Is it okay to cache during Covid-19

[+Bo_Jack]

11 hours ago, Randy58 said:

I have increased my caching activities during the shutdown.  I go by myself into the woods and find the caches and sign the logs.  Most of the caches have not been found in months or years.

Same with me. Just staying away from urban caches. 

[fendmar]

14 hours ago, Randy58 said:

I have increased my caching activities during the shutdown.  I go by myself into the woods and find the caches and sign the logs.  Most of the caches have not been found in months or years.

You realize the online logs and the physical logs are not necessarily an accurate reflection of when the cache was last visited by somebody infected.

[+The Jester]

9 hours ago, fendmar said:

You realize the online logs and the physical logs are not necessarily an accurate reflection of when the cache was last visited by somebody infected.

You realize that there is no way to tell "when the cache was last visited by somebody infected"?  You might find out when it was last visited, but the infection status of said finder/visitor is completely unknown.

[fendmar]

2 hours ago, The Jester said:

You realize that there is no way to tell "when the cache was last visited by somebody infected"?  You might find out when it was last visited, but the infection status of said finder/visitor is completely unknown.

There's just no way to tell when that cache was last handled even after checking the online logs. A CO, ghost-cacher or non-cacher could have handled it minutes before despite the online logs showing something else.

[+niraD]

16 minutes ago, fendmar said:

There's just no way to tell when that cache was last handled even after checking the online logs. A CO, ghost-cacher or non-cacher could have handled it minutes before despite the online logs showing something else.

Wow... that sounds just like shopping carts, or products on grocery store shelves...

[+colleda]

37 minutes ago, fendmar said:

There's just no way to tell when that cache was last handled even after checking the online logs. A CO, ghost-cacher or non-cacher could have handled it minutes before despite the online logs showing something else.

That's an inaccurate blanket statement. I checked two of my ammo can caches today that haven't been found for ages. One has gone unfound  for 12 months and six months since I last checked it. The other was last found 6 months ago. Both were at ground level and had not been moved since last checked or found, evidenced by rotting leaf litter, twigs, overgrowth and undisturbed ground impressions.

[fendmar]

26 minutes ago, niraD said:

Wow... that sounds just like shopping carts, or products on grocery store shelves...

Exactly, but with a green light suggesting it's safe when in reality it's a hotzone.

[fendmar]

6 minutes ago, colleda said:

That's an inaccurate blanket statement. I checked two of my ammo can caches today that haven't been found for ages. One has gone unfound  for 12 months and six months since I last checked it. The other was last found 6 months ago. Both were at ground level and had not been moved since last checked or found, evidenced by rotting leaf litter, twigs, overgrowth and undisturbed ground impressions.

So you're saying you can guarantee with 100% certainty that no one has been to those caches without logging online or the paper log?

Edited April 14, 2020 by fendmar

[+colleda]

Just now, fendmar said:

So you're saying you can guarantee with 100% certainty that no has been to those caches without logging online or the paper log?

Absolutely.

[fendmar]

8 minutes ago, colleda said:

Absolutely.

Prove it.

[+Team Torex]

Like all we do during this corona pandemic, using common sense when GC-ing works.  We visit out of the way regions, practice social distancing, carry disinfectant for hands and objects and use it on the caches and our own hands. 

GC-ing a great way to decompress -a hike in the mountains. We avoid towns, cities, and only go for the wilderness areas. We also stay away from the more 'dangerous' T3.4-5 caches, our medical personnel don't need any accidents.....  Fresh air is healthy for us physically and mentally and those who think not can

 at home and watch TV ;-)

Edited April 14, 2020 by Team Torex

[+colleda]

1 hour ago, fendmar said:

Prove it.

Dis-prove it.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, fendmar said:

So you're saying you can guarantee with 100% certainty that no one has been to those caches without logging online or the paper log?

I don't know the caches being talked about here, but I can see the situation with some caches, that as much as one can guarantee that no-one has touched it, it can be done. A person could walk out a door and be hit by a meteorite. There's no absolute guarantee that you won't be, but it's very unlikely. Geocaches that are away from people, off a trail, with a decent walk to them, and get found only a few times a year, or maybe not even yearly, are very unlikely to be found by muggles, because it's rare for a geocacher to go there, except for the cache, so muggles are even rarer. And then it would be extremely unlikely for a geocacher to fight their way through exhausting, thick bushland and then not bother to sign the log and log it. Can you image that?

