[dw]

Back in January of 2008, in a long discussion about the ability to search for archived caches, OpinioNate wrote the following:

OpinioNate, on Jan 18 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

Given the number of requests to show archived caches on google maps, it has been decided to return this feature. I'm afraid there has been no date set for their return yet, but I will let you all know when work on this is resumed. Thank you for expressing your feelings.

Edit: I should mention also that this will be a Premium Member feature, as before.

I DO NOT mean for this thread to turn into a pro/con argument. I would just like to know if this feature will actually ever be reinstated. The quote by OpinioNate is the last word ever heard from Groundspeak on the topic. If they have decided not to have this feature, I will be disappointed, but I'll stop hopefully looking for it with each new release. Thanks!

[knowschad]

dw, on Jul 10 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

Back in January of 2008, in a long discussion about the ability to search for archived caches, OpinioNate wrote the following:

OpinioNate, on Jan 18 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

Given the number of requests to show archived caches on google maps, it has been decided to return this feature. I'm afraid there has been no date set for their return yet, but I will let you all know when work on this is resumed. Thank you for expressing your feelings.

Edit: I should mention also that this will be a Premium Member feature, as before.

I DO NOT mean for this thread to turn into a pro/con argument. I would just like to know if this feature will actually ever be reinstated. The quote by OpinioNate is the last word ever heard from Groundspeak on the topic. If they have decided not to have this feature, I will be disappointed, but I'll stop hopefully looking for it with each new release. Thanks!

Wow! I wasn't aware of that statement by Nate. In fact, I just posted an "I doubt it" to another thread where this topic was raised.

I wonder, though, how on the maps they will deal with multiple archived caches at the same location. I can see a list, but that sounds like an awkward interface issue on maps.

[drfred]

It should probably be a check box on the side that defaults to not active - hey wait, hasn't this been discussed before?

Anyway, I have a few active at sites where 3 or 4 were before...how many could be archived at any one site? 10? 15?

[Mudfrog]

For me, they don't even have to show up on maps. Just give us the ability to look up archived caches in a search or in a query.

[Neos2]

I'm still hoping for the return of this feature too. It was very useful.

[Hosta Hillbillys]

What I really need is the ability to select 'Archived' in a PQ. Besides my other reason, this may facilitate people checking for leftover cache trash at archived cache, perhaps, from an 'image' issue for geocaching. An advanced CITO specifically to keep our image up with land managers . . .

[gof1]

dw, on Jul 10 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

Back in January of 2008, in a long discussion about the ability to search for archived caches, OpinioNate wrote the following:

OpinioNate, on Jan 18 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

Given the number of requests to show archived caches on google maps, it has been decided to return this feature. I'm afraid there has been no date set for their return yet, but I will let you all know when work on this is resumed. Thank you for expressing your feelings.

Edit: I should mention also that this will be a Premium Member feature, as before.

I DO NOT mean for this thread to turn into a pro/con argument. I would just like to know if this feature will actually ever be reinstated. The quote by OpinioNate is the last word ever heard from Groundspeak on the topic. If they have decided not to have this feature, I will be disappointed, but I'll stop hopefully looking for it with each new release. Thanks!

I keep hoping to see this feature return but suspect it best not to hold my breath. Blue just isn't a good color on me.

How about it Groundspeak? Any chance we'll see this returned?

[dw]

Bump. I was on vacation, came back and still no response. What's the deal?

[Lil Devil]

It's obviously not a priority.

Perhaps TPTB just don't see any compelling reason to show that data.

[baloo&bd]

dw, on Jul 25 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

Bump. I was on vacation, came back and still no response. What's the deal?

Now I kinda hope it comes back. I want to see the logs from all you guys that want to go look for stuff that's not there.

[WRASTRO]

It was a sad day for me when this went away. I see the ability to search for archived caches as an excellent tool when considering placing a new cache. If previous hides had problems in an area that information can and should be very usefull to anyone thinking about placing a new cache there. Knowing why prior caches in an area were archived would be great reference material in my opinion.

