"Moving" type caches

January 31, 2015

There is a type of cache known as "moving caches" where the finder takes the cache to another place and hides it, then posts the new coordinates (and maybe hint) in the log for the next people to search.

I only know of three ("Jacob's Moving Cache #...", GCA87C, GCB598,GCDB76) but I've seen references to others. #2,3 are, I believe, in USA at present and #1 has been in UK since last February/March, but the CO has announced his (probable) intention to archive them.

This has led to a huge outcry in all three cache logs from people who value them enormously; the excitement they have generated nationally in UK has been phenomenal since #1 arrived. And numerous members in all three logs have offered to adopt the caches because they are considered so important. But there have been a couple of suggestions that adoption is not allowed by Groundspeak, and the rule forbidding adoption of grandfathered caches has been quoted. Moving caches were said to be "locationless" and therefore grandfathered.

I've never found one of these, and will be very pleasantly surprised if I'm ever near enough even to look for it (was close when it first landed in Cornwall, but too late!) But I've shared the excitement of watching it move around England (and for a while to Scotland). In common with almost all who have posted logs recently, I very much hope that these caches will cpntionue to be available. Probably not in large numbers, and Groundspeak might well wish to keep a tight control on the number - but the existence even of a few adds a huge dimension to the game.

I'm fairly new to the hobby and the site and don't understand the finer points of the rules, but it's clear to me that in most respects the caches are traditional. They are physical caches with logs, and there are clear coordinates stating where they are to be found currently. I hope that someone from Groundspeak will clear up the position here and that an exception will be made (if necessary) to allow adoption of these caches. Even better would be a clear statement that new ones will be allowed, subject to whatever controls are deemed necessary.

7.3k · January 31, 2015

I hope that someone from Groundspeak will clear up the position here and that an exception will be made (if necessary) to allow adoption of these caches.

I am NOT "someone from Groundspeak" who can make a definitive statement as to whether the caches on the Caches Excluded from Souvenirs and Statistics list, all of which are grandfathered in some way, will transfer through the adoption utility.

I don't think it's necessary for any statement to be made, however. The cache owner can try it, IF he wants to, it will work or not. And then he'll know.

It would be pleasant if the cache owner were allowed to make a decision about his own caches without pressure from others.

Even better would be a clear statement that new ones will be allowed, subject to whatever controls are deemed necessary.

On the adoption question, I don't know really, but on this, I'm comfortable telling you that this is not going to happen.

January 31, 2015

New ones will never be allowed. The problem with them is that the new coordinates don't go through the review process so they can get placed anywhere, including all the areas where caches aren't allowed (eg in the UK - military areas, schools etc).

it would be good if people stopped placing comments on the cache page of that particular travelling cache. It's putting undue pressure on the CO and cache pages are not places for discussion.

January 31, 2015

it would be good if people stopped placing comments on the cache page of that particular travelling cache. It's putting undue pressure on the CO and cache pages are not places for discussion.

That's exactly why I placed it here!

At the same time, the strength of feeling is pretty clear

Edited January 31, 2015 by Wandering Islanders

January 31, 2015

The topic of travelling caches shows up in the forum every once in a while.

There are a few bookmark lists of travelling caches. Here is one.

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=0d09db46-424c-4d31-9a65-f7aa2c549617

We have logged 3 of them

One is Bernie which seems to spend its time going to events, which is sorta against the rules and the intent. I have an interesting story about Bernie which I may post later. Contrary to what people tell you, we got a souvenir for finding Bernie

We found The Cuckoos Nest cache which is required to be placed in other caches. It has to remain in the state of Maine or the neighbouring province of New Brunswick in Canada.

The first one we found was Little park Finder in 2005. It now seems to be somewhere in Europe.

