archived cache is, in effect,  locking it?   :)

 

If you look at my original post I was saying this would be better then removing the coords but I don't think they should be locked or the coords removed. I totally agree with you and dprovan.  I just think removing the coords from archived caches is really a crazy idea.

Edited by WarNinjas
Link to comment
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 0:09 PM, dprovan said:

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.

 

I'm not advocating wiping out archive listings.  I'm wondering why people are allowed to continue claiming them as finds?

Is it a huge problem...No.  Is it worthy of consideration....Yes.

If we expect caches to be removed from play when an owner is done,  it seems odd to continue allowing finds on a cache we all agree shouldn't even be there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

 

I'm not advocating wiping out archive listings.  I'm wondering why people are allowed to continue claiming them as finds?

Is it a huge problem...No.  Is it worthy of consideration....Yes.

If we expect caches to be removed from play when an owner is done,  it seems odd to continue allowing finds on a cache we all agree shouldn't even be there.

Because so many archived caches ARE still there.

If someone searches, finds and signs the logbook, why shouldn't they be allowed to log it online? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JohnCNA said:

Because so many archived caches ARE still there.

If someone searches, finds and signs the logbook, why shouldn't they be allowed to log it online? 

Yeah...while I agree they SHOULD be removed when archived, the fact is many are NOT.  In that case, logging it should be allowed.  In one case, I was FTF on a cache...but at first I found a container with a log that had a lot of names on it.  I realized this must be a previous cache that just happened to be at the exact same location.  Sure enough, after some digging, I discovered it was. Turned out there was a long string of DNFs, followed by reviewer action (because of CO inaction). Why SHOULDN'T I log it?  I found the cache where it was hidden.  I wasn't looking for an archived cache.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JohnCNA said:

Because so many archived caches ARE still there.

If someone searches, finds and signs the logbook, why shouldn't they be allowed to log it online? 

I thought I answered that in the post you just responded to.    "We request that you remove the container but we're going to let people continue to find it if you don't."   Doesn't that seem to contradict the guideline? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 

I'm not advocating wiping out archive listings.  I'm wondering why people are allowed to continue claiming them as finds?

 -snip -

If we expect caches to be removed from play when an owner is done,  it seems odd to continue allowing finds on a cache we all agree shouldn't even be there.

A local cacher just passed.   Had a lotta hides.  His family isn't really interested in the hobby.  We found most and if the family asks for help picking them up, we're there.

Guess "when an owner is done" might have a couple more meanings than too lazy to pick up containers......

 - The caches aren't archived yet and still in play.    If/when they're archived, the ones I spot that haven't been found yet I'm claiming as a find after picking them up.  Why shouldn't I be allowed to claim those finds? 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Yeah...while I agree they SHOULD be removed when archived, the fact is many are NOT.  In that case, logging it should be allowed.  In one case, I was FTF on a cache...but at first I found a container with a log that had a lot of names on it.  I realized this must be a previous cache that just happened to be at the exact same location.  Sure enough, after some digging, I discovered it was. Turned out there was a long string of DNFs, followed by reviewer action (because of CO inaction). Why SHOULDN'T I log it?  I found the cache where it was hidden.  I wasn't looking for an archived cache.  

I wouldn't log it because to me it's not a legit cache.   It's a container that's in violation of the guidelines and I wouldn't feel right claiming it as a find.  I feel like if I did I'd be condoning it's very existence in the first place.  

 

26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

A local cacher just passed.   Had a lotta hides.  His family isn't really interested in the hobby.  We found most and if the family asks for help picking them up, we're there.

Guess "when an owner is done" might have a couple more meanings than too lazy to pick up containers......

 - The caches aren't archived yet and still in play.    If/when they're archived, the ones I spot that haven't been found yet I'm claiming as a find after picking them up.  Why shouldn't I be allowed to claim those finds? 

     That's an unfortunate situation but thankfully uncommon.   I'd like to believe that most caches that are voluntarily archived are retrieved.  This is more about the geotrash that is left behind by those that simply don't care anymore.

What purpose is served by allowing archived caches to continue to be logged as a find other than padding one's numbers?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I wouldn't log it because to me it's not a legit cache.   It's a container that's in violation of the guidelines and I wouldn't feel right claiming it as a find.  I feel like if I did I'd be condoning it's very existence in the first place.  

