Multi gets archived becomes an HH years later

[+PnavE_81]

I just saw some logs from an event in the Netherlands. Apparently there was an Hitchhiker present. OK, great!

But the strange thing about this was that it wasn't a hitchhiker. It was a multi that was archived in 2010 after having been missing since 2009.

It has something to do with a trackable attatched to it it seems. I'm not around for that long, but this is the weardest thing I've seen so far...

 

the archived-multi-hh cache: http://coord.info/GCKNH5

and the trackable which seems to be attatched to it: http://coord.info/TBC3E5

[+cerberus1]

Yep, that's odd...

I could see folks discovering it now that the cache became a memorial TB, but also logging Found Its on the same item (a cache that's been archived since '10) to boot ?

 

"By visiting Ede's cache event, we could discover the traveling TB and hence also this cache!!!"

That is weird.

Edited October 25, 2014 by cerberus1

[+cheech gang]

AND now those folks from The Netherlands now all have a find in Canada. What is wrong with this picture?

[+irisisleuk]

Well on the TB-page it says "A small lock-n-lock container with a logbook and pen and a few trade items that can be logged as a cache find on my "Memories" cache page (GCKNH5) as well as being a TB. " , so I guess that is why people log the cache.

 

But what I do not understand is that nobody seems to notice/care that the cache is archived and you're not supposed to log an archived (4 years ago!) cache. Most funny comment (but meant seriously): "Bedankt voor het in stand houden ervan!" = Thanks for keeping this cache alive. So they really have no idea what they are doing.

 

That people log a cache that is in Canada, while they are not in Canada, is not an issue I think, since hitchhikers can be anywhere. I've found a hitchhiker from Belgium in the Netherlands, so I have a find in Belgium (and some more ) , nothing wrong with that. Although some won't log hitchhikers because they don't want to "mess up" their statistics.

 

I think the real issue here is that the multi cache isn't a real hitchhiker cache, it is archived and it should be locked. I once had a log on one of our archived multi caches. Someone from Germany had found a TB that had something attached to it saying: come visit this cache GC.... He then logged the cache, because he had found the GC-code on this trackable....Yep, people get the strangest ideas on when a cache is found or not), I just deleted the log.

[+PnavE_81]

Another strange thing about it is that the TB has been missing since 2005. Then it was found again in may 2013 and has some logs since then. Only on july 7th 2013 after it has been dropped it suddenly triggers some logs on the cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

The only odd thing will be if the archived cache page is NOT locked from further entries after this thread.

[+PnavE_81]

which is the only right action of course...

[+Bear and Ragged]

Resurrect a TB, yes.

Add a 'traveling cache' to it, yes.

 

Log a find on a long ago archived cache..?

 

At least some of those logging on the cache page have only posted Notes.

[JASTA 11]

How about a TB that becomes a travelling cache, then a '?' cache:

 

http://coord.info/GC42Z27

 

[+lamoracke]

My friend has a traveling benchmark one can log, but a little different than a cache.

[+dprovan]

But what I do not understand is that nobody seems to notice/care that the cache is archived and you're not supposed to log an archived (4 years ago!) cache.

I don't know where you got this, but there's no rule against logging an archived cache. It would be tacky to log an archived cache that you didn't physical find, but this is apparently a moving cache, so the people that have seen it have found it just like any other moving cache. (I didn't look at it, but it also sounds like this is an unauthorized moving cache, not one of the rare legitimate grandfathered moving caches, in which case it will soon be shut down.)

[Mr.Yuck]

Just remembered this one. The Key to Groundspeak was a blatant Moving cache taken to Mega events by a rather militant member of the DGS, who came here and tried to argue about it. Because hey, the DGS has been very, very quite lately.

[+JPreto]

I love these type of stories!!!!

 

1) Shows that people don´t respect the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

2) Shows that GS doens´t enforce people to respect their guidelines.

 

Great, just great...

[+tozainamboku]

I love these type of stories!!!!

 

1) Shows that people don´t respect the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

2) Shows that GS doens´t enforce people to respect their guidelines.

 

Great, just great...

3) Shows how easy it is to get someone's knickers in a twist.

[Keystone]

I love these type of stories!!!!

 

1) Shows that people don´t respect the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

2) Shows that GS doens´t enforce people to respect their guidelines.

 

Great, just great...

