Lock caches

[+jellis]

Wish they could allow us to lock caches when they are disabled or archived if the cache is out of play. 

[+Goldenwattle]

You spoilsport! There are those of us who like to stumble across an archived cache and log it. Even go look for one, if we have an idea where to find it. I'm not alone with this. A meet was held near an archived cache and I guess someone told the others, because it appeared most of the cachers at the meet signed and logged it. Don't suggest spoiling people's fun.

 

If it's your archived cache you are referring to, well the simple solution for that is, after you archive it, go and pick up your rubbish, then there is nothing left to log.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Goldenwattle
Spelling

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, jellis said:

Wish they could allow us to lock caches when they are disabled or archived if the cache is out of play. 

As I recently posted in another thread: in my very early days of geocaching I was driving home and saw that there was a geocache on my device. We pulled over, found the cache, and signed the log. It wasn't until I got home and could use the computer that I learned the cache had been archived. Why shouldn't I log the cache?

[+rapotek]

3 hours ago, jellis said:

Wish they could allow us to lock caches when they are disabled or archived if the cache is out of play. 

There is no rule (or guideline) preventing disabled or archived caches to be found and logged if the physical logbook has been properly signed. To be completely sure no one would claim a smile when the cache is not available, you should remove the container and logbook and keep checking every found logged online, even a few years later, comparing it with logbook signatures.

 

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

As I recently posted in another thread: in my very early days of geocaching I was driving home and saw that there was a geocache on my device. We pulled over, found the cache, and signed the log. It wasn't until I got home and could use the computer that I learned the cache had been archived. Why shouldn't I log the cache?

In my early days I would log the cache regardless it was archived or disabled in the time of my signature writing. Now I would not log the found online or delete the found entry if the cache was not active then. People change sometimes. I assume that inactive cache is not meant to be found and it does not matter if an owner disabled it personally or it was done by system procedures.

[+cerberus1]

17 hours ago, jellis said:

Wish they could allow us to lock caches when they are disabled or archived if the cache is out of play. 

 

How long is "out of play" ?    IIRC, a well-known cacher had/has a cache temp-disabled for years.

Kids who'd like to break from their parent's account would have no idea whether that cache will ever be available again to back-date.

We know dozens of families whose kids claimed (back-dated) archived caches found with their parents.  

Guess I figured the site left it that way for that reason.

When we had a stage in a series temp-disabled, we picked it up, not wanting to have folks entering a work area.  Simple...

We're surprised how few do, but the same should be done with archived. 

 -  If they're not also being used for another game/hobby.  Another thread topic...

[+hzoi]

On 6/18/2019 at 4:58 AM, jellis said:

Wish they could allow us to lock caches when they are disabled or archived if the cache is out of play. 

 

If the cache is still there and able to be found and logged legally, there shouldn't be a reason to lock a listing.  If the cache is not accessible legally, or the container has been removed and folks are logging finds anyway, then that's more of a basis to lock a listing.

 

If you're having issues with a disabled or archived cache you own and have a valid reason for it to be locked, you can contact a reviewer or Groundspeak for help.  

 

But if anyone could lock a cache, then you'd have issues like this popping up more often, where there's no real reason that folks shouldn't be logging the cache other than that the owner just arbitrarily doesn't want them to - and I don't think that's helpful to anyone.

 

If it's someone else's cache, of course, you can point out a potential issue, but your request is less likely to be honored.

[+coachstahly]

On 6/18/2019 at 2:36 AM, rapotek said:

I assume that inactive cache is not meant to be found and it does not matter if an owner disabled it personally or it was done by system procedures.

 

I disagree with this statement.  Sometimes cachers don't have updated PQs showing the change in status to a cache that was active and then, for some reason, inactive.  Would you remove a found log from someone who unknowingly found it?  If it's disabled/archived yet still there, that's on the CO, not the finder.  If I knew in advance, I'd probably not visit but it still doesn't mean the cache can't be found if it's still in place, yet inactive for some reason.  If they don't want it found, they need to remove it from the playing field, not leave it there and hope that people don't visit for a find.