Some places have less population than others, more bushland without tracks, and some caches are to be found in such places. With those caches it's easy to guarantee that no-one has found it recently. Just the state of a cache can tell you that. The build up of mulch on it, the thick wall of spider web over the entrance to the hide, the undamaged vegetation nearby, no tracks, etc.

I don't think muggles are a major problem here. This bush goes on for many kms. When we fought our way through that bush for a couple of caches, no-one had logged the cache for a year and half before us. That was in January 2017. There has only been two more logs since.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Goldenwattle

[+Harry Dolphin]

I went for a cache that had not been logged in almost three weeks.  Half mile hike, with 240' of climb.  On the way out, I passed a couple on the trail.  When I got home and logged it, I found that they had found and logged the cache.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I went for a cache that had not been logged in almost three weeks.  Half mile hike, with 240' of climb.  On the way out, I passed a couple on the trail.  When I got home and logged it, I found that they had found and logged the cache.

It sounds more likely you would encounter another geocacher than the example I gave, because of your bigger population. Also, I'm guessing my example might have been more remote, despite being an easy drive from a city. It was 1.5kms off a road, no tracks, much of it thick bush, and 300 metres rise. Very unlikely to meet muggles, and odds are strong, no other geocachers.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Goldenwattle

[+ecanderson]

9 hours ago, fendmar said:

So you're saying you can guarantee with 100% certainty that no one has been to those caches without logging online or the paper log?

What is the relevance, anyway?  As I brought up days ago, and others have mentioned since, a trip to the grocery store is far riskier (pretty much everything on the grocery store shelves has been touched 'recently', and for some items, by a lot more people), but both activities should be approached with the same procedures and the same amount of caution. 

[fendmar]

23 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

What is the relevance, anyway?  As I brought up days ago, and others have mentioned since, a trip to the grocery store is far riskier (pretty much everything on the grocery store shelves has been touched 'recently', and for some items, by a lot more people), but both activities should be approached with the same procedures and the same amount of caution. 

The relevance being that there are many in this thread saying they will just go after apparently lonely caches seemingly oblivious to the fact that even though the online logs say one thing the situation at GZ could be something very different and they could be in for a nasty surprise. You just never know. Better just to stay home, flatten the curve, ad nauseam.

[+dprovan]

13 minutes ago, fendmar said:

The relevance being that there are many in this thread saying they will just go after apparently lonely caches seemingly oblivious to the fact that even though the online logs say one thing the situation at GZ could be something very different and they could be in for a nasty surprise. You just never know. Better just to stay home, flatten the curve, ad nauseam.

This is always true. It's a reason to never go geocaching again, regardless of any known pandemics. The point people are making is that the odds of getting infected, even of dying, are not significantly greater now than they ever are. If you want 100% safety, stay home. And hope you don't get hit by a meteor.

 

I find it amusing that people are suggesting lonely caches in this thread. I found over 20 caches last weekend, all on neighborhood streets that I could have driven up to, none found recently enough for COVID-19 to survive the time period. Although I can't rule out more recent handling unreported in the logs, I consider it exceedingly unlikely, not probable enough to worry about. Even if I get sick, I'll still assume I picked it up somewhere else. There's more chance of me contracting it from the newspaper delivered to my house every morning: I know for a fact that was handled recently.

[+jimandjoanne]

Why not treat the container like anything else right now, wear gloves and sanitize before and after and use social distancing if caching with a friend.

[+Goldenwattle]

17 minutes ago, dprovan said:

There's more chance of me contracting it from the newspaper delivered to my house every morning: I know for a fact that was handled recently

I think about that too. However mine comes in a plastic bag which would be machine wrapped. I don't expect the newspaper to be a risk, but the plastic bag could be if the person who delivers it were infected. For that reason I wash my hands after opening the bag and removing the paper. I am very grateful that the level of infection is reducing where I live. Only one new case in the last four days. Restrictions will remain though for some time, as we can't afford to be complacent. We don't have lock down; only distancing and the advice to stay home. I can't travel far though as I live in a small Territory surrounded by a bigger state, which does have lock down. In effect I'm living on an island at present. Schools and many shops are closed though. Testing of sewage is about to start to see how many unreported cases are in the community. Most of our covid-19 cases came from overseas.

