question about getting rid of caches

[+Off Grid]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

[+J Grouchy]

Why are you trying to "get rid of caches" in the first place?

[+Manville Possum]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Looks like your reviewer archived a few for you. Which ones did you archive?

[+igator210]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Just for clarification... are you asking about archiving your own caches? Or trying to archive someone else's cache?

[Pup Patrol]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Clear communication is key to everything.

 

Are you talking about caches that you placed? Are you talking about your caches that have been archived?

 

If you have archived caches of yours, you need to get out there and remove the container.

 

Once you have archived YOUR cache, then that location is open to other people placing new caches there. Is that a problem for you for some reason?

 

If you are talking about caches owned by other people, I don't understand what your point is. Are you talking about logging "NA" on caches?

 

Perhaps if you gave GC codes of what you are talking about, we could see for ourselves what the circumstances are.

 

B.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Pup Patrol

[Pup Patrol]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Looks like your reviewer archived a few for you. Which ones did you archive?

 

https://coord.info/GC3M8D3 archived by CO

https://coord.info/GC3M8DK archived by CO after prompting by Reviewer for action on the "disabled" status for a year

https://coord.info/GC3MNFA disabled by CO, prompt from Reviewer, no response from CO, archived by Reviewer

 

Communication is key again.

 

B.

[+bflentje]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Looks like your reviewer archived a few for you. Which ones did you archive?

 

https://coord.info/GC3M8D3 archived by CO

https://coord.info/GC3M8DK archived by CO after prompting by Reviewer for action on the "disabled" status for a year

https://coord.info/GC3MNFA disabled by CO, prompt from Reviewer, no response from CO, archived by Reviewer

 

Communication is key again.

 

B.

 

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

[+niraD]

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

Well, when the original communication is unclear, sometimes those on the receiving end have to do a little sleuthing to figure out what was probably intended.

 

But posting an ambiguous complaint and walking away from the thread smells like trolling to me. That's much worse than any supposed "geo-stalking" I've seen on this thread.

[+Manville Possum]

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

Trolls and Geo-Stalkers?

[+Team Microdot]

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

You say that as if the information wasn't already freely available online

[+bflentje]

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

You say that as if the information wasn't already freely available online

 

No, I am quite aware of it being freely available. I often wonder what kind of person it takes to dig up the dirt, even if it's truly dirt, just to shove it into someone's face online. I also suggest you shouldn't just post and walk away from it either.. unless of course it's me doing it.

[+Team Microdot]

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

You say that as if the information wasn't already freely available online

 

No, I am quite aware of it being freely available. I often wonder what kind of person it takes to dig up the dirt, even if it's truly dirt, just to shove it into someone's face online. I also suggest you shouldn't just post and walk away from it either.. unless of course it's me doing it.

 

I see it a different way.

 

I've been chastised in the past on here for not being kind enough to non-native English speaking posters.

 

As I see it Pup Patrol was kind enough to help clarify the OP's position by summarising relevant information here, saving the OP from any potential difficulty in communicating effectively.

[+The A-Team]

If you are talking about caches owned by other people, I don't understand what your point is. Are you talking about logging "NA" on caches?

It's been a while since we had a good, non-productive off grid discussion...

 

They live in my area, so I can confirm that they have not logged any NAs.

 

I have no further local insight to provide at this time, but I have a guess. I'm wondering if some people logged the archived - but apparently still present - caches, and off grid improperly deleted the finds under the misguided impression that archived caches can't be logged as found. The caches in question aren't too far from me, so I'll see if I can check them out sometime soon to confirm whether the containers are still there and whether there are recent signatures on the log.

 

@off grid: If you return to this discussion and my guess above is correct, then you need to understand that people are allowed to log archived caches if they're still there. If you don't like this, you need to go out and retrieve the containers you abandoned, and then the logs will stop.

[+L0ne.R]

@off grid: If you return to this discussion and my guess above is correct, then you need to understand that people are allowed to log archived caches if they're still there. If you don't like this, you need to go out and retrieve the containers you abandoned, and then the logs will stop.

 

^^

Worth repeating.

 

[+niraD]

@off grid: If you return to this discussion and my guess above is correct, then you need to understand that people are allowed to log archived caches if they're still there. If you don't like this, you need to go out and retrieve the containers you abandoned, and then the logs will stop.

Also, even after a cache has been removed and archived (or archived and removed), people are allowed to log Finds that occurred while the cache was active.

 

For example, some people are weeks/months/years behind on their logging. And others log their finds under a group account, and then later decide to create an individual account and relog their past finds under the individual account.

[+NanCycle]

If you are talking about caches owned by other people, I don't understand what your point is. Are you talking about logging "NA" on caches?