 

"condoning it's very existence"?

What an odd way to express it...as if you had some say in whether it should even be there.  Log it, don't log it...none of us care what you do, as long as you don't presume to dictate how others deal with that scenario.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I wouldn't log it because to me it's not a legit cache.   It's a container that's in violation of the guidelines and I wouldn't feel right claiming it as a find.

Are you playing "Guidelines" or "Geocaching"? An average geocacher will accept any cache they can find and log. Playing "Guidelines" is an another game for advanced geocachers which have been raised to the next level. :D

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Are you playing "Guidelines" or "Geocaching"? An average geocacher will accept any cache they can find and log. Playing "Guidelines" is an another game for advanced geocachers which have been raised to the next level. :D

I try to play the game as it was intended to be played and within the guidelines.  Sometimes it's hard to do that when the guidelines say one thing but support another. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I try to play the game as it was intended to be played and within the guidelines.  Sometimes it's hard to do that when the guidelines say one thing but support another. 

Okay...so where does it say in the guidelines that if you find a cache that has been archived that you should not log it as found?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

"condoning it's very existence"?

What an odd way to express it...as if you had some say in whether it should even be there.  Log it, don't log it...none of us care what you do, as long as you don't presume to dictate how others deal with that scenario.

I explain how I see things and let others decide if it makes sense to them.

There's a difference between saying someone should do something and telling them they have to.        

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Okay...so where does it say in the guidelines that if you find a cache that has been archived that you should not log it as found?

That's the problem,  it doesn't.  The guidelines assume that the container has been retrieved and there should be nothing there to find in the first place.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

That's the problem,  it doesn't.  The guidelines assume that the container has been retrieved and there should be nothing there to find in the first place.  

The guidelines do no such thing...they merely instruct the user to remove it.  There is no assumption that a month...a year...five years later that the cache won't be there and should therefore not be logged.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm not advocating wiping out archive listings.  I'm wondering why people are allowed to continue claiming them as finds?

Is it a huge problem...No.  Is it worthy of consideration....Yes.

If we expect caches to be removed from play when an owner is done,  it seems odd to continue allowing finds on a cache we all agree shouldn't even be there.

Anything's worthy of consideration, but I think the consideration time here is minimal. The worst that can happen is that a cache log is abused, so it has to be locked. No big deal, already happens, so that minor problem already has a known solution and, in fact, the solution isn't unique to archived caches, since logging abuse can get an active cache locked. So our consideration is done even before we get to the interesting stories about logging archived caches that otherwise might be needed to justify not bothering to prevent them being logged.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If we expect caches to be removed from play when an owner is done,  it seems odd to continue allowing finds on a cache we all agree shouldn't even be there.

I forgot to mention: I don't see locking the log to be related to the problem of geotrash. I seriously doubt many, if any, cache containers are left in place after an archive because the CO was expecting people to be able to log it. If anything, allowing logging of archived caches provides a way for people to learn about a piece of geolitter that would otherwise go unreported.

I have to admit, though, that it turns out I don't really consider geotrash to be a serious problem. It's not as if caches are hidden out in the open where anyone will see them. Most will just stay happily hidden, so while I support telling people to pick up their containers, I'm not really too concerned that the ones left out there will cause problems beyond the normal problems caused by cache containers for caches that are still active.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

The guidelines do no such thing...they merely instruct the user to remove it.  There is no assumption that a month...a year...five years later that the cache won't be there and should therefore not be logged.  

"Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived."    Personally I think that time frame is generous but that's besides the point.   So, per the guidelines,  after 60 days the cache is not suppose to even be there to find.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

"Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived."    Personally I think that time frame is generous but that's besides the point.   So, per the guidelines,  after 60 days the cache is not suppose to even be there to find.  

Yeah...like I said, it says to, but I'm still looking for the verbiage that states that archived caches cannot be logged as found if they are still in place.

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Anything's worthy of consideration, but I think the consideration time here is minimal. The worst that can happen is that a cache log is abused, so it has to be locked. No big deal, already happens, so that minor problem already has a known solution and, in fact, the solution isn't unique to archived caches, since logging abuse can get an active cache locked. So our consideration is done even before we get to the interesting stories about logging archived caches that otherwise might be needed to justify not bothering to prevent them being logged.

