When should a cache get archived?

January 26, 2003

Over the past six months we have had four of our caches reported as 'missing' with help we have managed to check on 3 out of the 4. All 3 we checked were found to be still in place, and other cachers have since found 2.

The 4th cache that we have not managed to check (due to moving house) has now been archived for us.

In our time caching we have failed to find 4 caches, we were certain on 3 occasions that the cache was 'missing'. Luckily they were not archived as other cachers have since found 2.

We have to say we are not in agreement of a cache being archived when ONE cacher fails to find it.

What do others think?

Tech-no notice

January 26, 2003

IMHO, it depends on the cache, and the cacher.

If it's a 1/1 - Then the cache should be found, no problem, and as long as the cacher has a little experience, then a no finds log should indicate that something is amiss.

But if the difficulty rating is higher - let's say, about a 2.5 or a 3, then a no find would not be that unusual.

Similarly, is the cacher fairly new? I know that when I was doing my first twenty or so caches I wasn't all that thorough in my searches - perhaps a new cacher might leave a few hiding spots unchecked.

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

January 26, 2003

To get an idea of difficulty, we only rated it a 2 but....

Suberite said.

"I had a lot of difficulty finding the cache as it was well hidden. In the end spent almost an hour going round in circles - almost gave up."

even Hornet had problems.

Tech-no notice

January 26, 2003

The cache in question is this one and it's archival was discussed amongst the moderators before it was archived.

We did consider the points that have been raised about people failing to find it, but decided that in light of the reports of the undergrowth clearance and burning, and that the cacher who posted the 'unable to find' log was fairly experienced, that it was more likely than not to be missing.

We noted that team Nia, in their abscence had asked for the cache to be checked, but since nobody had checked the cache since it was reported missing in early September it was decided to temporarily archive the cache.

If there is somebody local to the cache who would be able to confirm that the cache has either been removed, or is still there we, and I'm sure Team Nia would be most grateful. If the cache is located we will be quite happy to de-archive the cache.

Regards,

Richard and Beth

January 26, 2003

Reports of missing caches should be investigated by the cacher who placed it.

Three of ours have been archived because of various reasons and a fouth has been made "temporarily unavailable" as it is to good of a location the let the vandles win.

The three caches are:-

(1) A Wet One. Ingress if water.

(2) Beast On A Hill. Trashed/stolen.

(3) Yomping In The Forest. As above

Number (4) Tam-O-Shanter. the most recent to go AWOL has been made temp unavailable, as it is to good of a location to ignore.

Only after a vistit to confirm a missing cache should it be archived or more recent "MADE UNAVAILABLE".

Opinions welcome.

Phredd

January 26, 2003

The cacher who placed the cache should take responsibility for getting it checked on. If they are remote to that cache it may involve finding someone to do it for them, as we had to do for our cache in Singapore.

If the cacher who placed it is no longer active then a local cacher should be asked to check on it.

This is less a function of whether to archive, and more to ensure that the cache is cared for and does not become litter.

We can't agree with archiving even a 1/1 straight off. We have a 1/1 cache in Central London which one person couldn't find. However, 70 other people have ..........

Dave

1k · January 26, 2003

No this shouldnt be archived. It is extremly difficult to find anyway so my guess is that it most definatly stil there.

Could someone go and check it? before those darn trees grow back to full strength.

--------------------------------------------------------

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them!

www.buckscaching.co.uk

1.7k · January 26, 2003

On my first attempt at caching I failed to find to find Saddleworth surprise. this dose not mean the cache is missing, just that iacouldn't find it. the owner had allready posted a notice saying due to the location he wouldn't be checking it to the spring[located on the moors]. this dosen't mean it should be archived until then. I think there should be a set rule which says'' after 3 unable to finds in sucsesion the cache owner will be notified by email and given 14 days to confirm that the cache is still there. after this period upon recieving no notifacation from the owner will the cache be archived. this is only my opinion but one i think would work.with the large intake of newbies like me [started 26/12/02] it could be 3 newbies on the trot looking for the cache.I started up around Oldham as i was staying with my mother and hadn't a clue about the areas in which i was looking. as they say local knowlage, and experience help.Mancunian

dave

January 26, 2003

I have a cache which is deliberately difficult to find. Each time someone posts a "not found", I just notch the difficulty up by 1/2, and vice-versa.

