Geocaching Australia

The Ministro (GC Reviewer) publishes a cache on geocaching.com
2 hours later the cache is found and the logbook stamped and dated.
14 hours later the owner disables the cache and says it is meant to be published in the future, with a note saying the container has been removed until that later date.

Owner states no found logs will be accepted prior to that date.

Is a found log still allowed to be made ?

It's not the finder's fault that the hider stuffed up. There was a published cache and it was found. That's a smiley without doubt.

From the guidelines:

Your cache should be in place and ready to hunt at the time your cache page is enabled online

Unless Ministro misses a reviewer note asking for a delayed publication, then the cache was available to find and log.
Email the owner and tell them that you're about to re-enter the log, and why it's valid.
If they delete it again, complain to Ministro or Groundspeak.

When I saw the listing I already wondered if some found-it logs have been deleted. Obviously that's the case and I call that a bad style by the owner. If they stuffed up and clicked the activae listing button: bad luck. If Ministro oversaw a reviewer-note: still bad luck. It's just a game and things like that happen.

If someone finds your cache and signs the logbook he gets the smiley - no matter if he found the they way you intended it or some other way. That's the rule.

Did you sign the log? If so you can log it online.

Without knowing exactly the cache you're talking about, I had one that I got an email early this morning that they were wondering how it was published It seems that they had accidentaly activated it.

Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.

Big Matt and Shell wrote: Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.

So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?

I hope cachers will understand the hiders intentions and accept the desire to wait until the specific date. I for one was excited to see this hide and hope there will be more like it.

<paid comment>
I wonder if we continue to reduce the "rights" for owners to control their caches we will find fewer people willing to put effort into creating complex caches.. More mint tins under bushes anyone?
</paid comment>

covert wrote:

Big Matt and Shell wrote: Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.

So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?

I did all WPs of this cache when no logs but the 'Published' log had been submitted, however the GZ was a bit too far to travel to on the night considering my home was within 5km of the WP before the final and I had school the next morning . However in saying that I DID get another FTF on the same night an hour later......

I reckon you should claim the find. If they choose to delete, then complain.

Mind you, these are very experienced cachers we are talking about. Not really that relevant, but just putting it in perspective for some out of state readers.

The issue is that it is really nobodies fault. Ministro made a mistake, CO didn't want the mistake to happen so they don't want any finders, then you want the find because you rightfully served it. Just an unfortunate turn of events

Unless I'm missing something (which is probable given the only information I have about the scenario is what's on this page) isn't the "win-win" outcome here for the finder to wait till the cache is officially published, and then re-log it?

jonnosan+2 wrote:Unless I'm missing something (which is probable given the only information I have about the scenario is what's on this page) isn't the "win-win" outcome here for the finder to wait till the cache is officially published, and then re-log it?

You mean to log it online when it is officially published or go sign the logbook again after it is officially published ?

I have yet to log the find online.

I mean log it online.

jonnosan+2 wrote:I mean log it online.

I don't know how the CO would take to this considering his name wouldn't be in the logbook anymore (they replaced the logbook).....

covert wrote:

Big Matt and Shell wrote: Nope, that was my fault! I had a few notes back and forward to the CO and I missed the original note requesting that the cache be published on a set date. I've now retracted it.

It was bound to happen eventually, I'm only human. Sorry to the CO and anyone that went to find it.

The other cache that I was thinking about was in QLD.

So where does that leave me with my 2 hours of time 60k+ km of travel ?

Much richer for the journey. I'd suggest you have a head start on others when it is listed again.