Inactive Owners...

1.3k · March 31, 2004

I've had this cache: Noxubee Wildlife Refuge Stash on my watch list because it's the 2nd oldest active cache in my state. Here in the last week or so, some strange things concerning it have taken place. The owner - who has been inactive for quite some time (and only has 1 hide and 1 find) started deleting legitimate finds by people who geocached in groups. In his profile it says:

Latest news:
In my personal opinion, only one person should log a visit if multiple people visit the site at the same time. Or rather, one logging for one GPS unit.

Biography:

I'm originally from Clinton, MS. I was the 2nd geocacher in MS, but I don't even own a GPS receiver. I haven't even visited my cache since I first planted it in Dec 2000. My old roommate has the same name as geocaching.com's founder.

He's deleted quite a few finds. From what I can gather he hasn't replied to the geocachers who have emailed him concerning the deletions. Some of them have logged their finds again - as well as requested it be archived since it's not being maintained and is on a NWR. I think he's deleted at least one of the archival notes.

I just don't get this.... (I'll admit I'm posting it to bring it to the attention of the admin - but I feel it's worth discussing).

Should a cache owner who isn't maintianing his cache be able to pop up out of the blue and make his own rules?

southdeltan

24.7k · March 31, 2004

That's the tradtion. Your cache your rules. Even so group finds have long since passed out of the area of controversy into acceptable.

It begs a couple of questions. First should a log 'grandfather' after a reasonable time so it can't be modified or deleted by the owner? This would of solved this problem and the problem where a cache owner gets the bright idea of re-using the cache waypoint by deleting all the logs and making it into a new cache.

The second is that idea of having a 'rulebook of fair play'. The idea went over like a lead brick but it gives cachers a standard to suscribe too. This isn't a rule book for a site but something that summeraizes everything we have learned and debated in the forums. "Yes it's ok to log a find if you are part of a group".

There is a third thing. Some groups actually have everyone find the cache. The first sees it, wanders off then says "found it" then the second does the same and so on until everyone has actually found the cache. That should meet with even his vision of solo finds.

38.2k · March 31, 2004

His cache, his rules, but to implement the rule 3 years later and retroactively enforce it is ridiculious.

BTW, the cache should be archived because it's placed in a Nationa Wildlife Refuge against regulations.

Edited March 31, 2004 by briansnat

1.3k · March 31, 2004

Agreed. I think the general concern among the locals was (aside from the fact that this rule is stupid) the fact that the logs were months and in some cases years old. IF they violated some rule, they should have been deleted in a reasonable amount of time.

I think that the cache has been hit with 2 "should be archived" logs - due to it's placement. One has been deleted.

southdeltan

4k · March 31, 2004

Well, since the owner admits to not maintaining the cache, and several logs complain about the cache being wet and in serious decline, perhaps a mysterious muggle could abscond with it, and thusly get it archived to protect logs and our relationship with NWR personnel. :lol:

3.9k · March 31, 2004

Well, since the owner admits to not maintaining the cache, and several logs complain about the cache being wet and in serious decline, perhaps a mysterious muggle could abscond with it, and thusly get it archived to protect logs and our relationship with NWR personnel.

I don't think that would protect the logs. Once a cache is archived the owner can still go in and delete logs as he wishes. I think it's BS that he's deleting logs. Maybe someone can adopt the cache. That would be the best case scenario. The legit logs will not get deleted, the second oldest cache in the state can remain active and an new cache owner will maintain it.

Edited March 31, 2004 by JMBella

5k · March 31, 2004

I'd better check to make sure my log hasn't been deleted!

Jamie

March 31, 2004

His cache, his rules, but to implement the rule 3 years later and retroactively enforce it is ridiculious.

I agree. This is just silly.

The folks at geocaching.com can restore logs. Perhaps those affected should contact them.

BTW, the cache should be archived because it's placed in a Nationa Wildlife Refuge against regulations.

Probably not placed against regulations, given its age. Has the particular refuge requested it be removed?

24.7k · March 31, 2004

...

BTW, the cache should be archived because it's placed in a Nationa Wildlife Refuge against regulations.

Probably not placed against regulations, given its age. Has the particular refuge requested it be removed?

Good point. An owner issue doesn't mean a cache issue.

1.6k · March 31, 2004

I'd better check to make sure my log hasn't been deleted!

Jamie

I remember seeing somewhere that you get an email automatically whenever someone deletes one of your logs.

Very useful feature in this case as the owner is well out of order.

MarcB

1.3k · March 31, 2004

Latest news:
In my personal opinion, only one person should log a visit if multiple people visit the site at the same time. Or rather, one logging for one GPS unit.

One log per "GPS unit."

I don't know about most people, but the few times I've went with a group, I've always had my own GPSr, and the other people had their own GPSrs. How does he know who does/doesn't have GPSrs in a group?

1.3k · March 31, 2004

Latest news:
In my personal opinion, only one person should log a visit if multiple people visit the site at the same time. Or rather, one logging for one GPS unit.

