Archived Caches

[+Gullivers Travels54]

Caches are archived through lack of maintenance and through being Muggled ,which I agree, I think that these caches should then be locked and removed from the system all together to prevent further logs .As it stands at the moment anyone can log these caches and with no monitering by an Inactive cache owner their log will stand .I know of many instances where this and other ways of logging caches is being done ,as in deleting logs and re logging after they have been archived. If these caches are Inactive lets lock them .

[+cerberus1]

Caches are archived through lack of maintenance and through being Muggled

If that was the case, I'd think this hobby wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

 

We know many families that, when kids are grown, decide they want their own account.

They'll need to add their new account to the caches by pre-dating when they found it as a family.

This means quite a few archived caches, as most of our friends started before, or when we started.

[+NanCycle]

Caches are archived through lack of maintenance and through being Muggled ,which I agree, I think that these caches should then be locked and removed from the system all together to prevent further logs .As it stands at the moment anyone can log these caches and with no monitering by an Inactive cache owner their log will stand .I know of many instances where this and other ways of logging caches is being done ,as in deleting logs and re logging after they have been archived. If these caches are Inactive lets lock them .

 

So, how does this logging affect your caching?

[+Sherminator18]

If a cache has been archived and it turns out that the cache is still there and I go and end up finding it and signing the log. Why shouldn't I be able to log that I found it? Because I did. I've done this a few times actually.

[+niraD]

Does locking a cache prevent geocachers who have already logged the cache from editing their logs?

 

Because not too long ago, Groundspeak switched from supporting BBCode and HTML in logs, to supporting only Markdown in logs. Anyone who doesn't want raw BBCode or HTML to show in their old logs needs to go back and edit them to use Markdown (or to use plain text).

[+dprovan]

What problem are you trying to solve?

[+niraD]

What problem are you trying to solve?

According to the OP, "anyone can log these caches and with no monitering by an Inactive cache owner their log will stand".

 

With a capital "C"

And that rhymes with "P"

And that stands for pool!

[+dprovan]

What problem are you trying to solve?

According to the OP, "anyone can log these caches and with no monitering by an Inactive cache owner their log will stand".

That's only a symptom.

[+Cachologen]

Does locking a cache prevent geocachers who have already logged the cache from editing their logs?

 

Because not too long ago, Groundspeak switched from supporting BBCode and HTML in logs, to supporting only Markdown in logs. Anyone who doesn't want raw BBCode or HTML to show in their old logs needs to go back and edit them to use Markdown (or to use plain text).

Yes, locking prevents from editing your logs!

 

This is really annoying, because some time ago we had an overreacting Reviewer in our region who locked every(!) cache he archived. Now I'm not able to edit Logs, which we've made on those caches, to change from HTML/BBCode to Markdown.

 

I'm also not able to write new logs for members of my family and friends who where with us at the cache and have own accounts now (I wrote logs for them, because I know best which caches we've found together). Sure a Reviewer might help me, but as already mentioned we have a huge amount of locked caches in our region and I don't like to bother a Reviewer with it .

 

If a cache has been archived and it turns out that the cache is still there and I go and end up finding it and signing the log. Why shouldn't I be able to log that I found it? Because I did. I've done this a few times actually.

Oh yes, it's really nice to have these seldom founds out of the ordinary .

 

We made a few of these accidentally founds and of course we signed the logbook as well as we logged online ... but we left the trash behind where we should have taken it with us ... or shouldn't we as it's still property of the CO ...?

 

What's the problem with false Logs on archived caches of inactive COs? OK, it's cheating, but where is the problem? The only thing that matters is that I know almost all (we did some Virtual Caches as couch potatoes in the past ) of our own Logs are real logs. Why should I care about others who have a strange way to get themselves happy, if don't harm me.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Cachologen

[+niraD]

I'm also not able to write new logs for members of my family and friends who where with us at the cache and have own accounts now (I wrote logs for them, because I know best which caches we've found together).

I've done the same thing, except that I let others write their own logs. I do give them a list of caches that we found together, and a link that allows them to log any PMO caches that we found together.

 

Thanks for confirming the editing problem.

[+hzoi]

Caches are archived through lack of maintenance and through being Muggled ,which I agree, I think that these caches should then be locked and removed from the system all together to prevent further logs .As it stands at the moment anyone can log these caches and with no monitering by an Inactive cache owner their log will stand .I know of many instances where this and other ways of logging caches is being done ,as in deleting logs and re logging after they have been archived. If these caches are Inactive lets lock them .

