GeoBain

On that we agree. However "forcing": Your cache is disabled. It will not be re-enabled and made active again until you check on it. ie, forcing. "arbitrary": There is no written guide for the maximum period of time a cache may sit before the CO is required to do a routine check. ie, arbitrary. I don't think there's any debate about the use of the words. The debate is whether this is a reasonable action on the part of the reviewer. And we will have to disagree on that point. If this is "forcing," then I fail to see why people aren't up in arms about this alleged "force" any time a reviewer asks for anything. Are we all really being forced to maintain our caches? If it's been disabled with a 30 day countdown clock to archival, yes, you're being forced. That is not a simple request.

I agree with this. However, I do think the OP should be given more time. Ideally, since these caches are not really hurting anyone, it seems that rather than disabling multiple remote caches at once that they could have been spread out to give the CO more time to get to the remote caches.

I would also add, what you can reasonably maintain. Powertrails don't require maintenance; at least not by the owner.

A couple of thoughts after reading through the thread. A new cacher logging a DNF does not create a need for maintenance. If this trend of disabling caches due to a DNF and long time frame since finds continues, hikers are going to find themselves with fewer caches requiring long hikes. However, if the point of placing such a cache is to give the seeker an enjoyable experience hiking in a majestic location, then it seems to me that an owner wouldn't mind returning to the location once or twice. And if someone adopts such a cache but has not yet visited it, then they should be happy to go check on it and experience the area for themselves.

I've been caching for over 14 years, and ever since I began people have been coming up with excuses not to log DNFs. This particular version is relatively new, though, and the sad thing is that it is closer to being valid than earlier rationalizations. But it's still just an excuse. If I didn't sign the log, no matter what the reason, I log a DNF. In defense of the DNF, I would imagine a good and fair-minded reviewer is going to take the language within the DNF with proper context before causing "unwanted/unneeded hassles". It depends. If the reviewer is responding to a NA log, then yes, he or she is probably going to read and take into account the context of the DNF log. But if they are running a maintenance script searching for problem caches, probably not so much. In this case a DNF because you had some issue rather than there being an issue with the cache could cause an unwarranted problem. However, this is not the fault of your DNF. This is an issue with the way these maintenance sweeps are run. Some kind of maintenance script may be used but i would think it was just to identify potential problems. May stand corrected but, i doubt a reviewer would use a script that automatically took action on its own. He or she is still going to look up and read the cache page to determine if further action is needed. I have no idea. But based on some past threads it seems that at least some of the time caches are disabled based solely on the presence of multiple DNFs. But that's all I'm willing to comment on. Generally, I think reviewers do a fine job so this was not meant as any kind of condemnation.

I've been caching for over 14 years, and ever since I began people have been coming up with excuses not to log DNFs. This particular version is relatively new, though, and the sad thing is that it is closer to being valid than earlier rationalizations. But it's still just an excuse. If I didn't sign the log, no matter what the reason, I log a DNF. In defense of the DNF, I would imagine a good and fair-minded reviewer is going to take the language within the DNF with proper context before causing "unwanted/unneeded hassles". It depends. If the reviewer is responding to a NA log, then yes, he or she is probably going to read and take into account the context of the DNF log. But if they are running a maintenance script searching for problem caches, probably not so much. In this case a DNF because you had some issue rather than there being an issue with the cache could cause an unwarranted problem. However, this is not the fault of your DNF. This is an issue with the way these maintenance sweeps are run.

As someone who has been wheelchair bound for some time, let me state that this is no excuse to log a find without signing the log. If I can't figure out a way to sign the log, I don't consider it a find.

It's my cache. If someone logs it, I want them to have actually found it and at least handled the paper log. If there are no logging rules, then the find counts are meaningless. Someone with 100,000 finds who never even touched the caches? I'm not impressed. But the find counts are meaningless. You might choose to police your logs strictly. But if the vast majority of COs don't police their logs as strictly as you, how are you to know the validity of anyone's find count? Maintain your cache to whatever standard you desire. But find counts are still pretty meaningless.

Some of my most memorable and fun outings resulted in a DNF. Edit: added the word most which should have been in original post

If it's GC635P1, it appears you are neglecting it. I wish our local reviewer did such a great service to our community. I wouldn't call two dnf's neglect. And the CO has a record of replacing when it has gone missing. I agree with the reviewer. Locally we have do many unmaintained listings it's hurting geocaching as a whole. This doesn't seem to be such a situation. Reference my previous post. He performed the maintenance but just didn't log it properly so the cache remained flagged.

Different reviewers have their own schedules as to when or if they do maintenance searches for caches needing attention. I don't believe you will find a definitive guideline with specific deadlines. However, looking at your cache, I think the problem is that when you replaced the cache, you posted a note to the page instead of a maintenance log. Since you did not log it as maintenance, your cache is still flagged as needing maintenance. Go check the cache to ensure it is still there and then post a maintenance log stating such. This will clear the flag and get you off the reviewer's 30 plan. Good luck.

Believe it or not, there is actually a thread here somewhere about a very similar cache that was blown up by a bomb squad. I kid you not. It even had the fake outlet. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=239420&view=findpost&p=4181080

Since this is a concern for you, you could shoot the reviewer an email explaining what you are planning and why before you archive just to be on the safe side. But it really shouldn't be a problem.

The International Competition Where Master Lock-pickers Do Battle Locksport Lock sport International And one of my favorite YouTube channels is Bosnian Bill.

Competitive lock picking is actually becoming popular around the country. I think this is a great idea for a cache. Just let me know before I go searching what to expect. I don't normally carry picks with me and it would irritate me to have to go home and get picks and come back. (Not that I wouldn't just to prove I was up to the challenge).

+1

I have no comment on the general situation since it seems murky due to the apparent lack of a record of all communications. However, my takeaway of this thread is that all communication about a cache placement should be done via reviewer notes, especially if there have been previous problems. And if you do decide to communicate via email, it should be done exclusively via Groundspeak's email service so a record of all emails is kept. Then at least you have the option of having a third party review all communications, including any archived messages.

That's a very odd question. Just because someone has access to information does not mean they will use it nefariously. As a sys admin for several businesses, I have complete access to sensitive servers. But I use that access for the purpose for which it was granted and no more. Just because I can access the information does not mean that I will. I'm hired partly for my skill set, but probably more for my reputation as a trustworthy individual. The same goes for reviewers. I think it's pretty insulting to insinuate anything different.

I have asked you politely in the past to please refrain from personal attacks. In light of this quite personal attack, I ask again. I do not see the personal attack, personally. But I will say that just because someone has not hidden a cache (even though the lack of hides under a particular user account proves nothing), this does not invalidate one's opinion on what proper cache maintenance should look like.

This is the crux of the issue, in a succinct statement. Don't worry about the forums. Choose your path and as long as you sleep well at night, so be it.

The nocturnal have a clear advantage.

Did you mean to say that too much is subjective and to fix the system we need to make things more objective?

OP just hasn't logged out of the forums yet. If he ever does, the names should sync.

If you go out and perform the needed maintainance, why would that cache die?

If you know the cachers in question and you know they are ok with friendly ribbing, go for it. Otherwise, it's probably a bad idea.