What's The Deal?

[Prairie Jeepin]

What's the deal (rules) with Archived Caches? The ones with the lines through them?

 

Can I or can't I do them? And why not if I can't? Does it matter? Can they be logged if one finds a lost one? bla bla bla and a million more questions.

 

There's a couple I'd like to do, and are within reach &c, but I don't know the ettiquette.

 

I've seen a few that without a Year in the date (why do people log like that? minus the year?) it's hard to tell if they have been done recently or before they were archived.

 

Simply so -- what's the deal on these? Are they out of bounds?

 

PJ

[+geojeeper74]

Almost always, caches are archived because they no longer exist. Therefore, it would be pointless to try and hunt them. I suppose if you did actually find one you could log it a find but you should then remove it because most people ignore archived caches and its basically geotrash.

 

The logs without years are ones that were written in the current year. Once 2005 comes, the year will be displayed.

[+briansnat]

A red line is an archived cache. A blue line is a cache that has been temporarialy disabled by the owner for some reason..

 

If you happen on one, its Ok to log it, but its not a great idea to go after them, because in most instances they probably are gone.

Edited September 18, 2004 by briansnat

[+geojeeper74]

I just looked at your profile and noticed all you have found are locationless caches and realized that is probably the type of caches your are talking about. I personally think it would be considered bad ettiquette to log an archived locationless but people continue to do it. I dont think the geocaching police will show up at your door if you log one.

[+Melrose Plant]

Sometimes, archived caches are right there where the hider left them, only for some reason or other, the hider archived the cache. I can think of one instance of this where the hider was from out of town, and the logs kept saying the cache was totally waterlogged inside. The person eventually archived the cache, and it would still be there today had I not removed the geo-junk.

 

However, as the weight-loss ads always say, " results not typical."

Edited September 18, 2004 by Balboagirl

[Prairie Jeepin]

Thanks for the replies, on both accounts.

 

Yes all I have done to date is locationless caches. It is actually the dates posted on one locationless cache that prompted this question. They showed what would be current dates for "finds" which is what had me wondering.

 

I now have the answers I was looking for and understand the situation better. I will consider these as "closed to further finds".

 

Perhaps there should be a lock on additional logs for these caches to prevent this confusion or "illegal find" logging?

 

PJ

[+Jamie Z]

Perhaps there should be a lock on additional logs for these caches to prevent this confusion or "illegal find" logging?

There are a few instances where logging a find after archival would be acceptable. Such as when you find a cache, and it is subsequently archived before you get a chance to log it.

 

In one case, I accidently stumbled upon a container for a cache which had been assumed lost and archived several months prior. The consensus in the forums was for me to log a find.

 

Jamie

[+Renegade Knight]

Perhaps there should be a lock on additional logs for these caches to prevent this confusion or "illegal find" logging?

There are a few instances where logging a find after archival would be acceptable. Such as when you find a cache, and it is subsequently archived before you get a chance to log it.

 

In one case, I accidently stumbled upon a container for a cache which had been assumed lost and archived several months prior. The consensus in the forums was for me to log a find.

 

Jamie

As Jamie says. It depends.

 

Sometimes a log is a good thing and sometimes not.