One log per "GPS unit."

I don't know about most people, but the few times I've went with a group, I've always had my own GPSr, and the other people had their own GPSrs. How does he know who does/doesn't have GPSrs in a group?

I was thinking the same thing

southdeltan

1.5k · March 31, 2004

One log per "GPS unit."

So does this mean, if two of us find the cache but we take 3 GPSr's, one of us can log twice ?

March 31, 2004

The owner takes some flak because of log deletion which finders consider unfair? That's how the things are supposed to be. The only check/balance against arbitrary log deletion is the outcry of the cachers.

But you are now trying to get TPTB involved, up to the point where you suggest archiving one of the oldest caches? That's poor sportsmanship. You care about a tiny increase in the count of your finds so much more than about the origins of the sport.

March 31, 2004

While I usually solo cache, I would think that group caching would be acceptable for safety reasons in some areas. Since I haven't gone after this particular cache, I don't know if it would apply for this one or not.

March 31, 2004

His cache, his rules, but to implement the rule 3 years later and retroactively enforce it is ridiculious.

I agree. This is just silly.

The folks at geocaching.com can restore logs. Perhaps those affected should contact them.

BTW, the cache should be archived because it's placed in a Nationa Wildlife Refuge against regulations.

Probably not placed against regulations, given its age. Has the particular refuge requested it be removed?

Nope. I know of one local cacher that has spoken with refuge officers at Noxubee NWR about geocaching, and the response he got was that as long as geocaching does not become a problem (i.e. placed in areas that are off limits) they don't mind it. In fact, several of the officers at Noxubee have logs in the log book of the cache in question in this thread as well as others in the refuge, and because of the bushwhacking required to get to most of them tells me that at one time they used a GPS to get to them and actively checked out what Geocaching was.

The thing that really gets me about the cache in question is that the owner says one log per GPS unit. OK, that's fine with me, but when I found it along with possum389 we both had GPS units with us, hence two logs should be allowed by the owner's criteria. However, the cache owner didn't ask possum if he had one with him and deleted his log.

1.3k · March 31, 2004

But you are now trying to get TPTB involved, up to the point where you suggest archiving one of the oldest caches? That's poor sportsmanship. You care about a tiny increase in the count of your finds so much more than about the origins of the sport.

If you'll read my post - you'll see that I've had this on my watchlist. This cache is clear on the other side of the state from me and I've never gone after it. I never said I was trying to get it archived.

Several of the finders have posted archived notes. I know both of these guys and I am quite sure they never thought to email GC.com admin. They emailed the cache owner several times and recieved no reply (although he has posted a smug note). They hit the archival button because the cache is on a NWR. Was that the best thing to do? Maybe not but the archival note gets sent to GC.com admin - so they're aware of it now.

Nobody likes seeing old caches get archived (especially some of the oldest in the state) but it happens.

This brings up lots of different things for discussion - so I posted it for everybody to see.

I like the idea that logs get locked after a certain amount of time - although there may be some problems with that, I'm sure that'll be pointed out.

It also brings up caches on NWR's. I know of one cache being yanked by NWR Rangers. I know none are being approved there. I know tha most of the ones by active cachers in MS were archived by the owners. There are several that are still out there with MIA owners. If the individual NWR doesn't have a problem - is there a problem?

southdeltan

March 31, 2004

Is it possible that the cache owners account got hijacked and someone is just being a pain in the neck? Why would a person even care what was logged if he/she doesn't play the game anymore?

4.1k · March 31, 2004

This is why benchmark hunting is so nice. No one can delete your logs....

John

March 31, 2004

I love the Noxubee NWR and I really enjoyed finding the cache in question.

Given the bushwhacking involved, I'd be stunned if a muggle found it.

1.4k · March 31, 2004

Strange how things happen.

Today I was just thinking the same thing about what appears to be inactive cachers and caches that are still active, and in good use. Some of the cachers haven't had but one find and one hide and last visited the GC site more than a year ago.

My questions are several:

Are they maintaining their cache per the guidelines?

Are they still "active" cachers? ie: sockpuppet

Who (if anybody) should ask the questions to GC/Admins with concerns about

proper cache compliance? (As we all know and hopefully follow) Obviously

the caches will be in fairly decent shape or the "should archive" feature

button will be used time and again by visitors.

This came about during a boring stretch at work so I headed to the last page of Co. caches and worked backwards. I noted the hide dates and the recent find dates. HEY! I said I was bored!

2.5k · March 31, 2004

People are just weird?

What's the point in going back to undo a cache log for multiple logs? And how much time would that take if we're talking about one of the oldest in the state?

If he's deleting logs where a group with different handles went at the same time, is he deleting logs where someone accidentally or coincidentally ran into another cacher? Better yet, what about groups who cache with just one gpsr and one user name even though they're a group of four or five? Is the person going to delete those too?

March 31, 2004

One log per "GPS unit."

Does this mean that someone who finds the cache without a GPSr, like himself, can't claim a find?