 

15 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Yeah...like I said, it says to, but I'm still looking for the verbiage that states that archived caches cannot be logged as found if they are still in place.

Your missing the point.   It's about the mixed signals it sends regarding the guideline.    On one hand we're telling people you should be removing the physical containers and clean up after yourself.  On the other hand we're allowing finds on containers that are not being removed.    I'm sure there are thousands of finds on active ownerless caches every day.   The difference is these have been archived for a reason and we know about them.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 

Your missing the point.   It's about the mixed signals it sends regarding the guideline.    On one hand we're telling people you should be removing the physical containers and clean up after yourself.  On the other hand we're allowing finds on containers that are not being removed.    I'm sure there are thousands of finds on active ownerless caches every day.   The difference is these have been archived for a reason and we know about them.    

I don't think anyone is seriously getting confused about it. 

Imagine you go to a store and you see a Thingamajig advertised on sale for $17.88, so you take it to the checkout and it rings up at $24.99.  The cashier says "oh, that sale ended two days ago"...but they would honor it because they did not remove the signage announcing the price reduction.  Now, you can bet they'd probably get over there and fix it quickly.  Fact is, though, those making the decision to purchase it at $17.88 - whether they knew about the sale end date or not - were expecting to be able to get it at that price.  Likewise, if a cache is there and whether it's still showing active in their GPS unit or if they discover it by accident, it's a valid cache find that GS honors.  It will eventually get removed or be forgotten or destroyed, just like that sale signage.

 

In my own case, I removed the container.  There, problem solved. I logged a perfectly valid find and did the job of the absentee CO by removing it.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, JohnCNA said:

Because so many archived caches ARE still there.

If someone searches, finds and signs the logbook, why shouldn't they be allowed to log it online? 

I can think of one reason.  Sometimes caches are archived, not because the owner isn't maintaining it, but because it's very existence has resulted in conflicts with land managers or people living nearby.   Some times a cache is placed on private property without permission, and when the property owner finds out they get pretty steamed and asks GS to have the cache archived (which they quickly do).  In cases like that,  the cache should not even be attempted, but the ability to log it online provides an incentive to do so.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I wouldn't log it because to me it's not a legit cache.   It's a container that's in violation of the guidelines and I wouldn't feel right claiming it as a find.  I feel like if I did I'd be condoning it's very existence in the first place.

There are many reasons a cache can be archived other than because it was in violation of the guidelines. In the case of the one I stumbled across, the CO had archived it ten years earlier because he thought it was missing. Perhaps the place I found it wasn't the original hiding place, or maybe a muggle who took it later realised what it was and put it back after the CO had declared it missing, or maybe, well, maybe he just forgot where he'd hidden it. Don't laugh, it happens. A few times I've been close to declaring one of mine missing when I've spotted it better hidden than I'd remembered placing it.

I archived one of mine after it was washed away in a storm, but it's still out there somewhere, I just don't know where. There's a chance someone could find it and log it.

When reviewers archive caches, mostly it's because they're missing and have gone through the NM - NA - TD - no CO response - archive cycle or have been left disabled by the CO for too long. Rarely is it because of a container guideline violation.

But as I said before, one of the main reasons to allow archived caches to continue to be logged is that some people get behind in their logging, so although it wasn't archived when they found it, it was when they logged it online. And if the logging of a particular archived cache does become a problem, it can always be locked.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

There are many reasons a cache can be archived other than because it was in violation of the guidelines.

I think his point was that he was claiming a cache container is "in violation of the guidelines" by still being there after the listing is archived.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I think his point was that he was claiming a cache container is "in violation of the guidelines" by still being there after the listing is archived.

I agree. I think it boils down to a cache container being "in violation of the guidelines" by still being there after the listing is archived.

And in my opinion, It shows a disregard for responsible conduct.

Especially when geocachers continue to log an archived cache without retrieving it and removing it from play. (Unless labelled in-play in another game). 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

A local cacher just passed.   Had a lotta hides.  His family isn't really interested in the hobby.  We found most and if the family asks for help picking them up, we're there.

Guess "when an owner is done" might have a couple more meanings than too lazy to pick up containers......

