What will kill the game

[gotta run]

@Bassanio wrote:

@Team Black-Cat wrote:

As mentioned before…. Geocaching.com isn’t the only geocache listing website. Might want to check the other sites before yanking a perfectly good cache out of play…

You do know that once a cache is archived on geocaching.com, it instantly becomes geo-litter, right? 😯

Ah…no, it does not. I hope you are joking.

What if you archive a letterbox hybrid but decide to keep it listed on atlasquest and letterboxing? What if you archive a regular cache but decide to keep it published on various other geocaching sites? What if you archive a cache on geocaching.com but decide to keep it “in play” to use for a class or scout group?

ALL caches are “geo-litter” by someone’s definition. The question is if they can be logged, and whether they can be removed.

Both of those questions are answered by the owner. The vast majority of rescue missions involving removal of caches involve caches that have been force-archived for maintenance issues.

And remember, the WGA is not groundspeak, and groundspeak is only a listing service. It does not own caches and we have no right to fiddle with them unless the terms of service around the listing are violated–as in the lack of maintenance to keep a cache in playable condition. Simply deciding to not list a cache there anymore does not violate those terms.

As I said earlier, file a rescue mission if you feel an in place cache should be removed. That is the authorization procedure.

It’s time to have a reviewer pipe in here.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[BigJim]

Maybe I should rephrase what I said before. If I am going to be in the area of an archived OPS cache, I will contact OPS and ask if they want the cache removed. If so, I will remove it for them. Didn’t mean to fire things up.

All opinions, comments, and useless drivel I post are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the WGA BOD.

[Todd300]

Everyone should remember everyone plays the game their own way.

If OPS wants to archive all his caches because of one too many TFTC’s, that’s fine.

If Codejunkie wants to delete logs off an archived cache because the name wasn’t on the physical cache, that’s fine.

If I want to pull my cemetery caches because I don’t think a cemetery should be a geocaching playground, that’s my right too.

Every CO can do what he wants with his caches so as long as it follows groundspeak guidelines.

While cut and paste and TFTC logs are annoying, they don’t bother me and I’m not gonna pull my caches if I get a run of TFTC’s in my notifications.

But I also respect OPS’ decision to archive all his caches because of the TFTC’s in the logs. It is his right and all it means is someone else will place a cache in that area.

Cache on.

[Crow-T-Robot]

@gotta run wrote:

Ah…no, it does not. I hope you are joking.

I was 😀 I was just poking fun at the notion that just because a geocache isn’t listed on geocaching.com, it doesn’t exist or after being archived is just geo-garbage.

[Crow-T-Robot]

@Todd300 wrote:

If OPS wants to archive all his caches because of one too many TFTC’s, that’s fine.

I don’t think the issue was that OPS archived his caches for TFTC logs. The issue was that the one cache was, and I assume still is, left in its hiding spot after being archived. OPS does list caches on opencaching.com but as of yet, this particular cache is not listed on that service. I didn’t check any other listing sites.

If OPS no longer intends for this cache to be found (and logged), he really should go out and collect it. I’ve found this cache and it’s two steps off a walking trail, hidden in a very obvious geobeacon (a stump with a hole in the middle). I could very easily see someone scouting for a spot to place a cache and zeroing in on this stump, only to find the archived cache still there.

[CodeJunkie]

@Todd300 wrote:

If Codejunkie wants to delete logs off an archived cache because the name wasn’t on the physical cache, that’s fine.

…

Every CO can do what he wants with his caches so as long as it follows groundspeak guidelines.

I believe my right to delete logs for lack of a signature falls under the GC.com guidelines. This would not be an unreasonable thing to do given the situation, but … Considering who it is, I’m not going to let them get under my skin. If they choose to drive within a few miles and call it close enough, that’s fine by me. I’ve decided to beat these people at their own game by doing 2 things.

1) Move my traditional caches to spots they won’t go.
2) Place a notice on all cache pages noting that caches will be periodically monitored and logs without a signature will be deleted, no questions asked.

[Todd300]

I can probably understand a deletion if you spot it a day or two after the “find”. I would do the same.

But…

If you delete logs of “finds” that were made weeks ago, that can mess up the stats of a cacher.

I found a cache that was 1/1. As it turned out, it was not wheelchair accessible. So I made a mention of that in the log and suggested a T1.5 rating. Later that week, I continued my run and got a milestone – only for the CO of that 1/1 cache to delete my log because he didn’t like my suggestion. I missed the deletion notice and when I put in the “My Finds” query into GSAK, a different cache was recorded as the milestone.

I was pissed. I went back into my e-mail and found the deletion notice (I had a lot of notifications that day).

So I went back and re-logged the find of that “1/1” cache with a simple “TFTC” on the date I found it. That log stayed up. Downloaded a query for that area since “My Finds” was already downloaded. Imported it into GSAK and my milestones were back in order again.

So keep that in mind if you decide to delete a log that was made weeks ago.

[gotta run]

Why am I suddenly thinking of the “what I want for Christmas” thread?

On the Left Side of the Road...

[-cheeto-]

Why bother caring about if someone signs the physical log?

I’ve never deleted another cacher’s online log. It’s not my find count and it doesn’t affect the cache at all. In fact, if someone chooses not to log it just means the log has more room for others who do sign each find.

[Todd300]

@-cheeto- wrote:

Why bother caring about if someone signs the physical log?

I’ve never deleted another cacher’s online log. It’s not my find count and it doesn’t affect the cache at all. In fact, if someone chooses not to log it just means the log has more room for others who do sign each find.

Exactly. Especially for nanos.

[JimandLinda]

Alright, how ’bout this?

Just saw a log with no words. Just 1 picture of some tots rummaging through an ammo can. Is that OK? Spoiler? It didn’t say TFTC or SL. Did they SL?

Just wondering…

[CacheNoTrace]

I’d rather have a picture than a TFTC or ;). It takes more effort to post a pic than to write TFTC.

[Northwoods Tom]

@JimandLinda wrote:

Alright, how ’bout this?

Just saw a log with no words. Just 1 picture of some tots rummaging through an ammo can. Is that OK? Spoiler? It didn’t say TFTC or SL. Did they SL?

Just wondering…

I have to say I also am one of those who loves pictures related to the cache that people visit. I personally try to take them (when I can get my hands on a camera, yep, still don’t own one of my own…) and post them. A perfect example was when I cached the Mandan Road in the U.P. 20 some caches over 20+ miles. Most people would just put a short note or a cut and paste in their log. My way of thanking the individual for all this effort on truly fun run, was to post a picture of this seasonal road at each stop.

To me, a picture says so much more if we remember or take the time to take one.

[CodeJunkie]

You know what they say.

A picture is worth a 1000 words.

[jshepherd1102]

I agree with the original poster, people need to learn the game before they play it. Logging is a part of the deal.

[Author]

Posts