Regarding your second point, Geocaching HQ does not and cannot actively monitor millions of caches (including archived caches) for instances of abuse. When a situation is brought to the attention of Geocaching HQ or the relevant Volunteer Cache Reviewer, action can be taken on the individual listing.

 

In this instance the cache listing in question is now locked to any future logs. That action was taken within two days of when this thread was started. I'd call that "swift" given that the topic was started on a weekend.

[+JPreto]

I love these type of stories!!!!

 

1) Shows that people don´t respect the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

2) Shows that GS doens´t enforce people to respect their guidelines.

 

Great, just great...

Regarding your second point, Geocaching HQ does not and cannot actively monitor millions of caches (including archived caches) for instances of abuse. When a situation is brought to the attention of Geocaching HQ or the relevant Volunteer Cache Reviewer, action can be taken on the individual listing.

 

In this instance the cache listing in question is now locked to any future logs. That action was taken within two days of when this thread was started. I'd call that "swift" given that the topic was started on a weekend.

Why not automatic lock all archived caches after, lets say 6 months, just to put out a date... this would enforce users to respect the archival.

 

But again I say: "Some geocachers don´t respect GS guidelines and nothing is done... Or shouldn´t those find logs all be removed by GS, if GS tryed to enforce the guidelines?"

 

Just saying...

[Mr.Yuck]

I love these type of stories!!!!

 

1) Shows that people don´t respect the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

2) Shows that GS doens´t enforce people to respect their guidelines.

 

Great, just great...

Regarding your second point, Geocaching HQ does not and cannot actively monitor millions of caches (including archived caches) for instances of abuse. When a situation is brought to the attention of Geocaching HQ or the relevant Volunteer Cache Reviewer, action can be taken on the individual listing.

 

In this instance the cache listing in question is now locked to any future logs. That action was taken within two days of when this thread was started. I'd call that "swift" given that the topic was started on a weekend.

Why not automatic lock all archived caches after, lets say 6 months, just to put out a date... this would enforce users to respect the archival.

 

But again I say: "Some geocachers don´t respect GS guidelines and nothing is done... Or shouldn´t those find logs all be removed by GS, if GS tryed to enforce the guidelines?"

 

Just saying...

 

I've NEVER seen them remove logs in a case like this. Won't happen. Anywho, the cache owner's list of their last 20 finds goes way back to 08', and they haven't found a cache in almost 2 years. They won't even notice.

[+dprovan]

Why not automatic lock all archived caches after, lets say 6 months, just to put out a date... this would enforce users to respect the archival.

Why bother? Even when we look at this worst case -- not anything that happens very often -- it's not a big deal. I'm not even sure I'd bother to lock this one, although I don't question Groundspeak's decision to do so as a matter or routine.

 

So even if the archived caches serve no purpose beyond people logging 6 months after finding it, I still can't see any good reason to bother having an automatic super-archive state. But, in fact, logs of long archived caches can actually be quite useful in rare cases such as if the container is found years after the cache had been archived. It makes no sense to prevent that just because someone might possibly use an archived cache's log for playing around in a way that's not authorized.

 

The bottom line is that archived caches demand no respect, so none is enforced.

[+JPreto]

Why not automatic lock all archived caches after, lets say 6 months, just to put out a date... this would enforce users to respect the archival.

Why bother? Even when we look at this worst case -- not anything that happens very often -- it's not a big deal. I'm not even sure I'd bother to lock this one, although I don't question Groundspeak's decision to do so as a matter or routine.

 

So even if the archived caches serve no purpose beyond people logging 6 months after finding it, I still can't see any good reason to bother having an automatic super-archive state. But, in fact, logs of long archived caches can actually be quite useful in rare cases such as if the container is found years after the cache had been archived. It makes no sense to prevent that just because someone might possibly use an archived cache's log for playing around in a way that's not authorized.

 

The bottom line is that archived caches demand no respect, so none is enforced.

 

I´m not saying we shouldn´t be able to see what are the cache´s logs but to "enforce" people to follow the GS guidelines maybe they could disable the FOUND IT logs after some time... That´s all I´m saying!

 

Fact is, even tho cache listing is archived, people were still logging FOUND IT, against the guidelines, no?