[+rapotek]

22 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I disagree with this statement.  Sometimes cachers don't have updated PQs showing the change in status to a cache that was active and then, for some reason, inactive.  Would you remove a found log from someone who unknowingly found it?  If it's disabled/archived yet still there, that's on the CO, not the finder.  If I knew in advance, I'd probably not visit but it still doesn't mean the cache can't be found if it's still in place, yet inactive for some reason.  If they don't want it found, they need to remove it from the playing field, not leave it there and hope that people don't visit for a find.

This statement was written from my "finder" point of view. As a cache owner I would not remove a found log on my inactive cache if there was a correct signature in logbook, because as some here has written already, that would be against the rules (or guidelines). As a cache finder if I know in advance a cache is inactive, I would neither seek for nor log it at all. If I did not know it was inactive when I found it I would not log a "found it" online or I would ask a cache owner for a permission. It is not a matter of "If they don't want it found, they need to remove it from the playing field", I simply assume a cache owner can decide when the cache is available and when it is not, because she/he is its OWNER. I am not so naive as to believe everyone would do it the same way, but I don't care as long as I can decide about logging my own finds in the system.

[+The A-Team]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 7:58 PM, jellis said:

Wish they could allow us to lock caches when they are disabled or archived if the cache is out of play. 

 

It all depends on how you define "out of play". If there isn't a container anymore, then any finds would be bogus and you'd have a good case for locking the listing if people kept logging it. However, if a container is still in place, it can be legitimately found and locking the listing wouldn't make sense.

 

If you're having issues with people finding a container that you personally consider logically (rather than physically) "out of play" for any reason, the solution is pretty simple: remove the thing they're finding so they can't find it. If there's something there for them to find, then a "Found it" log is perfectly accurate.

[+Rikitan]

12 hours ago, The A-Team said:

If there isn't a container anymore, then any finds would be bogus and you'd have a good case for locking the listing if people kept logging it.

 

This is rare. If it happens, CO can delete those logs, or contact reviewer or HQ for additional help.

I agree it would not come good if COs would have possibility to lock the listing on their own. 

[+coachstahly]

18 hours ago, rapotek said:

I simply assume a cache owner can decide when the cache is available and when it is not, because she/he is its OWNER. I am not so naive as to believe everyone would do it the same way, but I don't care as long as I can decide about logging my own finds in the system.

 

Then they need to remove it from the field of play to prevent people from even attempting to find a log to sign.  No log, no find.  If every CO did that, then this topic wouldn't even be an issue.  You wouldn't need to decide whether to ask the CO for permission because it wouldn't have been there for you to find.  There would be no need to lock the cache because no one would be able to find a log to sign and claim the find.  This is a pretty black and white solution to a situation that tends to crop up here every few months, logging a find on an archived or disabled cache.  No container, no log, no question about logging a find.  Seems pretty simple to me.

[+rapotek]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

Then they need to remove it from the field of play to prevent people from even attempting to find a log to sign.  No log, no find.  If every CO did that, then this topic wouldn't even be an issue.  You wouldn't need to decide whether to ask the CO for permission because it wouldn't have been there for you to find.  There would be no need to lock the cache because no one would be able to find a log to sign and claim the find.  This is a pretty black and white solution to a situation that tends to crop up here every few months, logging a find on an archived or disabled cache.  No container, no log, no question about logging a find.  Seems pretty simple to me.

 

It looks like you do not understand me. As I wrote before:

 

On 6/18/2019 at 8:36 AM, rapotek said:

There is no rule (or guideline) preventing disabled or archived caches to be found and logged if the physical logbook has been properly signed. To be completely sure no one would claim a smile when the cache is not available, you should remove the container and logbook and keep checking every found logged online, even a few years later, comparing it with logbook signatures.

 

It is simple when there is no container. Less simple when there is no logbook, some would add a new one. What I mean is I know that I have a right to log an inactive cache if I put my signature in logbook, but I do not have to log a find, as well as in case of any active cache. If I decide not to log a find, most probably it would be because I respect the owner decision to deactivate the cache (there can be another reasons, too). "No log, no find" - yes, I agree. But this not imply to me "if you sign a logbook you have to log a find".

