Jump to content

Adoption of Old Virtual Caches


DubbleG
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, TyroneShoelaces said:

Regardless if it's a NM or NA posted, if the CO is no longer active, either of those logs is a death sentence.  One just takes longer than the other to get there.

 

Really? Here's a map of all the caches in the Sydney region that have outstanding NMs:

 

image.png.5ed7f1ebd33f384397b108aa42d609a1.png

 

Most of those NMs go back several years at least, but it seems as long as the cache is still getting Found It logs, an NM won't trigger the CHS and nothing will happen to the cache, like this one that went missing in 2018 and, with no response from the owner, had a throwdown dropped in its stead:

 

image.png.640c4e071ea162b318d715828ab8c7f2.png

 

Claims that NMs are a death sentence on a cache will only serve to further discourage people from logging them and the usefulness of that log type in alerting COs to maintenance issues will be lost.

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

 

Really? Here's a map of all the caches in the Sydney region that have outstanding NMs:

 

image.png.5ed7f1ebd33f384397b108aa42d609a1.png

 

Most of those NMs go back several years at least, but it seems as long as the cache is still getting Found It logs, an NM won't trigger the CHS and nothing will happen to the cache, like this one that went missing in 2018 and, with no response from the owner, had a throwdown dropped in its stead:

 

image.png.640c4e071ea162b318d715828ab8c7f2.png

 

Claims that NMs are a death sentence on a cache will only serve to further discourage people from logging them and the usefulness of that log type in alerting COs to maintenance issues will be lost.

I should put this on the irks thread but ...

Come on why not get it archived and then place a new cache in the same location. You are not solving the underlying problem.  Give folks the chance to find a new cache in the area. Over the years I've heard of all the problems that are unique to Australia, well this does not help and only makes some of those issues worse. If I saw that log I'd file a NA and recycle the container. 

Link to comment

That may be ALL caches around Sydney with NM logs, but that's getting away from the topic of this thread, which is specifically old Virtuals.  If those are physical caches, and they need maintenance, by all means, post that NM.  I'm not discouraging that at all, because left unchecked, those caches will likely become geolitter.

 

And perhaps the reviewer standards are different where you are, I take back my blanket statement.  

 

Let me be more specific.  AROUND MY AREA, NM and NA logs without a response from an active CO are a death sentence.  After some length of time a reviewer will post a log, something to the effect of, "hey, I noticed your cache has had a NM for a while.  You have 30 days to reply back or fix the issue.  If I don't hear back, your cache will be archived." I have even seen perfectly good caches get archived just because the log got full or it was wet, and somebody posted a NM about it.  No response from the CO and it got archived, even with current finds logged.

 

For physical caches that actually need attention, I wholeheartedly agree with the process. 

 

But back to the subject at hand.  For an old virtual, where the only issue is that there isn't a CO receiving or responding to a message, but the cache location itself is just fine, why log the NM?

Edited by TyroneShoelaces
Clarification
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, TyroneShoelaces said:

But back to the subject at hand.  For an old virtual, where the only issue is that there isn't a CO receiving or responding to a message, but the cache location itself is just fine, why log the NM?

 

There's no requirement for the owner of a virtual (or EC for that matter) to respond to answers that are sent to them, so I agree it would be inappropriate to log an NM or NA simply because the CO didn't respond to correct answers, but the OP clarified his NAs with this: "That aside, their messenger and emails were inactive so there was no way to contact them to send in the required information." In that case, where it's impossible to even send the answers to fulfil the requirement of a virtual, then I don't think an NA is unreasonable. The same would apply if it's no longer possible to obtain the required answers at GZ, say if a sign is removed or if what was once parkland is now a housing estate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Come on why not get it archived and then place a new cache in the same location. You are not solving the underlying problem.  Give folks the chance to find a new cache in the area. Over the years I've heard of all the problems that are unique to Australia, well this does not help and only makes some of those issues worse. If I saw that log I'd file a NA and recycle the container. 

 

That was one I just picked at random from the outstanding NMs in Sydney. There were others, like a full logbook NM from 2015, and a lot of long-standing wet logbook ones, but all those caches continue to get finds and none of those finders have seemed inclined to follow up with either another NM or an NA. For that one in particular, it's an urban micro some 80km and well over an hour's drive through horrid Sydney traffic from home so no, I have no desire to log an NA on it and replace it with a hide of my own.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment

I am rather curious what kind of MX would need to be done on a Virtual.  

 

Hmmmmmmm ... if the Virt were an old steam engine that had gotten dusty over the years >>>> should the CO go by and dust it off once in a while?!.

 

I know a cache owner or two, self included, who need maintenance, however, none wish to be archived at this time.