 

Or wait, sorry, my mistake, as a matter of fact there isn´t any guideline that says: "you cannot log a FOUND IT after the cache has been archived". So you are right, the cache listing shouldn´t even be locked because, actually, it is not breaking any GS guideline and people should just start logging in APEs, Virtuals, Locationless and other types, just because they can!

 

But above all, have fun and don´t care about what others do...

[+briansnat]

How about a TB that becomes a travelling cache, then a '?' cache:

 

http://coord.info/GC42Z27

 

 

Retracted early on, then there was still some traveling cache shenanigans going on, archived again, and presumbably now in a permanent home? People are funny. Personally, I have no problem with traveling caches such as this, and log them on other websites where they're still allowed. But hey, the rules are the rules here. Or the guidelines are the guidelines, as they like to say.

 

Judging from the logs, I suspect that this "cache" was the cacher himself. Find him and you get to log the "cache".

[JASTA 11]

In this instance the cache listing in question is now locked to any future logs. That action was taken within two days of when this thread was started. I'd call that "swift" given that the topic was started on a weekend.

 

Swift?

 

I'd say more like freakin' light speed!

[+The A-Team]

Fact is, even tho cache listing is archived, people were still logging FOUND IT, against the guidelines, no?

No. As has already been stated, there's nothing in the guidelines on this website that prohibits logs on archived caches.

 

Or wait, sorry, my mistake, as a matter of fact there isn´t any guideline that says: "you cannot log a FOUND IT after the cache has been archived". So you are right, the cache listing shouldn´t even be locked because, actually, it is not breaking any GS guideline and people should just start logging in APEs, Virtuals, Locationless and other types, just because they can!

The guideline the referenced cache is breaking is the one about moving caches no longer being allowed. I can't find the right page right now, but it's around here somewhere. That the cache is archived has no relevance. As for logging a Locationless, go ahead and try. Really, try it! If you find one you can log, send me an email so I can log it too.

 

...and BTW, some people seem to be using the term "hitchhiker" wrong. A "hitchhiker" in this game is the item attached to a trackable tag (like a Travel Bug Dog Tag). A cache being carried around to events is called "pocket lint", while a cache that moves and gets rehidden in different spots is a "moving cache".

[+JPreto]

Ok. Let me try a different approach:

 

If there is nothing wrong with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why was it locked then?

 

or,

 

If indeed there is a problem with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why not delete the bogus logs?

 

Capiche? I like the incoherence, just that... "Covering the sun with a sieve" is not an option for me!

[Mr.Yuck]

Ok. Let me try a different approach:

 

If there is nothing wrong with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why was it locked then?

 

or,

 

If indeed there is a problem with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why not delete the bogus logs?

 

Capiche? I like the incoherence, just that... "Covering the sun with a sieve" is not an option for me!

 

Because they would tick off people who didn't think they were doing anything wrong, who got their logs deleted? (i.e. everyone else at the event was doing it). And they would get a log deletion notice, and it would presumably come from an official Geocaching.com Lackey account? They're just never going to go there, and do that.

[+niraD]

Fact is, even tho cache listing is archived, people were still logging FOUND IT, against the guidelines, no?

Not at all.

 

Some people are behind with their online logs. I've been several months behind myself. Others are (or have been) more than a year behind. Why not let them log their finds (from before the cache was archived)?

 

Some people create accounts after they've already found a bunch of caches. Perhaps they were tagging along with friends who have an account. Perhaps they were part of a team account that split up. But when they create their individual account, they can still log the caches they found with others, even if those caches have since been archived.

 

Sure, if the system is being abused, then it makes sense to lock the cache. But most archived caches are not abused.

[+jellis]

I can see logging an archived cache but now they made it an archived moving cache. According to the cache page the cache should be near the posted coords not traveling around the world especially when it was archived. Cachers should only be logging only the TB.

Edited October 28, 2014 by jellis

[+dprovan]

If there is nothing wrong with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why was it locked then?

To review, it was locked because it was moving, not because finds were being logged on it after it was archived.

 

If indeed there is a problem with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why not delete the bogus logs?

There's nothing bogus about logging a cache that you found even after it's been archived. As have been mentioned, some people can log years late, but in my case, I get a kick out of finding physical containers that weren't cleaned up when the cache was archived. I found the cache, I signed the log, I see no justification in preventing me from logging it just because it doesn't show up on the map anymore.