January 26, 2003

There are lots of reasons why a cache might not be found e.g. tree cover, coordinates typed in wrong, trashed, quite well hidden and so on. I think if somebody posts a "this has gone it should be archived" note then they must be pretty certain. Before it actually is archived they should be in conversation with the owner to make sure they were looking in the right place.

The flip side is that if the owner is not prepared to maintain the cache, it should be considered for archival or adoption anyway. Placing and abandoning a cache is perilously close to being littering (see other threads).

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 26, 2003

If I search for a cache and can't find it, I post a Not Found report, with information in general about where I searched. This seems the honest thing to do, as I tend to read the logs prior to searching for a cache, as much useful information can be gained. If a number of people post not founds, then that suggests I think that the cache needs checking, but I think the onus to archive rests with the cache owner. The choice to look for a particular cache rests with me, and reading the logs helps me to make that choice. If I was convinced that a cache was missing, then I would email the owner, otherwise I assume its poor searching on my part. I usually finds that the difficulty rating is variable, and it is better to compare with your previous experiance of caches set by this person.

January 26, 2003

I have a cache called Hexpath bog, ( NOT A PLUG )

The logs were saying that it was difficult to find . Then all of a sudden it could't be found. One scots cacher tried 5 times and failed , so off I set out nearly 200 miles round journey, but as being the cache owner I was responsible for the cache and was in a way duty bound to check it out myself. any way when I arrived I could see the problem. The gorse bushes were now 5 times the size compared to the day I hid it, No one could have found that cache unless they started cutting back the gorse, so I moved it about a hundred yards and its getting found logs again

So in a way I believe its the cache owners responsibily to check the caches themselves regardless of distance , unless some local cacher who has found it and is willing to check it out for you , and then perhaps having the cache transfered to their name to save you a long journey on maintence trips, Maintence is an essential part of Geocaching, and its nice when someone logs a cache and states it's condition.

Nige

January 26, 2003

We have several 'not founds', but have only asked for a cache to be archived once. That was when we found evidence of it's vandalism.

If we can't find a cache, we'll log it as 'not found' and put it on the watch list. If it's subsequently found, we'll try again (though we often try again anyway). We also add a (hopefully amusing) 'note' to a cache if for some reason we take the wrong route and end up not having enough time to backtrack (such as Gibraltar).

If there had been a couple of 'not founds' on one of our caches, we would go and check it. As Nige said, it's our responsibility to maintain the ones we place.

Interestingly, and a case in point for not asking for immediate archival is this one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=49283

1.8k · January 26, 2003

This topic has pricked my conscience as I have some caches which I have not checked for a while. I'm OK with those which have had recent logs and others have said they are OK but methinks I should go through them all to check, a. when last found and b. if anything untoward was reported - is that a bit late for a New Year resolution?

But part of my point is that it is so helpful for people registering finds to note what the condition of the cache was and whether it needs any more attention than they were able to give. I am quite happy if others make inprovements to my caches and vice versa will do what I can if there seems to be a problem with someone else's.

January 26, 2003

My view, the cache should not be archived. It took myself, Pid and 4 others well over an hour to find it. Due to tree cover which is unbelievable and huge amounts of undergrowth etc this is one very difficult cache. In my opinion the cache should be atleast a 3 for difficulty but most definatly not archived.

Its just a hunt for a lunch box, why be so serious!?!

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

January 26, 2003

Since I am one of the chief characters in this story I can maybe throw some light on this particular cache, and the reasons I think it should be archived temporarily, until replaced.

Way back in the late summer, when the trees were thick and green, I attempted this cache, and had huge difficulty with the whole site due to the dense forest. I had gone to the cache on the strength of it being a fairly easy cache rating, and was a bit disappointed to find it to be substantially harder than it's rating suggested. At that time I wrote an email to the owners (team Nia) pointing out that the pictures they took when they hid the cache were very different from the current situation, the pictures showing a nice, open wood with daylight and reasonable good GPS coverage (presumed from the pictures, judge for yourself)whereas i had needed a torch at lunchtime to find my way around inside the forest. At that time I said I would go back and have another look once the trees had shed some leaves. That email was not replied to. (Good reasons have since been explained to me by team Nia, I hasten to add, but nevretheless, at the time, consider what it seemed like from my end)

So I waited for about 6 weeks, and then went back, now in October. Much better terrain, more like the pictures. Still failed to find the cache. Found a lot of remains of fires and burning of trees, but no cache.