 - The caches aren't archived yet and still in play.    If/when they're archived, the ones I spot that haven't been found yet I'm claiming as a find after picking them up.  Why shouldn't I be allowed to claim those finds? 

13 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

That's an unfortunate situation but thankfully uncommon.   I'd like to believe that most caches that are voluntarily archived are retrieved.  This is more about the geotrash that is left behind by those that simply don't care anymore.

What purpose is served by allowing archived caches to continue to be logged as a find other than padding one's numbers?

Please explain what is the difference ...  

Funny how when something isn't meeting, or someone isn't conforming to another's way of playing this hobby,   "the numbers" always creeps in, like that's a bad thing.     :D

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Please explain what is the difference ...  

Funny how when something isn't meeting, or someone isn't conforming to another's way of playing this hobby,   "the numbers" always creeps in, like that's a bad thing.     :D

 

What's funny is when something seems logical on the surface and others interject situations that are atypical in an attempt to muddy the waters hoping that the mere appearance of impropriety will help make their point.     

I'm simply asking why?   If the cache owner is expected to retrieve the container, why are finds allowed on those who don't?   The only reason I've seen so far that's arguable is that some cachers are behind on their logging.    A week possibly two I'll buy.   If a cache gets archived and you found it months ago and haven't logged it,   who's fault is that?   

Perception is everything especially in Geocaching.   The push for proper maintenance and identifying abandoned caches we've seen over the past year or two substantiates that.    These are things that GS has some control over and to their credit they're taking a hands on approach to those issues.    The end game is one thing they have no control over.   Now geotrash may not be the biggest problem they face but it's one that resonates with a lot of people, many of them non cachers.  Real or perceived it's an issue that has "black eye" written all over it.

Allowing finds on caches that are suppose to have been removed could be perceived as "looking the other way."       

I know this topic is somewhere at the bottom of the importance barrel but it seems like an easy fix.  At the very least it would show continuity within the guidelines.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, on4bam said:

Why anybody would go out to look for an archived cache is beyond me. It's no longer listed so why go after it? If the container was retrieved do people log a DNF?

There can be many reasons I go after an archived cache, but the most common is that the cache was archived for no good reason. A recent example was a puzzle cache that was archived because of the photobucket policy change that made the required pictures unavailable. I'd already solved the puzzle, so I didn't need the pictures. There was no particular reason to think the CO would run out right away and retrieve the container -- it's out of sight after all -- so when I was in the area, I wandered over to see if it was still there. After photobucket changed its policy last year, there might be as many as a hundred caches like that in our area at the moment. There's no good reason for me not to find them since the reason they're archived has nothing whatsoever to do with geocaching.

In a case like this, yes, I'd log a DNF. I'm not the only one looking for these caches, so if it looks like it's missing, I'd report it. There are other archived caches I've looked for where the cache had been archived for years so I was just guessing they might still be in place and only looked because I was passing by. If one of those was missing, I'd assume the CO had recovered it and I wouldn't file a DNF.

It's not trivial to look for archived caches, so when it happens, I've always looked carefully at the log before I go. There's no chance I'd go look for an archived cache that was archived for a good reason like the area being dangerous or closed to the public.

The fundamental argument being made for locking or modifying archived caches seems to be that if the cache can be logged, some unthinking idiot will do something stupid trying to find it because they can log it. I consider those arguments invalid because "unthinking idiot" simply can't be used to describe anyone that will notice that an archived cache might still be in place and then goes to the trouble of sorting out whether there's a good reason to look for it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

There can be many reasons I go after an archived cache, but the most common is that the cache was archived for no good reason. A recent example was a puzzle cache that was archived because of the photobucket policy change that made the required pictures unavailable. I'd already solved the puzzle, so I didn't need the pictures. There was no particular reason to think the CO would run out right away and retrieve the container -- it's out of sight after all -- so when I was in the area, I wandered over to see if it was still there. After photobucket changed its policy last year, there might be as many as a hundred caches like that in our area at the moment. There's no good reason for me not to find them since the reason they're archived has nothing whatsoever to do with geocaching.

In a case like this, yes, I'd log a DNF. I'm not the only one looking for these caches, so if it looks like it's missing, I'd report it. There are other archived caches I've looked for where the cache had been archived for years so I was just guessing they might still be in place and only looked because I was passing by. If one of those was missing, I'd assume the CO had recovered it and I wouldn't file a DNF.