[JASTA 11]

There's nothing bogus about logging a cache that you found even after it's been archived. As have been mentioned, some people can log years late, but in my case, I get a kick out of finding physical containers that weren't cleaned up when the cache was archived. I found the cache, I signed the log, I see no justification in preventing me from logging it just because it doesn't show up on the map anymore.

 

+1

 

We've logged finds on archived caches that were still in place.

 

There are some multis around here that were archived by the CO because he was p-o'd with the reviewer. The guy put out some epic hides.

 

Most of them are still out there, and folks actively seek them out.

 

Like this one, archived in 2010: http://coord.info/GCHXBB

[+JPreto]

I would think that "archiving a cache" (better said archiving a cache listing, the cache could be there in the original place) had the goal of excluding the cache from being further searched by people that used the geocaching.com listing service because for some reason it shouldn´t be part of the game.

 

Maybe it´s just me being picky...

 

But, by the way, if you keep searching for archived caches, and you keep logging FOUND IT on them, what is the goal of archiving a cache?

[+PnavE_81]

To most logical thing to do when finding an archived cache is to take it home in my opinion. Since it's not listed anymore it just sits there as garbage. You can of course contact the CO that you have taken his container. As JPreto said, it is archived for a reason!

When the container indicates that it is now part of an other geocaching listing site community then you should leave it of course.

[JASTA 11]

Agreed, if you archive the listing - go recover the cache.

 

If it's still there however, why can't someone search and log a valid find?

 

Is there something unethical in this case?

 

Back in the day, the geocaching.com google maps used to show the location of archived caches.

[+lamoracke]

Agreed, if you archive the listing - go recover the cache.

 

If it's still there however, why can't someone search and log a valid find?

 

Is there something unethical in this case?

 

Back in the day, the geocaching.com google maps used to show the location of archived caches.

 

The major angst here is someone has taken that cache, likely the CO and is bringing it to events across the world, thus folks are finding a cache no longer at the listed coordinates, years after the fact, in effect making the CO himself a traveling cache which are not allowed under the guidelines.

 

Finding a cache at its listed coordinates despite being archived, I think most folks would not have a problem with that though there are some who would still not log it.

[+sbell111]

To most logical thing to do when finding an archived cache is to take it home in my opinion. Since it's not listed anymore it just sits there as garbage. You can of course contact the CO that you have taken his container. As JPreto said, it is archived for a reason!

When the container indicates that it is now part of an other geocaching listing site community then you should leave it of course.

What if the reason for archival is that the cache owner didn't want it listed on this site any longer. What if it is listed somewhere else? What if it isn't? Do we not take the position that a cache is the personal property of the cache owner?

 

I believe that removing an archived cache is certainly appropriate in some situations. However, I would not make a sweeping statement that all archived caches must be removed.

Edited October 28, 2014 by sbell111

[+PnavE_81]

thats why I included the last sentence

[+irisisleuk]

If there is nothing wrong with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why was it locked then?

To review, it was locked because it was moving, not because finds were being logged on it after it was archived.

 

If indeed there is a problem with logging a FOUND IT, 3 years after the cache has been archived why not delete the bogus logs?

There's nothing bogus about logging a cache that you found even after it's been archived. As have been mentioned, some people can log years late, but in my case, I get a kick out of finding physical containers that weren't cleaned up when the cache was archived. I found the cache, I signed the log, I see no justification in preventing me from logging it just because it doesn't show up on the map anymore.

 

I think you are now referring to another cache, not the one from the topic starter. Because I see nothing that indicates that the cache that started this topic is locked because it was moving. The cache wasn't moving, there was only a TB moving and finding the TB allowed (by the CO) cachers to log a find to a multi. This of course is strange, but more strange is that now people were logging a cache that was archived a long time ago. A cache that isn't there anymore (the multi), so it can't be logged and therefor the logs are bogus and so the cache is locked. Locked to prevent more cachers to log an archived multi that isn't there, but which was recently logged because on a TB page it says: go ahead and log my multi as well if you have found this TB. This has nothing to do with a moving cache or a hitchhiker.

 

And there is nothing wrong with people logging a cache they have found, as long as they have found it while it was there and not archived. Can't imagine why this would take years, but hey this might happen every one in a million logs, so no need to lock a cache after x months. But finding a cache years after it is archived years is just like finding a cache that isn't published: you didn't find a cache, you found a container of some sort. This container might have been a geocache once and now trash, but there is another possibility which I've seen several times: it is still a cache, just not on this website.