 

O.K., O.K. time to take tongue out of cheek.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MNTA said:

I should put this on the irks thread but ...

Come on why not get it archived and then place a new cache in the same location. You are not solving the underlying problem.  Give folks the chance to find a new cache in the area. Over the years I've heard of all the problems that are unique to Australia, well this does not help and only makes some of those issues worse. If I saw that log I'd file a NA and recycle the container. 

Tradies O.K. However, the thread seems to reference Virtuals.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Maintenance also entails maintaining the cache page, so if something at GZ has changed that requires the page to be updated, then yes, maintenance is required.

 

That's why this one annoys me!

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RE5M_wharf-walkies-with-wocky?guid=24c9460e-7b1d-48a3-9571-c241822a21c7

 

Not at the listed coordinates and no maintenance actually done. They have four weeks until I Needs Arcchived.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, TyroneShoelaces said:

 

My opinion...it's still better to allow the enjoyment for others despite the few who are cheating themselves.

 

Lab caches are the new virtuals. No need to preserve. If GCHQ decides we need more virtuals they will give out more.

Funny I got my first armchair logger logged caches all over the world in a single day. Deleted the log but project-gc still says I have a Sweedish logger. Which is why they should be archived.

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, MNTA said:

Lab caches are the new virtuals. No need to preserve. If GCHQ decides we need more virtuals they will give out more.
 

 

Eh...maybe.  But when I go somewhere I've never been, how can I tell which one of these Lab Adventures includes that old virtual that got needlessly archived?  Before its death, I could have been made aware of it through a combination of hidden date and favorite points.  

 

 

Screenshot_20211201-062314.thumb.png.62e8195829760f6ed82a27326329aa74.png

Edited by TyroneShoelaces
Clarification
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, MNTA said:


Funny I got my first armchair logger logged caches all over the world in a single day. Deleted the log but project-gc still says I have a Sweedish logger. Which is why they should be archived.

 

 

Two things:

 

First, this unfortunate scenario would happen to you regardless if someone armchair logged an old virtual or a new traditional.  Doesn't pertain to only these old Virtuals.

 

Second, if the CO for the old virtual is no longer in the game, they don't care about their own project-gc stats.

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 9:08 AM, TyroneShoelaces said:

don't recall the health cycle of a cache being discussed in this particular thread.  But I am interested regarding that point...

 

Let's say there's an old virtual and the CO is no longer active.  The item at GZ is still there as it was when the cache listing was created.

 

Finder #1 visits the spot, sees cool item, sends answers and logs a find.  "Finder" #2 logs a find from their computer chair thousands of miles away. Is the health "score" of the cache affected differently between log #1 and log #2?  And was the fun for either of the loggers #1 or #2 increased or decreased by the log of the other?

 

What was pointed out on that FB post was the process that follows after a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log are posted.  The OP defended himself numerous times, claiming that "he" wasn't the one who got the caches archived, because all he did was post the log.  The way he understood it, was that after such log is posted, it was up to the discretion of the reviewer to decide whether or not to take action.  This is simply not true, and I'm still not sure if the OP understands that.  Regardless if it's a NM or NA posted, if the CO is no longer active, either of those logs is a death sentence.  One just takes longer than the other to get there.

 

So like you said, if the cache functions, it functions.  Why not let it be?

 

Actually, the Health Cycle depends on DNF's, Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived by an arcane mathematic formula never fully disclosed by HQ. And, sorry to disagree, but the intervention of the Reviewer is a manual, not automatic, step - At Their Discretion.

As for "fun" value, not trying to weasel out, but that's a HUGELY subjective thing. Instance: I deplore Power Trails. In my view, who wants to stop, every 10th of a mile, in order to find and sign a medicine vial - at Best: some just put their own exchange/drops in place and go along their way. Where's the fun in that? But I have listened to 'cachers wax rhapsodic about the beauty and fun of the Rythm, working as a team. As a former percussionist, again: I don't "get it". Hence, I'll decline to judge someone else's "fun".

 

At the end of the day, until HQ creates some FORMAL program to provide for the adoption of caches with lapsed owners - and YES, I know, they mention 'Legalities' in a mysterious fashion when that discussion comes up. Un-surprising: question - what was Bryan Roth doing for work when Groundspeak was created?

 

So - yes, if it functions, it functions - let it be. If it FAILS to function and is reported for the cache being missing or the cache needing Maintenace or Archiving (and just because the owner hasn't logged in that doesn't mean the cache is not working!!!) then the Health Cycle kicks in - rightly. HOWEVER - do you think HQ (the only ones who CAN) will E V E R do anything about mis-reports or the whole situation under discussion? NO (bleep)ing Way! They want their $30 a year and will do whatever is conducive to receiving it, with minimum effort.