January 31, 2015

It is cool that you get really excited about these kinds of caches. I haven't found one myself although I recall a time a few years ago where one was in striking range of me. That said, whenever I see topics about revising some old, rare, uncommon aspect of geocaching, I just shake my head. I call it the Forbidden Fruit syndrome. Certain geocaches that are grandfathered in but no longer allowed, have an increase in popularity because they are forbidden. Another way to think of this is a simple Supply and Demand curve, the less there is of something, the higher the demand or value for it becomes. If people were really all that excited for hunting moving objects, there is a way do so with trackables. You can even create a trackable with a logbook if you want, and I'm not sure there is anything stopping you from dropping a trackable off at some random coordinates (not in a cache) and then posting coordinates for where it is. Who knows, people may be doing this already, but I haven't come across it before. The fact that there is a way to play this sort of game, but it doesn't appear to appeal to people tells me that the reason that these moving caches are popular is not because of the concept of looking for moving/hidden things, but more an effect of them being rare/forbidden.

You can draw parallels to Virtual caches, Webcam caches, the last remaining Ape cache... All of these have some kind of appeal because you can no longer create them and they are rare. And if for some reason they were reintroduced as viable caches, that appeal would subside: Supply and demand. My own stance is one of ambivalence. Whether Groundspeak brings back some of these Forbidden Fruits makes little difference to how I play the game now. I suspect it wouldn't significantly alter how other people play either. And if there is some aspect of the game you wish to dive into more deeply, there are ways for you to do so (Trackables, Waymarking, etc...). More power to you for finding something that gets you excited and taking advantage of it.

14k · January 31, 2015

I hope that someone from Groundspeak will clear up the position here and that an exception will be made (if necessary) to allow adoption of these caches.

I am NOT "someone from Groundspeak"

Neither am I but I have seen statements from people that are that have stated that a cache that is a grandfathered cache type can not be adopted. That is true for moving caches, webcams, and virtuals.

3.3k · January 31, 2015

Certain geocaches that are grandfathered in but no longer allowed, have an increase in popularity because they are forbidden.

If one was nearby, i'd seek it out because of the novelty factor. The existing grandfathered ones aren't forbidden, so there's no naughtiness factor!

January 31, 2015

I hope that someone from Groundspeak will clear up the position here and that an exception will be made (if necessary) to allow adoption of these caches.

I am NOT "someone from Groundspeak"

Neither am I but I have seen statements from people that are that have stated that a cache that is a grandfathered cache type can not be adopted. That is true for moving caches, webcams, and virtuals.

I understand the "grandfather" rule; but I haven't found anywhere that includes moving caches in that category, nor a reason why they are.

7.3k · January 31, 2015

I only know of three ("Jacob's Moving Cache #...", GCA87C, GCB598,GCDB76) but I've seen references to others. #2,3 are, I believe, in USA at present and #1 has been in UK since last February/March, but the CO has announced his (probable) intention to archive them.

I hope that someone from Groundspeak will clear up the position here and that an exception will be made (if necessary) to allow adoption of these caches. Even better would be a clear statement that new ones will be allowed, subject to whatever controls are deemed necessary.

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship →

3.15. Adopting or Transferring a Geocache

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=54

Grandfathered geocache types cannot be transferred to a new owner. Neither the adoption tool on the website nor Groundspeak will be able to make the transfer for Virtual, Webcam or Locationless geocaches. Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

Help Center → Other → Miscellaneous

6.12. Grandfathered Geoaches

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=63

There's also the issue of using the cache page as a "discussion" page. That's not supposed to be allowed, either.

I thought that locationless caches were "locked", meaning that no new logs could be posted.

Perhaps something might happen, now that these caches have been brought to the public's attention.

B.

7.3k · January 31, 2015

On the other hand, "moving" caches do still exist.

I'm interested by this. I thought that "moving caches" were grandfathered, but apparently not.

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=f6bc97a6-a800-4e65-8fa7-f01b82ea52ac

http://coord.info/GC95BF

http://coord.info/GC4241

and others. Lots of potential for loss, etc. People don't log trackables correctly, if at all, so I can see how a cache can so easily go missing.

B.

14k · January 31, 2015

Grandfathered geocache types cannot be transferred to a new owner. Neither the adoption tool on the website nor Groundspeak will be able to make the transfer for Virtual, Webcam or Locationless geocaches. Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

B.