So I went back home and emailed Team Nia again, telling them I had not found their cache. At this point I actually put something on the cache page (a log, now removed). This time I got a reply, explaining the reason for no reply before (perfectly accepted) and saying that they had in fact moved away from the area so it was difficult to check the cache.

With this in mind I decided to go again on November 7th, a couple of weeks later. Now, you may notice there is a photo on the webpage of the actual tree the cache is in. I printed this out and took it with me. Now, especially with the photo as a confirmation, it is really not hard to find the right tree. I had found it on the previous visit, but now I had confirmation in my hand. Here was a photo, and here was a tree. its really not difficult to match the two up. Yes folks, on that basis I am pretty dadgum sure that, unless this tree has an identical twin within 50ft, then this cache is gone.

This is why I disagree with Dan when he says that the cache is hard to find, and even the Hornet had trouble....yes but you guys did it in the summer. When done in the winter with no leaves, this cache is piss-easy. You really should have no problem finding it (the tree, I mean...)

On November 7th I decided to remove my original log, and post the cache as a no-find finally, having done pretty much all I could to make sure it wasn;'t just me. I then waited for others to attempt it, but no-one did. Team Nia couldn't get up here to check it, and no-one else attempted it, so I decidewd to take a few other people there to check with me. I have now had three other people go with me on separate occasions, and locate the tree (easily) but no cache in the bottom of it.

Dan, its no use saying that it mght be there and you found it hard so its a hard one. It isn't. its easy and it ain't there.

Given that situation the question then becomes, what do we do with it. For good reasons, Team Nia can't maintain the cache. Jeremy's suggestion was to have it adopted by a local cacher. That could easily be me, since I am just down the road from it...BUT I CAN'T FIND IT!

So we have a situation where the cache is not maintained, and a local cacher of *some* experience (well I am approaching 50) has checked it out several times, and no-one else seems to want to attempt it. Bear in mind it was found three times in the two months prior to September 8th. Since then it has not been found by anyone. Thats almost 5 months. Jeremy says above that if the cache owner is not able/prepared to maintain it then it should be archived. And that is exactly what I was asking Team Nia for a couple of months ago. I wanted it temporarily archived until someone could check it out. Meanwhile it was sitting annoyingly on my front page and there was nothing I could do about it. I just wanted something done. A cache on my list should be able to be dealt with by me one way or another. Either I go and do it, and claim a find because its there, or I get it archived because it isn't. I'm a methodical chap who likes to work his list. There should be nothing on my list that I can't deal with. If a cache is missing but not archived, then I can't clear it, and thats bugs me and I think it is wrong.

For my own peace of mind I will drive up there tomorrow and have another look, but I don't hold out much hope. I have found the exact tree. I have put my hand in the exact place! What more do you lot want? Blood?

I would say, in conclusion, that if ever a question arises over a cache, and it is not found for over three months, and the owner can't or doesn't want to check it out, then it should be temporarily archived until such time as they do. Simple as that.

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

January 26, 2003

Lol, point taken MCL but...

Firstly how dare you suggest it was easy when we did it!!! We went in pitch black in April which aint winter!

Secondly, I will check the cache myself sometime in the next two weeks, this will prove once and for if there is a cache present, not that I don't trust your point of view, I have visited and will know straight away wether it has been removed or not.

Finally before your so sure about having the correct tree have a read of the 'View from coombe hill' logs by myself and Pid. We didn't have a GPS at the time so we used pictures of the location aswell as a video shot by team lunchbox. I still swear to this day that the cache has moved because it is not the same tree! We are always doing this, for some reason photos really do lie occasionly.

Don't forget that trees are living things too and in the space of time between the photo you have being taken and your visit it has probably sprouted here there and everywhere and died a few times On my visit I seem to recall about 50 trees in a small space which all looked the same.

This is all meant in the name of good will so hopefully we will be able to sort this out once and for all. stay posted, I will let you know when I have paid my visit!

Its just a hunt for a lunch box, why be so serious!?!

