Locked caches

[+Funky_Boris]

On September 1st, I and a couple of other geocachers attended a MEGA event i Germany (GC44477). We had crafted an ambitious plan for the way home - to find 10 different types of caches within the same day (this is an ambitious plan, when you live in Denmark, far from Groundspeak HQ, Project APE caches and so on). 16 hours and 400 miles later we arrived home, having achieved our goal.

 

So far so good.

 

Now, most of the caches found were German. I am schooled with the doctrine that you should write "good logs" that describe your experiences and describes any problem that might be with the cache. Since my German is not that good, I postponed the logging thinking that I'd get around to it some day and that I'd always be able to post a log on a cache that I actually found. Come start of November, I did get around to it. I started logging the caches found that day in order so that the journey of the carried trackables would be correctly described.

 

When I came to the 9th log (GCP30H - a webcam cache) i got this message when trying to log the cache:

The listing has been locked and is not accepting new log entries.

I then took the following steps (in order)

1. I wrote the cache owner for help. No reply yet.
   
2. I started a thread on our local Danish geocachers' forum in the "reviewers' corner"-category. The reply roughly translates into:

   If the cache is locked, it's because Groundspeak for some reason does not want any more logs on this cache. Unfortunately we are unable to help.

3. I wrote to Groundspeak support through their website. After a day or so, I got this reply:

   Thank you for contacting us, I apologize for this issue. Unfortunately, we cannot unlock this geocache.
    
   We encourage you to log your finds more frequently as to avoid any situations like this - as rare as they are, they do happen.

Now, here is my problem:

 

Aside from the obvious objection to being asked to settle for 9 and not 10 caches logged online, I have a more general criticism of the handling of this case, in particular in relation to the (lack of) transparency in the matter.

 

I have been a registered member of geocaching.com since 2004, and I have never before been unable to log a cache, that I found in real life -- archived or not. The philosophy has always seemed to be that except for the travel history for trackables (which in essence are shared resources) it has always been the case that you could subsequently make data on the website reflect what has actually happened in the real world, as indeed should be the case. Any restrictions in this regard (deadlines) from a data-dependency point-of-view would be unnecessary at best and in any case disruptive to cachers who in good faith are trying to make the website data (logs) reflect reality.

 

Now there is the issue of locked caches. I understand from the little information that Google was able to scour from this forum that is is a mechanism that is applied to caches that either have been abused or are in danger of being abused, and that it is mostly the grandfathered cache types that become locked since they are relatively rare and dwindling in numbers to boot. I can get behind the sentiment of this decision. If locationless caches were still accepting logs, I doubt that they would only be logged by cachers who had legitimately found them prior to them being archived.

This locking of caches, however, happens with very little transparency:

• There is no notice on the cache description as such that it is locked - only that it has been archived.
  
• There is no explanation available as to when the lock was applied - was the lock applied at the same time as the log entry that archived it? Before? After?
  
• There is no explanation on the cache description as to why the cache was locked - did it happen automatically, triggered by the archiving of a grandfathered type cache, or was it a conscious action of a reviewer or lackey?
  

The answers I got from the people I contacted on my quest to log the cache that I found were all "unable to help" -- both in regard to the actual problem (logging the cache) but also with regard to providing any kind of insight into why.

I find it hard to believe that reviewers and HQ supporters are actually unable to do anything in the matter. Whether or not they want to is another matter entirely. If there is a policy it should be documented.

 

So, to sum it up, my plea is this:

• Formulate a policy regarding the locking of caches and reference it if you apply locking.
  
• Give a 'fair warning' on caches that are they are about to become locked if the locking is being done automatically to pre-empt abuse.
  
• For each cache locked, provide the following information:
  
  • Why was it locked (pre-emptively/abuse/other)?
    
  • When was it / will it be locked?
    
  • Who locked it (bot/reviewer/lackey)?
    

In this way it will be transparent what has happened and why.

 

Oh, and of course I would be thrilled if someone at Groundspeak helped me solve the little problem of GCP30H. It would itself not solve the general problem of transparency but it would restore my confidence in Groundspeak to do the right thing despite criticism.