[+IceColdUK]

3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

Then they need to remove it from the field of play to prevent people from even attempting to find a log to sign.  No log, no find.  If every CO did that, then this topic wouldn't even be an issue.  You wouldn't need to decide whether to ask the CO for permission because it wouldn't have been there for you to find.  There would be no need to lock the cache because no one would be able to find a log to sign and claim the find.  This is a pretty black and white solution to a situation that tends to crop up here every few months, logging a find on an archived or disabled cache.  No container, no log, no question about logging a find.  Seems pretty simple to me.

 

There are always going to be reasonable exceptions though.  Say a cache is disabled due to nesting birds, the CO might be reluctant to retrieve it for fear of disturbing the nest.  Other cachers may show less concern for our feathered friends.  Similarly, if construction work puts GZ temporarily ‘out of bounds’, the lure of a smiley may take others where the CO fears to tread.

 

That said, I think locking the cache would cause more problems than it solves.  As for log deletion, I’m sure there must be another thread for that!

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, rapotek said:

It looks like you do not understand me.

 

I do and was specifically addressing this point.  "I simply assume a cache owner can decide when the cache is available and when it is not, because she/he is its OWNER." Without removing it from play, there still exists the possibility that someone will come looking for it.  Just deciding it's not available and disabling it isn't going to prevent, with 100% certainty, the possibility that it might be found and signed.  The OP is about locking the cache once it's out of play.  Just deciding it's not available (and not actually picking up the container) means it is still in play, despite the intent of the CO.  As a seeker, I'd be unlikely to go searching for it but if my PQ is out of date, it's still fair game, especially if it's actually there.  Removing it from the field renders this entire discussion irrelevant.  If there's nothing to find and sign, no found it logs can be claimed (see following for exceptions) so there would be no need to lock it.  Any subsequent finds that are logged late are either bogus, are due to someone splitting from an account, or are due to someone who is REALLY waiting too long to log an archived cache.  Then it becomes up to the CO to determine whether or not they would let the finder log it as found.

[+rapotek]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

but if my PQ is out of date, it's still fair game, especially if it's actually there.

That's my point: officially (and for you) it is still fair game, for me personally it is not, but I do not expect everyone to follow me in this. If my PQ (I do not used any so far) or something else is outdated it is my fault and I do not blame a cache owner for this.

Once again: I agree that a cache owner should remove an inactive cache container from the field to prevent anyone from logging finds, because the guidelines say so. By "assume" I mean not my understanding of guidelines but my conviction how I should act in accordance with the spirit of the game.

[+dprovan]

25 minutes ago, rapotek said:

That's my point: officially (and for you) it is still fair game, for me personally it is not, but I do not expect everyone to follow me in this. If my PQ (I do not used any so far) or something else is outdated it is my fault and I do not blame a cache owner for this.

Once again: I agree that a cache owner should remove an inactive cache container from the field to prevent anyone from logging finds, because the guidelines say so. By "assume" I mean not my understanding of guidelines but my conviction how I should act in accordance with the spirit of the game.

Feel free, I have no problem with your practice. But I don't understand it, mainly because I disagree that disabling or archiving a cache means I am not allowed to seek it. Caches are disabled and archived for any number of reasons, and I don't hesitate to find such caches and sign the log if those reasons have nothing to do with me the condition of the cache. The classic example I run into from time to time is the CO disabling the cache after a DNF because he wants to check on it. While it's nice of the CO to be super careful to try to never disappoint people, when I see that and am planning on being there, anyway, I'll go look for the cache, and often I find it. The CO wasn't forbidding me from looking for the cache, he was just trying to warn me that he can't promise the cache is there. (Even more common, by the way, is a puzzle cache disabled because something about the puzzle broke, but I don't need the puzzle because I've already solved it.)

 

In other cases, the CO really doesn't want me to go the GZ and look for the cache, and in that case, if I see his disable log and it clearly explains the situation, I'll steer clear. Although even then, I've run into that a few times when I was walking by GZ anyway, and I discovered that the very clear and accurate description of the problem was now obsolete. Construction completed, for example. Then I get to find the cache and tell the CO he can enable it again, win-win. I don't see the disable as implying that the CO is the only one that can discover that there's no longer any reason for the cache to be disabled.