[Cardinal Red]

Lil Devil, on Jul 25 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

It's obviously not a priority.

Perhaps TPTB just don't see any compelling reason to show that data.

"Perhaps?" You hit the nail on the head with "It's obviously not a priority". Before the OpinioNate post 18 months ago this was a very hot topic. A few simple hollow words followed by total inaction and we are in statu quo res erant ante bellum. I bet "Easily Distracted by Shiny Objects" T-Shirts would be big sellers in the Groundspeak store.

[The Leprechauns]

I think they used to carry that T-shirt. But only 200 people bought one, so it was discontinued.

[jholly]

The Leprechauns, on Jul 25 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

I think they used to carry that T-shirt. But only 200 people bought one, so it was discontinued.

good one Lep!

[two bison]

I'm curious as to why folks think this would be useful. I'd be interested in the "real" reason. That, "we can go clean up the trash" is just so much hoo hah.

[Knight2000]

I would also like to be able to run a PQ on them.

[GOF and Bacall]

two bison, on Jul 25 2009, 11:53 PM, said:

I'm curious as to why folks think this would be useful. I'd be interested in the "real" reason. That, "we can go clean up the trash" is just so much hoo hah.

I used the archived cache feature to help with cache hiding. If a cache had problems in an area you could easily see that in the logs. Having that information allowed a hider to take steps to avoid a repeat of past situations. You can also spot newly opened areas when a cache is archived. Yes, this can be done without being able to view archived caches on the maps. But it is so much easier if you can see 'em.

That we can go clean up the trash isn't entirely "so much hoo haa." It's kinda neat if you can find a long abandoned cache. The clean up is a bonus.

I could be wrong but I think that most of those who want to get 'em in a PQ are trying to update their off line data bases. No?

[The Leprechauns]

The OP asked not to get into the pro's and con's, just whether the feature change was still on the list, and for when.

Since some of the "pro" points have been posted, here are some "cons":

There is a downside to overly aggressive geolitter removal. Hiders archive listings here and re-list them on another service. Or, they were meaning to hike out to retrieve their property, but someone else "stole" it on a geolitter cleanup mission.

Making archived caches viewable on maps also presents an issue with land managers. Right now the site can say "we archived the cache on your land as you requested, and it will no longer show up in our search features except in the personal records of the people who found it." And, some land managers' permit systems require the cache owner to certify that their online listing has been "removed" at the time when the permit expires and/or the container is removed. I can't certify to that if the listing is still easily accessed from a map view of that park.

[Knight2000]

The Leprechauns, on Jul 26 2009, 08:21 AM, said:

There is a downside to overly aggressive geolitter removal. Hiders archive listings here and re-list them on another service. Or, they were meaning to hike out to retrieve their property, but someone else "stole" it on a geolitter cleanup mission.

True but very unlikely. I am shocked at the number of abandoned geojunk caches.

[welch]

two bison, on Jul 26 2009, 02:53 AM, said:

I'm curious as to why folks think this would be useful. I'd be interested in the "real" reason. That, "we can go clean up the trash" is just so much hoo hah.

If someone meations a cache that used to be around a certain place it would be easier to zoom and pan the map than try searching threw hundreds of logs, or waiting for an email reply.

Its also good for researching problems of previous locations.

And of course, its just interesting to look at. I'm always amused when a new cache is placed near the archived location of an old one. Often without the owner of the new cache ever knowing there used to be caches there .

[welch]

The Leprechauns, on Jul 26 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

The OP asked not to get into the pro's and con's, just whether the feature change was still on the list, and for when.

Since some of the "pro" points have been posted, here are some "cons":

There is a downside to overly aggressive geolitter removal. Hiders archive listings here and re-list them on another service. Or, they were meaning to hike out to retrieve their property, but someone else "stole" it on a geolitter cleanup mission.

