Greatland Reviewer

Oh, good. I thought I was just having trouble reading. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but from the discussion and the help page, I don't see a problem with a flashmob event where the flashmob, including the event organizer, comes and goes in 2 minutes. As far as I can see, the new rules only say that someone showing up 28 minutes later has to be allowed to log that they attended even though they didn't make it in time to flash with the mob. I'm I misreading something? An event is a gathering of geocachers, facilitating the social aspect of geocaching. It is organized by geocachers and is open to other geocachers and those interested in learning about the game. It takes place at the posted coordinates, includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes.

As described, this event would not be publishable under the new guidelines. A thirty minute event associated with the hike could be a trailhead meeting with safety talk, route description, TB exchange, prehike snack or other activities from 0830-0900, a prehike breakfast at a restaurant from 0830-0900, a meet-up at a carpool location from 0830-0900, or a posthike debrief at a restaurant/pub over a beverage of one's choice between 1500 and 1530.

I discourage anyone from dropping a replacement cache unless they know exactly where the original cache was located and know for a fact the original container is missing. This goes for any cache, not just the one that is the subject of this thread. My preference for "Kougarok" is that the next seeker remove the throwdown cache and log their "Found It" or "DNF" based on their success in finding or not finding the original container. This would restore legitimacy to the first "found it" on Alaska's oldest unfound cache or set the stage for eventual archival without knowing for certain geolitter would be left behind. Other cachers have dropped "replacement" caches at some of my player account's hides rather than log a DNF and I've had to go out and remove their container because the original was sitting exactly where it was supposed to.

I am the Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer for Alaska, I have a watch on the cache and will take action when there is enough evidence that archival is necessary. Right now, there is only one DNF on the cache and there is apparently a throw down container on site. If the cache is archived now, at least one piece of geolitter will be left behind. This is a perfect example of why throw down caches (especially in a remote areas) are a terrible idea. If the Good Samaritan doesn't actually know where the original cache was placed, they run a very real risk of placing a second container in the area that also has the potential to become geolitter. Please consider the following: 1. Whether the Cache Owner was validated or not is irrelevant to this conversation. Validation because a fixture of the site long after this cache was placed. 2. Whether the Cache Owner is active or not is irrelevant to this conversation until a problem with the cache is verified. There are currently hundreds of caches in Alaska with inactive Cache Owners that are perking along just fine. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of caches worldwide without active Cache Owners. When actual issue(s) arise with them, they are dealt with on an individual basis. 3. One DNF does not require archival. The number of DNFs it takes to prompt Reviewer action varies subjectively based on region, number of potential visitors, difficulty of the cache hide, difficulty of the terrain, perceived experience level of the cache seeker(s), and other variables. 4. Considering the date the cache was placed and not knowing the GPS model or experience of the Cache Owner with the GPS, it's very possible the coordinates are significantly off and a fairly broad search area many be required.

(Not directed at you specifically) Is the reviewer truly aware of a string of DNFs and a NM? (I'm not sure if adding more NM actually does anything) I've asked my reveiwer(s) but I know the answer as to how they handle these. To paraphrase - We address each issue as needed Is there some sort of statute I can follow so I know when it's time to escalate? You'd think after a year of problems I could request action without being the bad guy. There is no set process for reviewer action regarding strings of DNFs or long-standing NM. As a player, two consecutive DNFs or a NM log is enough for me to filter out a cache using GSAK and avoid looking for it, especially when I'm traveling. As a reviewer, I give cachers a lot more time before I start nudging them (see above). I review caches for Alaska which has a fairly small number of caches (~4300), so with five PQs I can pull every cache in the state, crunch them through GSAK, I create a list of caches with four or more consecutive DNFs or a NM attribute. For the caches with serial DNFs, I'll post a Reviewer Note suggesting that the cache owner check on their cache and let the caching community know via a Note log that the cache is all right and just tough to find, replace the cache, or archive it themselves, knowing that eventually a frustrated cacher will drop a Needs Archived (NA) log on the cache and "force" me to "officially" look at the cache and potentially take action. Once an NA is written to a cache page, I'll archive fairly quickly if the cache owner has not logged onto the site within the past three months or so. All of my archive notes include content informing the cache owner then can have their cache unarchived within thirty days if the contact me, but prior to unarchiving, the cache will receive the same review as a new cache. NM attributes by themselves won't prompt me to archive a cache, but I will drop a friendly reminder note on each cache page displaying that attribute in the Fall suggesting that the cache owner take care of any issues before the snow flies and maintenance will be more difficult. In late Spring as the last of the snow melts at lower elevations, I'll drop a similar reminder note on each cache page suggesting that the cache owner may wish to spiff up their cache before the summer caching crush begins. The notes have tips on how to clear the attribute if maintenance was performed and the cache owner didn't clear the attribute with an Owner Maintenance log. No, there isn't a specific guideline on this. However, I don't see anyone being the "bad guy" reporting issues of any sort about a cache if there is a problem (lots of consecutive DNFs, bad coordinates, private property, soaked log). The only "bad" guys and gals I see out there are the cache owners who take issue with chachers for bringing issues up or don't respond to NM and other logs with at least a simple "I checked on the cache and it's where it's supposed to be" note to the cache page. Even if one doesn't watch the cache logs stream into their inbox, it's very simple to check all of one's caches online through one's profile by looking for the NM attribute and then go check or fix the caches with potential issues. Your volunteer reviewer experience will vary depending on work load, total number of caches in the reviewer's area, etc.

I don't see any pending hides, either. Gitchee-Gummee's post #9, item 2, might be the solution, but I suspect the cache page may not have been saved. Please go to Your Profile > Quick View and see if you have any caches listed under "Your Unpublished Disabled Caches." If you see a cache there, click on the link and post the GC number here. Nevermind...the local reviewer posted a note on the cache page on July 21.