Jump to content

An old hidden container turned into an old geocache


CheekyBrit
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

While on holiday as a kid, some friends and I hid an ammo can container as a sort of time capsule. This was before any of us knew geocaching existed. Looking back to it, this container is set up just like a geocache since there is a half blank notebook in there that would function as a log, and a bit of SWAG from our childhood (so it's mostly junk kids didn't mind leaving behind).

 

What are your thoughts on turning this into a geocache and using our original hide date as the hidden date? That would make it one of the oldest caches in the county.

Hangup 1) At first I didn't think it was a big deal, but then I realized there are people who strive to find the oldest caches in each area for challenges and stuff. This would mess up their progress.
Hangup 2) Also, if this is allowed, it might open the door do people "fake hiding" a cache years ago that turns out to truly be only weeks old, not decades old. Lying is messed up and that fake hiding would be some sort of cheating and ruffle feathers. Some cachers I know place hides only wanting favorite points. Having a supposedly old cache would definitely help them cheat their way to more favorite points that would otherwise go to cache owners who truly earned them.

Keep it civil in the comments, people. We all want to have fun and support geocaching and it's rules.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, CheekyBrit said:

While on holiday as a kid, some friends and I hid an ammo can container as a sort of time capsule. This was before any of us knew geocaching existed. Looking back to it, this container is set up just like a geocache since there is a half blank notebook in there that would function as a log, and a bit of SWAG from our childhood (so it's mostly junk kids didn't mind leaving behind).

 

What are your thoughts on turning this into a geocache and using our original hide date as the hidden date? That would make it one of the oldest caches in the county.

 

What a fascinating question! Even if Groundspeak doesn't allow this, I think your childhood "time capsule" will make a great hide and be a huge hit with geocachers when they read about it in your description!  So original! 

Link to comment

I guess it's your personal opinion as to whether you hid a cache in xxxxxx, or from your description you hid a time capsule with notebook which you now wish to use as a cache.

 

To me it sounds like the latter so I would suggest the cache hidden date is the date you decide to start use it as a cache and necessarily measure the coordinates. However, ultimately I think it depends on your (and your reviewer's) interpretation.

 

I think it would be problematic though. As a kid I made a hidden black box in 1990 that I used to use to store swag, notes etc. Its still there now (relatively) watertight but I think it would be a stretch to claim it as a cache I hid thirty years ago.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

The problem is indeed the stats. The "hidden date" is fully customizable, but it's also the date used for determining cache ages. The Publish Date (though reportedly being implemented in some fashion as a tangible data field) would be more indicative of the cache's availability on gc.com, but it's not yet since that only exists in the Date field of the Published log which wasn't even implemented until a while after geocaching began. ie the old caches don't have a published date, only the hidden date.

 

In the past people have futzed with the Hidden Date for puzzles, or as part of their cache's theme, which was the source of much angst because then you had real hidden dates mixed with fictional ones. HQ decided to make it so the hidden date had to be real, legitimate.

 

Which is why this particular situation is quite interesting. I can pretty much tell you 1995 won't be allowed as a valid hidden year :P I'm guessing if you were to run it by a reviewer, they might suggest you set the Hidden Date to the date you decided to make use of the container as a geocache, and explain instead in the description that it was actually hidden many years earlier as a form of time capsule, and now you can go find it as a geocache.

In your case the value of the hidden date is in the theme and purpose of the container, not as the purposes of the cache as it applies to geocaching.com.  That's how I'd assume your situation would be considered...  but IANAR, so I'd suggest you ask one :)

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

Also, if this is allowed, it might open the door do people "fake hiding" a cache years ago that turns out to truly be only weeks old, not decades old.

Yep.

I would say that now, even if you were a charter member and remembered an old cache you'd stashed back in 2000, you wouldn't be able to use that hidden date..... and fair enough too.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

I hid a cache on June 5, 2011, intending for it to be listed as a geocache on Geocaching.com.  It is still there, but I haven't asked for it to be published.  If and when I do, I have a colorable claim to keep the 9 year old date.

 

In this case I think the correct hidden date is clearly when the owner decided they wanted to hide it as a geocache on Geocaching.com.