Making archived caches viewable on maps also presents an issue with land managers. Right now the site can say "we archived the cache on your land as you requested, and it will no longer show up in our search features except in the personal records of the people who found it." And, some land managers' permit systems require the cache owner to certify that their online listing has been "removed" at the time when the permit expires and/or the container is removed. I can't certify to that if the listing is still easily accessed from a map view of that park.

If someones going to pick up a cache not return it to an active owner that would be stealing yes. But people that would do that could probably just as easily go rip off a bunch of active caches too.

"easily accessed"? Surely seeing archived isn't going to be a default setting. It sure wasn't when this feature used to be available. Make it an extra checkbox or something that someone is not going to flip unless they're looking for something, you know, like it used to be. I never did understand why that feature was removed

[dw]

Yeah, it's degenerating into another pro/con thread.

I still am hoping someone (OpinioNate? Raine?) will at least comment on whether this is ever likely to return.

[dw]

Hmm, maybe Ill take my cue from flask and just occasionally politely ask. Remember, I'm not demanding that the feature be returned. I'm just asking IF it will ever be returned. Pretty please?

[JABs]

two bison, on Jul 26 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

I'm curious as to why folks think this would be useful. I'd be interested in the "real" reason. That, "we can go clean up the trash" is just so much hoo hah.

I love going and finding archived caches, it is more of a thrill to find one archived 2-3 years ago and is still in good order then going for a FTF. Some of these older caches also hold alot of history and yes I know you can see it through a profile, As cachers hide there caches all over the place only via maps cacn you see what was hidden in the area you are looking.



Have ago finding an old archived cache that no one has found for 18 months and is still there.

[baloo&bd]

JABs, on Aug 3 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

I love going and finding archived caches, it is more of a thrill to find one archived 2-3 years ago and is still in good order then going for a FTF. Some of these older caches also hold alot of history and yes I know you can see it through a profile, As cachers hide there caches all over the place only via maps cacn you see what was hidden in the area you are looking.

Have ago finding an old archived cache that no one has found for 18 months and is still there.

No thanks. Often when caches are archived and still there the reason for the archiving is that is is on private properties, does not meet guidelines, is in some way not safe, etc. For whatever reason, GS or the CO do not want you looking for it.

There are plenty of active caches to keep people busy. Why have a "search" function for something that is not there? Here's an example of why you should not hunt them (as well as one or two more guideline violations), knock yourself out.

This post has been edited by baloo&bd: 04 August 2009 - 06:30 AM

[Knight2000]

JABs, on Aug 3 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

I love going and finding archived caches, it is more of a thrill to find one archived 2-3 years ago and is still in good order then going for a FTF. Some of these older caches also hold alot of history and yes I know you can see it through a profile, As cachers hide there caches all over the place only via maps cacn you see what was hidden in the area you are looking.

Stifle that. I think that is one of the reasons why this feature went away.

[tozainamboku]

baloo&bd, on Aug 4 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

JABs, on Aug 3 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

I love going and finding archived caches, it is more of a thrill to find one archived 2-3 years ago and is still in good order then going for a FTF. Some of these older caches also hold alot of history and yes I know you can see it through a profile, As cachers hide there caches all over the place only via maps cacn you see what was hidden in the area you are looking.

Have ago finding an old archived cache that no one has found for 18 months and is still there.

No thanks. Often when caches are archived and still there the reason for the archiving is that is is on private properties, does not meet guidelines, is in some way not safe, etc. For whatever reason, GS or the CO do not want you looking for it.

Of course the overwhelming majority of archived caches are simply caches that the owner decided they didn't want to maintain any more. Sometimes the owner will archive a cache that was DNF'd only once. Other times a cache owner may move away or stop caching for some reason and will archive caches all their caches. Other times a reviewer will archive a cache because someone post a needs maintenance or needs archive and the owner hasn't logged into Geoaching.com for six months, but the logs indicate that people are still finding it.