[+cerberus1]

54 minutes ago, fendmar said:

The relevance being that there are many in this thread saying they will just go after apparently lonely caches seemingly oblivious to the fact that even though the online logs say one thing the situation at GZ could be something very different and they could be in for a nasty surprise.

You just never know. Better just to stay home, flatten the curve, ad nauseam.

 

We  have a friend who's suffering from agoraphobia, and would agree...          

We have a good-sized group of cachers who never log online, and some folks take quite a while to log finds,  so that may mess with "found dates" a bit.

 Someone could have found that cache just minutes before us also, but the odds of either and  being contagious too are still pretty slim.    

We're still supposed to be using common sense though, by washing or using sanitizer on our hands, and making sure those hands aren't touching our faces.      

Everything in our stores (and forget the doctors office...) pose a much-more serious issue than a container in the woods, visited irregularly...

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by cerberus1
ssss

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

Testing of sewage is about to start to see how many unreported cases are in the community.

Say what now?

[+Goldenwattle]

5 minutes ago, jimandjoanne said:

Why not treat the container like anything else right now, wear gloves and sanitize before and after and use social distancing if caching with a friend.

I use hand sanitiser after handling a cache, and if caching with another person (regulations only allow one other person at present) we keep our distance and one person signs for both of us to reduce handling of the cache.

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Say what now?

I take it back. 

I don't want to know. I don't want to know. I don't want to know! 

[+Michaelcycle]

3 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Say what now?

See this article in Nature:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00973-x

[+Goldenwattle]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

Say what now?

Apparently the virus can be detected in sewage, so the sewage for the city as a whole will be tested at first to see if any virus can be detected, and then later the areas can be reduced to localities if need be, to compare different parts of the city.

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/covid-19:-sewage-to-be-tested-for-traces-of-virus-in-canberra/12145170

[+Max and 99]

3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Apparently the virus can be detected in sewage, so the sewage for the city as a whole will be tested at first to see if any virus can be detected, and then later the areas can be reduced to localities if need be, to compare different parts of the city.

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/pm/covid-19:-sewage-to-be-tested-for-traces-of-virus-in-canberra/12145170

How could that possibly determine the number of unreported cases? I can't imagine. 

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

How could that possibly determine the number of unreported cases? I can't imagine. 

Maybe not the actual numbers, but the presence of the virus, and it will act as a warning, even if no more cases present, that the virus hasn't gone away.

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe not the actual numbers, but the presence of the virus, and it will act as a warning, even if no more cases present, that the virus hasn't gone away.

Ok, that's different than what you said earlier. Now I understand! Thank you. 

[+cerberus1]

2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Ok, that's different than what you said earlier. Now I understand! Thank you. 

 

Yeah.   Was thinking how upset folks would be when it finally gets "reduced"  to it's obvious conclusion...

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yeah.   Was thinking how upset folks would be when it finally gets "reduced"  to it's obvious conclusion...

Would you prefer, 'split into areas' to be tested.

[+ecanderson]

48 minutes ago, jimandjoanne said:

Why not treat the container like anything else right now, wear gloves and sanitize before and after and use social distancing if caching with a friend.

Agreed.  Hence my comment about relevance.  Regardless of how 'lonely', treat them all the same (carefully) and enjoy.

 

[+31BMSG]

2 hours ago, fendmar said:

The relevance being that there are many in this thread saying they will just go after apparently lonely caches seemingly oblivious to the fact that even though the online logs say one thing the situation at GZ could be something very different and they could be in for a nasty surprise. You just never know. Better just to stay home, flatten the curve, ad nauseam.

Sometimes, some people like the responsibility of being in control of their own lives. BTW, didn't the "curve", in the US, flatten like six days ago?

[+juissi64]

I would suggest "catch and release" caching i.e. just pick up the cache (with gloves!) and put it back. No signing the logs. I urge every cache owner to put this advice to their cache descriptions. I just did that. Maybe the headquarters should make this a global recommendation?