 

The OP mentions that the container was hidden while "on holiday."  To be published on the Geocaching.com website, a geocache must be within the owner's "maintainable distance."  Vacation caches are not published without a solid maintenance plan in place.  So, hopefully, the holiday hide is located in Southeast Idaho.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment

My opinion is that the Hidden Date should be the date you listed the container as a cache.  The cache needs to go through the review process before it can be listed, and you didn't do this back then.  So I think the hide date needs to be when you submit it to the review team. 

 

That being said, I think the description of the cache should go over this entire story--what date you originally hid it (so that people will know), who you hid it with, for what purpose, what it originally contained, etc.  I think that would make it really cool.

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

While on holiday as a kid, some friends and I hid an ammo can container as a sort of time capsule. This was before any of us knew geocaching existed. Looking back to it, this container is set up just like a geocache since there is a half blank notebook in there that would function as a log, and a bit of SWAG from our childhood (so it's mostly junk kids didn't mind leaving behind).

 

What are your thoughts on turning this into a geocache and using our original hide date as the hidden date? That would make it one of the oldest caches in the county.

Hangup 1) At first I didn't think it was a big deal, but then I realized there are people who strive to find the oldest caches in each area for challenges and stuff. This would mess up their progress.
Hangup 2) Also, if this is allowed, it might open the door do people "fake hiding" a cache years ago that turns out to truly be only weeks old, not decades old. Lying is messed up and that fake hiding would be some sort of cheating and ruffle feathers. Some cachers I know place hides only wanting favorite points. Having a supposedly old cache would definitely help them cheat their way to more favorite points that would otherwise go to cache owners who truly earned them.

Keep it civil in the comments, people. We all want to have fun and support geocaching and it's rules.

 

Personally I think Hangup 1 is a non-issue, and I think that if a container was genuinely hidden, by the now CO, way way way back then, then that is its genuine hidden date.  I even think that saying the "hidden date" must be interpreted as the date something was hidden with the intention of being a geocache is a bit of a stretch in order to support an opinion about the hidden date - all you can really say is that "hidden date" by definition is the date it was hidden, and that a geocache is not defined by geocaching.com or any stats therein, so what you've got is a genuinely old hidden date.  With keystone's example of a container hidden 9 years ago, that he should retain that hidden date while you should not?  I personally believe you either both should or both shouldn't - whether there was some intention to list the container on a website or not (bearing in mind there are other geocaching websites too, so how specific does that intention definition get) is irrelevant in my opinion.

 

The problem is with Hangup 2 and the inevitable cheaters who will also want to own such an old cache and will make up a story to suit.  Should the potential for cheaters stop you from listing a genuinely old geocache?  I dunno.  I would hope not, but that's a personal decision.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I think I'll go looking for a remote hiding spot this week and place a container. I'm going to wait at least 5 years before I submit the listing. When 5 years have passed, I'll finally create a page, submit the cache with the original date, and then sit back and watch everyone race to get a FTF on a cache that no one has found in FIVE years! What a claim that will be! 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

I think I'll go looking for a remote hiding spot this week and place a container. I'm going to wait at least 5 years before I submit the listing. When 5 years have passed, I'll finally create a page, submit the cache with the original date, and then sit back and watch everyone race to get a FTF on a cache that no one has found in FIVE years! What a claim that will be! 

 

If you have the patience for that, I say go for it! :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I don't know the right answer, there are so many good points raised above. 

 

If it would land in my queue, I would probably discourage the cache owner from using original hidden date. More or less due to Hangup #2.

Hangup #1 is possibly not 100% considerate to others, but in reality - irrelevant.

In case CO would push on, I would need to check with others, what's the best approach.

What's for sure - you won't be able to go back beyond May 2nd 2000, technically impossible now.

 

I also do have a cool story, not so cool as yours, but:

  • On 21st Nov 2010 I hid a cache.
  • While I was working on the listing (and doing other procrastination stuff), another cache in proximity was published on 3rd December 2010
  • I didn't get any favor (rightly so) from my local reviewer, but decided to stick with original place.
  • I kept listing in "waiting" mode and took cache back home, so nobody could be confused by random find. 
  • Now, after 9 long years, I have the place finally free - conflicting cache has been archived recently.