Geocachers can read the archive note on the cache (and other logs as well) and can tell if the cache was archived because it was on private property or some other location where geocachers shouldn't be searching without permission. And the log will usually give a good idea if the cache is still in place or if it is likely to be missing or removed. I don't believe anyone is suggesting to get locations of archived caches and put the coordinates into your GPS so you can search for them blind. People who seek archived caches are generally going to check the logs beforehand to decide if there is actually some to search for and if you can legally search for it. What's more, knowing what is in the log and considering the condition of the cache itself when you find it, along with local knowledge about the whether the hide is being maintained by the cache owner or others, one can often make a decision about whether the archived cache is geotrash that should be removed or if it can be left in place for others to find.

I'm not suggesting that seeking archive caches is something everyone should do. And perhaps it is best if Geocaching.com continues to make it difficult to find archived cache and discourages the general geocaching public from doing this. But this is an activity that some may find challenging and rewarding and which can be done in a responsible manner.

[dw]

Remember, I 'm not asking for pros and cons in this thread. That's been done to death. I just want to know whether TPTB will ever bring this back!

[OpinioNate]

dw, on Aug 4 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Remember, I 'm not asking for pros and cons in this thread. That's been done to death. I just want to know whether TPTB will ever bring this back!

Unfortunately, at this time the answer is "No". The archived caches will not be shown on the map for Premium or any other members. I know in '08 I said the feature would return and at the time I was being sincere. The implementation was postponed in favor of other priorities until very recently when the idea was discussed again internally.

It was decided that the liability is more than Groundspeak is willing to stomach. When a land manager is told that a cache will be archived and unavailable for good (which happens frequently, although not often very publicly) we have to be able to back up our promise. Some of you may think it's not a big deal but as a business it can be. We open ourselves up to litigation by doing otherwise.

I recognize the need by geocachers to occasionally know if a location is "safe" by inquiring of past cache history, so volunteer reviewers will continue to be able to help you with this. If you need information about archived caches you can come to them or write to contact@geocaching.com.

It could be that we find some way around this dilemma in the future and archived caches will be available again. Until that day I'm sincerely sorry we won't be able to provide this feature.

[dw]

Oh, well, that's understandable. Thanks for taking the time to answer, though - I really do appreciate all the work that goes into making this such a great website!

[welch]

OpinioNate, on Aug 4 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

dw, on Aug 4 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Remember, I 'm not asking for pros and cons in this thread. That's been done to death. I just want to know whether TPTB will ever bring this back!

Unfortunately, at this time the answer is "No". The archived caches will not be shown on the map for Premium or any other members. I know in '08 I said the feature would return and at the time I was being sincere. The implementation was postponed in favor of other priorities until very recently when the idea was discussed again internally.

It was decided that the liability is more than Groundspeak is willing to stomach. When a land manager is told that a cache will be archived and unavailable for good (which happens frequently, although not often very publicly) we have to be able to back up our promise. Some of you may think it's not a big deal but as a business it can be. We open ourselves up to litigation by doing otherwise.

I recognize the need by geocachers to occasionally know if a location is "safe" by inquiring of past cache history, so volunteer reviewers will continue to be able to help you with this. If you need information about archived caches you can come to them or write to contact@geocaching.com.

It could be that we find some way around this dilemma in the future and archived caches will be available again. Until that day I'm sincerely sorry we won't be able to provide this feature.

[hairball45]

At last a concise, honest answer to yes or no and reasons why. Thanks. All the old ways of finding where caches used to be still hold, so I'll keep building my Local Archived Caches data base.
hairball

[Sol seaker]

I am very glad to hear this!! (that archived caches will continue to not be shown)

Caches are archived for a reason!

One recently was archived, because the cache was in a large pile of ruins of an old building.
My partner said, that never would have been allowed in a city for a minute, but this was worse than in a city. It was an old mining town that a historical society is trying to preserve.
Caches searching though these ruins were adding to the pile's quick deterioration and also putting lives in danger as the pile WILL subside in the future. It is a hundred year old ruin.
To make matters worse, the coordinates are 100 feet off requiring people to dig around. Everything that is touched falls apart.
Some people who knew about this cache continued to make finds on it even after it was archived.
If the historical society learns about this cache they will be banned from the whole area (there are MANY caches in that area now).
If people were able to see archived caches they would see that the owner has not picked this cache up and even more people would continue to search for it.