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

January 26, 2003

No problem Dan, what I meant was it is easy unless you insist on doing it at night....

(caching, I mean...)

PS and what on earth are you doing up at 04:20 on a monday morning? My excuse is work...

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:

The flip side is that if the owner is not prepared to maintain the cache, it should be considered for archival or adoption anyway. Placing and abandoning a cache is perilously close to being littering (see other threads).

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

This cache and several others were placed when we lived in that area, and they were all well maintained. However we have now moved to the South coast, and being a large one car family it is not posible to to maintain these caches as we had originally intended,

As long as The cache is active and people are looking for it, it can't be 'litter' But if it gets archived then it is from then on definetely 'LITTER'.

The latest news is that I got the following e-mail this morning.

This is an automated message letting you know that the cache has been unarchived:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=19364

Dan & Pid

We realy appreciate you going to check on this cache for us. If you then say it is not there we will happily archive it ourselves.

We just want to add that when we started this thread we did not want to name names or point fingers, Just to dissagree with the principle of archiving a cache after a single not found.

Thanks to everyone for their opinions.

Tech-no notice

January 27, 2003

This is a good example of why people should post "not found" logs, one for each unsuccessful search in my opinion. All of what MCL has just said on this forum about multiple trips should appear in the cache logs.

Otherwise, a casual look at the cache page shows a single not-found since the last set of founds, which doesn't look like a good reason for archiving.

Rich

mobilis in mobili

January 27, 2003

To try to resolve this, we set out at about 6:00pm and drove the 70 miles to find it.

Armed with head lamps (like cavers/miners use) two large rechargeable lanterns and for good measure, a couple of small hand held torches, we did a Dan & Pid job.

Parked as close as we could and walked about .4 mile along a forest road before striking off to the right into the dense forest. On that walk down the road we saw a muntjac which (made the trip worthwhile) I guess we frightened him because he looked at us for about 10 seconds and then dissapeared. Later an owl took revenge, but that's another story and my heart has stopped pounding now.

On with the story. Having fought through the dense forest of fir trees with bits filling our hair and down our necks we came to the area of the cache. Trees ! blooming millions of em. We found some looking similar to the photo, but no cache !

To be fair, we are not as experienced night hunters as D&P and the tree cover was interfereing with GPS reception for sure. But we did search for 2 hours before we started to get concerned about the fading torches.

This is a shame really because we thought it would be a good place to put "Silver Stallone". Kinda fitting, "Silver Stallone" at "Silverstone". No? Oh well, please yourself then.

I guess it is time to sort this one out, we did our best.

Tim & June (Winchester)

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

[This message was edited by Tim & June on January 27, 2003 at 01:29 AM.]

1.8k · January 27, 2003

Now there is dedication to the cause! And your 300th post too!

January 27, 2003

I now have the proof we all want that the cache was trashed. Please read my log on the page to hear the full story.

I notice the cache has been unarchived again. Why and who by?

How much more work do I have to do on this cache to prove to everyone it is an ex-cache? It is no more. It has ceased to be. It is gone, kaput, finito. It is not resting, it is not asleep, it is gone. Geddit? (apologies to the Monty Python fans out there...)

Now will someone PLEASE get the sodding thing off my front page once and for all...

PS Since I have actually found the lid, and the cache is trashed, can I claim the lid as a find?

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by el10t:
This is a good example of why people should post "not found" logs, one for each unsuccessful search in my opinion. All of what MCL has just said on this forum about multiple trips should appear in the cache logs.

Otherwise, a casual look at the cache page shows a single not-found since the last set of founds, which doesn't look like a good reason for archiving.

Well you may have a point there. In fact pretty much all of the above story is known to the cacvhe owners, (Team Nia) because I put the first part of it in one email to them, the middle bit of it in another email to them, and the final bit is on the cache page as a log, which again they get as owners of the cache.

Since it is the cache owner who has the power of archiving, I saw no further reason to put all that blurb in front of everyone else's eyes on the Cache Page. I felt at the time (in November) that my existing log could stand, as it does explain that I had made more than one visit, and wasn't just basing my judgement on one trip.

I fully understand why Team Nia can't now get to their cache, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I think that in these cases, such a cache must be either adopted by a local cacher, or taken offline. I have a cache that is 60 miles away from my home. If at any time, I thought that I would not be able to respond to a request to check it within about three weeks, I would temporarily archive the thing until such time as I could sort it out.