 

Side note: don't see anything wrong with logging a find when you found a cache that was just recently archived, but you didn't know this (for instance loaded caches into gps 2 weeks before going on a trip) and the cache was still there waiting to be removed by its owner. Some owners archive the cache and then wait 2/3 weeks before removing it, just to give those cachers who had it already stored in their gps and on their way to it, a chance to log it.

 

By the way I think use of the word hitchhiker when a moving cache is meant, is probably because there is a difference between (most) moving caches in the US and the ones in Europe. The ones from the US move to another location, not to another cache. While the ones that origin in Europe hitchhike via caches and cachers.

[+dprovan]

I would think that "archiving a cache" (better said archiving a cache listing, the cache could be there in the original place) had the goal of excluding the cache from being further searched by people that used the geocaching.com listing service because for some reason it shouldn´t be part of the game.

No, archiving a cache removes it from the list. This happens for many reasons, not all of which imply that there's any particular reason not to find the cache.

 

But, by the way, if you keep searching for archived caches, and you keep logging FOUND IT on them, what is the goal of archiving a cache?

There are many possible goals, and I'm all for respecting any archival done to prevent people from going to GZ. But even in that case, I can't imagine anyone involved in the archival caring whether I claim a find as long as I found the cache in a way that doesn't involve the problem that called for archival. The example that comes to mind is a cache archived because it was planted prematurely in an off limits area of a park under construction. I see no reason to prevent someone from logging a find on it after the park opens, since the reason it was archived is no longer pertinent.

 

Come to think of it, why do you care? Are you saying that I should consider it reasonable if you archive one of your cache listings, leave the container in place, and then get upset because I find it, sign the log, and claim the find? If you left a container you didn't intend to be found, you should clean it up, and me logging a find will remind you to do that.

 

To most logical thing to do when finding an archived cache is to take it home in my opinion. Since it's not listed anymore it just sits there as garbage. You can of course contact the CO that you have taken his container. As JPreto said, it is archived for a reason!

I've wrestled with this, but in the end I always leave it in place. I can't claim this is the correct behavior, but I figure if I hadn't looked for it at all, it would still be in place, too, so I don't feel any big responsibility to clean it up just because I decided to sign the log. The only time I'd pick up the container is if the CO asked that someone pick up the container. At any rate, whether I take the container with me is irrelevant to the issue of logging the find.

 

When the container indicates that it is now part of an other geocaching listing site community then you should leave it of course.

And if it doesn't say that it's now part of another geocaching listing site, I should ignore the possibility that it is even though the owner moving it to another site didn't bother to update the description on this archived listing I'm not supposed to see?

 

I think you are now referring to another cache, not the one from the topic starter.

Yes, sorry, I thought that was clear. I felt like the discussion of the obviously illegal cache was over, so I didn't think the diversion on this other topic was a problem. (But to be honest, if I'd seen that cache before it was locked, I would have logged it.)

 

Because I see nothing that indicates that the cache that started this topic is locked because it was moving. The cache wasn't moving, there was only a TB moving and finding the TB allowed (by the CO) cachers to log a find to a multi.

The way I'm reading it, the cache container itself was made into a TB, so that's why people were logging finds on the cache as well as the TB. Being a TB was legitimate, but also being a moving cache was why the cache listing, not the TB, was locked.

 

And there is nothing wrong with people logging a cache they have found, as long as they have found it while it was there and not archived.

Well, the question here is where "there" is. Yeah, geocaching.com didn't allow it, but some kind of Respect for Authority isn't a particular reason for me to not log a cache. On the other hand, if the authority finds out that their decision has been thwarted, I have no problem with them locking the cache to block me from logging it.

[+dprovan]

By the way I think use of the word hitchhiker when a moving cache is meant, is probably because there is a difference between (most) moving caches in the US and the ones in Europe. The ones from the US move to another location, not to another cache. While the ones that origin in Europe hitchhike via caches and cachers.

Interesting point. I didn't know that's how moving caches worked in Europe. But I think the real explanation is that it isn't really confusion: the cache, since it couldn't be published, was attached to a TB as a hitchhiker in the standard sense of the word. (Well, except hitchhikers are normally attached by someone other than the owner, but other than that, the cache is functioning just like any other hitchhiker.) In other words, it's a moving cache, but its implementation is as a hitchhiker.