[Keystone]

Locking caches is nothing new. It's just that it's a relatively rare occurrence that's only done when necessary. Locking a cache requires a separate action above and beyond an archive log, and it can only be done by a Lackey or Reviewer. Sometimes, it is done at the cache owner's request, like when they're tired of deleting bogus logs on an archived cache. At other times a cache listing is locked for reasons that are best kept private between the cache owner and Groundspeak.

 

While a locked traditional cache might occasionally be unlocked temporarily to allow a late log from a legitimate finder, I've never seen this done for a grandfathered cache (virtual or webcam) or for a locationless cache. So, that is a risk the geocacher takes when getting behind in their logging.

[+stijnhommes]

This happened to me recently. I went to log a find, that was locked because the cache did not contain a logbook. It was eventually opened up again. However, in this case, the reviewer and CO were entirely open about the reasons.

 

I totally agree with everything the opening poster said. We need to know a cache is locked before we try to write a log. We need to know when that lock was applied and why. Sure, sometimes things are best left secret, but the fact is that the lock comes as a total surprise to most of use exactly because it's so rare.

 

Finally, if the opening poster can get the CO to confirm their signature is on the paper log, I think they should be allowed to log online. After all, they couldn't have known about the lock on that cache when they went out on that epic 10 types in a day hunt and they don't deserve to be a victim based on a technicality.

[+Funky_Boris]

Locking caches is nothing new. It's just that it's a relatively rare occurrence that's only done when necessary. Locking a cache requires a separate action above and beyond an archive log, and it can only be done by a Lackey or Reviewer. Sometimes, it is done at the cache owner's request, like when they're tired of deleting bogus logs on an archived cache. At other times a cache listing is locked for reasons that are best kept private between the cache owner and Groundspeak.

I can appreciate that. Depriving Groundspeak of this mechanism would probably result in utter chaos on the website.

 

I still don't see the harm in stating a policy and referencing it when caches become locked. If you always lock caches just to prevent abuse just write that.

 

While a locked traditional cache might occasionally be unlocked temporarily to allow a late log from a legitimate finder, I've never seen this done for a grandfathered cache (virtual or webcam) or for a locationless cache.

So there is a difference between legitimate finds why?

 

So, that is a risk the geocacher takes when getting behind in their logging.

What?

 

So the current Groundspeak recommendation on logging caches is something along the lines of:

 

"Log your cache immediately, because logging it may become impossible at any time, without warning, explanation or oversight, at the discretion of one or more anonymous agents of Groundspeak." ?

 

I will try to bear that in mind the next time I plan to go to some remote location to find a cache of a rare type.

[+Funky_Boris]

This happened to me recently. I went to log a find, that was locked because the cache did not contain a logbook. It was eventually opened up again. However, in this case, the reviewer and CO were entirely open about the reasons.

 

I totally agree with everything the opening poster said. We need to know a cache is locked before we try to write a log. We need to know when that lock was applied and why. Sure, sometimes things are best left secret, but the fact is that the lock comes as a total surprise to most of use exactly because it's so rare.

 

Finally, if the opening poster can get the CO to confirm their signature is on the paper log, I think they should be allowed to log online. After all, they couldn't have known about the lock on that cache when they went out on that epic 10 types in a day hunt and they don't deserve to be a victim based on a technicality.

This is a webcam cache, so there is no paper log. There is, however, a couple of thousand webcam pictures collected by a bash script from that day, some of which depict me and my three geo-buddies standing in front of the aforementioned webcam, two of whom got around to logging it before it was locked. I am mentioned in one of their logs.

 

If this was some kind of hoax, it is pretty elaborate in that I would have to have planned it two months ahead of time and to have conspired with other geocachers in order to fake logs and webcam pictures. The idea that I would have gone through all this trouble instead of just logging the cache back when it was still active is simply ludicrous.