You're guessing right, I was thinking of keeping the original hidden date .. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I have a cache page created for a container placed 30 April 2011. GC2xxxxx.  

I didn't submit it for various reasons.

I doubt it ever goes live, but if it does, I'd keep the listing  with its older  GC Code, but update the placed date to the day I check that it still exists. 

 

I placed a cache 8 Feb 2008, wrote it up,  https://coord.info/GC19JFP 

but didn't like the disconnect between my track log and the waypoint.  So thought to go back and get coords.  Eventually, I did check those coords and submitted it with the original placed date.  I should have updated the placed date I think, though we're not talking about historic hide here.  ( Fond of the write up on that one ).

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rikitan said:

I also do have a cool story, not so cool as yours, but:

  • On 21st Nov 2010 I hid a cache.
  • While I was working on the listing (and doing other procrastination stuff), another cache in proximity was published on 3rd December 2010
  • I didn't get any favor (rightly so) from my local reviewer, but decided to stick with original place.
  • I kept listing in "waiting" mode and took cache back home, so nobody could be confused by random find. 
  • Now, after 9 long years, I have the place finally free - conflicting cache has been archived recently.

You're guessing right, I was thinking of keeping the original hidden date .. 

 

Interestingly, I'm in the same boat :)

It is interesting though, because doing this doesn't seem to be as much as issue with more recent years; it's really only the very old years where it could become an issue, it seems. Is there a moving threshold of acceptability for the age of a hidden date? haha

I think it would make more sense if there was a window of hidden date allowability in proximity to the date the listing was created. As in, if you placed the container more than a year (or whatever) before the listing, it can only be up to a year prior.  I don't know if I'd advocate for that limitation; I'd probably still just leave that judgment in the hands of a reviewer. But if there were some kind of allowable date window, that would make the most sense to me.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I think I'll go looking for a remote hiding spot this week and place a container. I'm going to wait at least 5 years before I submit the listing. When 5 years have passed, I'll finally create a page, submit the cache with the original date, and then sit back and watch everyone race to get a FTF on a cache that no one has found in FIVE years! What a claim that will be! 

Assuming that someone else hasn't already found the cache during those 5 years. ;) :drama:

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, niraD said:

Assuming that someone else hasn't already found the cache during those 5 years. ;) :drama:

I found a mountainous geocache this summer that had a ton of written names that are nowhere to be found on geocaching.com or similar websites. It's like a few hikers found it and joined it. I could see that happening to a long time hidden but not published cache.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Thank you for your brilliantly insightful thoughts everyone. I need to contact BLM about this one since that's who's land it's on. I'm on first name basis with the guy I need to talk to but I feel like I should remove the ammo can while waiting for permission, in which case it wouldn't have been hidden for years and years - just mere days. I'm glad I read my journal and remembered this.

This was a great thought exercise though. 

It'd be nice to somehow patch the thinning parts of the Jasmer chart worldwide, but at the same time, perhaps the rarity is what makes it so fun. Also, the chance of containers being genuinely hidden on those specific summer months in 2000 is so unlikely, I'd even call it suspicious if we see it crop up.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
16 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

I found a mountainous geocache this summer that had a ton of written names that are nowhere to be found on geocaching.com or similar websites. It's like a few hikers found it and joined it. I could see that happening to a long time hidden but not published cache.

 

That is so cool. I wonder if it's on a hikers website in that location to stop and sign the geocache. lol  Good luck with you time capsule cache! Please keep us updated? I love feel good endings. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

I found a mountainous geocache this summer that had a ton of written names that are nowhere to be found on geocaching.com or similar websites. It's like a few hikers found it and joined it. I could see that happening to a long time hidden but not published cache.

 

I've had a few non-cachers sign the logs in my caches. The funniest one was this in a cache I adopted:

 

20180810_135544.jpg.1e06f9b66bd0030e4daa5995daf75433.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 1/27/2020 at 1:31 PM, CheekyBrit said:

While on holiday as a kid, some friends and I hid an ammo can container as a sort of time capsule. This was before any of us knew geocaching existed. Looking back to it, this container is set up just like a geocache since there is a half blank notebook in there that would function as a log, and a bit of SWAG from our childhood (so it's mostly junk kids didn't mind leaving behind).

