Old Virtuals Without Logging Requirements

[+JL_HSTRE]

Over the years I've come across a few old Virtuals that have no logging requirements specified in the description. Were these later changes by COs or were Virtuals not required to ask for proof of visit in the early days?

 

Unsurprisingly these always have inactive COs, usually with disabled accounts. Should they be kept around or archived? 

[+Michaelcycle]

I cannot answer the first question. But as for the second: if it takes me to an interesting place that I might not otherwise encounter, NO, it should not be archived.

[+dprovan]

I see no problem with the CO trusting that someone logging a find has visited GZ. It's not really our business, is it?

[+L0ne.R]

11 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Unsurprisingly these always have inactive COs, usually with disabled accounts. Should they be kept around or archived? 

 

For this reason should be brought to the attention of a reviewer.  But it will make icon collectors angry if it gets archived.

Edited June 7, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+Lynx Humble]

32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

For this reason should be brought to the attention of a reviewer.  But I t will make icon collectors angry if it gets archived.

 

It will also make angry those looking for old caches for Jasmer / other challenge. So please don't ask for archiving if only the CO is inactive.

[+Sherminator18]

36 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

 

It will also make angry those looking for old caches for Jasmer / other challenge. So please don't ask for archiving if only the CO is inactive.

Yes, please don't ask for these to be archived. Rules for virtuals were different back then. I've been to some great places because a virtual was there. I would really hate to see some of these archived just because the CO isn't active anymore

[+L0ne.R]

20 minutes ago, Sherminator18 said:

Rules for virtuals were different back then.

 

I'm pretty sure that every cache needed an active owner, no matter what type of cache it was. And Virtuals required the finder to find a piece of information at the site. The information was relayed to the active owner who then approved the find. 

[+thebruce0]

For the case of virtuals where no contact or response is required, is an active CO required? Practically speaking, no. Per guidelines, I believe yes (in due process). So, should those virtuals get archived? ... Can I not vote?

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I'm pretty sure that every cache needed an active owner, no matter what type of cache it was. And Virtuals required the finder to find a piece of information at the site. The information was relayed to the active owner who then approved the find. 

 

Here's an example https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5670_a-downtown-treasure

The Virtual asks 2 questions.

Ownerless
The owners haven't logged in since 2013. It's a free for all, anyone can couch log a find since the Virtual is ownerless.

Real cache
If you click the nearest caches you will see that this building is included in the multicache that starts 80 meters away from the Lyric Theatre. The second stage is at the Lyric Theatre. A real cache will get you to this interesting location. 

Waymark
When you click the all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com link, you'll find a waymark at ground zero for the building - The Lyric Theater. 

Registries and Tourist sites

If you are interested in Historic places try a registry: US National Register of Historic Places
Things to Do in Stuart, Florida (includes Lyric Theatre)

 

Of course, the problem with Waymarking and Registries and Tourism websites, although they are similar to the Virtual experience--take you to something interesting, they don't give you a geocaching smiley or help with geocaching statistic goals. 

Edited June 7, 2018 by L0ne.R
clarity

[+K13]

I tire of people stating "the last time a cacher visited the website" as if there is a certain method to obtain this information.  It has been shown that some people visit the site via an app and no traces of their visit are left.  "Last visited date" is no way to determine whether a cacher is "active" or not.

[+Voltgloss]

12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Here's an example https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5670_a-downtown-treasure

The Virtual asks 2 questions.

 

I think the OP is asking about virtuals that don't ask ANY questions.  I.e., the cache page does not explain or describe in any way what, if anything, a visitor is supposed to do to claim a find.  So there is no mechanism in place at all by which an owner can confirm whether a finder visited the site.