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:
I notice the cache has been unarchived again. Why and who by?

It was us who dearchived it last night. Following Team Nia's comments, and the feedback on this thread that most people felt that a cache shouldn't be archived on the basis of a single failure we discussed the cache again with Tim and June yesterday afternoon. At the point it was discussed Tim and June didn't say they were going to make a late night trip to try and find it, and there was nobody else able to go check it in the near future. We therefore decided to give Team Nia the benefit of the doubt and unarchive the cache pending a search, and dearchived it about 11pm last night.

I haven't talked to Tim and June today, but I guess they decided to clear the matter up sooner rather than later. They logged their failure after we'd gone to bed. Since Tim and June have tried and failed to find it, and following your discovery of the lid in your search, I am sure nobody will object if the cache is archived again.

Regards,

Richard and Beth

January 27, 2003

Richard and Beth, thats fair enough. I can understand your actions, but as you say, now it is time to archive this cache permanently.

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

January 27, 2003

As mentioned above, I have archived the cache in light of Tim and Junes failed attempt to find the cache, and the daylight search that MCL made that found the cache lid.

The cache is still listed, but as archived pending a possible replacement.

Richard

1k · January 27, 2003

Any chance of a foto of the cache lid MCL?? Some proof would be fantastic

quote:
Now there is dedication to the cause! And your 300th post too!

Yes....this is the one thing I do beat Tim and June at...Forum posts, just hit the 500 mark Almost as many as Hornet's years now

--------------------------------------------------------

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them!

www.buckscaching.co.uk

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Richard & Beth:

It was us who dearchived it last night. Following Team Nia's comments, and the feedback on this thread that most people felt that a cache shouldn't be archived on the basis of a single failure

Whoah mule!!! (Yosemite Sam)

After MCL's post to this thread talking about taking the photo with him and matching the actual tree up, I think that is pretty sufficient evidence for an archiving. Unless you believe he was either a) lying or a really incompetent cacher.

In defence of what I said earlier, that post wasn't there when I said it, so my impression was that MCL had made one visit and then said "should be archived".

I think we can learn some lessons from this:

1. If you own a cache, you have a responsibility to maintain it (or have somebody else maintain it). If you can't maintain it, seriously question whether it should remain unarchived. In the light of recent events, I can't believe anybody could question this. NB I would consider that having the ability to send a local cacher to check up in the event of potential trashes counts as being able to maintain the cache.

2. If you can't find a cache, assume it's because you can't find it and amass some serious evidence before suggesting archiving. Said evidence should be posted on the cache page (not just here - not everybody reads the forum).

3. Just because *you* found a cache just before somebody else who couldn't find it doesn't mean it wasn't trashed in between. A more constructive action than flaming the non-finder would be to pay a visit to verify or deny their opinion. If you found it once, this should be easy.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 27, 2003

I fully understand why Nia couldn't check this cache out, I also understand MCL's frustration on not being able to find it several times.

We've had some similar experiences, though luckily on a couple of them the hider has been able to check and archive them accordingly...we're not a jinx, honest!

I think a 'not found' should be posted if anyone can't find the box, but I wonder if newer people would think that this is an admission of defeat and maybe something 'negative'?

I know that back in August when we first started we couldn't find a cache ('Keepsake', if anyone's interested) but didn't post a 'not found'. (Why do I feel like I'm on Oprah?)

We were pretty much sure that it 'was' there, simply that our skills were not so developed to find it, especially with the vegetation at it's peak. At the time, it seemed the right thing to do, but in hindsight...I wonder how many people have done the same?

Would it be a good idea to ask the people who had found it before to check on it if they were in the area? I know that we wouldn't mind checking if it was nearby.

Thoughts?

Comments?

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Travers:
I think a 'not found' should be posted if anyone can't find the box, but I wonder if newer people would think that this is an admission of defeat and maybe something 'negative'?

Comments?

i think there is a lot of truth in that. I remember I was gutted the first time I had to post a "not found" - it was Tomb Raider 1 I think. One of the intermediate clues defeated me and I got really annoyed thinking Scotty must have screwed up and wasted my afternoon. Fortunately, i checked the coordinates on my way back and realised I'd typed them in wrong so a rant at Scotty became a semi-amusing story about my own incompetence.

