Jump to content

Has Anyone Considered Disabling Caches Until the Virus Threat is Past


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, niraD said:

That might work for a while, until one gets used to wearing the gloves (or whatever). Then old habits kick in. I saw this all the time before the current COVID-19 scare: People would put on the magic gloves, and then keep working after contaminating them (e.g., by touching money or by picking up something from the floor).

Yep.

We watched a news segment on the heroes in healthcare, and one of the nurses in the ER was scratching her head with her gloves on.   :)

Link to comment
14 hours ago, niraD said:

That might work for a while, until one gets used to wearing the gloves (or whatever). Then old habits kick in. I saw this all the time before the current COVID-19 scare: People would put on the magic gloves, and then keep working after contaminating them (e.g., by touching money or by picking up something from the floor).

Not sure what the context is for what you saw, but there can be two different and entirely opposite objectives for wearing gloves, depending up on the situation, and what you saw might have been entirely OK. 

 

Speaking of money, cashiers here are wearing gloves to keep the contamination from handling money on the gloves and off of their skin.  In entirely different cases, you'd worry about your own skin contaminating something else.  In the latter case, I can understand the concern, but in the former case, the objective is to keep the contamination on the outside of the gloves.

 

Still, and as others have noted, it does no good to keep the contamination on the gloves if you put the gloves on your face.  That's where a mask to prevent touching mouth and nose makes an even bigger subconscious impression, though people forget that eyes are equally susceptible to picking up the infection.  After a lifetime of not having to deal with it 99.99% of the time, it's hard for people to operate as though they have no parts above the neck!  Why do noses have to itch more than other body parts, anyway?  It's not fair.

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

I disabled mine today after watching people search for it yesterday.

Here is what I put for a reason...

 

RocTheCacheBox

prem_user.gifPremium Member

Profile photo for RocTheCacheBox

2.png700

Temporarily Disable ListingTemporarily Disable Listing

03/27/2020

I have made the decision to temporarily disable and remove this cache out of concern for public health.
Unlike many cache owners I am often able to observe people search for this cache. I have witnessed people of all ages exploring and touching not only this cache but the surrounding area, sometimes several times a day.
Geocaching is not a necessity. Stopping the transmission of Covid19 is.
I wish you all good health and look forward to enabling this cache as soon as I believe we are through this.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Not sure what the context is for what you saw, but there can be two different and entirely opposite objectives for wearing gloves, depending up on the situation, and what you saw might have been entirely OK. 

Foodservice.

Link to comment

FWIW, I've trained on emergency response teams, where the point of the gloves is to protect the first responder from bloodborne pathogens and other nasty things. So I get the difference. But a lot of people treat gloves as some sort of magical sanitizer, rather than as a physical barrier.

Link to comment

Current household protocol is to pop on a pair of 5 mil nitriles before opening the house door to the garage, then upon re-entering after the 'trip', peel them off and drop them into a can by the door devoted to 'dead' gloves, then go to the sink and wash hands (too tough to peel gloves off from inside with 2nd hand, and I've got a lot of them).  Might wash/sanitize the gloves at some point to avoid wasting them, but with as many as I have (got a couple of boxes for normal chores, dirt cheap, around Christmas at Harbor Freight), might trash 'em later instead.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

HQ should gives us clear guidance on this unusual kind of situation where the CO is more cautious than the local authorities.

 

The linked thread has good guidance.  If you disable a cache and someone signs the physical log, the find stands.  If you want to prevent people from logging your cache, remove the container when disabling the cache page.

 

What other "guidance" are you looking for?  Cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility until they fail to meet expectations and a Reviewer needs to step in.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

The linked thread has good guidance.  If you disable a cache and someone signs the physical log, the find stands.  If you want to prevent people from logging your cache, remove the container when disabling the cache page.

 

What other "guidance" are you looking for?  Cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility until they fail to meet expectations and a Reviewer needs to step in.