I'd estimate this is a problem with fewer than 10% of archived caches.

 

If you notice cachers abusing the system, notify your reviewer on a case by case basis. There is no need to lock every single archived cache; just look at all the reasons listed above as to why it's not a solution that needs to be applied to every cache that is archived.

[+dprovan]

I'd estimate this is a problem with fewer than 10% of archived caches.

Really? I doubt it's anywhere near 1%. Probably much less that %1. But maybe it's rampant in other areas.

 

If you notice cachers abusing the system, notify your reviewer on a case by case basis.

Agreed. The bottom line is that this isn't a problem with the archived cache, it's a problem with the person filing the bogus log. If you think those logs are a serious problem -- and I'm not sure why anyone would think that to begin with -- then go after the loggers, not the poor innocent archived caches.

 

You don't really need to consider that fixing this imagined problem causes very real problems for legitimate loggers, although that certainly seems to make it clear we shouldn't automatically lock archived caches.

[+dprovan]

If a cache has been archived and it turns out that the cache is still there and I go and end up finding it and signing the log. Why shouldn't I be able to log that I found it? Because I did. I've done this a few times actually.

I enjoy logging archived caches that are still in place, but for me the better example is the cache is archived because it went missing, but is found later somewhere else. Uncommon, but very satisfying to log. (Or so I imagine: it's never happened to me.)

[+dprovan]

We made a few of these accidentally founds and of course we signed the logbook as well as we logged online ... but we left the trash behind where we should have taken it with us ... or shouldn't we as it's still property of the CO ...?

We're off topic, but I think as long as the cache wasn't archived just recently, you can feel free to take it away. I wouldn't do that myself as long as the cache was still in good condition just because I find "active" archived caches amusing, but I think the better case could be made for me being in the wrong rather than someone who cleaned up the leftover container, particularly if a new, active cache is nearby.

[+hzoi]

I'd estimate this is a problem with fewer than 10% of archived caches.

Really? I doubt it's anywhere near 1%. Probably much less that %1. But maybe it's rampant in other areas.

 

Yeah, I was being generous. That said, it definitely depends on the region, as well as the type of cache, etc. The rarer it is compared to garden variety caches, the more ripe it is for abuse.

 

If Billy Bob Nosepicker's 1/1 guardrail micro that was published in 2014 gets archived tomorrow, it's not at risk for fake logs. On the other hand, there is a reason all archived locationless caches are locked, and there's a good reason why most archived webcam caches are as well.

[+L0ne.R]

I'd estimate this is a problem with fewer than 10% of archived caches.

Really? I doubt it's anywhere near 1%. Probably much less that %1. But maybe it's rampant in other areas.

 

Yeah, I was being generous. That said, it definitely depends on the region, as well as the type of cache, etc. The rarer it is compared to garden variety caches, the more ripe it is for abuse.

 

If Billy Bob Nosepicker's 1/1 guardrail micro that was published in 2014 gets archived tomorrow, it's not at risk for fake logs. On the other hand, there is a reason all archived locationless caches are locked, and there's a good reason why most archived webcam caches are as well.

 

I've asked reviewers to lock a couple of our letterbox hides when I archived them. They were coveted for challenge caches and grid filling. There were some logs that appeared to be logged after archival to get the CC prize.

[+dprovan]

If Billy Bob Nosepicker's 1/1 guardrail micro that was published in 2014 gets archived tomorrow, it's not at risk for fake logs. On the other hand, there is a reason all archived locationless caches are locked, and there's a good reason why most archived webcam caches are as well.

I've asked reviewers to lock a couple of our letterbox hides when I archived them. They were coveted for challenge caches and grid filling. There were some logs that appeared to be logged after archival to get the CC prize.

Yeah, no question locking an archived cache is sometimes useful, or even necessary. But that's normally not the case.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've asked reviewers to lock a couple of our letterbox hides when I archived them. They were coveted for challenge caches and grid filling. There were some logs that appeared to be logged after archival to get the CC prize.

 

Sometimes I wonder. A local cacher wants to visit all of the nearby virtuals that ever existed. And, once there, logs them, whether they are archived or not. Whether or not the reason for the virtual still exists. (Most of the archived ones were archived because the item was gone...) A few the cacher could not log because the virtuals were locked. It's strange to see a "Found It" log for a virtual that was archived ten years previously, because item was removed. Oh, well.