 

The FAQ section on logging virtuals (and Earthcaches), 3.6 (copied below in its entirety), seems to assume that the virtual will have logging requirements - which "in most cases" will be answering questions.  But "most" doesn't mean "all" - and this FAQ doesn't explicitly say whether a virtual must include logging requirements.  (The Virtual Rewards FAQ - 2.9 in English - goes on at more length about "logging tasks," but still doesn't explicitly state that a virtual must include a logging task.  And of course doesn't answer whether guidelines in existence back when a grandfathered Virtual was placed required or did not require logging tasks.)

 

3.6. Log an EarthCache or a Virtual Cache

Read the cache page to learn the logging requirements for any EarthCache or Virtual Cache. In most cases you must answer questions to claim the find. Send your answers by email or Message Center directly to the cache owner. (Note: cache owners cannot require information to be sent through one particular tool.) Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner.

Find out how to contact a cache owner.

Did this answer your question? Yes or No

 

 

 

[+coachstahly]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

For this reason should be brought to the attention of a reviewer.  But it will make icon collectors angry if it gets archived.

 

Per the title of the post, does a virtual with no logging requirements truly need an active CO?  Your example certainly applies to the necessity of an active CO, but does a virtual with no logging requirements (besides the probable picture) need an active CO?

[+K13]

If the listing for a Virtual doesn't require an answer/photo/etc from a finder, how would anyone know if the CO is 'active'? What defines an active cache owner?

 

Using one of the apps that doesn't leave tracks when reading the cache logs is being an active cache owner, even if the website doesn't show that activity to other snooping players.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Per the title of the post, does a virtual with no logging requirements truly need an active CO?  Your example certainly applies to the necessity of an active CO, but does a virtual with no logging requirements (besides the probable picture) need an active CO?

 

Kinda agree. 

Since the site does say " In most cases you must answer questions to claim the find", that (to me) says that a Virtual cache with no logging requirement  should be able to last as long as Virtuals remain a cache type, or whatever it's showing is still there. 

 - But wouldn't the CO still  be needed for log maintenance  (obvious fakes, or vulgar language for example) ? 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

Per the title of the post, does a virtual with no logging requirements truly need an active CO?  Your example certainly applies to the necessity of an active CO, but does a virtual with no logging requirements (besides the probable picture) need an active CO?

 

I thought all Virtuals should have a logging requirement. It was that way back as far as I can remember. I started geocaching in 2001. 

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, K13 said:

I tire of people stating "the last time a cacher visited the website" as if there is a certain method to obtain this information.  It has been shown that some people visit the site via an app and no traces of their visit are left.  "Last visited date" is no way to determine whether a cacher is "active" or not.

 

In the example I provided, the COs' last recorded find was in 2005. All of their other hides are archived, including 3 other virtuals. People keep logging their archived Virtuals as found.  The owners are not doing anything about the post-archival finds. Which goes to show, archiving a cache doesn't mean much except you can't search for them via the site, but if you are an icon collector there are other ways to search online for them.   

 

I'd say the preponderance of the evidence points to cache owners who are long gone. 

[+thebruce0]

25 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

But wouldn't the CO still  be needed for log maintenance  (obvious fakes, or vulgar language for example) ? 

 

Yes, or changes to the vicinity making the cache no longer accessible or safe; other factors beyond CO control that mean the listing should be archived/adjusted.  If that doesn't happen then it should be archived.

[+TyroneShoelaces]

2 hours ago, K13 said:

I tire of people stating "the last time a cacher visited the website" as if there is a certain method to obtain this information.  It has been shown that some people visit the site via an app and no traces of their visit are left.  "Last visited date" is no way to determine whether a cacher is "active" or not.

 

When I see this, I also check to see if the CO has found any caches in the past few years.  Still not 100% proof that the CO is no longer active, but then when a message or email to the CO also gets no response, one would tend to believe that is the case.

[+hzoi]

As an aside, I try to always include a photo when I am logging such virtuals, lest someone accuse me of armchair logging.