So I guess all those CO that are threatening to delete logs on their disabled cache because they are afraid you propagate the virus shouldn't have wrote that?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The linked thread has good guidance.  If you disable a cache and someone signs the physical log, the find stands.  If you want to prevent people from logging your cache, remove the container when disabling the cache page.

 

What other "guidance" are you looking for?  Cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility until they fail to meet expectations and a Reviewer needs to step in.


I think there’s a huge difference in the current situation.  People are disabling their caches to send out a clear message that caching is a non-essential activity.  
 

Wouldn’t it then be completely hypocritical, if the cacher were to make an unnecessary journey to collect those caches?

 

I’d really like to think that HQ’s policy might change to take this into consideration.

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
22 hours ago, niraD said:

That might work for a while, until one gets used to wearing the gloves (or whatever). Then old habits kick in. I saw this all the time before the current COVID-19 scare: People would put on the magic gloves, and then keep working after contaminating them (e.g., by touching money or by picking up something from the floor).

My eyes are always looking for this in food service.  "NO!! You can't make my sandwich with those gloves. You were just handling money with them!"

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:


I think there’s a huge difference in the current situation.  People are disabling their caches to send out a clear message that caching is a non-essential activity.  
 

Wouldn’t it then be completely hypocritical, if the cacher were to make an unnecessary journey to collect those caches?

 

I’d really like to think that HQ’s policy might change to take this into consideration.

I disagree. What matters is not whether a CO wants to „send a message“, but what the actual situation at the cache location is. If the cache was placed with permission of the landowner, and the landowner has subsequently retracted the permission, closed the land for public access or whatever, such that the cache cannot be accessed without trespassing, that may be grounds for deleting logs. The CO should remove the cache, if possible, and the listing may have to be archived. If there is a general lockdown in force, but authorities permit leaving the home and hiking in the woods for recreational purposes, I see no problem with logging a find if the cache is in place, no matter if it‘s disabled or not. If the cache owner happens to adhere to a religion that forbids all physical activity on the Holy Day of Festivus because the supreme being or Most exalted Flying Spaghetti Monster demands it, he / she may want to send a message to that effect by disabling the cache, but that has no import on other cachers; a legitimate find stands, and no logs can be deleted. It‘s the cache seekers responsibility to decide if they can access a cache legally and without endangering themselves or others; after all, they stand to be fined / prosecuted if they break the law.

 

Especially in the current situation, we don‘t need individual cache owners, social media influencers or whomever to “send messages“ and impose arbitrary rules. Imposing and enforcing rules is the authorities‘ responsibility, and the cachers responsibility is to stay informed about the rules and the situation on the ground, and to make responsible decisions.

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:


I think there’s a huge difference in the current situation.  People are disabling their caches to send out a clear message that caching is a non-essential activity.  
 

Wouldn’t it then be completely hypocritical, if the cacher were to make an unnecessary journey to collect those caches?

 

I’d really like to think that HQ’s policy might change to take this into consideration.

 

This situation isn't entirely unique. A few years back one of my caches found itself inside the security fence of a construction zone. I disabled it for the duration (about 2 months) but in that time it had 3 finds, one by a contractor who was legitimately working on the site and a couple of others who snuck in. Their logs stood. A similar thing happened during the fires last December, when the parks and reserves most of my caches were in were closed for about a month. I disabled them all but was unable to remove them and people were sensible enough not to attempt them during that time. Sure, the potential consequences this time are more severe than someone sneaking into a construction zone, but most cachers will do the right thing, I think. Also in our favour is that disabled caches don't appear on the app, which makes me wonder if maybe a compromise solution in this instance could be to stop disabled caches from appearing on the website maps and in PQs.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, colleda said:
 

GC88RAM

CO has disabled all nine of their caches threatening to delete any Found Its and also remove the finders name from the physical log. A bit OTT.

That's what I mentioned the other day: the threat to delete a cacher name from the physical log. Take photos, everyone. And HQ please let these COs know this action will not be upheld.