Thank you for leaving archived caches unseen.

[welch]

Sol seaker, on Aug 31 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

I am very glad to hear this!! (that archived caches will continue to not be shown)

Caches are archived for a reason!

One recently was archived, because the cache was in a large pile of ruins of an old building.
My partner said, that never would have been allowed in a city for a minute, but this was worse than in a city. It was an old mining town that a historical society is trying to preserve.
Caches searching though these ruins were adding to the pile's quick deterioration and also putting lives in danger as the pile WILL subside in the future. It is a hundred year old ruin.
To make matters worse, the coordinates are 100 feet off requiring people to dig around. Everything that is touched falls apart.
Some people who knew about this cache continued to make finds on it even after it was archived.
If the historical society learns about this cache they will be banned from the whole area (there are MANY caches in that area now).
If people were able to see archived caches they would see that the owner has not picked this cache up and even more people would continue to search for it.

Thank you for leaving archived caches unseen.

You're apply a small problem to a lot of caches. whats it called, kneejerk?

[Cardinal Red]

OpinioNate, on Aug 4 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

dw, on Aug 4 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Remember, I 'm not asking for pros and cons in this thread. That's been done to death. I just want to know whether TPTB will ever bring this back!

Unfortunately, at this time the answer is "No". The archived caches will not be shown on the map for Premium or any other members. I know in '08 I said the feature would return and at the time I was being sincere. The implementation was postponed in favor of other priorities until very recently when the idea was discussed again internally.

It was decided that the liability is more than Groundspeak is willing to stomach. When a land manager is told that a cache will be archived and unavailable for good (which happens frequently, although not often very publicly) we have to be able to back up our promise. Some of you may think it's not a big deal but as a business it can be. We open ourselves up to litigation by doing otherwise.

I recognize the need by geocachers to occasionally know if a location is "safe" by inquiring of past cache history, so volunteer reviewers will continue to be able to help you with this. If you need information about archived caches you can come to them or write to contact@geocaching.com.

It could be that we find some way around this dilemma in the future and archived caches will be available again. Until that day I'm sincerely sorry we won't be able to provide this feature.

This flip-flop by Groundspeak would make any career politician proud. Mollify the firestorm. Lay low till the fire starts smoldering again. Retract and apologize. Plant another false glimmer of hope.
Bravo. Well performed and delightfully staged.

[dw]

Cardinal Red, on Sep 3 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

This flip-flop by Groundspeak would make any career politician proud. Mollify the firestorm. Lay low till the fire starts smoldering again. Retract and apologize. Plant another false glimmer of hope.
Bravo. Well performed and delightfully staged.

Having started this thread, I feel a little proprietary towards it! I have to say that I do not at all agree with the foregoing. A real politician would never give a flat out NO, and I appreciate that Groundspeak and its lackeys are willing to give a straight answer. I really don't think Nate was being purposely misleading in 2008 just to shut us all up. Things change, circumstances change, and sometimes policies have to change. While I would have liked to see the ability to search for archived caches return, I understand the reasons why this will not happen.

[Cardinal Red]

dw, on Sep 4 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

Having started this thread, I feel a little proprietary towards it! I have to say that I do not at all agree with the foregoing. A real politician would never give a flat out NO, and I appreciate that Groundspeak and its lackeys are willing to give a straight answer. I really don't think Nate was being purposely misleading in 2008 just to shut us all up. Things change, circumstances change, and sometimes policies have to change. While I would have liked to see the ability to search for archived caches return, I understand the reasons why this will not happen.

A real politician would never give a flat out NO What's flat out about: "It could be that we find some way around this dilemma in the future and archived caches will be available again."
Not that I believe a word of it.

I appreciate that Groundspeak and its lackeys are willing to give a straight answer. And it only took 18 months. I appreciated it more when Jeremy had time to address issues personally.
Now it gets filtered through a spokesperson. So just for the record, what is the GC statute of limitations on a response by a lackey?

