Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
shellbadger

Has Anyone Considered Disabling Caches Until the Virus Threat is Past

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ecanderson said:

For a period of time, gloves serve as a very visible reminder that your hands can be your enemy, and to treat them accordingly.  If for no other reason than that, they can prove very useful in times such as this.

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).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, fendmar said:

This feels relevant...

:D

If you happen to notice, on the daily briefings on this thing, one of the lead members of the team can't help but touch his face.  Funny to watch.

Usually stands with arms crossed, then that hand comes out...

Share this post


Link to post
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.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

This week, a guy in my area has disabled his 1800 hides. 

Has he removed all 1800 containers? If not, look here: 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, right.  Just the opposite, then!  Not helpful!

Even with all of the gloves, extra cleaning, etc., you have to wonder how well trained some of the people are who are dealing in take-out.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, G.O. Cash said:

Has he removed all 1800 containers? If not, look here: 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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 2
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

As summarized in this Help Center Article, a find cannot be deleted by a CO if the finder signs the physical log.  The finder can write to HQ to have their find restored and locked against further attempts to delete.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
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 3
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
 

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.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, DreamMachine74 said:

I don't want them to risk their hide/monetary obligations

Can you explain this part? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours 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.

I got a feeling HQ will be on the CO side in this situation.  

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SwineFlew said:

I got a feeling HQ will be on the CO side in this situation.  

I got the impression that HQ would be on the side of the finder who signed the log.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, niraD said:

I got the impression that HQ would be on the side of the finder who signed the log.

+1.  More than an impression.  Keystone was quite clear about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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 !

 

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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."

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

×
×
  • Create New...