[Keystone]

From the cache owner's "disable" log and "archive" log, I conclude that the owner was frustrated with the number of geocachers who did not follow the logging procedures for a webcam cache. He said (paraphrasing) that too many people were just taking live pictures at the site with their cameras, instead of submitting the required webcam photo from the cam's website. This is a common problem for owners of webcam caches, and one of several reasons why the cache type was closed to new submissions in 2005.

 

Part of your frustration is properly directed at the suddenness of the listing being locked with no explanation. I get that. But another thing to be upset about are the logging habits of your fellow geocachers who apparently abused the webcam so much that the owner decided to archive the listing. From the listing, including an archived owner log that you cannot see, I conclude that the owner asked for the page to be locked in order to stop the bogus logs. Those loggers contributed to your inability to log a legitimate find.

 

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what the cache listing says. Your English is way, way better than my German.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Keystone

[cezanne]

I'm speculating, but from the listing I conclude that the owner asked for the page to be locked in order to stop the bogus logs.

 

The owner wrote in the archive log that the web cam is not working continuously any longer, but is available only sporadically during certain periods and that for that reason he archives the cache as cachers can take photos with their camera everywhere and they do not need a webcam cache for that purpose. So it seems that many cachers have taken photos with their camera or mobile phone when the web cam was not working and this was not what the cache owner wants to have (he wanted them to come again when the cam was working again)

 

From my experience it is absolutely necessary to have such a cache locked in countries like Germany and Austria as otherwise cachers do not accept the archival and continue to log.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 6, 2013 by cezanne

[Keystone]

Thank you cezanne for that perspective and trusted translation.

 

You might note that I edited my post while you were writing your helpful reply. I translated an archived log, not visible any longer on the cache page, where the owner asked for a reviewer to archive the listing with the option not to allow any further logs.

[jholly]

This happened to me recently. I went to log a find, that was locked because the cache did not contain a logbook. It was eventually opened up again. However, in this case, the reviewer and CO were entirely open about the reasons.

 

I totally agree with everything the opening poster said. We need to know a cache is locked before we try to write a log. We need to know when that lock was applied and why. Sure, sometimes things are best left secret, but the fact is that the lock comes as a total surprise to most of use exactly because it's so rare.

 

Finally, if the opening poster can get the CO to confirm their signature is on the paper log, I think they should be allowed to log online. After all, they couldn't have known about the lock on that cache when they went out on that epic 10 types in a day hunt and they don't deserve to be a victim based on a technicality.

This is a webcam cache, so there is no paper log. There is, however, a couple of thousand webcam pictures collected by a bash script from that day, some of which depict me and my three geo-buddies standing in front of the aforementioned webcam, two of whom got around to logging it before it was locked. I am mentioned in one of their logs.

 

If this was some kind of hoax, it is pretty elaborate in that I would have to have planned it two months ahead of time and to have conspired with other geocachers in order to fake logs and webcam pictures. The idea that I would have gone through all this trouble instead of just logging the cache back when it was still active is simply ludicrous.

 

If it makes you feel better, the frog also locks travel bug pages.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'd say that you have to live with the consequences of your procrastination! Two months to log your caches??? Anything can (and did) happen in that time frame.

If you weren't watching the cache, you would not have known if anything were happening anyway. Your friends logged the cache. They acted in a timely fashion.

That being said: there are a lot of cachers who do not follow the requirements. And act surprised when someone takes them to task. WebCams seem to attract those sorts of cachers.

Of the webcams that I've done. I can see lots of: Couldn't get the required photo, so here's a photo of me at the location.

As the owner of a WebCam cache, I'd say that 30% of the logs do not meet the requirements. And are deleted. The modern concept of 'entitlement'. "I was there. My cell phone did not work. I am entitled to log a find." Nope. A photo of you, taken by the webcam is required to log this cache. Most realize that they have been caught. But I do get some nasty e-mails.

[+tozainamboku]

But another thing to be upset about are the logging habits of your fellow geocachers who apparently abused the webcam so much that the owner decided to archive the listing.