Where was also an instance recently of a webcam with an active owner where the webcam moved a small distance. That distance was greater than what a CO is allowed to change using the update coordinates tool. If it had been a cache type that was not grandfathered, a reviewer could make that change, but because it was a grandfathered, the reviewer was not allowed to do so. This came up after a few people complained that the published coordinates were wrong and posted NM logs. Because a CO is required to maintain the cache (which includes the listing) the cache could be archived due to lack of maintenance, but the CO couldn't provide the necessary maintenance due to the GS policy.

7.5k · January 31, 2015

It is cool that you get really excited about these kinds of caches. I haven't found one myself although I recall a time a few years ago where one was in striking range of me. That said, whenever I see topics about revising some old, rare, uncommon aspect of geocaching, I just shake my head. I call it the Forbidden Fruit syndrome. Certain geocaches that are grandfathered in but no longer allowed, have an increase in popularity because they are forbidden. Another way to think of this is a simple Supply and Demand curve, the less there is of something, the higher the demand or value for it becomes. If people were really all that excited for hunting moving objects, there is a way do so with trackables. You can even create a trackable with a logbook if you want, and I'm not sure there is anything stopping you from dropping a trackable off at some random coordinates (not in a cache) and then posting coordinates for where it is. Who knows, people may be doing this already, but I haven't come across it before. The fact that there is a way to play this sort of game, but it doesn't appear to appeal to people tells me that the reason that these moving caches are popular is not because of the concept of looking for moving/hidden things, but more an effect of them being rare/forbidden.

You can draw parallels to Virtual caches, Webcam caches, the last remaining Ape cache... All of these have some kind of appeal because you can no longer create them and they are rare. And if for some reason they were reintroduced as viable caches, that appeal would subside: Supply and demand. My own stance is one of ambivalence. Whether Groundspeak brings back some of these Forbidden Fruits makes little difference to how I play the game now. I suspect it wouldn't significantly alter how other people play either. And if there is some aspect of the game you wish to dive into more deeply, there are ways for you to do so (Trackables, Waymarking, etc...). More power to you for finding something that gets you excited and taking advantage of it.

Very informative.

The appeal must be in the rarity, i.e. for the old GC#. Makes for an increasingly more difficult grid filler. Otherwise, if the idea of a traveling cache is what people enjoy, the traveling cache can still exist as a trackable/travelbug. Take a matchstick safe, add a logscroll, add a trackable number and send it on its way with the mission to be moved from cache to cache or hidden and have the coords posted, or carried from event to event.

Edited January 31, 2015 by L0ne.R

January 31, 2015

On the other hand, "moving" caches do still exist.

I'm interested by this. I thought that "moving caches" were grandfathered, but apparently not.

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=f6bc97a6-a800-4e65-8fa7-f01b82ea52ac

http://coord.info/GC95BF

http://coord.info/GC4241

and others. Lots of potential for loss, etc. People don't log trackables correctly, if at all, so I can see how a cache can so easily go missing.

B.

OK then. Not grandfathered, or else the cache at the second link couldn't have been moved that far (and the same has happened to JHacob's Moving Cache #1 - technically relocated from Utah to England and now back again! So, can it be adopted? As a previous post said, let's try it (actually of course, that's up to the CO - but until now everybody's been telling us it coiuldn't happen.)

Edited January 31, 2015 by Wandering Islanders

7.3k · January 31, 2015

The only way to find out is for the cache owner to initiate the adoption procedure.

"Moving" caches aren't the same as "locationless" ones, as far as I can see. I couldn't find anywhere that said "moving" caches are grandfathered.

B.

January 31, 2015

No - several logs and posts have said so but I haven't found anything official either! One reason for this topic

4.8k · January 31, 2015

No - several logs and posts have said so but I haven't found anything official either! One reason for this topic

Since this cache idea is relatively rare these days, I doubt you would find any "official" statement on the website that specifically discusses the issue you brought up. My guess is that these things are handled on a case by case basis, since the number of times this comes up can probably be counted on one hand.