I really don't think Nate was being purposely misleading in 2008 just to shut us all up. Things change, circumstances change, and sometimes policies have to change. What changed? GC liability? I doubt it. A new legal interpretation? Possibly. What did GC know, and when did they know it? The promise to Landowners? Certainly not. That issue had been well documented a long time ago.

I have to accept these theatrics by Groundspeak. I just have a hard time being as charitable about it as dw.

[baloo&bd]

Cardinal Red, on Sep 4 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

A real politician would never give a flat out NO What's flat out about: "It could be that we find some way around this dilemma in the future and archived caches will be available again."
Not that I believe a word of it.

I appreciate that Groundspeak and its lackeys are willing to give a straight answer. And it only took 18 months. I appreciated it more when Jeremy had time to address issues personally.
Now it gets filtered through a spokesperson. So just for the record, what is the GC statute of limitations on a response by a lackey?

I really don't think Nate was being purposely misleading in 2008 just to shut us all up. Things change, circumstances change, and sometimes policies have to change. What changed? GC liability? I doubt it. A new legal interpretation? Possibly. What did GC know, and when did they know it? The promise to Landowners? Certainly not. That issue had been well documented a long time ago.

I have to accept these theatrics by Groundspeak. I just have a hard time being as charitable about it as dw.

Let's face it,. requesting the ability to hunt for something that is not there has always been nonsensical. It's hard enough looking for something that is there.

The "no" that was given is more than sufficient and as definitive as a reasonable individual should make. Circumstances do change over time. "at this time the answer is 'No' " means that GS recognizes this and is not foolish enough to paint themselves in a corner that does not allow changes to be a consideration.

Apparently it took 18 months because they were trying to accommodate those that wanted to hunt things that were not there. What is being called "flip/flop" is nothing more than adapting appropriately to all the variables. The only theatrics have been in some of these bullet pointed posts.

This post has been edited by baloo&bd: 07 September 2009 - 09:05 AM

[welch]

baloo&bd, on Sep 7 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

Cardinal Red, on Sep 4 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

A real politician would never give a flat out NO What's flat out about: "It could be that we find some way around this dilemma in the future and archived caches will be available again."
Not that I believe a word of it.

I appreciate that Groundspeak and its lackeys are willing to give a straight answer. And it only took 18 months. I appreciated it more when Jeremy had time to address issues personally.
Now it gets filtered through a spokesperson. So just for the record, what is the GC statute of limitations on a response by a lackey?

I really don't think Nate was being purposely misleading in 2008 just to shut us all up. Things change, circumstances change, and sometimes policies have to change. What changed? GC liability? I doubt it. A new legal interpretation? Possibly. What did GC know, and when did they know it? The promise to Landowners? Certainly not. That issue had been well documented a long time ago.

I have to accept these theatrics by Groundspeak. I just have a hard time being as charitable about it as dw.

Let's face it,. requesting the ability to hunt for something that is not there has always been nonsensical. It's hard enough looking for something that is there.

The "no" that was given is more than sufficient and as definitive as a reasonable individual should make. Circumstances do change over time. "at this time the answer is 'No' " means that GS recognizes this and is not foolish enough to paint themselves in a corner that does not allow changes to be a consideration.

Apparently it took 18 months because they were trying to accommodate those that wanted to hunt things that were not there. What is being called "flip/flop" is nothing more than adapting appropriately to all the variables. The only theatrics have been in some of these bullet pointed posts.

Lets face it, things are never really deleted on this site. Archived only means it is harder to view, maybe only reviewers are given access, but the info is still there.
Hunting for 'caches that are not there ' is only one possiable use for the mapping feature which gc.com has now decided it will not be returning.

[OpinioNate]

Cardinal Red, on Sep 3 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

This flip-flop by Groundspeak would make any career politician proud. Mollify the firestorm. Lay low till the fire starts smoldering again. Retract and apologize. Plant another false glimmer of hope.
Bravo. Well performed and delightfully staged.