[+rapotek]

11 hours ago, dprovan said:

Feel free, I have no problem with your practice. But I don't understand it, mainly because I disagree that disabling or archiving a cache means I am not allowed to seek it. Caches are disabled and archived for any number of reasons, and I don't hesitate to find such caches and sign the log if those reasons have nothing to do with me the condition of the cache.

I did not count on understanding here, so I appreciate you on allowing me to feel free .

A couple months ago I found accidentally a container. It was not signed and the logbook inside was a wet mush but the container was so characteristic one I figured out the owner and later the archived cache listed with GZ coordinates. Instead of adding a signed piece of paper and claim a find I contacted the owner and offered removing the container out of the field because it was a trash now. The owner replied that she take care of it personally but when I am there again I will check it and if it still is there I will renew the offer.

 

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

In other cases, the CO really doesn't want me to go the GZ and look for the cache, and in that case, if I see his disable log and it clearly explains the situation, I'll steer clear. Although even then, I've run into that a few times when I was walking by GZ anyway, and I discovered that the very clear and accurate description of the problem was now obsolete. Construction completed, for example. Then I get to find the cache and tell the CO he can enable it again, win-win. I don't see the disable as implying that the CO is the only one that can discover that there's no longer any reason for the cache to be disabled.

This I can agree: read the logs to know what happened. But as for the "win-win": I would rather inform the CO that the problem is obsolete, wait for the cache to be available and then return to sign the logbook.

[+Goldenwattle]

12 minutes ago, rapotek said:

This I can agree: read the logs to know what happened. But as for the "win-win": I would rather inform the CO that the problem is obsolete, wait for the cache to be available and then return to sign the logbook.

Not me. I sign it then and now . (As long as the log is signable.)

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, rapotek said:

I did not count on understanding here, so I appreciate you on allowing me to feel free .

You've reminded why I often regret expressing understanding in forums. Can't you just except my sentiments without acting like I'm being passive-aggressive?

 

8 hours ago, rapotek said:

A couple months ago I found accidentally a container. It was not signed and the logbook inside was a wet mush but the container was so characteristic one I figured out the owner and later the archived cache listed with GZ coordinates. Instead of adding a signed piece of paper and claim a find I contacted the owner and offered removing the container out of the field because it was a trash now. The owner replied that she take care of it personally but when I am there again I will check it and if it still is there I will renew the offer.

This is a great story, and I'd do exactly the same thing. But I'd also log the find without a shred of hesitation. In fact, I'd be busting to file the log explaining how I found this archived cache and figured out what it was and who it belonged to. Obviously I don't care if you think you'd be wrong doing something that, but I can't imagine not wanting to announce such a remarkable accomplishment.

 

8 hours ago, rapotek said:

This I can agree: read the logs to know what happened. But as for the "win-win": I would rather inform the CO that the problem is obsolete, wait for the cache to be available and then return to sign the logbook.

In my opinion, nothing whatsoever has changed about the cache between me finding it and the CO reenabling it, so I'd see no reason at all to delay logging my find. The cache is back in play; reenabling it is just a detail. I think it's better to explain the situation to the CO through my find log, thus letting everyone in on the news at the same time. Why would I want to keep that secret by communicating privately with the CO?

[+Kesj-Sjeng]

Just about two months ago (or a little over), I did an EarthCache (GC2JMV1). I was going to send the answer later that week as I was very busy (was already happy I could pass this cache and find the answer ;-) ) Unfortunately due to medical issues (I suddenly became blind on one side, because of retinal detachment) I didn't send the mail and I kind of forgot about this virtual, due all the troubles I went through (operation, medical checks, etc.). Then, last week, I remembered I still had to log this one. I opened the listing and what do you know? It was, in the meantime, archived AND locked, because people didn't read the listing properly and kept going into a private area... I understand that the CO had to archive it, but why did Groundspeak have to lock it?
 