 

What are your thoughts on turning this into a geocache and using our original hide date as the hidden date? That would make it one of the oldest caches in the county.

 

 I would love to know your reviewer's thoughts! Whenever we contacted our reviewer with a question, he responded back within hours. 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

I found a mountainous geocache this summer that had a ton of written names that are nowhere to be found on geocaching.com or similar websites. It's like a few hikers found it and joined it. I could see that happening to a long time hidden but not published cache.

 Are sure that wasn't a summit register? I've found a few of those in the same vicinity as geocaches.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On 1/29/2020 at 3:35 AM, thebruce0 said:

I think it would make more sense if there was a window of hidden date allowability in proximity to the date the listing was created. As in, if you placed the container more than a year (or whatever) before the listing, it can only be up to a year prior.  I don't know if I'd advocate for that limitation; I'd probably still just leave that judgment in the hands of a reviewer. But if there were some kind of allowable date window, that would make the most sense to me.

 

Good suggestion.

 

But I do feel it would be sad if a CO would be restricted from telling the truth about the hidden date, and would have to make the date a lie, just so that some stats hunters are kept happy...  Stats should reflect the truth, not the other way around...

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Just now, thebruce0 said:

Which is why that window would need to be reasonable.  What's reasonable?  100% subjective.  Which is probably why it'll never be implemented universally, and left up to reviewer judgment if the issue ever arises :P

 

Yep, I get that.... to elaborate, I think it would be sad if there was any judgement that the CO was not allowed to tell the truth, no matter what the truth is...  It doesn't matter to me whether a reviewer, or Groundspeak themselves, dictated that the CO must lie about the hidden date.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Yep, I get that.... to elaborate, I think it would be sad if there was any judgement that the CO was not allowed to tell the truth, no matter what the truth is...  It doesn't matter to me whether a reviewer, or Groundspeak themselves, dictated that the CO must lie about the hidden date.

 

Right, but again it's a matter of being reasonable - both the reviewer and the cache owner. It may be true the container was hidden in 1995, but is it reasonable to list it that way on gc.com just because it's the truth?  So where's the threshold for "reason"? I think the best answer is let the reviewer judge and decide whether they think the hidden date is reasonable, by knowledge of the local region, the geocacher, the community, etc...

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Right, but again it's a matter of being reasonable - both the reviewer and the cache owner. It may be true the container was hidden in 1995, but is it reasonable to list it that way on gc.com just because it's the truth?  So where's the threshold for "reason"? I think the best answer is let the reviewer judge and decide whether they think the hidden date is reasonable, by knowledge of the local region, the geocacher, the community, etc...

 

Except that only the CO knows the true date that the cache was hidden.  The reviewer can only accept that, or make them put a different date on the listing, which would be a lie.  I get that there would also be COs that lie too.... that's just as sad, if not more so.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Except that only the CO knows the true date that the cache was hidden.

 

Sure. But honestly, the importance of the "hidden date" is negligible these days, especially when it can just be mentioned in the description if it's so unbearably important that the 100% accurate date be known. If a 'reasonable window' for the date between hidden and published is so enormous that it's even a question as to whether it could be an issue, negotiate with the reviewer.

 

2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

The reviewer can only accept that, or make them put a different date on the listing, which would be a lie.

 

Lie? I think you're putting a whole of necessity on a listing being 100% absolutely factually correct in every way, if the issue of a hidden date being not 100% precise is that much of a big deal.  And, if the intent is to deceive, that's different than just putting a date that's pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme, especially if the true date (assuming it's that important) is just mentioned in the listing since so it's so far removed from the publish date.

 

It really shouldn't be that big of a deal. It's purely informational, and how many people place SO much significance on the hidden date in the grand scheme that can't be eased by simply disclaiming more correct info in the description?  We're not talking massive across-the-board inconsistencies in listings here. The OP was about a situation of 25 years gap between physical placement and listing publish. Theoretical examples were given for arguments about 5-20 year old gaps. Are there any real-world examples of geocache listings that absolutely must have a precise hidden date that's beyond even 1 year?

meh

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Sure. But honestly, the importance of the "hidden date" is negligible these days,

To some people, the stats hunters, it's hugely important.  And of course if it's not important, why have it?

