Quiggle

I wouldn't call it "extremely literal", but it's the basic definition of a cache: http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx Traditional Cache This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

I'm invoking the Nanny Nanny Boo Boo law on this one and closing it. If the corporate policy changes, an update will be posted.

Are we invoking Vinny's Law on this thread?

Please see this entry in the FAQ

Since Groundspeak will no longer adopt a cache without the owner's consent, it is unlikely you will be able to do anything with the listing. You'd have to have the owner log in to the adoption tool and transfer it, which would not be possible with a banned account.

As Isonzo Karst pointed out, that will make your mileage a bit wonky if you care about that. In my review areas there are a few of these that I come across. It's an extra step but I'll review around it. If it's just a dead listing, I'll archive it.

Bingo. Periodically I'll go through my list of caches that I have disabled and clear ones that are many months old. If the cache owner wants to work on it some more, an email to me with the GC# and I'll unarchive it.

Moving to regional forum.

Happy Holidays!

Closed.

To everyone, not just sbell111, who continues to ignore Keystone's request in post #13 (I realize that post is on page 1 and we're at page 3 already) I'll quote it: To keep this topic open, let's keep it on topic, please.

There are certain people that should just use the ignore feature on certain other people, and these threads would have a much better chance to stay on topic.

Also be sure your night cache is in an area open and accessible at night. Most parks in the areas I review would not fit that requirement.

I typically see this with cache owners not doing it, so I give them instruction on how to clean up their cache page (as a maintenance issue) by marking it missing. I always suggest they contact the owner with an email to let them know as well since they don't get any notice. A system-generated email for this would be nice, but in the meantime I continue suggesting a user-generated email.

Micros in guard rails always provoke such thoughtful and pleasant discussions so before this one veers completely off the tracks, I'll remind everyone of the forum guidelines at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules Thanks, Quiggle

Moving this feature request to the website forum.

Moving to GPS and Technology forum.

Bingo. Hide a new cache at the original spot and link to the old page if you want to share the "history" of the location.

Moving to the hardware/software forum.

I come across these caches fairly regularly while looking at caches around my area. Do I seek them out? No, but I can find them. You can even use GSAK to search for such things, can't you? You're missing the point entirely by taking the paranoid view of things. Your cache won't be archived just because you disable it. You've got time to take care of it, so do so. But don't disable it then forget about it. I've had caches in my area disabled for 6 months due to a park closure and renovation. Never archived the cache because there was a legit reason. But the guy who disabled his cache in July, got a note from me three months later in October, and still didn't do anything in November, his cache was archived. That's a four month span (one third of the year) and his cache was archived but the six month disabled cache didn't. See the difference? What would be the point? A needs maintenance log is an extra flag to the cache owner that their cache needs maintenance, if they tend to skim (or not read) the found it logs. If they miss the needs maintenance logs, you can log a needs archived. If you're complaining about disabled caches being archived, can you imagine the uproar it would cause if a cache that just needed a new logsheet (which is a perfect example for a needs maintenance log) was archived because those logs went to reviewers? My point is those are minor issues, and don't need reviewer intervention. Those instances that do, there's already a log type for that. Above you argued against disabling a cache because you believe it will get archived (reviewers don't get disabled logs either, unless the cache is on a watchlist), but on the other hand you're saying the majority of disabled caches get fixed and return to service. Which is it?

The consideration is for those that want to place a cache but can't because someone won't take care of their cache yet it holds a 528 foot buffer. The consideration is for those that want to find a cache but can't because someone won't take care of their cache and the cache is not actually there to find (but you didn't know that because they failed to utilize the tools on the website to disable the cache to let others know there was a problem and allow them to filter it out of their pocket query).

Automated archiving? I don't have any options for automated archiving. I have to look at each cache individually. If the cache owner has it disabled for a length of time and has updates on the page, I'm happy to leave it alone (in most cases, but it depends on the situation). If it's disabled for 3 months with no information, and my "What's the status?" note doesn't get any response, then I archive it, usually after 30 days. So in that scenario, the cache has sat there for 4 months, or 1/3 of the year. Now if I see a cache that is not disabled, yet gets continued DNFs and no owner action, I'm more likely to disable then archive it sooner than the first scenario, because it appears as if the owner isn't paying attention. I can find these on my own through regular browsing of the site, e-mails from cachers that are frustrated due to lack of owner attention, or needs archived logs. In case 1, the owner is in charge, and keeping updates, therefore the cache is more likely to stick around. In case 2, the owner appears to not care about the cache, therefore the cache is less likely to stick around. Which door are your caches behind?

Only if it's on our watchlist. We get automatically get Needs Archived logs, but not Owner Maintenance or Needs Maintenance logs. In fact I have had this as a line in my sig for some time now due to the amount of people that say that we do.

Another helpful resource is this knowledgebase article which just came out in the weekly mailer.

Closing this broken thread.