In fact, once you've calmed down and realised it's your own fault, not found logs are more fun to write than found logs.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:
I now have the proof we all want that the cache was trashed. ....

Well that's good that is. Drive all that way, get tree stuff down your necks, (June even found some in her bra when we went to bed ), fall over in this muddy boggy streamlet/drain. Get scared witless by an owl and so on and so on.

Then you come on here and tell me it's gone. You couldn't do that yesterday could you. Sorry I can't do anything from Monty Python.

I guess there must be a quote someone can come up with on our behalf. Or maybe something from "Fawlty Towers".

I guess there is a moral to this story, always put off till tomorrow what you could have done tonight.

On the brightside, at least the issue is now resolved, and it's an easy matter to unarchive it if it gets replaced.

Then we can all get back on track and race back there to find it and see Who will take the chequered flag.

I know, that wasn't up to our usual standard, but it's late and we're turning in.

Tim & June (Winchester)

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

1k · January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Tim and June:
I guess there is a moral to this story, always put off till tomorrow what you could have done tonight.

NEVER NEVER NEVER! Should be the other way around. least you experienced night caching in its true form. That one was a classic in the dark!

--------------------------------------------------------

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them!

www.buckscaching.co.uk

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:

quote:
Originally posted by Travers:
I think a 'not found' should be posted if anyone can't find the box, but I wonder if newer people would think that this is an admission of defeat and maybe something 'negative'?

Comments?

i think there is a lot of truth in that. I remember I was gutted the first time I had to post a "not found" - it was Tomb Raider 1 I think. One of the intermediate clues defeated me and I got really annoyed thinking Scotty must have screwed up and wasted my afternoon. Fortunately, i checked the coordinates on my way back and realised I'd typed them in wrong so a rant at Scotty became a semi-amusing story about my own incompetence.

In fact, once you've calmed down and realised it's your own fault, not found logs are more fun to write than found logs.

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

That's so true...when I feel inspired I love writing up the 'not found' logs.

Everyone should have a diary methinks!

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TreeBeard (Pid):
Any chance of a foto of the cache lid MCL?? Some proof would be fantastic

Absolutely. I'll get right onto it as soon as i get up tomorrow afternoon.

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

January 27, 2003

Tim and June said:

quote:
Well that's good that is. Drive all that way, get tree stuff down your necks, (June even found some in her bra when we went to bed ), fall over in this muddy boggy streamlet/drain. Get scared witless by an owl and so on and so on.

Well I really can't be held responsible for the contents of your wife's bra! Look, what's the point of having good Admin if you can't send them off on a wild goose chase every once in a while... Actually, I suppose I could complain that *you* didn't find the lid yesterday and save *me* the bother today. Tsk...talk about unprofessional

quote:
Then you come on here and tell me it's gone. You couldn't do that yesterday could you.

LOL. So sorry about that. I really should have mentioned it earlier.. Oh yes so I did: November, I think it was

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

January 27, 2003

Hi everyone.

Forgive my ignorance (1st post & newbie - double trouble!) but I'm at a loss as to how I can locate archived caches for 'viewing' purposes. I'm sure I spotted a virtual cache at Hill Head, Hampshire on the web site while lurking recently but now I cannot locate it on the site anywhere. As it was(?) is(?) close to my home I was hoping to use it as a 'training' aid for me, the better half, the kids, the dog, the GPS etc etc ...

Cheers for now

motley. adj. varied in appearance or character.

crew. n. group of people.

January 27, 2003

Why didnt you say you had the cache lid before!!!1 actually you probably did and I failed to spot it if so then yes the cache is gone thats just obvious, i would never have disagreed with you

Its just a hunt for a lunch box, why be so serious!?!

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

January 27, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Dan Wilson:
Why didnt you say you had the cache lid before!!!1 actually you probably did and I failed to spot it if so then yes the cache is gone thats just obvious, i would never have disagreed with you

No I only found the lid yesterday (monday) afternoon...

I have now posted a picture of the lid on the cache page, and also since nobody answered my question about it, claimed the lid as a find.