It's been a while since we had a good, non-productive off grid discussion...

 

They live in my area, so I can confirm that they have not logged any NAs.

 

I have no further local insight to provide at this time, but I have a guess. I'm wondering if some people logged the archived - but apparently still present - caches, and off grid improperly deleted the finds under the misguided impression that archived caches can't be logged as found. The caches in question aren't too far from me, so I'll see if I can check them out sometime soon to confirm whether the containers are still there and whether there are recent signatures on the log.

 

@off grid: If you return to this discussion and my guess above is correct, then you need to understand that people are allowed to log archived caches if they're still there. If you don't like this, you need to go out and retrieve the containers you abandoned, and then the logs will stop.

Responding to the part I bolded: maybe the low-down throwdowners have been at it, and maybe that's what the thread is all about. If that's the case, deleting the on-line logs is the right thing to do.

 

@ The A-Team: if you do go out and check on the caches, check also if the only sigs on the logs are recent.

[+The A-Team]

...maybe the low-down throwdowners have been at it, and maybe that's what the thread is all about. If that's the case, deleting the on-line logs is the right thing to do.

 

@ The A-Team: if you do go out and check on the caches, check also if the only sigs on the logs are recent.

Good call. I'll check for that too.

[+Off Grid]

@off grid: If you return to this discussion and my guess above is correct, then you need to understand that people are allowed to log archived caches if they're still there. If you don't like this, you need to go out and retrieve the containers you abandoned, and then the logs will stop.

 

^^

Worth repeating.

 

its archived for a reason or disabled for a reason the last two caches i tried to archive that the reviewer ended up doing were because people felt the need to keep putting a container back there after it was taken away to be archived. so that was an issue. and when you remove the container why do you feel the need to put another back

 

and in response to the other stuff you decided to add like that you know i live in your area and here comes another non productive. was that really relevant? no so keep it to yourself

[+Off Grid]

@off grid: If you return to this discussion and my guess above is correct, then you need to understand that people are allowed to log archived caches if they're still there. If you don't like this, you need to go out and retrieve the containers you abandoned, and then the logs will stop.

 

^^

Worth repeating.

 

 

your just assuming i left the containers there ...yep cause i would do that.......i took them away other people kept putting them back. so lets not just assume

[+narcissa]

 

its archived for a reason or disabled for a reason the last two caches i tried to archive that the reviewer ended up doing were because people felt the need to keep putting a container back there after it was taken away to be archived. so that was an issue. and when you remove the container why do you feel the need to put another back

 

Why didn't you just archive them after you removed the containers? Why leave the listings active if you wanted them to be archived?

[+The A-Team]

its archived for a reason or disabled for a reason the last two caches i tried to archive that the reviewer ended up doing were because people felt the need to keep putting a container back there after it was taken away to be archived. so that was an issue. and when you remove the container why do you feel the need to put another back

I'm confused.

 

St. Mary's: You disabled it in order to fix it, but then there was no further action from you. The cache was archived by a reviewer because you took no action to either fix the cache or archive it yourself. There's no evidence that anyone (including yourself) placed a replacement container when it was disabled or archived.

 

Logging Cowichan: You disabled it after a string of DNFs, but then later seekers located the original container. Despite this, you left the cache disabled for over a year until a reviewer asked you what you were going to do about it, at which point you archived it. There's no evidence that anyone (including yourself) placed a replacement container when it was disabled or archived.

 

Somenos Bricks: You disabled the cache apparently as a result of long-standing maintenance issues. Several weeks later, after you apparently hadn't done anything with the container yet, a helpful previous finder dried out the container. A few months later, you decided to archive it. There's no evidence that anyone (including yourself) placed a replacement container when it was disabled or archived.

 

and in response to the other stuff you decided to add like that you know i live in your area and here comes another non productive. was that really relevant? no so keep it to yourself

With regard to the "non-productive" comment, I was out of line and I apologize.

 

The reason I stated we live in the same area was to confirm to a previous poster that you hadn't logged any Needs archive logs in the area.

[+J Grouchy]

its archived for a reason or disabled for a reason the last two caches i tried to archive that the reviewer ended up doing were because people felt the need to keep putting a container back there after it was taken away to be archived. so that was an issue. and when you remove the container why do you feel the need to put another back

I'm confused.

 

St. Mary's: You disabled it in order to fix it, but then there was no further action from you. The cache was archived by a reviewer because you took no action to either fix the cache or archive it yourself. There's no evidence that anyone (including yourself) placed a replacement container when it was disabled or archived.