 

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Lie? I think you're putting a whole of necessity on a listing being 100% absolutely factually correct in every way, if the issue of a hidden date being not 100% precise is that much of a big deal.

No, not really... All I'm really getting at is there is a hidden date field and it's called hidden date.  If it doesn't contain the hidden date then it's named incorrectly or it's worthless.

 

I mean, if you introduce yourself to someone you don't call yourself Brian or Barry just because they are close enough... what's the point of deliberately having false information?

 

Typing in and displaying accurate information is just as easy as false information, it's not like there is some monetary cost to using an old (yet accurate) date - doesn't cost anyone their blood... :)

 

11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Are there any real-world examples of geocache listings that absolutely must have a precise hidden date that's beyond even 1 year?

 

 

Yep, see keystone's post of his 9 year old hidden but not yet listed cache.  And *potentially* the one that started this off, however old that one is.

Link to comment
Just now, funkymunkyzone said:

No, not really... All I'm really getting at is there is a hidden date field and it's called hidden date.  If it doesn't contain the hidden date then it's named incorrectly or it's worthless.

 

And so we come back to whether a hidden date of 1995 is reasonable. Full circle.

 

1 minute ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Yep, see keystone's post of his 9 year old hidden but not yet listed cache.  And *potentially* the one that started this off, however old that one is.

 

And when it comes to being published, will it be reasonable to leave the hidden date as more than 9 years prior to publishing?  It's probably more reasonable if it's 10 years prior, than if it's 30 years prior. Who knows. The reviewer might. Or appeals if it's THAT important.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And so we come back to whether a hidden date of 1995 is reasonable. Full circle.

 

 

And when it comes to being published, will it be reasonable to leave the hidden date as more than 9 years prior to publishing?  It's probably more reasonable if it's 10 years prior, than if it's 30 years prior. Who knows. The reviewer might. Or appeals if it's THAT important.

 

I know we are going around in circles, which is fine, this is just a hypothetical discussion.

 

"Reason" or "reasonable" has nothing to do with the truth.  The date is the date.  If 1995 was the date something was hidden, then that's when it was hidden - only a time machine could change that.  It doesn't matter what someone decides is allowed on the cache listing - it's either the truth, 1995 in your example, or it's not the truth because someone decides that there is some reason (eg stats hunters getting upset and not accepting reality) to give it a false date.

 

Really, you're arguing something different to me - you're arguing the hidden date should mean something other than hidden date, like "hidden date, unless someone who has nothing to to with the hiding of the cache decides otherwise" (my words obviously, not yours, to be clear).

Link to comment
1 minute ago, funkymunkyzone said:

"Reason" or "reasonable" has nothing to do with the truth.  The date is the date.  If 1995 was the date something was hidden, then that's when it was hidden - only a time machine could change that.

 

Reasonable is entirely relevant to this discussion. I never said 1995 was a lie. Obviously it's true (well, for argument's sake). Go back to some of the first comments. It's really a matter of what "hidden date" is intended to represent. And if 1995 is not reasonable for this situation, then that becomes part of the definition, and part of why 1995 may not be a "reasonable" date for that field.

I'm not a judge or reviewer, I'm only going on the (presumably accurate educated guess) that 1995 would not be allowed. And not allowing it doesn't mean HQ is promoting "lying" to its users. But rather because the "hidden date" either a] does not need to be absolutely 100% precisely true in every single instance, or b] does not literally mean the exact date on which a container was placed in nature regardless of geocaching, or perhaps even c] is really not all that important anyway.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Reasonable is entirely relevant to this discussion. I never said 1995 was a lie. Obviously it's true (well, for argument's sake). Go back to some of the first comments. It's really a matter of what "hidden date" is intended to represent. And if 1995 is not reasonable for this situation, then that becomes part of the definition, and part of why 1995 may not be a "reasonable" date for that field.

I'm not a judge or reviewer, I'm only going on the (presumably accurate educated guess) that 1995 would not be allowed. And not allowing it doesn't mean HQ is promoting "lying" to its users. But rather because the "hidden date" either a] does not need to be absolutely 100% precisely true in every single instance, or b] does not literally mean the exact date on which a container was placed in nature regardless of geocaching, or perhaps even c] is really not all that important anyway.

