- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
GCNJEA may not be physically there but the cache page says that if you can’t find the container it can be logged as a virtual.
I doubt if you will get a reply from the CO, but I shall certainly be mailing him and logging it when I’m next passing Heltor Rock.
This wonderful old cache placed back in the dark ages of early 2005 was sadly archived by the reviewer when it could quite happily carried on as a virtual or possibly been adopted by someone. GH.I disagree with GoldenHaystack on this cache for the following reason:
No matter what the cache owner says it is cheating to log a cache as a virtual just because you cannot find it. This was a traditional cache and NOT a virtual and this statement should never have been allowed. I believe that I was the last person to physically find this cache since May 2011. The only reason I was one of 3 who asked for this cache to be archived was to stop this sort of cheating. I wrote in my Needs Archive log “I totally disagree with the ‘if you can’t find it, log it as a virtual’ idea and for that reason only I think it should be archived.” The reviewer obviously agreed with me as it was archived the next day. When I went to place my “Heltor Rock” cache I soon found the original cache and removed it – it had been there all the time, but I was the only one to find it in nearly 2 years and yet it had been logged as “found” many times during that period.
The basic principle of geocaching is, as we have said so many times, FIND the cache and SIGN the log. Then you can log a find.
DD, with the Great Miss tor “Jubilee” cache (GC5FFC) all you found in good condition was the original label and yet you wanted to preserve this cache even though it had been archived for a number of years. You replaced the log book and container and then moved it to a different location; in effect it was a different cache. You eventually listed it on a different site.
Yet with the Get your rocks of cache (GCNJEA), you posted a needs archived note on the 1st April and the cache was archived on the 2nd April. On the 4th April you found the original cache, but on this occasion, instead of getting the original cache unarchived (which can be done), you removed it and replaced it with your own. The original cache was there to be found, the fact that it hadn’t been found didn’t mean that it was not there.
When GCNJEA was archived by the reviewer, he left this note,
As the Cache Owner has failed to action a Needs Archiving Log, I’m Archiving this cache for Non Maintenance.
Please avoid geolitter by removing any remaining traces of your cache or contact a local cacher to do so for you. If you are having difficulty doing so then please contact me via my profile and I will try to get someone to assist. This is particularly important if your cache appears to contain Travelbugs or Geocoins.I am not sure why this website needs to promote geolitter; there are many caches available on Dartmoor. I do not feel the need to visit archived caches that have not been removed and will not do so, I completely understand that many others will not feel that way and will log finds, that is their choice.
It should also be said that when archiving GCNJEA, the reviewer gave only one day for the cache owner to sort the problem out. It seems that some cachers have a lot more time than that to sort out problems with their caches.
With regards to the Jubilee cache, I found it all, but it was the original label which helped me identify it. However, it was leaking and the logbook saturated. It had already been moved, which is why it had gone missing. I tried to get the owner to unarchive the cache, but got no reply. I agree, you can argue that it is a different cache, but few caches are the original boxes and logs, often they go missing and are replaced and it is always allowed to move a cache. But I respect that argument.
The Heltor cache is completely different. I was the 3rd to ask for this to be archived and the ONLY reason I asked was that it was being logged without being found. This is clearly wrong for a traditional cache which has to be physically found. The owner hadn’t even logged on to the site for about a year and was clearly inactive. I would have adopted this cache but you can only do that with the owner’s agreement, it wasn’t an option with this cache.
Your last point is perfectly correct. This owner had 23 caches, 15 of which have “Needs Maintenance” against them. He was clearly inactive, wasn’t interested in maintaining his caches and it is right that a reviewer should archive those caches when asked to do so. Owners who are clearly active with an excellent maintenance record should be given longer. However, I would much rather see a change in the rules so that caches can be adopted WITHOUT the owners permission, if they are inactive. We are asked to remove the geolitter of archived caches but cannot take a cache over, as this would be stealing! What a crazy anomaly that is.
Of course Dave, you are absolutely right that the ‘Get Yer Rocks Off (TV7)’ cache would not be passed by today’s reviewers. But that is what I like about these old caches. In particular WillDeBeast came up with some very quirky caches. There are several of his that although only one cache page they have more than one physical location and log sheets, for example GCNJEF. I note that Dartymoor has replaced a log sheet in one of the two canisters which will help to maintain that old cache from the past. Another old and different cache is GCH836. Listed as traditional but would not be classified as such today. I hope it doesn’t get archived just because it doesn’t comply with today’s rules. Rules are for the guidance of … etc.
I have just completed logging 100 of Devon’s Live caches placed before June 2005. An interesting exercise taking me all over Devon (several on Dartmoor) and comprising many great caches. But I’m just an old softy, nostalgia ain’t what it used to be! GH.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