I'm upset that the cache owner's underwear got in a twist. Certainly owning a containerless cache leaves one in position where people may be logging finds without completing the requirements for logging. If a cache owner doesn't want to be bothered policing logs because their webcam is offline much of the time, they can archive it. I don't understand the need for locking the page to prevent people who have legitimately found the cache and met the requirement from logging it. But this appears to be common policy, especially for containerless caches that get lots of "bogus" finds.

 

It seems that "puritans" are worried that these archived caches invite bogus logs and have to stop the bogus logs at any cost including telling legitimate finders they can't log a find. Let's get rid of found it logs altogether - that way there won't be any bogus finds.

 

People (on the forum in particular) seem to insist that I blame the bogus logger for my not being able to log a cache I legitimately found. This is a bit of stretch for someone who is known for saying that most bogus logs don't bother me. I don't care if someone else believes that when a webcam is down or a cache is missing they should get credit for trying. It's silly, but I can't think of a case where it made any difference as far as my enjoying a cache. Instead I'm more effected by puritan cache owners and Groundspeak lackeys who decide they have to lock the cache page. Fortunately, the smiley isn't all that important to me. If I see an archived virtual or perhaps even a webcam that looks interesting I may just go and find it. A locked page just means no one else gets to read about my experience.

[cezanne]

If a cache owner doesn't want to be bothered policing logs because their webcam is offline much of the time, they can archive it. I don't understand the need for locking the page to prevent people who have legitimately found the cache and met the requirement from logging it. But this appears to be common policy, especially for containerless caches that get lots of "bogus" finds.

 

If the cache does not get locked, the archival does not have any consequences (so it does not provide a solution for an owner of such a cache who wants to put an end to it). The logs will come in nevertheless.

There is no way to distinguish between those who found it legitimately and those who did not except that the cache owner takes care of that.

Even a solution to lock only logs for a date after the archival would not help as people simply would date back their logs.

 

What you say would mean that if someone once came up with a containerless cache that worked fine, he/she can never decide to put an end to it or would be willing to delete later logs manually for years to come.

 

Cezanne

[+Funky_Boris]

From the cache owner's "disable" log and "archive" log, I conclude that the owner was frustrated with the number of geocachers who did not follow the logging procedures for a webcam cache. He said (paraphrasing) that too many people were just taking live pictures at the site with their cameras, instead of submitting the required webcam photo from the cam's website. This is a common problem for owners of webcam caches, and one of several reasons why the cache type was closed to new submissions in 2005.

 

Part of your frustration is properly directed at the suddenness of the listing being locked with no explanation. I get that. But another thing to be upset about are the logging habits of your fellow geocachers who apparently abused the webcam so much that the owner decided to archive the listing. From the listing, including an archived owner log that you cannot see, I conclude that the owner asked for the page to be locked in order to stop the bogus logs. Those loggers contributed to your inability to log a legitimate find.

 

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what the cache listing says. Your English is way, way better than my German.

And my English is way better than my German as well, but I think we agree on the essence of that log in that he was tired of people posting pictures taken with their own cameras when the description of the cache clearly said no webcam picture, no find.

 

I'd say that you have to live with the consequences of your procrastination! Two months to log your caches??? Anything can (and did) happen in that time frame.

If you weren't watching the cache, you would not have known if anything were happening anyway.

I was (though not in the watchlist sense). I wanted to log them in the correct order to get the path of the trackables correct. Of course any indication of the slightest chance that I might lose the ability to log the cache would have made me log it straight away, since good logs and correct paths of trackables are far less important in comparison. The point is that I did not know this and despite having been a geocacher since 2004 have not ever heard of this. I fail to see how procrastination has anything to do with this other than dumb luck.

 

Your friends logged the cache. They acted in a timely fashion.

Two of them did, yes. Yes, they acted timely, but neither them nor I had any idea that they acted timely, since neither of us knew that there was an urgency about it.

 

That being said: there are a lot of cachers who do not follow the requirements. And act surprised when someone takes them to task. WebCams seem to attract those sorts of cachers.

Of the webcams that I've done. I can see lots of: Couldn't get the required photo, so here's a photo of me at the location.