 

The name of the hidden date field, *literally* is hidden date.

 

I would love to hear a solid reason why, for example, 1995 is not a "reasonable" hidden date, if that is indeed when it was hidden.

A solid reason:

- does *not* involve people getting upset because their stats might get messed up, because this suddenly appears on the website.

- is not that it doesn't need to be accurate, or it's not important (that's not a reason for it to be purposefully inaccurate)

Link to comment
Just now, thebruce0 said:

 

If it's disallowed, I'm sure you'll get one.

 

I guess that means you can't think of one?

 

Incidentally, in response to your assertion:

28 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Reasonable is entirely relevant to this discussion.

You are the only one who brought "reasonable" into this discussion.  No one else mentioned that word - only me in response to you, since you introduced it to the discussion 3 hours ago. 

Link to comment

No, I always defined reasonable what a reviewer would decide, not what I (or what the owner publishing a cache) would decide.  Precisely because almost guaranteed 1995 would not be accepted. And IF that is true then, well see my 2nd prior comment. I said it was relevant, I did not provide an objective reason, only possible theories. Thus, "If it's disallowed, I'm sure you'll get [a solid reason]"


If the OP sent the cache to publish with a 1995 hidden year, guaranteed we will find out both what "hidden date" means, how literal it is, and what is "reasonable" according to the reviewer.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I would rather have that the hidden date is the actual date the cache was hidden of at least not deliberate lie. If it messes statistics, so be it. Maybe some of the stat algorithms could be rewritten so they ignore caches where there too big difference between hidden and publish dates.

I have sometimes (though not often) looked at the hidden date for help. For example, if my GPS point to a bush of nettles, it makes difference whether the cache was hidden in April of in July. Or it may be that the coordinates seem to point to area that is open now, but was off limits at the time the cache was hidden, so I don't need to look there.

 

This discussion is very much like the other thread about whether FBA is allowed as a find (and/or as a first to find, FTF). The hidden date works as a practical limit set by the CO in full honesty. You can't have finds before hidden date, so the hidden date can't be set arbitrarily. 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, papu66 said:

For example, if my GPS point to a bush of nettles, it makes difference whether the cache was hidden in April of in July.

 

But we're not talking about the vast majority of cases where it's a matter of which month within a year or so.  It was raised because of the question of whether a hidden date of 1995 would be allowed.  Almost certainly it wouldn't - and hidden dates were cleaned up a number of years back for various reasons as well.  I'd even wager to guess that no, it's not purely about "messing statistics", nor that disallowing a year like that would be promoting "lying".  But IANAR, so if you think I'm wrong, then I too think you're wrong, and we're at an impasse until someone at HQ weighs in.  But until then, HQ's track record implies that "hidden date" is not to be a 100% literal description of the physical container to the exclusivity of all other factors (there's a reasonable window of validity), not to be trusted as 100% precise in every cache listing (it can be edited at the CO's will), and really not as significant a data point as some might want to believe.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

No, I always defined reasonable what a reviewer would decide,

 

Because reviewers (or HQ) decide what is reasonable? Really?  No, they can decide to not allow a cache to be published on geocaching.com, but that's all. They don't universally decide what is reasonable.

 

And all I ever said was that the hidden date is either the hidden date or it is not, because someone has told the CO to falsify it with some other date *for whatever reason*. That's a statement of absolute fact. You can ignore it and move on thinking my contribution to the discussion is useless or not of interest to you, but beating on about how I'm wrong because of whatever reviewers or HQ would decide, well that's just not a response to my point.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If the OP sent the cache to publish with a 1995 hidden year, guaranteed we will find out both what "hidden date" means, how literal it is, and what is "reasonable" according to the reviewer.

 

And what reason do you think - just your opinion, as a non reviewer like me - a reviewer might come up with for telling said CO they cant use 1995 as the hidden date? Can you think of any solid reason other than upsetting stats hunters? Serious question. Yes a reviewer and HQ can deny publishing, but that doesn't mean it's for a good reason, it's simply that they are in a position to make an arbitrary decision (absolute power over the geocaching.com database) and it doesn't mean we cant talk about it being a silly reason. No one is going to die because of it, either way...