It's really a Groundspeak and Cache Owner issue. I've only heard of one time an Adoption was allowed in the last ten years, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

7.8k · January 31, 2015

"Moving" caches aren't the same as "locationless" ones, as far as I can see. I couldn't find anywhere that said "moving" caches are grandfathered.

I couldn't find anything that explicitly states that moving caches are "grandfathered" either, but in effect they are. Existing ones can still move around (see official list here), but new ones will not be published:

Guidelines - II-5. Geocache Permanence

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

As for adoption, it could be trickier with moving caches. If you look at some of the moving caches, you'll see that the respective owners will periodically update the coordinates, sometimes changing the coordinates by extremely large distances. Since this isn't something that you can typically do as a cache owner, I have to assume that these owners (or maybe the caches themselves) have been granted the special ability to update the coordinates by more than 0.1 mile. If it's the owner that has been granted this ability, adoption would mean that the ability would have to be revoked from the old owner and granted to the new owner. Whether Groundspeak is willing to do this is unclear. If the ability is tied to the cache, then adoption may be more straightforward.

14k · January 31, 2015

The only way to find out is for the cache owner to initiate the adoption procedure.

"Moving" caches aren't the same as "locationless" ones, as far as I can see. I couldn't find anywhere that said "moving" caches are grandfathered.

B.

A locationless cache (reverse) cache has a distinct icon, thus has a specific cache type. Moving caches were posted as traditionals (and in at least one case, as a multi) and don't have a specific cache type. It's sort of like how challenge caches use the "unknown" cache type but have specific guidelines to deal with them. Although there may not be anything specific in the guidelines, the fact that we are no longer allowed to create them is evidence enough that the should be considered grandfathered. Some have suggested that challenge caches suffer the same fate.

7.3k · January 31, 2015

I may be misunderstanding some of the posts here.

Re moving caches being grandfathered, those that were published prior to the addition of the permanence section to the guidelines are grandfathered. That's referenced in the fourth paragraph of the guidelines introduction, "However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is." There are caches around of various cache types that are not to current guidelines, grandfathered. The moving caches are of of Trad, Mystery and Multi type.

There are grandfathered cache types, Webcam, Virtual. They exist on the site to be logged, but cannot be created. The coords on these cannot be updated by either the owner or a reviewer. They won't transfer by adoption.

Locationless are all archived and locked. They are not grandfathered.

Edited to add a link to Dinoprophet's bookmark of Locationless

Re adoption, the moving caches are not of grandfathered cache types, ie, they're not virts or webcams. Again, I don't know if they'll transfer. There's some special coding on them to permit the long distance coord updates, and with it, maybe something that prevents adoption. Or not.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Isonzo Karst

January 31, 2015

"Moving" caches aren't the same as "locationless" ones, as far as I can see. I couldn't find anywhere that said "moving" caches are grandfathered.

I couldn't find anything that explicitly states that moving caches are "grandfathered" either, but in effect they are. Existing ones can still move around (see official list here), but new ones will not be published:

Guidelines - II-5. Geocache Permanence

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

As for adoption, it could be trickier with moving caches. If you look at some of the moving caches, you'll see that the respective owners will periodically update the coordinates, sometimes changing the coordinates by extremely large distances. Since this isn't something that you can typically do as a cache owner, I have to assume that these owners (or maybe the caches themselves) have been granted the special ability to update the coordinates by more than 0.1 mile. If it's the owner that has been granted this ability, adoption would mean that the ability would have to be revoked from the old owner and granted to the new owner. Whether Groundspeak is willing to do this is unclear. If the ability is tied to the cache, then adoption may be more straightforward.

Hmm. Looks like that reference to permanence settles it. But I still think it's a huge pity!