As the owner of a WebCam cache, I'd say that 30% of the logs do not meet the requirements. And are deleted. The modern concept of 'entitlement'. "I was there. My cell phone did not work. I am entitled to log a find." Nope. A photo of you, taken by the webcam is required to log this cache. Most realize that they have been caught. But I do get some nasty e-mails.

There is another problem. Webcam caches are sadly one of the cache types in which failure to live up to the requirements are all too obvious, even from behind your screen.

Most cache types today feature a physical container and has a physical log, the entries of which no reviewer, lackey or Groundspeak support employee can do a cross-reference check on. Cache owners can, but in my experience next to none do.

It is very hard to read from an online log just saying "Found it. TFTC!" whether or not the cacher has actually even been near the site where the container is. Thus, there may be any number of "couch cachers" who go undetected for years. There is little or no control over what actually happens out there, and any suggestion that this should be scrutinized could easily be rejected solely on lack of feasibility.

 

I am a cache owner myself and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. One of my caches is in a park in my town. It has been there on and off since 2005. I have lost count of how many times I have had to replace the container because someone stole it. They usually take the log book with them when they do. Since replacing log books is not an activity I undertake every week, all the physical log entries since the last log book replacement are thus lost which could be anything from a few months to a whole year. When this happens I don't go and start deleting all the interim online logs on the grounds that I no longer have the means to cross-reference to check that they were there physically -- which by the way provides no guarantees at all. If conspiring with other geocachers is an option you can just make a deal with your friends to have them sign the log books that they visit and stay home yourself watching TV or whatever.

 

My point is this: Stop pretending that there is any 'security' whatsoever in the current system, because there isn't. Its a gentleman sport like golf - no one sees what does and does not happen out in the bushes but you come out of the bush and tell your buddies that this thing or the other happened and unless they have any reason to doubt the correctness of the claim, it is taken at face value.

 

The paradox here is that my visit to this particular webcam and my conformity to all the requirements is way better documented than most 'traditional' logs. It would seem from the response I have gotten so far that meeting the stated requirements does not cut it in order to log this cache -- there was an invisible, undocumented, arbitrarily imposed deadline to log it online.

 

But another thing to be upset about are the logging habits of your fellow geocachers who apparently abused the webcam so much that the owner decided to archive the listing.

I'm upset that the cache owner's underwear got in a twist. Certainly owning a containerless cache leaves one in position where people may be logging finds without completing the requirements for logging. If a cache owner doesn't want to be bothered policing logs because their webcam is offline much of the time, they can archive it. I don't understand the need for locking the page to prevent people who have legitimately found the cache and met the requirement from logging it. But this appears to be common policy, especially for containerless caches that get lots of "bogus" finds.

 

It seems that "puritans" are worried that these archived caches invite bogus logs and have to stop the bogus logs at any cost including telling legitimate finders they can't log a find. Let's get rid of found it logs altogether - that way there won't be any bogus finds.

 

People (on the forum in particular) seem to insist that I blame the bogus logger for my not being able to log a cache I legitimately found. This is a bit of stretch for someone who is known for saying that most bogus logs don't bother me. I don't care if someone else believes that when a webcam is down or a cache is missing they should get credit for trying. It's silly, but I can't think of a case where it made any difference as far as my enjoying a cache. Instead I'm more effected by puritan cache owners and Groundspeak lackeys who decide they have to lock the cache page. Fortunately, the smiley isn't all that important to me. If I see an archived virtual or perhaps even a webcam that looks interesting I may just go and find it. A locked page just means no one else gets to read about my experience.

My point exactly. There is little or no actual 'security' in the traditional system, so why pretend? For a lack of a better explanation I am going to assume that it happens for the sake of convenience in the sense that bogus virtual and webcam cache logs are so much more obvious that someone are going to have to delete them, whereas in the traditional system they usually get the benefit of the doubt and everybody is happy.

 

If a cache owner doesn't want to be bothered policing logs because their webcam is offline much of the time, they can archive it. I don't understand the need for locking the page to prevent people who have legitimately found the cache and met the requirement from logging it. But this appears to be common policy, especially for containerless caches that get lots of "bogus" finds.