[+dubidubno]

I'm also not able to write new logs for members of my family and friends who where with us at the cache and have own accounts now (I wrote logs for them, because I know best which caches we've found together).

I've done the same thing, except that I let others write their own logs. I do give them a list of caches that we found together, and a link that allows them to log any PMO caches that we found together.

 

As long as they signed the log in the cache when they were with you, backlogging is OK.

[+cerberus1]

I'm also not able to write new logs for members of my family and friends who where with us at the cache and have own accounts now (I wrote logs for them, because I know best which caches we've found together).

I've done the same thing, except that I let others write their own logs. I do give them a list of caches that we found together, and a link that allows them to log any PMO caches that we found together.

 

As long as they signed the log in the cache when they were with you, backlogging is OK.

You don't say, but you're speaking of "friends", correct?

Family members would have been covered under a single account at the time logs were signed, and I'd think few COs would be so anal to expect them to sign "just in case" they might split from the account at a later date.

 

Many here mention in their logs when friends with no account yet were present.

Most times those friends create an account, and log how they appreciated the introduction to the hobby.

[+dubidubno]

As long as they signed the log in the cache when they were with you, backlogging is OK.

You don't say, but you're speaking of "friends", correct?

 

I don't understand your question. "friends"?

 

Family members would have been covered under a single account at the time logs were signed, and I'd think few COs would be so anal to expect them to sign "just in case" they might split from the account at a later date.

 

How can we know they found the cache if they didn't sign the log?

 

Many here mention in their logs when friends with no account yet were present.

Most times those friends create an account, and log how they appreciated the introduction to the hobby.

 

There are very few absolute rules in geocaching. One of them is the logging requirements found at https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging which clearly states: Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Mentioning others does not constitute signing.

[+cerberus1]

As long as they signed the log in the cache when they were with you, backlogging is OK.

You don't say, but you're speaking of "friends", correct?

 

I don't understand your question. "friends"?

 

Family members would have been covered under a single account at the time logs were signed, and I'd think few COs would be so anal to expect them to sign "just in case" they might split from the account at a later date.

 

How can we know they found the cache if they didn't sign the log?

 

Many here mention in their logs when friends with no account yet were present.

Most times those friends create an account, and log how they appreciated the introduction to the hobby.

 

There are very few absolute rules in geocaching. One of them is the logging requirements found at https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging which clearly states: Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Mentioning others does not constitute signing.

The subject you responded to included "friends" as well as family.

I'd think there would be a big difference in logging.

It might be possible that a "friend" may sign the log, but we've yet to see separate members of a family sign a cache log.

 

I'd also think anyone who'd be so anal as to delete a family member's name because they didn't sign another spot on a log wouldn't be too popular in that area for long.

Six lines taken up with the same name (most haven't even thought of separating yet...) "just in case I separate my account someday" is just too bizarre.

 

Anyone starting years ago, that log we signed, on that now-archived hide (that's what this topic is...), was often changed out more than a couple times.

Find my sig...

 

"I'm separating from the folks (getting my own account), and back-logging this one from our trip with our cousins ten years ago.

Thanks for not locking this long-archived cache.

I was the 8th swebodola sig on the log.

One of my cousins in splitting his account too.

He'll be logging in also, and he was the 4th swebodola sig."

[cezanne]

There are very few absolute rules in geocaching. One of them is the logging requirements found at https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging which clearly states: Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Mentioning others does not constitute signing.

 

You then might be surprised to hear that Groundspeak is even ok with team logs where a team signs a log book with a team name just invented for that single day and then every team member at home logs the found cache online.

They are not required to mention in the log book who is part of the team.

 

As such cases showed up in my area, affected cache owners wrote to Groundspeak and they learnt that they need to let these logs stand.

[+dubidubno]

There are very few absolute rules in geocaching. One of them is the logging requirements found at https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging which clearly states: Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Mentioning others does not constitute signing.

 

You then might be surprised to hear that Groundspeak is even ok with team logs where a team signs a log book with a team name just invented for that single day and then every team member at home logs the found cache online.

They are not required to mention in the log book who is part of the team.

 

As such cases showed up in my area, affected cache owners wrote to Groundspeak and they learnt that they need to let these logs stand.

 

Yes, given what that guideline says, I'm very surprised. Where is this rule documented?

[+The A-Team]

Many here mention in their logs when friends with no account yet were present.

Most times those friends create an account, and log how they appreciated the introduction to the hobby.