 

Edit: A CO removing someone's name from the physical log is a low blow. I would not trust any CO who stooped to that level.

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

I don't live far from the CO who disabled their 1800 hides, which was actually around 2,500 a few months ago. 

 

In my city, the park amenities have closed, like playgrounds, sports fields, parking lots and skate parks...due to the possibility of surfaces containing the virus due to their popular use in what's becoming a time with less to do. 

 

I've disabled two of my caches without visiting them, but I know they're both next to such park amenities....and although they could access and sign the log they may face fines or charges as well...all dependent on circumstance. Typically newer cachers visit these two caches, and although they can sign the log, I don't want them to risk their hide/monetary obligations.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Can you explain this part? 

 

That part is what I call a write off. A conumbrence of the mind where I was ending off my contribution to this thread with something that sounds more like heresy more than anything, unintentionally. 

I'm going to just check by other areas where my caches are in case of restrictions made by the municipal gov't....some of my caches aren't in parks, but green spaces.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, DreamMachine74 said:

 

That part is what I call a write off. A conumbrence of the mind where I was ending off my contribution to this thread with something that sounds more like heresy more than anything, unintentionally. 

I'm going to just check by other areas where my caches are in case of restrictions made by the municipal gov't....some of my caches aren't in parks, but green spaces.

Clear as mud.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment

I think HQ is listening to their lawyers on this one by saying nothing.

 

As for disabling caches should someone log one of those and documents the find. The log will be reinstated. The way the CO can truly justify deletion is if the cache is removed and then they could not sign the log. Many of us have logged even archived caches not to mention disabled. There is no violation of the terms of service and thus the log deletion will not be upheld in my opinion. I have a nearby cache to test on soon.

 

With trespassing on closed parks, well if they get caught they will have to deal with the consequences. Why should anyone else care.

 

Today after work I had to get out. So took the back way over the hill to the ocean and found 14 caches most haven't been found in 3 months or more a coupe a couple of weeks ago. I interacted with no one. Tomorrow since it is going to rain at some point will be doing more back road caching, last weekend I came closer to a cow than an actual person on a hike never understood the livestock attribute till then, a little scary having a mama cow not liking your dogs presence. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I have a science background, so have little confidence in information about this virus which has been filtered (and likely distorted in the service of simplicity, a particular political viewpoint, or desire for a click bait headline) through journalists or social media, I want to get my information direct from scientists and medical folk. Information properly weighted with all the 'maybes' , and 'we don't yet have all the statistics in yet, but as far as we can tell.. ' caveats the news reports tend to ignore.

 

A couple of days ago I heard a very interesting radio programme on the BBC , it has (among other covid19 related information ) a scientist giving the outcome of some research on how long the virus persists on various surfaces. Well worth a listen: I think you may need to sign up to do the live stream 'listen now' , but the 'download' option at the top doesn't need a sign up , gets you an MP3 version, and may be a better choice for you, if like me your internet connection is getting flaky due to all the self isolating neighbours streaming films & games !

BBC Inside Science 26th March 2020

The section about covid19 virus persisting on surfaces starts about 16 minutes in, but all of the broadcast is worth a listen.

 

Short version : research suggests the virus survival on a hard surface has '... a half life of around 6 to 8 hours" . So half the virus left on a plastic or metal surface (like a cache) dies after that time, and of the half left, another half dies in the next 6-8 hours and so on and so on (similar to the way we describe decay of radioactive materials ).

 

For cardboard (which was included in the study, and as it is essentially thick paper I reckon we can extend the results to paper log sheets and books) the research had a less clear outcome. the scientist being interviewed suggested it may be that it was harder to pick up a sample from a fibrous surface  in the experiments, and it might be that it will be similarly hard for a person to pick up any virus from that surface.

 

Don't take my word for it though , as I said at the start, it's best to hear the expert, listen to the original !

 

Link to comment

Best quote I've seen in relation to this unique situation.