Does anybody have any objections to that? I am open to debate. If the feeling is that I shouldn't claim a find without the log book, then I will 'unfind' it.

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[This message was edited by MCL on January 27, 2003 at 11:54 PM.]

January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MCL:
If the feeling is that I shouldn't claim a find without the log book, then I will 'unfind' it.

Personally I wouldn't claim a find unless I'd found the cache (intact) and signed the log. How can you find a cache that isn't there?

SimonG.org

January 28, 2003

It might be fun If MCL, Tim and June posted their track logs somewhere for us to compare just howmany times their paths had crossed..

1k · January 28, 2003

Hmmmmmmm yes that would be hilarious! do it!

--------------------------------------------------------

One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them!

www.buckscaching.co.uk

January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Motley Crew:
Hi everyone.

Forgive my ignorance (1st post & newbie - double trouble!) but I'm at a loss as to how I can locate archived caches for 'viewing' purposes. I'm sure I spotted a virtual cache at Hill Head, Hampshire on the web site while lurking recently but now I cannot locate it on the site anywhere. As it was(?) is(?) close to my home I was hoping to use it as a 'training' aid for me, the better half, the kids, the dog, the GPS etc etc ...

Cheers for now

motley. adj. varied in appearance or character.

crew. n. group of people.

"Newbies" ? "1st Post" ? "Trouble"? Nah! you're welcome.

Not exactly as you described but this one is a virtual at Hengistbury Head.

And this one is a traditional also at Hengistbury Head.

Neither of these two are archived though, and I don't recall one at Hill Head. Is it possible you misread it ?

It is difficult to find archived caches for obvious reasons. The only way I know is to look at the profile/caches found of someone who has already logged a find.

Tim & June (Winchester)

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

[This message was edited by Tim & June on January 28, 2003 at 01:24 AM.]

January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:
In fact, once you've calmed down and realised it's your own fault, not found logs are more fun to write than found logs.

Absolutely right! Not only can "Not found" logs be more fun to write but they can also me a lot more entertaining to read, particularly those that provide a catalog of disasters.

Oh, and having seen the picture of the lid on the cache page I'm still not convinced. How do we know the lid came from a geocache?

(I'm joking, honest!)

Rich

mobilis in mobili

[This message was edited by el10t on January 28, 2003 at 01:39 AM.]

January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Motley Crew:
Hi everyone.

Hi Motley Crew! Welcome aboard.

I live just up the road from you

Rich

mobilis in mobili

1.8k · January 28, 2003

Hey - isn't that a travel bug chain under "the lid" - surely you aren't sending the lid on its travels?!

January 28, 2003

You have found the cache so why not claim it I can see why you might not want to but you have found part of what was hidden by a cacher as a geocachce therefore you have definatly found half a cache, why not email jeremy about half finds being made possible

Its just a hunt for a lunch box, why be so serious!?!

Dan Wilson - www.Buckscaching.co.uk

January 28, 2003

MCL also logged 'Obelisk on the Prime meridian Line' as missing. This was then confirmed by 2 other cachers 2 months ago.

Why isn't he making a huge fuss about that and complaining to the moderaters. as of this post it is still active?

Originally MCL wrote several times asking us if he could claim a find for 'Lofty' I can not remember my answer, but I thik it was that it was up to him if he wanted to claim a find for a cache he said was not there.

We feel it is Presumptuous to say that because you can not find a cache, it is not there.

Obviously Finding the lid however is proof.

Tech-no notice

January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Nia:
as of this post it is still active?

But not any more. I have just taken a look and since their have been three failures to find, I have archived it, and e-mailed the cache owner.

In case people haven't realised, although the UK moderators now approve UK caches, we don't get the 'should be archived' messages sent to us if they are logged against UK caches. For that reason we don't usually find out about missing caches unless we come across the requests on the pages ourselves, or someone tells us about them.

If there are any caches such as Obelisk that you think should be archived it is worth e-mailing either ourselves or Tim and June and we can then do something about it.

Richard

January 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Richard & Beth:
If there are any caches such as Obelisk that you think should be archived it is worth e-mailing either ourselves or Tim and June and we can then do something about it.

If you're taking nominations, then we've got a long-held grudge against GCAA2

(Hasn't been found for over a year, owner's e-mail address no longer valid)

When should a cache get archived?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment