+Alibags Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 (edited) Oooooh ooooh, my turn for a rant. Temporarily disabled caches! You know the scenario.... you run a PQ for nearest unfound caches and there that bleedin disabled cache, sitting there in your query. It has not been touched since last April... the last note is from the cache owners saying "will attend to this next week" but that was 6 months ago. Sure you can chose to add them to your ignore list, but nobody else can place a cache near the area as it's still being clogged up by the ghost of long dead caches. There are some reasons why a cache could be disabled for a long time, such as it has had to be removed whilst building work is going on nearby, but many just appear to be forgotten about and unloved by their cruel owners. Here's my suggestion - if there is such a cache near you that you have done in the past and enjoyed, you could go and replace it on behalf of the owner. Alternatively contact the owner and volunteer to adopt it, as they are obviously too busy to look after it. Finally, you could draw the cache to the attention of the approvers and they could archive it if this seems justified. As an interesting exercise, run a PQ of caches that are not active, centered on your own location, and have a browse of the results! Edited December 21, 2005 by Alibags Quote Link to comment
+The HERB5 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 It has not been touched since last April... the last note is from the cache owners saying "will attend to this next week" but that was 6 months ago. I/We have a place in the Pyrennees which we visit at least 3 times a year, does that mean I can do a cache there. Or is this a holiday cache and not allowed ? Quote Link to comment
NickPick Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Phew, for a minute then, I thought you were talking about mine, but then I realised that mine has only been disabled since October. You have prompted me to get my finger out and replace it though, so it should be re-abled shortly - possibly in a slightly changed location / offset so I'll let you re-log it. Perhaps we should set up a 'rant rota' so we only have one rant per week? Quote Link to comment
+Alibags Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 I am not sure what your reply has got to do with my rant, Nebias. However, assuming you went once every 4 months, you would still be doing better than some of the 'temporarily disabled' caches that I have seen. Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As an interesting exercise, run a PQ of caches that are not active, centered on your own location, and have a browse of the results! 100 mile radius of my home turned up 22 disabled caches, is this acceptable?? There is one in Edinburgh, that has been disabled because people didn't like it, but it is still there, and people still go and find it, and another that has been disabled for a while, the owner has told me that he will replace it, but that was a few months ago. Quote Link to comment
Nediam Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As an interesting exercise, run a PQ of caches that are not active, centered on your own location, and have a browse of the results! I have 157 "inactive" caches within a 100 mile radius of my house! I think you have a fair point Alli Some were deactivated yesterday but many go back several months. The longest "temporarily archived" cache on my PQ dates back to 06/03/5 which was last found on 10/02/05. Note says it will be replaced by the summer! Quote Link to comment
+bargee Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Oooooh ooooh, my turn for a rant. As an interesting exercise, run a PQ of caches that are not active, centered on your own location, and have a browse of the results! Personally i think your rant is unfounded, Within 20 miles of Northwich i have 250 caches and 10 Disabled caches which conveinently is 1 disabled cache per 25 caches, which i think is a reasonable ratio. obviously when i filter out my finds that ratio becomes much lower, is this the reason you appear to have so many disabled caches as you have found every other cache in the vicinity Iain The Bargee Quote Link to comment
+Kryten Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 How long does good manners require you to wait before requesting adoption of a disabled cache belong to a veteran cacher of several years standing, who seems to have disappeared (not visted gc.com for 6 over months). Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Yesterday, my PQs showed that about a dozen 'temporarily disabled' caches had been 'forcibly archived' by our Reviewers. Each had a note posted from said Reviewer to the effect that they'd been inactive for too long but would be reactivated if the cache owner did the necessary maintenance. So, guys.... our reviewers are doing something about this problem and are, as always, right on the ball. I'm sure if you bought any cache that particularly bothers you to their attention, it WILL be sorted Quote Link to comment
Nediam Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 How long does good manners require you to wait before requesting adoption of a disabled cache belong to a veteran cacher of several years standing, who seems to have disappeared (not visted gc.com for 6 over months). 6 months is probably long enough. They may have packed it in, got other interests or created a new account. E-mail them and see if you get a response. Quote Link to comment
+HazelS Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 (edited) Even if it's maintained / adopted by someone who doesn't even live THAT close by would be preferable to it just sitting there as disabled... I offered to do a maintenance visit to one of John + carols caches which is near to where I used to live because it was easier for me to do than them...all I did was stick in a new log book and replace the box. If more cachers could do that, perhaps we'd have fewer long term disabled caches. Maybe you could offer to do a maintenance visit, if they don't reply, ask our esteemed reviewers if you can adopt it?? I don't know what the solution is, but hope that helps! Edited December 21, 2005 by HazelS Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As an interesting exercise, run a PQ of caches that are not active, centered on your own location, and have a browse of the results! Much easier in GSAK, you know Of the 8594 caches in the UK, 325 (3.7%) are temporarily disabled. Of those, 23 have a last log date of more than six months ago. The oldest is 6th March. The nearest candidate to us is 1.2km away, but we wouldn't want to adopt that because the final cache has been muggled, and it's very close to one of our caches, which was muggled twice before we gave up on it. There are other possibilities, though, so thanks for the wake-up call. As John says, Peter does keep an eye on these. Quote Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Don't rant, tell a reviewer - that's what they're there for! Within 100 miles I have 4119 caches (!) and on the first five pages (100 caches) there is one disabled cache (1%) and the first 10 pages (200 caches) there are 5 (2.5%) - I can't see there's a big problem. Certainly if I wanted to place a fresh cache where a disabled one was, or adopt it, I'd contact the owner first and then speak to a mod, as I did just the other day about an archived Virtual in London. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 For those who don't know, one of the Log options is "Needs Archived" (not very good grammar ) If you use this I will get a copy and it acts as a great prompt for me to look at the cache. In many cases I'll then archive the cache (as Pharisee mentioned) although there may sometimes be a good reason not to. So never be embarrassed to use this as it helps me keep an eye on things Quote Link to comment
+kewfriend Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Its a more complex issue than it seems. Most of the 100 within 60 miles of me seem to show that the cache setters are reasonably aware of their obligations but ... LOG GCKZJG November 2 by Bexico (2 found)I am temporarily disabling this cache becuase Remake Remodel Remind South is 'under construction' for the foreseable future ... classic candidate for permanent archive LOG GCQXD2 November 24 by Calligmathy (134 found)Today's investigations revealed - a) the gate is bound up securely, but it doesn't look permanent - the 'warning device' is no more than a counterweight to close the gate automatically -c) some work seems to have been done on the inside fence, which would seem pointless if the intention was not to re-open the gate. We will check again in a few weeks. November 19 by Geo-Kate (55 found) Oh dear. It seems somebody has taken it upon them-selves to seal the gate shut that leads to the cache point. We managed to get to within 30' of the co-ords, but the gate was tightly bound by ropes and a strap. The strap had some kind of warning divice attached, so when pulled, metal plates would clang and ring like bells. There was another fence beyond, which was also roped up with the same blue rope, so from the clue, the cache maybe plundered. OS maps show that as a public footpath, so whoever has roped it has done so illegeally (i think). Anybody wishing to gain access to the cache point may need to be armed with a sharp knife and wire cutters! In this case the response has been admirably quick, but again, I think it should just have been archived rather than left 'for a few more weeks'. LOG GC6A0B May 15 by Mr & Mrs Hedgehog (424 found)Another Popham Fly-in and another visit by us to the cache. Left nothing, took the whole cache realy to give to Tim and June later in the week. April 25 by Tim & June (762 found) This cache is being temporarily disabled. Sometimes even geocachers with oodles of experience cant seem to 'cut free' and archive permanently. LOG GC5FF4 September 4 by one47 (35 found)Extra information - I work on this site.... Bletchley Park is open, but construction work is taking place and about 30% of the site cannot be accessed until March 2006. Sadly this includes the area where the cache is hidden. August 29 by lunchbox (27 found) Bletchley Park will be closed for six months from today, so I'm archiving this cache until it opens again. Sorry, code crackers everywhere! This cache which I have done is on a public footpath unrelated entirely to Bletchley Park, though obviously the 'code cracking' element ties in with Beltchley Park. But it seems odd to temp disable the cache when its do-able - the more so that BP is actually open! Many caches had been disabled for several months but none it seems more than a year. And while I've been doing this - Lacto has chipped in and rendered all my thoughts superfluous! Quote Link to comment