January 31, 2015

Just my two cents on the traveling caches being mentioned since I happen to be holding one. Ever since they've been temp disabled I've gotten numerous emails and also noticed a flurry of discussion on this topic (this forum for instance). Some of the CO's difficulty appears to be that it looks like some of the rules as listed on the cache page aren't being followed. Here's how I see it having not been around the caching world in 2003 when these caches started. It seems that times have changed (as in "grandfathered" etc.) and cacher's today are trying very hard to protect these caches not wanting to see them disappear. What has amazed me is the coming together of the community of cachers. People who've never seen one or come across one are writing in and communicating. Those who have found one or more are also concerned and writing. I guess you could say that these particular caches have evolved or morphed into something else altogether. They are no long "just" caches. They have in some way become special. Interesting. The one that's in our part of the world was brought back by a local cacher who drove a few hundred miles strictly to find and retrieve this traveling cache. That shows a certain dedication not shown to an "ordinary" cache. So the bottom line to me (without any undue pressure to the CO) is that whether adopted out or re-enabled and allowed to continue on it would be the greatest disappointment to see something that has generated so much interest in the game and brought the community together then be archived. Do I know what the "right" thing to do is? No. Just trying to stimulate some positive thoughts on the subject. I hope it all works out in the end. I know there are a lot of present and future cachers who would love to be lucky enough to come across one of these rare caches.

January 31, 2015

Agree 100%. That's why I started this

13.7k · January 31, 2015

Odd how people are going crazy for these things.

Sure can't picture them "evolving" or "morphing" into anything.

Just a cache with coords that move a lot.

Maybe if it was a rare icon involved...

The couple we found (and placed) weren't any big deal, really. The containers were cheap too.

I imagine placement's a pain in the can these days (or just a buncha roadside "hides").

ETA:

I remember one that had issues because it wasn't placed with coords, but passed around to others (usually at events) like a discovered trackable.

Don't remember (or care) what happened to it.

Edited January 31, 2015 by cerberus1

January 31, 2015

........
.....

They are no long "just" caches. They have in some way become special. Interesting. The one that's in our part of the world was brought back by a local cacher who drove a few hundred miles strictly to find and retrieve this traveling cache. That shows a certain dedication not shown to an "ordinary" cache. So the bottom line to me (without any undue pressure to the CO) is that whether adopted out or re-enabled and allowed to continue on it would be the greatest disappointment to see something that has generated so much interest in the game and brought the community together then be archived. Do I know what the "right" thing to do is? No. Just trying to stimulate some positive thoughts on the subject. I hope it all works out in the end. I know there are a lot of present and future cachers who would love to be lucky enough to come across one of these rare caches.

I agree. Travelling caches certainly generate a lot of interest.

The original idea was that the caches are picked up by a finder who claims the find and then moves it to another location and posts the new coords on his find logs. The Cuckoo cache is a little different in that it has to be placed in another cache

A popular travelling cache in Canada is Bernie's Travelling Cache http://coord.info/GC2179 . As I recall, the owner of Bernie would prefer that Bernie be hidden and that cachers go out and retrieve it, but he has reluctantly realized that everyone wants to see it and sign the log , so it gets most of its finds at events.

We first saw him at a special event in Fredericton NB in Dec 2009. He had been shipped to the event by another cacher.

Now here is our Bernie story

In April 2010 we took nearly 3 weeks to drive the 800 miles to Ottawa. We started with big events in Fredericton where cacher Zor gave us Bernie at the Sunday brunch.

We cached the following week and our next stop was a big event the following weekend in Sherbrooke QC to celebrate 15000 finds for Opus Terra. I had let it be known in advance that we had Bernie so at the event it didn’t take long for people to start asking about Bernie. When someone made the big announcement, there was a line-up to sign. Over 30 cachers signed the log book. We shouldn’t have been surprised with the interest because the previous day we had been surprised by two cachers at a cache on a country road. When they found out who we were, they asked to sign Bernie right away rather than wait for the event. I had to dig Bernie out of the trunk of the car.

The next week we cached in the area and the next weekend we showed up in Quebec City for an event for Sunnygirls. Again cachers knew we were coming and lined up to sign. One cacher drove 2 hours from Montreal, signed the log, and stayed 15 minutes and drove immediately back to Montreal.

The next weekend we went to two events in Ottawa area. At the breakfast event, everyone knew we had Bernie and he was excitedly grabbed from my hands as I walked through the restaurant. That evening was the big OMAX event in Gatineau with at least 200 cachers in attendance. Bernie was again a big hit. We left it there with a local cacher.