It's not trivial to look for archived caches, so when it happens, I've always looked carefully at the log before I go. There's no chance I'd go look for an archived cache that was archived for a good reason like the area being dangerous or closed to the public.

The fundamental argument being made for locking or modifying archived caches seems to be that if the cache can be logged, some unthinking idiot will do something stupid trying to find it because they can log it. I consider those arguments invalid because "unthinking idiot" simply can't be used to describe anyone that will notice that an archived cache might still be in place and then goes to the trouble of sorting out whether there's a good reason to look for it.

Well said.  There's also the fact that actually just pulling up the pages for archived caches can be tedious, requiring either 3rd party sites or digging back through other cachers' caching histories or list of owned caches to find the links to those pages. It's a conscious decision just pulling the page up.  Then, like you said, reading through the logs to determine the reason for archival will, nine times out of ten, lead one to determine it likely is either not there or has been damaged enough to not make it worth trying.  So really, I think being concerned about people logging archived caches is silly, bordering on unreasonable.  It's not "encouraging" abuse or flaunting the guidelines.  People don't notice it even happening unless they either own the cache, are watching the cache page or are digging through cache histories.  The first group...yeah, they should have taken it out anyway.  The second, they probably had it on a watch list and just forgot to take it off - or have it on a list that gets log notifications for some other reason like as part of a challenge or a list of previous DNFs or FTFs, etc.  The third group are, in my own opinion, just exploring another side of the game.  They may be taking advantage of the laziness of COs...or they may be challenging themselves to find something that likely isn't there...or they may be both, but also do-gooders who remove the cache once found.  

Edited by J Grouchy
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

There can be many reasons I go after an archived cache, but the most common is that the cache was archived for no good reason. A recent example was a puzzle cache that was archived because of the photobucket policy change that made the required pictures unavailable. I'd already solved the puzzle, so I didn't need the pictures. There was no particular reason to think the CO would run out right away and retrieve the container -- it's out of sight after all -- so when I was in the area, I wandered over to see if it was still there. After photobucket changed its policy last year, there might be as many as a hundred caches like that in our area at the moment. There's no good reason for me not to find them since the reason they're archived has nothing whatsoever to do with geocaching.

In a case like this, yes, I'd log a DNF. I'm not the only one looking for these caches, so if it looks like it's missing, I'd report it. There are other archived caches I've looked for where the cache had been archived for years so I was just guessing they might still be in place and only looked because I was passing by. If one of those was missing, I'd assume the CO had recovered it and I wouldn't file a DNF.

It's not trivial to look for archived caches, so when it happens, I've always looked carefully at the log before I go. There's no chance I'd go look for an archived cache that was archived for a good reason like the area being dangerous or closed to the public.

The fundamental argument being made for locking or modifying archived caches seems to be that if the cache can be logged, some unthinking idiot will do something stupid trying to find it because they can log it. I consider those arguments invalid because "unthinking idiot" simply can't be used to describe anyone that will notice that an archived cache might still be in place and then goes to the trouble of sorting out whether there's a good reason to look for it.

Isn't a violation of Grounspeak's guidelines a good reason for a cache to be archived? 

If you want to go out and look for these caches that's perfectly fine.  I really have no problem with that.    I just don't think you should get credit for doing so.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

What's funny is when something seems logical on the surface and others interject situations that are atypical in an attempt to muddy the waters hoping that the mere appearance of impropriety will help make their point.     

I'm simply asking why?   If the cache owner is expected to retrieve the container, why are finds allowed on those who don't?   The only reason I've seen so far that's arguable is that some cachers are behind on their logging.    A week possibly two I'll buy.   If a cache gets archived and you found it months ago and haven't logged it,   who's fault is that?   

I don't believe I'm "muddying waters" at all.   Simply saying that an archived (and now left in the wild) cache doesn't always infer a careless CO,  as you repeatedly seem to imply.   :)

Many kids that finally feel  they want to split from their parents account may have found them years before back-date logging them.  Some we know have their kids visit a trackable just so they can keep track of all their finds as well.    Groundspeak's guidelines state what ages kids can enter the site and do things themselves.    The few who divorced and now split from an account, both still playing,  should be able to log them too.   They found them, and none are "at fault" for claiming their finds.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Isn't a violation of Grounspeak's guidelines a good reason for a cache to be archived?