 

If the cache does not get locked, the archival does not have any consequences (so it does not provide a solution for an owner of such a cache who wants to put an end to it). The logs will come in nevertheless.

There is no way to distinguish between those who found it legitimately and those who did not except that the cache owner takes care of that.

Even a solution to lock only logs for a date after the archival would not help as people simply would date back their logs.

 

What you say would mean that if someone once came up with a containerless cache that worked fine, he/she can never decide to put an end to it or would be willing to delete later logs manually for years to come.

 

Cezanne

No, what I am suggesting is not disallow locking of caches. On the contrary, I think the locking mechanism is a necessary tool for the reviewers and others to control f.x. locationless caches. What I am suggesting is transparency and a policy on locks so that it is transparent what happens and why as opposed to arbitrarily imposed requirements imposed on a whim.

 

I don't see the harm in a one month warning. Local cache owners usually get one month to respond to reviewers if their cache is disabled for extended periods of time or has huge amounts of not-found logs. This deadline does also seem arbitrary but at least its transparent. It explains in advance:

• why this reviewer warning has been posted (usually extended periods of the cache being disabled or many not-founds)
  
• what happens if no response is sent or no action is taken before the deadline: reviewers are going to archive the cache.
  
• who is imposing this sanction (usually a reviewer)
  
• what to do to prevent the sanction (prevent the reviewer from archiving it): Check up on the cache and reenable it.
  

No words minced, no one in doubt about what happens from here and what their options are.

In the case of the locking mechanism Groundspeak has only gotten as far as to explain what -- namely that the cache now no longer accepts logs. All the other details are kept in the dark.

 

I have yet to hear good arguments that

• the locking mechanism should not have the same level of transparency as the abovementioned practice of fair warning before archiving neglected caches
  
• the logging of webcam caches should be held to a disproportionally higher standard for evidence of compliance to cache log requirements
  

[cezanne]

 

I have yet to hear good arguments that

• the locking mechanism should not have the same level of transparency as the abovementioned practice of fair warning before archiving neglected caches
  
• the logging of webcam caches should be held to a disproportionally higher standard for evidence of compliance to cache log requirements
  

 

There is also no process of warning if a cache owner decides to archive and remove a cache with a container. I could do archive all my caches right now if I wanted and it is definitely only my business. You seem to overlook that the owner got tired of the logs and I think he every cacher must have a fair chance to avoid further logs for an archived cache.

 

Suppose you owned a formerly well working webcam cache and then problems arise. I would not want to wait for one month for a solution and receive tons of non legitimate logs in the meantime. Such a warning alerts all the people who absolutely want to obtain this find and have not visited the cache before.

 

BTW:

I'm surprised that you did not encounter a locked cache up to now. In Germany and Austria such caches occur regularly, for example when the cache hiders entered on purpose wrong coordinates to avoid distance conflicts and in case of other guideline violations. Maybe the cachers in Denmark are better in respecting rules.

 

Now you will have learnt for the future that in some countries fast logging might be asset. In a city like Vienna sometimes caches are already archived and locked when people returned home.

 

I think that for any type of grand-fathered cache one should always expect that archival can happen soon.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 7, 2013 by cezanne

[+TriciaG]

This is a suggestion to lock the barn door after the horses have already gotten out, but if you ever have a possibly long lag between finding and logging again, could you log the series with a simple, "Found it - will edit my log later to add details" log? That way the history is there in a timely manner, but you have time to translate into German without worry.

 

I know this is just treating the symptom and not curing the disease; it's just a thought.

[+fbingha]

How about you, Groundspeak, just allow the guy to log the cache? He has given more than enough information to prove he was there and is in the webcam pictures of other loggers. Problem solved, thread closed, Groundspeak +1.

 

You are fond of saying that no cache sets for a precedent for any other so apply that here as well.