PAul

January 31, 2015

Each to their own cerberus. Plenty of us feel very different!

6.1k · January 31, 2015

It's likely that the geocaches are able to be adopted, as the adoption restriction is likely based upon the icon.

However that might change if someone posts a thread about it in the main forums and a Lackey happens to notice it .. :rolleyes:

13.7k · January 31, 2015

Each to their own cerberus. Plenty of us feel very different!

True.

When someone writes of these things, making them sound like they're the Holy Grail of caches, it's only fair to see another view from someone who's found 'em. Properly.

4.8k · January 31, 2015

...Groundspeak might well wish to keep a tight control on the number...

...subject to whatever controls are deemed necessary.

I believe the two fragments above spell out what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the OP. I don't think that Groundspeak wants to be put in a position of controlling anything, but would be perfectly content to have things rolling along without any intervention whatsoever. I would even go so far to say that the apparent need to "control" this type of cache idea has led to it's demise, and why they are no longer allowed.

7.5k · January 31, 2015

"Moving" caches aren't the same as "locationless" ones, as far as I can see. I couldn't find anywhere that said "moving" caches are grandfathered.

I couldn't find anything that explicitly states that moving caches are "grandfathered" either, but in effect they are. Existing ones can still move around (see official list here), but new ones will not be published:

Guidelines - II-5. Geocache Permanence

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

As for adoption, it could be trickier with moving caches. If you look at some of the moving caches, you'll see that the respective owners will periodically update the coordinates, sometimes changing the coordinates by extremely large distances. Since this isn't something that you can typically do as a cache owner, I have to assume that these owners (or maybe the caches themselves) have been granted the special ability to update the coordinates by more than 0.1 mile. If it's the owner that has been granted this ability, adoption would mean that the ability would have to be revoked from the old owner and granted to the new owner. Whether Groundspeak is willing to do this is unclear. If the ability is tied to the cache, then adoption may be more straightforward.

Hmm. Looks like that reference to permanence settles it. But I still think it's a huge pity!

What is the huge pity? That caches can't travel anymore? Because technically they can as trackables.

8k · January 31, 2015

What is the huge pity? That caches can't travel anymore? Because technically they can as trackables.

Yep. One of the reasons for having moving caches was basically eliminated with the advent of trackables. In fact the first moving cache I ever found was just that. It was listed as a cache and had a log book, but the instructions were to move it from cache to cache. So I found a cache and there was this other cache inside it.

Certainly many moving caches could be hidden separately from other caches. This became a problem as the guidelines became more restrictive. Nothing prevents a moving cache from being placed close to an existing cache, or in a location that is otherwise restricted. Often moving caches caused problems for others. Especially since t the coordinates didn't update instantaneously, people ended up looking for a moving cache after it was moved. Many people hated moving caches because there almost always resulted in a DNF. Perhaps now with instant notifications, one can tell when the cache has been moved and when it has been found.

If you're just going to take them to events and let everyone log them, then it's not really a moving cache anymore. It is just a travel bug that you log on a cache log page instead of a trackable page.

2.7k · January 31, 2015

One thing about these travelling caches that is aggravating is when a person finds one, and instead of placing it as requested on the cache page, they take it to an event, or hand it off to their friends. These activities fly in the face of the cache owner's desires and most of the mystique from finding one of these 'rare' caches.

21.9k · January 31, 2015

One thing about these travelling caches that is aggravating is when a person finds one, and instead of placing it as requested on the cache page, they take it to an event, or hand it off to their friends. These activities fly in the face of the cache owner's desires and most of the mystique from finding one of these 'rare' caches.

Such behavior also exposes the moving cache to the risk of being archived as a "pocket cache" if the cache owner is complicit in supporting this behavior.

You will note that, for the moving caches mentioned in the OP, the owner has included a strong statement about this.