 

There used to be more puzzle-type armchair virtual caches around, like this one (translated title, Where was i?), which just asked you to determine where the photo was taken.  The fake coordinates were less than 500m from our apartment in Wiesbaden, so I certainly wanted to find the cache.  After I got permission to log, I went up to the final coordinates and logged it with a photo on site, showing the scene in the cache description behind me.  Of the 877 cachers who logged finds, I think only a handful of others actually did the same  - at least per the photo gallery, only seven other cachers had non-Internet photos at the final coordinates.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

But wouldn't the CO still  be needed for log maintenance  (obvious fakes, or vulgar language for example) ?

Yep, but I don't consider it a problem until the CO fails to do the log maintenance. I bristle at the claim that caches should be archived because something might someday happen which the CO might not respond to. I'd rather people not try to claim, based on circumstantial evidence, that the CO won't act when action is needed.

[+thebruce0]

Yeah archived because of a possible future issue shouldn't be a thing. When an issue arises, due process will have the cache addressed properly to some outcome.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Examples:

https://coord.info/GC25E6

https://coord.info/GC278C

[+K13]

Treat them like sleeping dogs.

[+jellis]

Well if the Virtual takes you a spot like a Bell but the bell is now gone then it should be archived. What good is a virtual when what they took you to no longer exists. But if there is something else there that is of interest I understand. I ran across one recently that a cart was suppose to be in front of a building. The cart is gone but the CO who is still active could have picked something else that is still there.

[+STNolan]

Here's some that are related to this topic... I found both of these on a trip last month.

What do you do when there IS a logging requirement but the CO specifically says it's not necessary to contact them? This doesn't seem like an "active" CO to me by the nature of the cache description phrasing. 

 

https://coord.info/GCBF07

https://coord.info/GCG3ZN 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Keystone
fixed faulty URL

[+hzoi]

On 6/10/2018 at 4:51 AM, STNolan said:

What do you do when there IS a logging requirement but the CO specifically says it's not necessary to contact them?

 

I'd send a message with the answers anyway, and probably include a non-spoiler photo with my log, following the same reasoning I posted above.

 

Change the facts a little to where there were logging questions but no means of sending them to the CO, because their email address was invalid.  For those, I normally indicate to the CO that I have the information available if/when they get their email taken care of, and again, post photos to prove I was on site.

[+Gill & Tony]

Is it not possible that a the owner of a virtual cache has given up finding caches and, therefore never visits the site and never logs a find, but monitors their virtual cache, checks the responses and replies, where necessary via e-mail?

 

The fact that a cache owner has not visited the site for 5 years, nor found a cache for 5 years does not guarantee that they are no longer an active CO.

[+redsox_mark]

On 6/8/2018 at 4:04 AM, K13 said:

Treat them like sleeping dogs.

 

That is how I would treat them.   

I would go to the location, and also post some photos of me there (even if not required).    

 

If they really bother you, you could contact Groundspeak and/or a reviewer and maybe get them archived.

[+noncentric]

The oldest multi-cache I found seemed to have an inactive owner when I first looked at it.  The CO's "last visit date" was several years prior and their last find was even longer ago. Some would assume that they were an 'inactive CO'.  But when there were reported problems with the cache, they went and fixed it and posted OM's. Even now, their profile 'looks like' an inactive cacher, but that doesn't mean they won't address a problem if it comes up or that they won't respond to cachers that are having problems with their cache.

 

On 6/7/2018 at 9:44 AM, L0ne.R said:

People keep logging their archived Virtuals as found.  The owners are not doing anything about the post-archival finds. Which goes to show, archiving a cache doesn't mean much except you can't search for them via the site, but if you are an icon collector there are other ways to search online for them.   

 

I'd say the preponderance of the evidence points to cache owners who are long gone. 

How do you know what was done when the post-archival finds were logged?  There was one in 2009, which perhaps the CO's just missed. It was the week before Thanksgiving, so maybe they were pre-occupied.  Then there were more in 2016 (for 2 VC's) or 2015 (for 1 VC).  Then the caches were locked.  It's possible that the CO requested the lock and didn't delete those finds because they didn't want to bother with logging in.