 

Nothing wrong with that - but there it is: they, ARE NOT angels, they're out for the buck as Groundspeak Is A Corporation and the complex of Geocaching.com and Groundspeak represent a For Profit Corporate complex.

 

For myself, as a 'cacher, I have observed the Animal Farm reaction on caches with the same Reviewer. Some caches are IMMEDIATELY disposed of after a single report, and some hang on FOR YEARS after NUMEROUS DNF's, etc. So, all caches are equal, but some caches are More equal than others. Not for any reason of age, quality - or anything else that I can see about the caches. Go figure!

 

 

Edited by Jimrky
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 6:09 PM, barefootjeff said:

There's no requirement for the owner of a virtual (or EC for that matter) to respond to answers that are sent to them, so I agree it would be inappropriate to log an NM or NA simply because the CO didn't respond to correct answers, but the OP clarified his NAs with this: "That aside, their messenger and emails were inactive so there was no way to contact them to send in the required information." In that case, where it's impossible to even send the answers to fulfil the requirement of a virtual, then I don't think an NA is unreasonable. The same would apply if it's no longer possible to obtain the required answers at GZ, say if a sign is removed or if what was once parkland is now a housing estate.

 

I'm confused - how can an account not be able to receive a message through the Geocaching website?

 

Unless a cache SPECIFICALLY calls out email, I ONLY send info through the Geocaching website Message page. If it calls for email, I do BOTH - and usually get a response through the Geocaching website Message page, only. If the CO is going to respond, they'll either get on the website to check, get a Notification, - and if they're not going to bother, they're not going to bother.

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 8:27 PM, Team Canary said:

That's why this one annoys me!

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RE5M_wharf-walkies-with-wocky?guid=24c9460e-7b1d-48a3-9571-c241822a21c7

 

Not at the listed coordinates and no maintenance actually done. They have four weeks until I Needs Arcchived.

 

Have you found it? Attempted to find it? That would provide a lot more weight to actions like posting a NM.

 

On 11/30/2021 at 10:15 PM, TyroneShoelaces said:

My opinion...it's still better to allow the enjoyment for others despite the few who are cheating themselves.

 

Seems to me like others might enjoy that cache; why do you want to take away that enjoyment?

 

Of course, I think it should be fixed, and them posting an OM immediately following a NM admitting it's not at the posted coordinates means it should be dealt with by a reviewer. If they want to make it a puzzle, they should re-list it and publish it. It's a traditional, so it should be at posted coordinates. But my reasoning for saying how it should be handled is the same justification for not being against people posting a NM or a NA on a Virtual cache where the 'finder' can no longer actually accomplish the required task - of sending in answers... or if there's regular evidence of couch logging going on, and the CO is shirking their responsibilities.  Neither of those "directly" affects me, but just because someone can have fun doing something doesn't mean it should be left as is.  There are rules and guidelines and a spirit to the hobby which set an expectation for what experiences it provides. Without those it becomes a free-for-all, and one person's fun can legitimately hinder someone else's.

 

Ideally I'd love if old virtuals that seem abandoned could be adopted, as there's no physical property involved, but I also understand the issue of the optics of hq taking 'ownership' style actions on listings, even without actual property.  It's the relationship of the listing service with the thing being listed.

 

But anyway, in the right circumstances, and as painful as it may be to see, NM and NA should be posted when necessary, on any listing. HQ can decide any special exceptions if they want, or can be convinced. But that's just it - those are exceptions to rule. I think what some people don't like is "the rule", or how hard it is to get an "exception" to it.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Of course, I think it should be fixed, and them posting an OM immediately following a NM admitting it's not at the posted coordinates means it should be dealt with by a reviewer. If they want to make it a puzzle, they should re-list it and publish it. It's a traditional, so it should be at posted coordinates. But my reasoning for saying how it should be handled is the same justification for not being against people posting a NM or a NA on a Virtual cache where the 'finder' can no longer actually accomplish the required task - of sending in answers... or if there's regular evidence of couch logging going on, and the CO is shirking their responsibilities.  Neither of those "directly" affects me, but just because someone can have fun doing something doesn't mean it should be left as is.  There are rules and guidelines and a spirit to the hobby which set an expectation for what experiences it provides. Without those it becomes a free-for-all, and one person's fun can legitimately hinder someone else's.