13.7k · January 31, 2015

Strong statements may sometimes work, but "A popular travelling cache in Canada is Bernie's Travelling Cache http://coord.info/GC2179 . As I recall, the owner of Bernie would prefer that Bernie be hidden and that cachers go out and retrieve it, but he has reluctantly realized that everyone wants to see it and sign the log , so it gets most of its finds at events." as well as the post from the last "finder" kinda says it all. :laughing:

February 1, 2015

I can only say (as the originator of this topic) in reply to the last few posts that the only one that I am familiar with is Jacob's Moving Cache #1, which appears to be the only one moving in England. As Everything in Moderation wrote - that cache has very strong statements and rules about the kind of behaviour listed above. It also insists that the new coordinates are posted in the log when it is newly hidden.

I have followed the logs closely for that cache since it arrived in England almost a year ago - hundreds of Find (and the associated Write Notes logging the find before it was replaced) logs and, until it was disabled, very few others (mostly from people desperately waiting for it to arrive within reach of them!) A cache operating like this is not in any sense equivalent to a trackable. I have seen absolutely no sign at all of it being passed around at events, although it is true there have been some multiple loggings where more than one cacher has found the cache at the same time.

So far as Groundspeak and control is concerned, once again I have little experience to draw on. But in regard to these caches they are currently exerising control. Personally I would like that control not removed - the abuses need to be stopped - but relaxed so that this kind of cache can continue to grab those of us who find it of interest.

3.3k · February 1, 2015

In fact the first moving cache I ever found was just that. It was listed as a cache and had a log book, but the instructions were to move it from cache to cache. So I found a cache and there was this other cache inside it.

Can you imagine the power trail possibilities?! Find one with 10 inside! You better buy extra ink for your stamper! :grin:

Oh, wait a minute - they ruled out the fun again. I think i'll go cry in my beer. :cry: :signalviolin:

February 1, 2015

Well it now appears jacobs #1 has been re-hidden and the co-ords placed in the latest log. Any actual TB's have been removed leaving a few virtual/proxy stickers on the the cache itself. In reality only the 490 watchers know about its location. I had a couple of thoughts, firstly to retrieve it and place it with one of my own and post a link in my cache page to the original GC no. to bring it the the attention of others and get them to do the same, a sort of piggy-back traditional, but this sounds a bit like the cuckoo type already discussed. Failing that fix its current position as its final resting place. Jacob could archive it and the last finder publish it as a new cache as Jacobs memorial cache! Either way unless one of us 490 watchers goes and gets it, it will now just rot there... isn't that classed as geotrash?

7.3k · February 1, 2015

In reality only the 490 watchers know about its location.

And all the people who have it on a bookmark..which, if not public, you don't know about. I'd bet all moving caches are on hundreds (even thousands) of bookmarks. There are over 90 public bookmarks on this one... And all the people who are reading about it various other social sites.

I've NEVER seen a moving cache out in the wild sit long, and wouldn't expect this one to. Mostly, if they get stuck, it's because they're being held.

38.2k · February 1, 2015

One thing about these travelling caches that is aggravating is when a person finds one, and instead of placing it as requested on the cache page, they take it to an event, or hand it off to their friends. These activities fly in the face of the cache owner's desires and most of the mystique from finding one of these 'rare' caches.

Such behavior also exposes the moving cache to the risk of being archived as a "pocket cache" if the cache owner is complicit in supporting this behavior.

You will note that, for the moving caches mentioned in the OP, the owner has included a strong statement about this.

It's rare that I've seen owners of these caches make strong statements about using it as a pocket cache. I suspect many owners either don't care and in some cases actually encourage using them as pocket caches. Most of the ones I've encountered or heard of lately were being used as pocket caches and traveling from event to event. I doubt many of the COs have said a word against it, let alone threaten to delete any "pocket" logs. That would put an end to the practice quickly.

3.6k · February 1, 2015

Because of drama that come with travelling caches, I wish GS archived them all. Geocaching is to be just for fun and travelling caches is bucking against the real sprint of the game.

February 1, 2015

Perhaps I'm making this a little simple - and it may possibly NOT work, but what about making the archived cache a trackable, and then simply providing coordinates for the trackable ?

If that trackable happens to be the size of JMC 1 then so be it - If of course trackable can only be placed in a cache rather than at coordinates, this may limit future locations... but its an idea

3k · February 1, 2015

Moving Caches and Pocket Caches became obselete when Trackables were introduced.