[+Lil Devil]

The only thing that boggles my mind here is the reviewer and Groundspeak's unwillingness to help the OP out. It's a legitimate find, so why all the drama? It would take just a moment to unlock the cache. Then the OP could log his find, and the cache can be locked again. Simple.

 

I myself am 2 years behind on my logging. I'm also a reviewer. Occasionally I'll run across a locked cache, and all it does is slow me down. I have to log out and back in 4 times to complete the log. It's not an abuse of power because they are legitimate logs.

[+dprovan]

The only thing that boggles my mind here is the reviewer and Groundspeak's unwillingness to help the OP out. It's a legitimate find, so why all the drama? It would take just a moment to unlock the cache. Then the OP could log his find, and the cache can be locked again. Simple.

 

I myself am 2 years behind on my logging. I'm also a reviewer. Occasionally I'll run across a locked cache, and all it does is slow me down. I have to log out and back in 4 times to complete the log. It's not an abuse of power because they are legitimate logs.

I admit I don't understand why there isn't more sympathy for this special case, but what boggles my mind is someone accomplishing such a momentous feat and not logging it as fast as possible. But I suppose I just don't understand how important the OP considers putting the log in the correct language, since I always just log in English when I'm in Germany. Although I still have to wonder why it took 2 months even if using the proper language was vitally important.

 

But being 2 years behind in your logging is truly astonishing. The only thing more astonishing is that you bother to abuse your power to log the exceptions. (Yes, it is an abuse of power: you're ruling on your own declaration of "legitimate log", and you're getting around the problem in a way not available to people that haven't been entrusted with the ability to unlock caches. Not an abuse I'm worried about, for sure, but still an abuse that I'd prefer a reviewer would acknowledge by, for example, deciding it's not worth logging such a stale find, or at least asking a fellow reviewer to do the unlock.)

[+fbingha]

I don't see it as an abuse if you extend the same courtesy to cachers that ask you to allow them to log a locked cache.

.. but if you were two years behind on logging a locked web cam cache, would you unlock it, log it, and then lock it back up? If so, then that would appear to be an abuse.

 

It was said above that web cam caches are never allowed late logs.

 

While a locked traditional cache might occasionally be unlocked temporarily to allow a late log from a legitimate finder, I've never seen this done for a grandfathered cache (virtual or webcam) or for a locationless cache. So, that is a risk the geocacher takes when getting behind in their logging.

[cezanne]

The only thing that boggles my mind here is the reviewer and Groundspeak's unwillingness to help the OP out. It's a legitimate find, so why all the drama? It would take just a moment to unlock the cache. Then the OP could log his find, and the cache can be locked again. Simple.

 

I guess that Groundspeak would be contacted thousands of times for webcam caches and virtuals if they made once an exception of that type.

 

Even for physical caches it can be quite hard to get them unlocked for logging a find. I did not have such an issue personally, but I know others who made the experience that it can be very hard to be able to log such caches. I know a case where the local reviewers refused to help (the cache got archived and locked by a reviewer because the hider had cheated with the final coordinates and one of the first finders complained to the reviewer) and it took quite some correspondence with Groundspeak to get the logs added. In this case the finder wanted to log the cache a few hours after it got published and not days after the visit and still it was quite an effort to be able to log a found it. So if you are reviewer yourself, you certainly have it much easier than a normal cacher.

 

I myself am 2 years behind on my logging. I'm also a reviewer. Occasionally I'll run across a locked cache, and all it does is slow me down. I have to log out and back in 4 times to complete the log.

 

Actually, I would not be happy at all to receive logs for my caches two years after a visit. If everyone did it that way, the online aspect of geocaching became almost meaningless.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 7, 2013 by cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd like to see cache owners being given the ability to lock and unlock their archived hides. GS could always revoke their ability to unlock them if needed.

[+qwertyuiopasdfghjk66]

On 11/13/2013 at 7:13 AM, 4wheelin_fool said:

I'd like to see cache owners being given the ability to lock and unlock their archived hides. GS could always revoke their ability to unlock them if needed.

That would be a good idea!

[+TriciaG]

Hmm. A ten-year-old thread resurrected for a simple agreement.