It's also possible that there were other post-archival finds that the CO had deleted. Maybe they logged in in 2013 just to delete post-archival finds on their virtuals. Doesn't seem like there was much else they would've logged in to do.  Maybe they logged in and deleted post-archival finds in 2010, 2011, 2012. Who knows? We don't have visibility to that now.

 

Your "preponderance of the evidence" relies on a skewed set of evidence. You don't have a full view of communications/deleted logs/etc that are only viewable by the TPTB/CO.  You can certainly twist things to fit your desired narrative though.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by noncentric

[+Sherminator18]

[message redacted]

Edited July 26, 2018 by Sherminator18
redacted

[Keystone]

Verifying finds is part of the ownership responsibilities for virtual caches, earthcaches and webcam caches.  Not worrying about the issue is the equivalent of saying that we shouldn't worry about physical caches that don't have logbooks.  Unfortunately, news of abandoned virtuals travels, so that a segment of the geocaching community knows they're available for armchair logging.

 

If someone legitimately finds a cache with a guideline violation, they ought to be able to log that find online, followed by the "Needs Archived" log.  That's true whether you signed the logbook for a traditional cache that's buried, or you collected the requested information at the site of a virtual cache whose owner is not monitoring logs and messages.

[+cerberus1]

9 minutes ago, Sherminator18 said:

RIP (most likely) to this old virtual cache that has 310 favorite points https://coord.info/GC897E

 

A cacher claimed a find on it and then posted a Needs Archived log stating "Unable to validate finds as the cache owner has inactivated his account." In my opinion, if you feel the cache should be archived because the owner possibly isn't validating people's then you probably shouldn't log a find on it yourself.

 

Long-gone owner that no one can send their info to because the owner's inactive... "The "Send Email" feature is disabled because this user is currently inactive".

That's not tough to understand.

The "cacher" was there (even posted a pic), then found needed info couldn't be passed.  Why couldn't he claim a find?

[+Sherminator18]

7 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Long-gone owner that no one can send their info to because the owner's inactive... "The "Send Email" feature is disabled because this user is currently inactive".

That's not tough to understand.

The "cacher" was there (even posted a pic), then found needed info couldn't be passed.  Why couldn't he claim a find?

That's fine. I was wrong

[Keystone]

6 minutes ago, Sherminator18 said:

That's fine. I was wrong

Thanks.  You might consider deleting your off-topic note on the cache page.  You were correct to bring the issue here for discussion.

[+MNTA]

On 6/7/2018 at 9:44 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

In the example I provided, the COs' last recorded find was in 2005. All of their other hides are archived, including 3 other virtuals. People keep logging their archived Virtuals as found.  The owners are not doing anything about the post-archival finds. Which goes to show, archiving a cache doesn't mean much except you can't search for them via the site, but if you are an icon collector there are other ways to search online for them.   

 

I'd say the preponderance of the evidence points to cache owners who are long gone. 

 

I've logged a couple post archived caches.

 

Most are challenges I signed long ago and finally qualified for. In 3 years I plan on logging one for 10 years caching challenge.  

Few were multis with vast distances between stages 100s of miles and I had the final information and decided to check yep still there. CO would never retrieved them.

Once I found a second container at a GZ but looking at it did not match the cache description and really old logs. Did some digging and figured out what it was. Notified owner I had found it. No response so notified the new owner of the conflict so they could remove it which they eventually did. 

 

I'm going to agree that it should be removed, unless an adoption is made to another cacher or local group.  Virtual need a little more scrutiny why are you bringing us here? Can it be done in another way such as with a multi? But that could mean no virtual are every really permitted. I really like virtual in areas that prevent physical placements like national parks or in the case of Chicago O'hare airport (got my Illinois find that way)

 

[+hzoi]

14 hours ago, MNTA said:

I've logged a couple post archived caches.