Very cynical, but perfectly diagrammed. I had no idea that is what I was doing but there you go. I stumbled upon a classic formula by being a little diplomatic. Go me.

Every word of it is true, though. I won't sugarcoat or promise what can't be delivered. I may be a "spokesman" but I still can and will be candid with you. Just in language that is perhaps more, uh, nuanced than Jeremy's was.

Edit: grammar

This post has been edited by OpinioNate: 10 September 2009 - 03:12 PM

[Renegade Knight]

OpinioNate, on Aug 4 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

...It could be that we find some way around this dilemma in the future and archived caches will be available again. Until that day I'm sincerely sorry we won't be able to provide this feature.

Change the GC number to AC for Archived Cache. Put them on the "not available for seeking" server to make it very clear that these caches are kaput. Then open up the GC# for recyling. Since they don't go in the GPS you can also make the waypoint number "Archived Cache GCXXXX" and make it too long for easy GPS consumption to further back up the non findablity of what isn't supposed to be there. Archived caches aren't about the cache anymore. They are about the logs and history.

Land managers have a right to allow or not allow a cache as they see fit. They have zero right whatsoever to words describing their land, or activities that have taken place on it. I think the worse travestly is that all this history is being locked away. You guys know this or you would merely zap the archived caches so the data and logs no longer exist, rather than make them difficult to find.

Right now nobody is winning. The land manages aren't really getting caches zapped, and cachers can't really access the history that ties us all together. Maybe this is tenable, maybe not. I guess we will see.

[Knight2000]

I like RK's idea and his final statement. It's not like the coords aren't listed on the site as it is now. You just need to know where to look. It would be the same thing if a new system was put in place.

[benji55545]

I just saw this thread and, as someone who really wanted to see archived caches return, I am very disappointed. Bah. Politics politics politics.

[sbell111]

welch, on Jul 28 2009, 08:04 AM, said:

If someones going to pick up a cache not return it to an active owner that would be stealing yes. But people that would do that could probably just as easily go rip off a bunch of active caches too.

In a recent thread regarding 'cache rescue missions', it was found that one geocaching organization has a policy to post archived caches right away and open them up for 'rescue' unless the cache owner contacted the third-party site and objected. Caches 'rescued' could be reused by the 'rescuer' as he saw fit. Returning the item to it's owner or actually giving the owner time to remove his cache were not part of the official procedure.

[sbell111]

benji55545, on Nov 28 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

I just saw this thread and, as someone who really wanted to see archived caches return, I am very disappointed. Bah. Politics politics politics.

Balancing disparate needs (aka politics) is something that every organization (and individual) must consider. Of course, it's a bummer when you are on the 'declined' side of the decision, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

[toczygroszek]

Easy search for archived caches is bad idea. Many caches are archived, because they are against the rules, but they physically still exist. For example in Poland many caches were archived because they were buried, and they still exist registered on local database. That will be no point archive cache if search for it will be still possible. Owner can just leave note in logs "people, you can still look for my cache, is still there and is still buried and on private property - hahaha"

If anybody is really interested about archived caches in his region the best way is check finds of cachers who are playing in this area long time, and you will probably find all archived caches placed there.

[welch]

sbell111, on Dec 1 2009, 08:28 AM, said:

welch, on Jul 28 2009, 08:04 AM, said:

If someones going to pick up a cache not return it to an active owner that would be stealing yes. But people that would do that could probably just as easily go rip off a bunch of active caches too.

In a recent thread regarding 'cache rescue missions', it was found that one geocaching organization has a policy to post archived caches right away and open them up for 'rescue' unless the cache owner contacted the third-party site and objected. Caches 'rescued' could be reused by the 'rescuer' as he saw fit. Returning the item to it's owner or actually giving the owner time to remove his cache were not part of the official procedure.

Which shows there is interest in preventing lost geo trash.
I don't agree with the not returning to the owner, but again if someone wants to steal a cache they will, archived, or not.