 

At the time I found that one way back in 2013, it was a nano sitting in a bolt hole on the wharf but it's had four Update Coordinates logs since then and now is not even at the most recently updated ones, with nothing to say where it is other than it shouldn't take too long to find it. I'm not really sure why the CO couldn't have just posted a fifth Update Coordinates log in 2018 instead of adding the bit in the description about it having been moved. It's a long way to get to by road even from my place in an almost adjoining suburb (separated by a large body of water) so I can understand Team Canary's frustration at not wanting to waste a much longer drive until the CO actually performs the maintenance their OM is supposed to have meant they've done. Looking back through the logs, I suspect if there's anything in the vicinity now it might well be a throwdown the DNFer with 2 finds said they'd put there. Even though this area doesn't have many caches, from its history I'd say an NA is well overdue.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I can understand Team Canary's frustration at not wanting to waste a much longer drive until the CO actually performs the maintenance their OM is supposed to have meant they've done.

 

Oh I completely agree. And if it wasn't clear, I would have posted a NM in this case as well, because the owner has admitted to a state of the cache that isn't in accordance with the listing type. It's a blatant issue that needs fixing. Especially if I knew I was on my way to the area and hoping to find it...   I was more drawing the parallel between feeling it's necessary to NM a cache like this, vs siding with allowing an old Virtual that's no longer in its proper state merely so "people can still enjoy it", or some such. 

 

Another option in the case of the Trad would be to contact a reviewer if the NMs aren't doing anything. But then leave it at that.

I just advocate for consistency and promoting the spirit of the hobby. As soon as we start granting subjective exceptions ("it doesn't hurt anyone", "people play their own way", "as long as they have fun", etc), then conflicts arise (and that's why reviewers have 'no precedent' clauses).  And yeah, it's a tough line to draw, because you don't want to be legalistic, and you do want to promote a positive gameplay.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But anyway, in the right circumstances, and as painful as it may be to see, NM and NA should be posted when necessary, on any listing. HQ can decide any special exceptions if they want, or can be convinced. But that's just it - those are exceptions to rule. I think what some people don't like is "the rule", or how hard it is to get an "exception" to it.

 

[Emphasis in the quote is mine - J.D.R>]   Small, but I feel important, point: There Are NO 'Rules'. We have Guidelines under the caveat by HQ that I call 'The Great Disclaimer': No action taken regarding one geocache has any bearing on any other geocache' and upheld through the perceptions of individual Reviewers backed by decisions of HQ WITHOUT INTERACTIVE APPEAL AVAILABLE TO THE GEOCACHER.
 

That's the way it is and the situation under which, daily, I (and we all) make the decision TO GEOCACHE. Not a complaint, a statement of fact.  That said I love this Sport and give back to it in all ways possible giving time from my life, my fortune, and my Sacred Honor. 😁

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Oh, I used to recite that mantra as well. "There are no rules!" But really that's just playing semantics. There are rules - it's how the guidelines are enforced. Correct, there is no precedent - but where situations happen where this becomes a point of contention are when a judgment call is made by a reviewer, whether within or making an exception to the guidelines. The game does have rules, we just call them guidelines because it implies that the 'authority' (gchq) has the freedom to make exceptions and calls as they see fit. The fundamental foundation of the hobby has structure that people can rely on.

When I say "what some people don't like is 'the rule', or how hard it is to get an 'exception' to it" I'm really referring to that process of going to a reviewer and/or appealing to HQ about something you think is "against the rules guidelines" and needs dealing with.

 

You can't just start the hobby, do effectively whatever you want, call it "geocaching", and expect no pushback to happen in response. There are rules - in the form of the enforcement of guidelines, including any exceptions that may be made by reviewers or HQ.

 

 

But this is all beside the point about whether it's right, or good, to post a NM or NA on a seemingly abandoned or problematic old Virtual.  IMO, no real need to do that unless a] it's known the owner has abandoned the account or b] it's not possible for a user to complete the task (as above, no possible way to effectively initiate contact with the owner); both could be evidenced by the style of logs that are being posted and no 'policed' by the owner. And as much as I'd love to see adoption of virtual listings (w/no physical property ownership), I can understand there may be some hitches with how that action may be legally perceived with a listing service.

Link to comment
On 12/3/2021 at 1:36 PM, thebruce0 said:

There are rules - it's how the guidelines are enforced.

 

And I thought I had this posted last Friday, but manifold are the vagaries of computing:

 

(bleep) - to avoid any possible deity references allowing Admin to scotch the post 😎 - (bleep) knows that I did not use 'No Rules' in the mode of Anarchy. However, as 'rules and exceptions' do not require, but Do s t r o n g l y imply a single source of criteria and interpretation, as well as 'enforcement', I strongly disagree. And that this is basic to any discussion of guidelines and their implementation on a continually one-off basis I hold this to be important. 

 

Happy Holidays! 😁

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...