I mailed Groundspeak about this and told them I had sent the answers to the CO and he is okay with my find. This was their answer: "Except in extremely rare and extreme circumstances, we do not re-open locked geocaches, even if a geocacher physically signed the log. We apologize for any inconvenience or frustration."... 

This kind of thing does make me frustrated.  I know it is just "one point" and I shouldn't care! Yes, there are enough other points out there. But it's the principal behind it that matters: I did find the cache, I do fulfill the requirements as laid out by the guidelines, yet they won't let me log it!!! Totally unfair and taking the fun out of a fun game...

 

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Kesj-Sjeng said:

I understand that the CO had to archive it, but why did Groundspeak have to lock it?

 

I guess that the purpose of locking was to make the cache unattractive for the last change opportunist finders.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Kesj-Sjeng said:

... It was, in the meantime, archived AND locked, because people didn't read the listing properly and kept going into a private area... I

understand that the CO had to archive it, but why did Groundspeak have to lock it?
 
I mailed Groundspeak about this and told them I had sent the answers to the CO and he is okay with my find. This was their answer: "Except in extremely rare and extreme circumstances, we do not re-open locked geocaches, even if a geocacher physically signed the log. We apologize for any inconvenience or frustration."... 
This kind of thing does make me frustrated.  I know it is just "one point" and I shouldn't care! Yes, there are enough other points out there. But it's the principal behind it that matters: I did find the cache, I do fulfill the requirements as laid out by the guidelines, yet they won't let me log it!!! Totally unfair and taking the fun out of a fun game...

 

You answered your own question...

The fix for a hobby that's sorta become a game...  Few will bother to trespass there any longer if people can't get their "points".

 

We've seen way-too many examples of what people will do for "points", and understand why Groundspeak takes that position.

They unlock it for you, and someone at HQ is expected to watch that cache page for how long?  Ten minutes?  An hour?

In the meantime, thirty people logged fake finds maybe using the same mention of sending answers as you. 

Now that HQ member has to filter through fake finds because they did you a favor.   I'd rather they work on bugs n other things thanks...

[+Kesj-Sjeng]

I didn't answer my own question... You sort of did, just now, but I don't agree. First of all, I sincerely DOUBT there will be people watching like crocodiles for a locked cache to be opened, just in order to jump on it and log it. It's just a chance in a million. You would have to go to each locked page and keep clicking 'reload' all day long, in order to see that it has opened again... I'd rather go out geocaching then. ;-) 

Second of all, if these sick individuals so badly want to have points, why not just go logging other OPEN caches? Much easier! And that happens a lot... So, what "filter through fake finds"? Even if somebody would be so lucky to see that a locked cache was briefly reopened and took the opportunity to quickly log his fake log as well, it would be only one more fake log among the THOUSANDS that are written each day!!! There is no filter on that either!! But then again, who are they fooling??? Only  themselves, right? There is nothing to gain, nothing to win with logging finds... So, let them, but then also let me log my LEGITIMATE find! Only fair! 

 

[Keystone]

It's not unusual for Geocaching HQ to lock a listing page when a land owner writes to HQ and complains about people trespassing on their property.  It removes the tempation for people to do that.

[+tomturtle]

On 6/17/2019 at 10:58 PM, jellis said:

Wish they could allow us to lock caches when they are disabled or archived if the cache is out of play. 

Many people log their finds well after the fact so this would not be fair to them.  I try to log my finds the same day or the next morning, but I know people who are months behind in their logging.  Not everyone uses a phone and logs caches on the spot, nor should they have to.

[+Kesj-Sjeng]

5 hours ago, Keystone said:

It's not unusual for Geocaching HQ to lock a listing page when a land owner writes to HQ and complains about people trespassing on their property.  It removes the tempation for people to do that.

Yeah, I can totally understand. Might be the best solution, as some people will never learn and despite all the warnings just keep doing this kind of thing. In this particular case, the sign was difficult to read from the street (although I managed with the zoom function on my iPhone!)...

The thing is that the honest people, who do the right thing to get the information that is needed, are now also 'punished' for the behavior of a few... 

Edited June 12, 2023 by Keystone
potty language edited by moderator

[+TriciaG]

Yep, the few often ruin it for the many. Them's the breaks.