 

Logging Cowichan: You disabled it after a string of DNFs, but then later seekers located the original container. Despite this, you left the cache disabled for over a year until a reviewer asked you what you were going to do about it, at which point you archived it. There's no evidence that anyone (including yourself) placed a replacement container when it was disabled or archived.

 

Somenos Bricks: You disabled the cache apparently as a result of long-standing maintenance issues. Several weeks later, after you apparently hadn't done anything with the container yet, a helpful previous finder dried out the container. A few months later, you decided to archive it. There's no evidence that anyone (including yourself) placed a replacement container when it was disabled or archived.

 

So maybe the thread should have been a question about how to maintain one's caches and communicate effectively to the caching public and the reviewers who publish the OP's caches...

[+SwineFlew]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Looks like your reviewer archived a few for you. Which ones did you archive?

 

https://coord.info/GC3M8D3 archived by CO

https://coord.info/GC3M8DK archived by CO after prompting by Reviewer for action on the "disabled" status for a year

https://coord.info/GC3MNFA disabled by CO, prompt from Reviewer, no response from CO, archived by Reviewer

 

Communication is key again.

 

B.

 

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

I noticed this behavior around here. Some people really need to go outside and find more caches.

[+Team Microdot]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Looks like your reviewer archived a few for you. Which ones did you archive?

 

https://coord.info/GC3M8D3 archived by CO

https://coord.info/GC3M8DK archived by CO after prompting by Reviewer for action on the "disabled" status for a year

https://coord.info/GC3MNFA disabled by CO, prompt from Reviewer, no response from CO, archived by Reviewer

 

Communication is key again.

 

B.

 

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

I noticed this behavior around here. Some people really need to go outside and find more caches.

 

The hypocrisy is eye watering

[+TriciaG]

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

If people are still placing throwdowns and logging them after the cache has been removed, I suggest contacting the reviewer to lock the cache listing(s). This will prevent anyone logging the cache at all.

 

It's a drastic measure, though, and not one to be done on all caches. There are legitimate reasons to post a log to a cache after it's been archived (such as someone being behind on their logging of found caches, someone splitting a caching account and logging past finds onto the new account, etc.). But if a cache listing is being abused, it's an option.

 

I'm confused.

 

St. Mary's: You disabled it in order to fix it, but then there was no further action from you. The cache was archived by a reviewer because you took no action to either fix the cache or archive it yourself. There's no evidence that anyone (including yourself) placed a replacement container when it was disabled or archived.

[snip]

I assumed that the CO/OP deleted the false, after-archival logs, so the logs he's complaining about aren't visible. *shrug*

[+SwineFlew]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Looks like your reviewer archived a few for you. Which ones did you archive?

 

https://coord.info/GC3M8D3 archived by CO

https://coord.info/GC3M8DK archived by CO after prompting by Reviewer for action on the "disabled" status for a year

https://coord.info/GC3MNFA disabled by CO, prompt from Reviewer, no response from CO, archived by Reviewer

 

Communication is key again.

 

B.

 

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

I noticed this behavior around here. Some people really need to go outside and find more caches.

 

The hypocrisy is eye watering

Really? I just found a cache today. Plus I am not here everyday like some of you guys. I got a life but not sure about some of you guys.

[+The A-Team]

I just found a cache today.

Congratulations. However, I fail to see how that's in any way related to the discussion at hand.

 

...unless the cache you found was one of off grid's archived caches...

[+Team Microdot]

So Im not understanding something here.

 

I try and get rid of geocaches to help out the area and have new ones come into the area.

 

I repeat try and get rid of them and its nothing but a whine fest. You get someone who wants them to stay there I guess I archived three of them and they still said oh they are there and people were still going to them. So theres supposed to be no geocache there or anything and someone there is one after its being removed. Why do some geocachers feel self entitled to keep a cache there?

 

Looks like your reviewer archived a few for you. Which ones did you archive?

 

https://coord.info/GC3M8D3 archived by CO

https://coord.info/GC3M8DK archived by CO after prompting by Reviewer for action on the "disabled" status for a year

https://coord.info/GC3MNFA disabled by CO, prompt from Reviewer, no response from CO, archived by Reviewer

 

Communication is key again.

 

B.

 

I am not sure which is worse, posting and walking away from a thread or geo-stalking and posting the results online.

 

I noticed this behavior around here. Some people really need to go outside and find more caches.

 

The hypocrisy is eye watering

Really? I just found a cache today.

 

Oh well then I take it all back, congratulations

[+NanCycle]

 

your just assuming i left the containers there ...yep cause i would do that.......i took them away other people kept putting them back. so lets not just assume

 

If you had taken the trouble to explain the situation better in your first post, you would not have had everyone trying to guess what you meant and making wrong assumptions. Just an observation, not meant to be a criticism.