 

Most are challenges I signed long ago and finally qualified for. In 3 years I plan on logging one for 10 years caching challenge.  

Few were multis with vast distances between stages 100s of miles and I had the final information and decided to check yep still there. CO would never retrieved them.

Once I found a second container at a GZ but looking at it did not match the cache description and really old logs. Did some digging and figured out what it was. Notified owner I had found it. No response so notified the new owner of the conflict so they could remove it which they eventually did. 

 

OK, but this seems like a bit of a tangent.  Those are all physical caches, which you physically signed.  None of those are virtuals.

 

In the case of a virtual that was archived due to abandonment by its owner, I wouldn't have an issue logging it online, assuming it wasn't archived when I loaded it into the GPSr (and wasn't locked).  Looking back through our virtual finds, I don't see any virtuals I've found (intentionally or otherwise)  that were already archived. 

 

Of course, these days it seems most reviewers (or Groundspeak lackeys) are locking archived virtual or webcam listings to ensure no post-archiving logs.

 

Back to the original topic - it reminds me of our find on this cache.  I'm not sure if there was ever a logging requirement, but if there was, it was based on a bench that has been gone for years.  Like most folks who have logged it since the bench vanished, I posted a photo at coordinates.  Not sure how much life that cache has in it - owner hasn't been active in a year.

[+coman123]

When I cache only by phone, it shows me inactive on the website.

I respond to all messages, yet it shows me as not logging on since the last time I was on my computer.

 

[+MNTA]

7 minutes ago, coman123 said:

When I cache only by phone, it shows me inactive on the website.

I respond to all messages, yet it shows me as not logging on since the last time I was on my computer.

 

File a bug report please. When I use logging in as a sign of activity I also indicate when they last found a cache and when and if a NM or DNF chain started. There are other clues to inactivity.

 

I recall a virtual that had dropped all logging requirements that I found can't recall which one. Yes it brought me to a cool place and I took a picture to prove I was there. The picture is all some virtuals really want anyway. So I'm ok with no logging requirements, or change it to take a picture. Though I'd like to see it being owned by someone, if not it should be archived. Sometime property ownership changes and now they don't want you on their land, or a building has blocked the view. The GZ is now a homeless camp. Without ownership these can not be moved, fixed or edited.

[+Team Christiansen]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

File a bug report please. When I use logging in as a sign of activity I also indicate when they last found a cache and when and if a NM or DNF chain started. There are other clues to inactivity.

 

Really not a bug.

 

Use of the mobile app (official or 3rd party) doesn't require logging in to the website. Once I learned that, I stopped saying things like "cache owner has been inactive for 48 months" in my NA logs. Now I say "cache owner has not logged into website for 48 months," just in the unlikely case that they are actually active and monitoring their caches on their smartphone. But I will also include something like "has not placed a cache for 72 months and has not posted a Found it log for 63 months" which makes the has-not-logged-in/inactive comment more credible.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Team Christiansen

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, coman123 said:

When I cache only by phone, it shows me inactive on the website.

I respond to all messages, yet it shows me as not logging on since the last time I was on my computer.

 

Agree with Team Christiansen,  you're simply staying off the website by using your phone. 

Keeps you off audit logs too. 

We have a friend who enjoys keeping track of their trackables, and no longer finds or hides.  Uses a phone only.

 - A couple times they've had to message a finder, saying "No, you can't keep it even if I wasn't active !".

[+hzoi]

On 7/27/2018 at 5:45 PM, coman123 said:

When I cache only by phone, it shows me inactive on the website.

I respond to all messages, yet it shows me as not logging on since the last time I was on my computer.

 

I don't define being "active" as just whether their profile shows them logging in to the website, but it's one factor.  Others are whether they respond to messages or email, still log finds, or still maintain other hides.