+Jonovich Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As you've numbered this ALIBAGS RANT #1, can we expect some more? Will you be doing one a day until Christmas - sort of like an Alibags Adrant Calendar? J Quote Link to comment
NickPick Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Alibags Adrant Calendar? V. Funny! Quote Link to comment
+Alibags Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 So, guys.... our reviewers are doing something about this problem and are, as always, right on the ball. I'm sure if you bought any cache that particularly bothers you to their attention, it WILL be sorted Some caches got archived recently!!? You are sure that if one was to draw problem caches to the approvers attention they would do something about it? Oh what a co-incidence! BTW, I am sure are approvers are always happy to entertain any reports of (perceived) problems with caches. I am not remotely interested by the number of temp disabled caches. My PQ includes many London and Oxford caches, which obviously are going to get lost or muggled more often... what I am interested in is the caches that are temporarily disabled and then left like that for months. Quote Link to comment
+Alibags Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 Oh, by the way, regarding GC5FF4 cache at Bletchly Park. The cache was situated in a spot where the ongoing work meant that it could not be done. One47 has been attempting to adopt this cache for a while but nothing is moving (owner logs in infrequently). It is currently under his desk! I am well informed about this one as he is my neighbour! However, prompted by my own thread, I have a suggestion for him to resolve this issue... Quote Link to comment
+sTeamTraen Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 What Pharisee said... it's mainly up to the reviewers. The German reviewers tend to drop in on "temporarily disabled" caches after 4-5 weeks, to see if anyone's at home. Sometimes this leads to amusing incidents - see for example February and March this year on this cache if you can read German - but generally it get's the owner's attention. Our French reviewer also archives caches which have been "temporarily" disabled for too long. Quote Link to comment
+kewfriend Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 APOLOGIES Old age and decline spring to mind. Alibags Posted on Dec 21 2005, 03:49 PM Oh, by the way, regarding GC5FF4 cache at Bletchly Park...... It was Station Xtra [ GCJNON ] that was not in the 'grounds', and that we'd done. Oooooooooopps I'll crawl away now Quote Link to comment
+Master Mariner Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As an interesting exercise, run a PQ of caches that are not active, centered on your own location, and have a browse of the results! In the last week I had a look through all the "disabled" caches within 30km of my home (Docklands/Greenwich). I came up with about 20 in total that had been disabled for more than 4 months. I posted a Request for Archive (RFA) on each of these caches and am pleased to see that all but one have now been archived by Lacto. As Lacto says in his cache note - if the owner wishes to reactivate it then contact him. Thanks for the Rant Alibags - I don't feel as bad as I did about posting the RFAs!! Charles Quote Link to comment
+Alibags Posted December 21, 2005 Author Share Posted December 21, 2005 Not really a 'rant', just copying the inimitable forum style of Rutson. I have always found our lovely reviewers to be be receptive to genuine concerns regarding caches. They cannot do anything about them unless somebody makes an effort to keep them informed. Quote Link to comment
+The Klever Boys Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As an interesting exercise, run a PQ of caches that are not active, centered on your own location, and have a browse of the results! In the last week I had a look through all the "disabled" caches within 30km of my home (Docklands/Greenwich). I came up with about 20 in total that had been disabled for more than 4 months. I posted a Request for Archive (RFA) on each of these caches and am pleased to see that all but one have now been archived by Lacto. As Lacto says in his cache note - if the owner wishes to reactivate it then contact him. Thanks for the Rant Alibags - I don't feel as bad as I did about posting the RFAs!! Charles So, just to clarify... If you send a RFA, exactly who does that message go to? Is it just the reviewers, or does the cache owner receive it too? Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 So, just to clarify...If you send a RFA, exactly who does that message go to? Is it just the reviewers, or does the cache owner receive it too? Reviewers, cache owners and anyone who has the cache on their watchlist, it's the same as any other log, it's just that the reviewers get a copy too. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.