Of course. And once it's archieved on geocaching.com, Groundspeak's guidelines no longer apply. If I want to leave the container in place for a few friends to find (or for whatever other reason), that's on me and none of your or Groundspeaks business anymore. After all, the cache is my property, right?

You think people shouldn'tt get credit for finding an archived cache, I get that. But I don't get why. Why does that bother you so much that you keep this thread going on and on even if most (all?) participants in here don't agree with you?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you want to go out and look for these caches that's perfectly fine.  I really have no problem with that.    I just don't think you should get credit for doing so.  

 

What does it matter whether one gets credit?  Maybe I don't think you should get credit for a find if you are in a group and someone else finds it and logs it for everyone and you never even set eyes on it.  Maybe someone doesn't think you should get credit for a T5 river cache fell into the water and washed up on the bank 100 feet away, meaning you didn't even have to bring a kayak or get your feet wet to sign the log.  Maybe someone else doesn't think you should log a virtual if you fulfill all the requirements on the page from perusing the area in Google Street View.  

You may feel strongly about one, two or all of them...and they all skirt the true intent of the guidelines in some way...but all that stuff happens regularly and still life goes on.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Rebore said:

Of course. And once it's archieved on geocaching.com, Groundspeak's guidelines no longer apply. If I want to leave the container in place for a few friends to find (or for whatever other reason), that's on me and none of your or Groundspeaks business anymore. After all, the cache is my property, right?

 

1

I've heard of an owner who would archive his caches, submit caches within feet of the archived caches and encourage people to log both.

I believe this is what's called gaming the system. It's a way to get around the saturation rule.

Would your friends bother to go find your archived caches if they couldn't log them on geocaching.com? It's your property, but it's Groundspeak's database. It makes Groundspeak look like they turn a blind eye to geolitter, and condone poor stewardship.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The only reason I've seen so far that's arguable is that some cachers are behind on their logging.    A week possibly two I'll buy.   If a cache gets archived and you found it months ago and haven't logged it,   who's fault is that?

It's common in this part of the world to encounter "grey nomads", typically newly retired couples fulfiling their dream of driving all the way around the country. Such a trip can take many months, and with mobile internet access hard to come by outside the major cities and towns, it's not unreasonable to expect that cachers doing this might prefer to wait until returning home to log their finds. If I were to do such a thing, that's probably how I'd do it, as I'd like to take the time to sort through all my photos and notes after the trip to compile proper logs in the comfort of my armchair. I've even had some logs on my own hides backdated many months from people doing this sort of thing. Is that so wrong? Should they be penalised because one of the caches they found at the start of the trip was archived before they got home?

I'm struggling to see a way of removing your perceived problem that doesn't create just as much or more problems to others who might have legitimate reasons for logging an archived cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I've heard of an owner who would archive his caches, submit caches within feet of the archived caches and encourage people to log both.

I believe this is what's called gaming the system. It's a way to get around the saturation rule.

Would your friends bother to go find your archived caches if they couldn't log them on geocaching.com? It's your property, but it's Groundspeak's database. It makes Groundspeak look like they turn a blind eye to geolitter, and condone poor stewardship.

I agree that this is gaming the system, and I didn't mean to relist the same cache on Groundspeak servers. What I had in mind was personal information like a mail or blog, so no, they wouldn't get a +1 to their find count. Probably they wouldn't even be "official geocachers" at all.

Would they go for it? I hope so, if they are in the area. However, I don't agree with the statement that Groundspeak is turning a blind eye to geolitter by allowing logs on archived caches. There would be no difference in the number of geotrashes if they didn't, but there would be a lot more complpaints because of the legit reasons already stated in this thread.

Link to comment

I'm not going to trot out my standard stories about logging archived caches, I think I posted one last week.  Bottom line, I normally don't seek out archived caches, but if'n I stumble across one and figure out which cache it was, I'm logging it.  Recall the language of the standard "stash note:" Congratulations, you found it!  Intentionally or not!