 

There are very few absolute rules in geocaching. One of them is the logging requirements found at https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging which clearly states: Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Mentioning others does not constitute signing.

I'm confused about your stance, so I'd like to describe a hypothetical scenario (which is actually a real scenario that occurs frequently all over the world), and I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

Let's say I take a non-caching friend with me to find one of your caches. He doesn't have an account or caching name, so he doesn't sign the log. Only I sign the log. In my online log, I mention that my non-caching friend was with me. Several months later, my non-caching friend has seen enough of geocaching to decide that he wants his own account, so he comes up with a caching name and creates an account. Since he has already found your cache, he submits a "Found it" log back-dated to the date he found it with me, and states that he found the cache with The A-Team but didn't have his own account at the time. Are you saying that you would delete his "Found it" log because his caching name (which didn't even exist at the time of the find) isn't explicitly written in the log?

 

If the answer is yes (which is what I suspect based on your post), I'd have to say that's an extremely strict application of the guidelines and a very poor way to welcome new geocachers.

[+NanCycle]

There are very few absolute rules in geocaching. One of them is the logging requirements found at https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging which clearly states: Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Mentioning others does not constitute signing.

 

You then might be surprised to hear that Groundspeak is even ok with team logs where a team signs a log book with a team name just invented for that single day and then every team member at home logs the found cache online.

They are not required to mention in the log book who is part of the team.

 

As such cases showed up in my area, affected cache owners wrote to Groundspeak and they learnt that they need to let these logs stand.

 

So someone could hold an event, assign a team name for the attendees, encourage caching before and after the event with finds logged with the "team" name and everyone who attended the event could claim finds on every cache found by all other atttendees. Not my idea of caching, thank you very much. And I sure wouldn't like to see the results of this scheme on any of my cache pages.

[Keystone]

There are very few absolute rules in geocaching. One of them is the logging requirements found at https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#logging which clearly states: Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. Mentioning others does not constitute signing.

 

You then might be surprised to hear that Groundspeak is even ok with team logs where a team signs a log book with a team name just invented for that single day and then every team member at home logs the found cache online.

They are not required to mention in the log book who is part of the team.

 

As such cases showed up in my area, affected cache owners wrote to Groundspeak and they learnt that they need to let these logs stand.

 

Yes, given what that guideline says, I'm very surprised. Where is this rule documented?

Two Help Center articles expand on what's said in the logging requirements section of the guidelines. The "Log a Geocache" article says, among other things:

 

To get your smiley, it is as important to log your find physically by signing the log book as it is to create your digital log. In the physical log, it is acceptable to use your user name, team name, stamp, or sticker which includes your user name. If the geocache does not have a physical logbook (Virtual, Benchmark, Webcam, EarthCache) you must physically visit the listed coordinates and meet any other requirements stated in the geocache description.

 

If you digitally log a geocache without meeting these requirements (also known as couch logging), your log can be deleted by either the geocache owner or Geocaching HQ without notice.

(Emphasis added.)

 

Also see the "Geocacher disagreement - log deletion" article, which spells out the standards for when Geocaching HQ will restore a log deleted by a cache owner.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Keystone

[+TheVoytekBear]

I think what really counts here is if you've found the cache. How you signed the log is less important (especially when you can change your username afterwards). As for the team names they are used for convenience and also to save the logbook space. If you have a micro and there is an event group caching, you'd sometimes have to replace the logbook after all those people signed it.

I'd even let it slip with a photo log if obtaining the logbook wasn't part of the challenge (like cache on a tree or a gadget cache). I know this one is against the rules but I'd rather have an honest cacher giving me the reason (and thus sort of proving he was there) than just a TFTC log.

 

As for the archived caches I'm for leaving them as they are now. I myself logged 2 archived caches. One was a bonus cache of a failing series. I didn't have time to find it when it was still active despite having all the data and the final coordinates, and when I had another opportunity to visit the area, the owner already archived the entire series due to maintenance issues. Of course, the final cache was still at the coordinates and it was in the best shape of all the series.

I logged the second cache 3 years after it's been archived. I found out about it by coincidence (I browsed through caches of a CO whose cache I couldn't find). It came out it was also registered in a local service and stil maintained. The cache itself still had a logbook for geocaching.com, was named the same and was in the same place as described in the original listing.

I'd rather have the ability to log caches in such cases and also allow some people cheat, than not to have this ability for the price of more legit statitics of people I don't even know.