[+tozainamboku]

I would think that "archiving a cache" (better said archiving a cache listing, the cache could be there in the original place) had the goal of excluding the cache from being further searched by people that used the geocaching.com listing service because for some reason it shouldn´t be part of the game.

 

Maybe it´s just me being picky...

 

But, by the way, if you keep searching for archived caches, and you keep logging FOUND IT on them, what is the goal of archiving a cache?

Depends on what magical powers you ascribe to the online log.

 

Caches are listed on Gecocaching.com as a way for the cache owner to inform the community that they have hidden a cache. Cache listings may be archived for a variety of reasons. Often this is because the cache owner believes the cache is no longer there (sometimes based purely on someone logging a DNF). Sometimes the cache owner is simply indicating they no longer want to deal with the maintenance they committed to when they hid the cache. Sometimes the cache no longer meets the guidelines for listing on Geocaching.com. Certainly there are cases where cache is archived because the cache owner or the property owner/manager does not want people to search for this cache anymore. This is rare and should be stated in the archive log.

 

The rules for challenge caches state that challenge geocaches must not require geocachers to log geocaches that are disabled or archived, but they don't forbid challenge owners from allowing people to use such caches to qualify if they want to. Other that this there are no rules that tie the online log to the state of the cache.

 

Many people will argue that they found a geocache and therefore posting a found log online is the appropriate thing to do. Sure some might determine this is an abandoned cache and will remove the container, and that might be appropriate in some cases. Some may decide for one reason or another to post a note instead of a found log - that is certainly allowed.

[+The A-Team]

...

But finding a cache years after it is archived years is just like finding a cache that isn't published: you didn't find a cache, you found a container of some sort.

...

Strange, I always thought this was a cache I found.

 

As has been stated several times in this discussion, there are many reasons why caches get archived, including some where the cache ceases to be a cache (ie. it's destroyed). However, in the example above, no reason was really specified* and I knew that there were no permission problems (access below the high-tide line is public in Canada), so the cache still seemed to be valid. As I mentioned in my log, the cache was still in good shape and easily recognizable as the cache, so I can't understand how someone could deem this to no longer be a cache.

 

As a reminder, the guidelines state "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.". There's no clause stating that a cache must be in an active state when found.

 

*...though the COs were becoming disenchanted with Groundspeak around that time, so they may have just stopped caring about it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I would think that "archiving a cache" (better said archiving a cache listing, the cache could be there in the original place) had the goal of excluding the cache from being further searched by people that used the geocaching.com listing service because for some reason it shouldn´t be part of the game.

 

I think that a fairly common sequence of events when a cache is archived by the owner is that archiving the listing happens first, then, hopefully the CO goes out and removes the container. If the container is removed first, there is going to be an active listing for a cache on peoples GPS devices for a cache that can't be found. A CO might even choose to leave the container in place a few days to allow those that had downloaded cache information when it was still active to find it.

 

Maybe it´s just me being picky...

 

But, by the way, if you keep searching for archived caches, and you keep logging FOUND IT on them, what is the goal of archiving a cache?

 

As someone else mentioned, there are cases where obvious abuse is taking place and generally GS *has* responded by locking the listing but it would be impractical to examine every archived cache for abuse. According to my stats, of the 1200 or so caches I've found, 561 of them have been archived. I don't know if that's typical, but the number of caches that are archived is quite significant, and would require quite a few people to monitor every archived listing for post archival logs. Who's going to do that? If you asked reviewers to do it, I suspect we'd lose a lot of experience reviewers. If GS hired staff to do it you couldn't pretty much guarantee that everyones PM fee would go up.

 

Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more common for some geocachers to try and game the system, but whether or not one characterizes your response as picky, but in this case at some point you might want to consider throwing in the towel.

[+JPreto]

As someone else mentioned, there are cases where obvious abuse is taking place and generally GS *has* responded by locking the listing but it would be impractical to examine every archived cache for abuse.

I thought we were in a information era, and that making a code that just sent a warning to Lakeys or Reviewers saying:

 

"The cache X was logged FOUND IT, and it is archived for over 6 months"

 

Is it that complicated? Are there so many caches in this situation? Will... Just power of will...