Following that logic, it's not really a cache because he didn't have a GPSr to place it with.... right?

4k · March 31, 2004

Well, since the owner admits to not maintaining the cache, and several logs complain about the cache being wet and in serious decline, perhaps a mysterious muggle could abscond with it, and thusly get it archived to protect logs and our relationship with NWR personnel.

I don't think that would protect the logs. Once a cache is archived the owner can still go in and delete logs as he wishes. I think it's BS that he's deleting logs. Maybe someone can adopt the cache. That would be the best case scenario. The legit logs will not get deleted, the second oldest cache in the state can remain active and an new cache owner will maintain it.

Yeah, I know. That was mostly said tongue-in-cheek....I seriously doubt that adoption is a possibility, considering the owners recent activity with it. He seems a tad too selfish to let anyone take it over....it is very bizarre behavior.

I do hate to see any active cache get archived, and though I don't care about my numbers, I hate to see people lose the logs that they worked hard to claim by finding a cache.

1.3k · April 1, 2004

For better or worse, this one's been archived.

sd

2.3k · April 1, 2004

This is why benchmark hunting is so nice. No one can delete your logs....

John

This scenario is one of the reasons I DON'T log online, and keep track of my own finds myself....

9.4k · April 1, 2004

This is why benchmark hunting is so nice. No one can delete your logs....

John

This scenario is one of the reasons I DON'T log online, and keep track of my own finds myself....

It's ok, 360...I won't delete your logs

CO

April 1, 2004

Interesting topic.

While I "understand" some people not liking the idea of group finds, there are a couple things to consider here.

First, one find per GPS doesn't make sense. I have been on sevral "group hunts," and I often do not turn my GPS on - do we really need 3 GPS units to get to the general area of the cache? On several of these hunts, I was the person to make the actual find in spite of not having my unit turned on - we all know that the GPSr may not put you on top of the cache...

Second, as a solo cacher-girl, there are places that I would not have gone on a hunt alone - either because it was too far afield, in a place I am completely unfamiliar with, or required a hike that I would have felt was too far to make alone in the woods. Hunting with a group has meant that I have been able to visit, and appreciate, areas that I would not have visited alone. Because of my caching buddies, I was able to do a 4 mile hike in 12 inches of snow 2.5 hours from home - a wonderful experience I wouldn't have had if I always cached alone.

Yes, I have on ocassion felt a touch cheesy logging a find when I wasn't the one who actually reached under the log to grab the cache - but it's not like I waited in the car and had someone bring the cache back to me! And I always log my DNFs, whether alone or with a group.

Groups are welcome at any of my caches - in my opinion, if you made the hike, turned over some stones, appreciated the area or the history, signed the log, and traded fairly, it's all good.

4k · April 1, 2004

in my opinion, if you made the hike, turned over some stones, appreciated the area or the history, signed the log, and traded fairly, it's all good.

9.4k · April 1, 2004

Second, as a solo cacher-girl, there are places that I would not have gone on a hunt alone - either because it was too far afield, in a place I am completely unfamiliar with, or required a hike that I would have felt was too far to make alone in the woods. Hunting with a group has meant that I have been able to visit, and appreciate, areas that I would not have visited alone. Because of my caching buddies, I was able to do a 4 mile hike in 12 inches of snow 2.5 hours from home - a wonderful experience I wouldn't have had if I always cached alone.

I agree. Hunting in groups is sometimes necessary. I'm planning on leaving a cache in a remote area of a state park where there are mountain lions and bears. Going alone could be dangerous, and could even be deadly. (I will of course list this information in the cache description and rate the cache accordingly)

Does this mean that it isn't geocaching just because everyone who searches for the cache will likely be in a group? Heck no!

CO

Edited April 1, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

April 1, 2004

This is why benchmark hunting is so nice. No one can delete your logs....

John

This scenario is one of the reasons I DON'T log online, and keep track of my own finds myself....

Team 360 if you ever visit one of my caches, I promise to never delete it. I like hearing what people have to say about my cache, the state it is in and what they thought of it.

1.5k · April 1, 2004

Although at least 90% of my finds have been solo, the few I have done with a partner or group have been some of my more memorable ones. Usually, everybody present is active in the hunt, and sometimes there is the added fun of a little competition to see who can spot the container first. Since everybody takes part, I can't see why only one should get the find.

April 1, 2004

How does one go about deleting a log on a cache that he owns?

Example..someone gives out too much info about the hunt.

OBG

April 1, 2004

If you really feel the need to delete a log, there is a link under each one that gives you the option to "view the log on a separate page." On that page, you can edit, delete or encrypt it (I think).

In the spirit of niceness, you may want to consider just encrypting the log to begin with, and then sending the cacher an e-mail stating your concerns and asking him to edit out the "over information" in his log. If you get no response in a reasonable amount of time, then delete the log if you feel the info compromises the difficulty rating on the cache.

Inactive Owners...

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

Join the conversation