 

"Martin Hewitt, head of the National Police Chief's Council, said the UK was in a "national emergency, not a national holiday" ."

 

Quoted in a number of UK media sources yesterday, after people travelled to National Parks, seaside etc for the one daily exercise period allowed at present. Current advice, now being enforced by police, is that exercise should be near home. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Beechtrees said:

Quoted in a number of UK media sources yesterday, after people travelled to National Parks, seaside etc for the one daily exercise period allowed at present. Current advice, now being enforced by police, is that exercise should be near home. 

 

Off-topic, but what is the local authority's interpretation of "near home"?  Is there a physical limitation, or it is all to the interpretation of the officer?

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, PSUSteeler said:

 

Off-topic, but what is the local authority's interpretation of "near home"?  Is there a physical limitation, or it is all to the interpretation of the officer?

I would think that if you have to drive or take transit or a taxi to get there, it's not "near home."

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, PSUSteeler said:

 

Off-topic, but what is the local authority's interpretation of "near home"?  Is there a physical limitation, or it is all to the interpretation of the officer?

I can only speak for myself, but I think "near home" means I can walk or take an easy bike ride there.

I admit that at first I didn't understand the logic of no driving, but then someone explained to me that no driving means you'll stay closer to home. That makes sense to me now.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I would think that if you have to drive or take transit or a taxi to get there, it's not "near home."

 

Some people routinely run ten miles on their light running days, while some people take transportation to go two blocks away.  That's why I was curious if they legally defined a radius from your home - because "near home" is too murky, and can be interpreted by a police officer to be anything.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, PSUSteeler said:

 

Off-topic, but what is the local authority's interpretation of "near home"?  Is there a physical limitation, or it is all to the interpretation of the officer?

There is no clarification, it's a vague pronouncement, which is a silly situation for both public and police, a clear definition of exactly what is and is not acceptable would be far better and reduce the chances of people getting into needless arguments.

 

Personally, given the choice of walking around a suburban park 10 minutes walk from home, crowded with people and children doing the same, some of whom have zero ability to remember they should keep their distance, or driving 10 km to one of the many little used footpaths in the countryside I've discovered because of caching, where I'm unlikely to see any humans at all , let alone pass within 2m/6' of them, , I'm absolutely confident that the country walk away from people is the safer choice.

 

I understand that there is a ( very small) risk of my car breaking down, or of having an accident, but I think the risk of being so near many random people in the suburban park is greater than the risk of the careful 10 minute car trip to a place I can walk alone. If guidelines are tightened, and I can't do that any more, I'll probably just stay at home and sort out the garden: it has been quite neglected since I started caching 9 years ago , plenty of outdoor exercise to be had there !

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

I understand that there is a ( very small) risk of my car breaking down, or of having an accident, but I think the risk of being so near many random people in the suburban park is greater than the risk of the careful 10 minute car trip to a place I can walk alone. If guidelines are tightened, and I can't do that any more, I'll probably just stay at home and sort out the garden: it has been quite neglected since I started caching 9 years ago , plenty of outdoor exercise to be had there !

 

I have a lot of garden maintenance I plan on doing as the lockdown here intensifies and it drags on through the winter months, but right now we've had almost constant rainy days for the last month which means mosquitoes in plague proportions, so any gardening runs the risk of contracting a mosquito-borne disease like Ross River fever. The walking tracks in the nearby national parks and reserves, where most of my caches are, are generally along dry ridge-tops where there are far fewer mozzies, so I'll continue to go for solitary walks there, and do the odd bit of cache maintenance along the way, for as long as I'm allowed to. I'm generally sticking to my local area though and won't be venturing further afield now until this all passes.

Link to comment

My two cents is don't disable caches.

Geocaching is pretty solitary, so those who can get out are practicing social distancing.  

With everything closed up, I've started caching again after a fairly long hiatus.  I just bring some sanitizer with me to clean up after handling a cache.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Little late to this thread, but please do not disable your caches, especially any in rest areas, truck stops, or otherwise accessible by large trucks. Also caches in parking lots within a short walk of the loading dock behind your local store. Remember there are truckers, transporters, delivery people, and other essential personnel that are still out and about and working to bring you supplies, and we need a distraction every once in a while. Geocaching is perfect for that.

 

I use hand sanitizer before and after handling each cache in hopes of not catching or transmitting anything. But most I've found lately haven't been found in a week or longer.

 

Thank you.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 2
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Lil Devil said:

Little late to this thread, but please do not disable your caches, especially any in rest areas, truck stops, or otherwise accessible by large trucks. Also caches in parking lots within a short walk of the loading dock behind your local store. Remember there are truckers, transporters, delivery people, and other essential personnel that are still out and about and working to bring you supplies, and we need a distraction every once in a while. Geocaching is perfect for that.

 

I use hand sanitizer before and after handling each cache in hopes of not catching or transmitting anything. But most I've found lately haven't been found in a week or longer.

 

Thank you.

Remember, even if a cache is disabled, if it is in place, you can still legitimately find and log it. If your log is deleted, you can appeal to Groundspeak, and most likely, your log will be reinstated - it helps if you have photo proof. Stay healthy and safe, and thank you for what you‘re doing.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I am not disabling caches and I don't think anyone locally has done that. I found a cache today - a walk up a steep hill by myself, so good exercise. The cache was last found eight days ago, but I still disinfected my hands after signing and rehiding. Yesterday I found three caches. One was a virtual, so no problem, and the other two; one was previously found on 15/Sep/2019 and the other in January, so I thought, but later I found someone else logged it the same day. Likely worth disinfecting after each cache in case this happens. A few days previous to that I did part of a power trail and they had been logged a week before my finds.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I am not disabling caches and I don't think anyone locally has done that.

 

I disabled two of mine this morning after discovering that the area they're in was closed to the public a couple of days ago, and will keep a close watch on the other areas I have caches. One of the local cachers here disabled all his hides yesterday but his are mostly in high-traffic urban areas so that's fair enough. I'm now confining myself to the local area so won't be doing any more caching until the situation eases.

Link to comment

I'm seeing some local cache setters disable their listings . In some cases I understand their decision, where they have what you might call a 'destination' set of caches, a circular walk way out from any centre of population (well, way out by UK standards !) which people would drive to from a town , park up and walk around.  Leaving those active condones unnecessary travel.

There's also the disabling of caches in areas currently closed to the public , which is obviously wise , as there are always going to be a few idiots who don't think for themselves and check accessibility in advance.

Some COs with a lot of the sort of caches beloved of numbers cachers and streak pursuers, providers of urban park & grab micros, have disabled theirs too.

 

My caches are almost all away from roads, and either in parkland on the edge of the suburbs, or in rural locations which need to be walked to, none  more than 5km/3miles from a village or town. So apart from disabling one cache which is in a closed area, I'm happy to leave the rest available so any local can to choose to include it to enliven their daily outdoor exercise if they wish.

 

I say 'choose to' absolutely deliberately : the caches are there, but anyone who thinks touching one might pose an unacceptable risk is free to walk on by, and not claim a find.

 

My choice is that if I had any caches to find within a reasonable radius of home (discounting those I've already ignored for ages as uninteresting drive bys etc) I'd go for them, but , if the CO disabled them, I'd respect their wishes, not out of fear but simply from respect. Disabled caches can be logged , if they should be logged is something that, as a finder, you need to decide for yourself.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

Disabled caches can be logged , if they should be logged is something that, as a finder, you need to decide for yourself.

 

Regardless of "disabling", it might be good to add some information to a cache page.  I went on a cache maintenance run yesterday, and found the park has caution tape around the picnic areas and the playgrounds, and the restrooms are "closed until further notice".  At the very least, that's a consideration for cachers, when the Official Parks and Recreation web site specifically says the park is open, and failed to say what conveniences are not open.  I'm planning to address that on my caches.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1
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...