As far as intentionally seeking out an archived cache, I've done it, and I stand by it.  When I was looking through the logs of this earthcache in Shenandoah National Park, I saw that other finders referenced finding a physical geocache, even though there wasn't one active nearby.  A little homework revealed that this cache had been archived the year before at the request of the National Park Service but was never removed.  Since the CO clearly wasn't going to do anything about it, I loaded the cache in my GPSr, found it, signed it, removed it, and logged the find.  When my email to the CO about what to do with the container went unanswered, I reused the container for a cache I was asked to hide on behalf of "Galaxy" for the Splinterheads movie promotion.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

Still off-topic from the OP, but maybe if there was a world-wide issue of people running to log archived caches, we could see an issue.    That's not happening here...

Most times at events we hear the community is usually just happy that someone is finally picking up the containers. Possibly why the site doesn't get too worried about it too.     :)

Similar to hzoi, we've gone out in groups to find archived hides when it's possible the container's still there.  Find it, grab the container, and claim a find if we didn't already.   Usually quality, reusable  containers too.  One did an entire series with ammo cans we collected from one who moved outta the area. 

We don't do that much anymore with all the pill bottles placed in spots we no longer go (containers not much incentive for others either...), but will grab one if we know we're passing by it.      

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

I loaded the cache in my GPSr, found it, signed it, removed it, and logged the find.

If I looked for archived caches, I would do this too--remove it and post that I removed it (then hold on to it for a few weeks unless it's in terrible shape).

I would have posted a find too. But after reading justin's arguments, I'm swayed. It feels like  I am indirectly rewarded for someone's guideline violation, maybe even encouraging more of that behavior. A 'note' log seems more appropriate to me. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I would have posted a find too. But after reading justin's arguments, I'm swayed. It feels like  I am indirectly rewarded for someone's guideline violation, maybe even encouraging more of that behavior. A 'note' log seems more appropriate to me. 

I believe it a good idea to only do what you're comfortable with.    :)   

 - We don't see folks concerned about archived caches enough to think logging a find after removing it would "encourage" any behavior.     

Guess if some are actually seeing issues, a mail to HQ could get it fixed.   I'd think if HQ thought logging them has become a problem, they'd lock them after archival.    Of course all the reasons you should be able to log them are probably factored in as well...

 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I would have posted a find too. But after reading justin's arguments, I'm swayed. It feels like  I am indirectly rewarded for someone's guideline violation, maybe even encouraging more of that behavior. A 'note' log seems more appropriate to me. 

If I remove geolitter I would not log nothing at all. Why should I log that I found some trash? I have other ways to get my Last to Find merits. :D

https://project-gc.com/Challenges//30693    Do you qualify? :ph34r:

Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

If I remove geolitter I would not log nothing at all. Why should I log that I found some trash? I have other ways to get my Last to Find merits. :D

https://project-gc.com/Challenges//30693    Do you qualify? :ph34r:

Ouch!  

**You have found 169 caches of 15 and earned 21427 days of 1500 required to qualify.**

And only ten have been archived!  But I like lonely hiking caches.  

Link to comment
On 1/15/2018 at 11:34 AM, on4bam said:

Why anybody would go out to look for an archived cache is beyond me. It's no longer listed so why go after it? If the container was retrieved do people log a DNF?

 

I have never intentionally looked for an archived cache. The few that I have found were archived after I had last run my pocket query and refreshed the lists. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If I looked for archived caches, I would do this too--remove it and post that I removed it (then hold on to it for a few weeks unless it's in terrible shape).

I would have posted a find too. But after reading justin's arguments, I'm swayed. It feels like  I am indirectly rewarded for someone's guideline violation, maybe even encouraging more of that behavior. A 'note' log seems more appropriate to me. 

I'm still struggling to see how the archived cache I found was a guideline violation. The CO archived it because he thought it was missing. How was he supposed to go out and retrieve a missing cache? Sometime over the ensuing decade, either the cache was returned by the muggle who took it, or I found it in a different cave to the one the CO hid it in. What guideline was violated here?

For the record, I logged a note rather than a find, but for different reasons. To me, an archived cache is out of the game, so I didn't feel comfortable logging a find on it even though I'd found it and signed the log. But that's just me, I'd have no qualms about someone else logging a find in similar circumstances.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...