[+The A-Team]

I thought we were in a information era, and that making a code that just sent a warning to Lakeys or Reviewers saying:

 

"The cache X was logged FOUND IT, and it is archived for over 6 months"

 

Is it that complicated? Are there so many caches in this situation? Will... Just power of will...

...at which point the Lackey/Reviewer/whoever would need to look at the history of the cache to determine its status (container still in place or not? archived for permission issue or other reason?), inspect the log in detail, try to determine if it's valid or not, and decide if it needs to be deleted or the listing should be locked. Do you seriously propose that this be someone's job? Unless you're volunteering for this job, I don't foresee this happening.

 

Why not just accept that there are valid reasons for logging an archived cache and ignore any (potentially) bogus logs? How are they really affecting you anyway?

 

Edit to add: I'm not sure how this discussion veered off-track onto finding archived caches anyway. That wasn't the problem with the cache in the OP.

Edited October 28, 2014 by The A-Team

[+tozainamboku]

Are there so many caches in this situation?

Exactly. So why would anyone lose sleep that occassionally some "cheater" posts a find log on an archived cache?

 

Most of the cases occur when a team splits up. The member(s) who don't keep the account, want to start new geocahing accounts that reflect the find the made when there were part of the team. I don't think the reviewers would volunteer to be on-call to unlock caches one by one so these people could post their backdated finds.

 

After that are people who for one reason or another decide to look for an archived cache and find it. (Or they just happen upon the cache while searching for a new hiding spot). Many people feel they have found a cache and that the online find log is the proper way to report it. While you might have a personal preference to only log finds on active cache, that is your personal choice. Nowhere is there a rule saying that you can't log a find in this case. Again reviewers would not like to have to unlock pages so people could log, nor have to explain that you can't log the cache because it's been archived some arbitrary length of time.

 

As it stands, caches get locked now; particularly virtual caches that have no owner and a record of "couch potato" logs. I had a virtual that had been on my to do list for years. When I finally visited and got the required info, I discovered that the cache page had been locked. Initially I was pretty upset (even posted a thread). In the end I decided that logging online is not what makes caching enjoyable for me. I had fun finding the virtual. I found the information I was supposted to find. By my personsal count this is a find. but Groundspeak locked the page (because they hate vritrual caches), so I decide not to make a fuss about it, and leave it unlogged on GC.com. Frankly, if someone wants to log archived caches I couldn't care less. Even if they didn't actually find the cache, it's no skin off my nose.

 

To get back on topic; the problem here is not that people are logging an archived cache. The issue dates back to a decision made by TPTB regarding what they call pocket caches. It was becomming common for people to bring old (sometimes archived) caches to an event and let people sign the log. People who believe the great lie that if you signed the log you have found the cache, would sign the log and then log the find on it. They really didn't find any cache. They went to an event an signed a piece of paper in an old container that may have once been used as a geocache. TPTB wanted to make a statement that geocaching invovles at going to ground zero for a cache. (You might extend this by saying once at ground zero you need to find the cache - or sign the log, though that policy had not been enforced) Personally, I have been to events where such shenanigans went on. People seemed to have fun doing this. It didn't appeal to me since it didn't seem like geocaching. On the other hand, I didn't see any harm in it. People really do strange things when they ascribe magic properties to the online logs. As much as I laugh at the people who would log a pocket cache, what really cracks me up are the people who squirm in their uncomfortable twisted knickers when someone does it.

Edited October 28, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+JPreto]

I have all the caches that I picked up... total 140 caches!

 

I am going to Portugal and Spain next month, and I will take all my caches with me! Feel free to contact me to sign the logbooks. Once in a lifetime opportunity to log FOUND IT in 140 Brazilian caches.

 

Really Toz?!?!? Why would you, GS or any other geocacher worry about this!

 

PS: And by the way, if you can´t find me just place a TD and everything will be fine...

Edited October 29, 2014 by JPreto

[+niraD]

140 Brazilian caches.

Wow, that's a LOT of caches!

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't see any difference between this cache and the one mentioned in this thread . Both are abusing the log system with asinine, counterfeit logs, other than this one is outlawed and locked quickly, while the other has been practiced for 10 years by hundreds of people. In fact, the logs on this cache are more coherent than the other. As a result it appears that temporary caches are more legit than pocket caches, and the world is full of sheep.