[+TmdAndGG]

5 minutes ago, juissi64 said:

I would suggest "catch and release" caching i.e. just pick up the cache (with gloves!) and put it back. No signing the logs.

Sure, just don't claim it as a find!

 

7 minutes ago, juissi64 said:

I urge every cache owner to put this advice to their cache descriptions.

Remember to add: Don't claim it as a find though!

[+Max and 99]

9 minutes ago, juissi64 said:

I would suggest "catch and release" caching i.e. just pick up the cache (with gloves!) and put it back. No signing the logs. I urge every cache owner to put this advice to their cache descriptions. I just did that. Maybe the headquarters should make this a global recommendation?

Are you trying to get other geocachers in trouble?. If you want to log a Find then you need to sign the log!  Otherwise, you can log a Note. 

Maybe headquarters will lock caches that say what you suggest! 

[+juissi64]

3 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

Sure, just don't claim it as a find!

 

Remember to add: Don't claim it as a find though!

Of course you do. That is why you have app. 

[+TmdAndGG]

2 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

If you want to log a Find then you need to sign the log!  Otherwise, you can log a Note. 

Maybe headquarters will lock caches that say what you suggest! 

Agreed.

[+juissi64]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

Are you trying to get other geocachers in trouble?. If you want to log a Find then you need to sign the log!  Otherwise, you can log a Note. 

Maybe headquarters will lock caches that say what you suggest! 

Hmm. Maybe we should check with them and not throw these opinions up. Stay safe!

[+Max and 99]

Just now, juissi64 said:

Of course you do. That is why you have app. 

Of course you don't! Please read the Geocaching 101

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, juissi64 said:

Hmm. Maybe we should check with them and not throw these opinions up. Stay safe!

Nothing to check. It's been in the guidelines for oh....what is it now? 

Oh yeah, TWENTY years!

[+juissi64]

Just now, Max and 99 said:

Of course you don't! Please read the Geocaching 101

Tough times need tough measures. 

[+Max and 99]

18 minutes ago, juissi64 said:

I would suggest "catch and release" caching i.e. just pick up the cache (with gloves!) and put it back. No signing the logs. I urge every cache owner to put this advice to their cache descriptions. I just did that. Maybe the headquarters should make this a global recommendation?

In my opinion, all your Found caches are now suspect. 

[+TmdAndGG]

1 minute ago, juissi64 said:

Tough times need tough measures.

What does that mean!?!?

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, juissi64 said:

Tough times need tough measures. 

I can't imagine how that applies to a game..

[+31BMSG]

2 minutes ago, juissi64 said:

Tough times need tough measures. 

But you are saying tough times mean no measures.

[+TmdAndGG]

Just now, 31BMSG said:

But you are saying tough times mean no measures.

Exactly. 

 

[+Max and 99]

24 minutes ago, juissi64 said:

I would suggest "catch and release" caching i.e. just pick up the cache (with gloves!) and put it back. No signing the logs. I urge every cache owner to put this advice to their cache descriptions. I just did that. Maybe the headquarters should make this a global recommendation?

I suggest you take the following (translated) off of your geocache page!

 

Due to the virus situation, I suggest that you currently record your visits to the log book. All you have to do is pick up the cache (gloves!) and return to your place. Catch and release!

[Lynx Humble]

22 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I suggest you take the following (translated) off of your geocache page!

 

Due to the virus situation, I suggest that you currently record your visits to the log book. All you have to do is pick up the cache (gloves!) and return to your place. Catch and release!

Speaking of his geocache page I am surprised by the amount of traffic on it recently for a 2015. People are geocaching as usual in Finland and don't have any Covid-19 travel restriction/recommandation?

 

It would be great if Groundspeak made a newsletter about those photo-logging behavior that are against the guidelines.

[+Max and 99]

13 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Speaking of his geocache page I am surprised by the amount of traffic on it recently for a 2015. People are geocaching as usual in Finland and don't have any Covid-19 travel restriction/recommandation?

 

It would be great if Groundspeak made a newsletter about those photo-logging behavior that are against the guidelines.

1. That's surprising about Finland! 

2. It would be great if Groundspeak addressed the issue.