 

The sky is blue. You can say the sky is green - it doesn't matter if you do, but that statement is still untrue. A reviewer can tell me I cant state the sky is blue and I have to say the sky is green. It also doesn't matter, but it's still just as untrue. Whether it is an important data point, doesn't affect whether something is truthful or not.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

And what reason do you think - just your opinion, as a non reviewer like me - a reviewer might come up with for telling said CO they cant use 1995 as the hidden date? Can you think of any solid reason other than upsetting stats hunters? Serious question. Yes a reviewer and HQ can deny publishing, but that doesn't mean it's for a good reason, it's simply that they are in a position to make an arbitrary decision (absolute power over the geocaching.com database) and it doesn't mean we cant talk about it being a silly reason. No one is going to die because of it, either way...

 

Okay, I'll bite. My own feeling in a situation like the OP described is that the hidden date ought to be the date he decided it was going to be a geocache. On that basis, something hidden in 1995 couldn't have been hidden as a geocache because there was no such thing then. I might even go further and say that, for a prehidden container, the date hidden ought to be the date the cache page was created, because even if the hidden container was meant to be a cache, it doesn't become that specific cache until the GC number is generated. I said might because I could probably be persuaded otherwise with a good counter-example, but that's the way my thinking on this is leaning.

 

Here's a hypothetical example. Suppose when I'm sussing out a location for a new cache I come across an old archived cache hidden in, say, 2001. I contact its original owner who says he archived it because he thought it had gone missing, but since he doesn't do much caching now, he tells me I can have it for my new cache. I accept his offer and his old ammo can becomes the container for my shiny new cache and I decide to stick with his old hiding spot too. The logbook, pencil, swag, stash note, label on the outside, etc. are all new, just the container and hiding spot are old. I might even give the container a sand back and a fresh coat of paint. Would it really make sense for me to claim that my new cache was hidden in 2001?

 

If your answer to that is yes, I'll go a step further. Instead of an old archived cache I found and reused, suppose instead it was an old summit log box placed by a mountaineering club. The club has stopped using it and says I can have it for my cache. What would be the hidden date then?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Okay, I'll bite. My own feeling in a situation like the OP described is that the hidden date ought to be the date he decided it was going to be a geocache.

Thanks BFJ, to be clear, it wasnt bait. I understand your reasoning, but I disagree- it is simply "hidden date" not "what date the owner of this hidden object decided it should be a geocache".

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I might even go further and say that, for a prehidden container, the date hidden ought to be the date the cache page was created, because even if the hidden container was meant to be a cache, it doesn't become that specific cache until the GC number is generated.

In my opinion that would be simply moving even further away from the literal definition of "hidden date" - date hidden, not date cache page created.

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Here's a hypothetical example. Suppose when I'm sussing out a location for a new cache I come across an old archived cache hidden in, say, 2001. I contact its original owner who says he archived it because he thought it had gone missing, but since he doesn't do much caching now, he tells me I can have it for my new cache. I accept his offer and his old ammo can becomes the container for my shiny new cache and I decide to stick with his old hiding spot too. The logbook, pencil, swag, stash note, label on the outside, etc. are all new, just the container and hiding spot are old. I might even give the container a sand back and a fresh coat of paint. Would it really make sense for me to claim that my new cache was hidden in 2001?

 

If your answer to that is yes, I'll go a step further. Instead of an old archived cache I found and reused, suppose instead it was an old summit log box placed by a mountaineering club. The club has stopped using it and says I can have it for my cache. What would be the hidden date then?

Old cache container becoming new cache - interesting example. If it's still the same container, same hide, then I'd say same date but only because it was already a cache... really no material difference than an old archived cache being unarchived (match stash, Seattle ape cache), although maybe unarchival and adoption would be cleaner.

 

Ex-summit log box - to me that's different. It wasnt owned or hidden by the cache owner. If the cache owner didnt hide it themselves, how can they claim they hid it on some past date? That is just my opinion though, that I think makes sense... otherwise you could shove a log book in a cave and say it was hidden a million years ago.

 

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...