7.5k · February 1, 2015

It's rare that I've seen owners of these caches make strong statements about using it as a pocket cache.

I track one of the Jacob caches, and when anyone takes it to an event or even just shares it with friends, the CO posts a stern follow-the-rules note.

Because of drama that come with travelling caches, I wish GS archived them all.

What drama? I've never seen anything but people having fun with the moving caches I follow. (Well, until the Jacob owner said he was going to archive them, but if GS archived them, that drama would be quadrupled.)

Moving Caches and Pocket Caches became obselete when Trackables were introduced.

The only way moving caches are anything like trackables is that they move around. Trackables don't show up on the map and, in fact, they have no concept of location other than being in another cache, so it makes no sense to hide a trackable. You cannot attach coordinates to a trackable log. Trackables are not rare. I like these unique caches, and I'd rather not see them go, but if you're going to argue against them, I really can't see an argument based on them being obsoleted by trackables.

February 1, 2015

Traveling caches CAN be adopted since they are listed as tradional/multi's. This one GC82D0 was adopted out last Feb. I hope that Jacob does decide to let someone else take them over.

8k · February 1, 2015

Because of drama that come with travelling caches, I wish GS archived them all. Geocaching is to be just for fun and travelling caches is bucking against the real sprint of the game.

Buwahaha! The spirit of geocaching has spoken.

15.3k · February 2, 2015

Because of drama that come with travelling caches, I wish GS archived them all. Geocaching is to be just for fun and travelling caches is bucking against the real sprint of the game.
Buwahaha! The spirit of geocaching has spoken.

But is that the Spirit of Geocaching Past, the Spirit of Geocaching Present, or the Spirit of Geocaching Future?

February 2, 2015

Because of drama that come with travelling caches, I wish GS archived them all. Geocaching is to be just for fun and travelling caches is bucking against the real sprint of the game.

"Geoaching is just for fun" - exactly. My fun isn't yours. A large number of cachers find that these caches increase their fun enormously. Personally I have no interest in Wherigo caches, can't see the point of Letterbox Hybrids, and don't understand why earth caches escape the usual rules re logging. I think they're "against the spirit of the game"

Actually of course I don't think that - I think that if other cachers want to do it that way, good on them; just not for me.

February 2, 2015

Moving Caches and Pocket Caches became obselete when Trackables were introduced.

Well, clearly they didn't! They live on

February 2, 2015

You can even create a trackable with a logbook if you want, and I'm not sure there is anything stopping you from dropping a trackable off at some random coordinates (not in a cache) and then posting coordinates for where it is. Who knows, people may be doing this already,

a geo-buddy and i have done this. it wasn't to pass a trackable, but it was to pass a few items between us and it was easiest to email him coords of where i stashed an item or three. in fact... we also put together a trail of caches that way. he made a container or two and stashed them near the trail. we came out individually with the coords of where the potential cache containers were stored and moved them to their final resting spot.

its really a handy way of dealing with conflicting schedules, but paths that cross.

7.8k · February 2, 2015

Moving Caches and Pocket Caches became obselete when Trackables were introduced.

Well, clearly they didn't! They live on

Joshism's post isn't completely accurate. As evidenced by the cache in question, moving caches do still exist. You just can't create new ones.

However, pocket caches are completely forbidden. If Groundspeak learns of a cache being used in this way, they'll archive and lock it. There's no grandfathering for those.

As for moving cache-related drama, there was some recently when Jacob's Moving Cache #3 came to my area. It quickly became clear that the cache was being passed from person to person, and this was very frustrating and disappointing. When I was contacted by a cacher and presented with the opportunity to be handed the cache, I accepted with the sole purpose of breaking the chain of inappropriate* behaviour. I hid the cache out in the wild later that night, giving everyone a fair chance to go find it. Unfortunately, it seems that some people were more interested in logging the find than following the CO's wishes.

*as far as the CO's wishes were concerned, and my understanding of how moving caches are intended to work

"Moving" type caches

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