Temporarily Disabled Caches

[+TetrAmigos]

Ive noticed that a few local caches in my area have been disabled by the owner for one reason or another. Of these, quite a few were good caches in decent spots that I'd love to see re-activated and maintained. So I sent an email to each of them offering to either fix it for them or even edopt them if neccesary, and only one has responded.

 

They are old spots and havn't been active for quite some time. At this point, what would you do (if anything)?

[+Renegade Knight]

Contact your local reviewer who will take a look at the caches and archive, adopt, ect as needed. This taeks some time as they allow the owner every chance to respond.

 

That's the next step.

[Mushtang]

A local reviewer here has a cache that is notorious for being temp disabled. It was "temporarily" disabled for WAY over a year before he finally got around to getting it going again.

 

So he's not allowed to complain to any of us about our caches staying on the disabled list too long anymore. Heh heh heh.

[+wesleykey]

I hate to run a pocket query of local caches and 20 or 30 of them are disabled. After they have been down 6 months or more, I email the owner. If I don't get a good response, I post a "should be archived" note. The GC rules tell us we have to keep our caches maintained or they risk being removed from the site (archived).

[Mushtang]

I hate to run a pocket query of local caches and 20 or 30 of them are disabled.

 

Doesn't the "Is Active" checkbox keep them from being included in PQs?

[+StarBrand]

A local cache here has been disabled since July '05 and not found since Sept '04. It was disabled/missing for several months in the spring of 2005. Essentially it has been down for a year. The owner has added a series of notes promising the date it would re-appear but each date comes and goes. I finally posted an SBA but the reviewer gave the owner another chance - and the owner posted another promise date of replacement.

 

Nothing againist the owner and I don't really even care to re-use the area but it just bugs me to see it going on for so long. I may email the owner again and offer to run a new cache out for him. I feel these things tend to give some people the wrong idea about our pastime. Just me tho.........

 

Not much more can be done.

[+Quiggle]

Some of us go through our areas once a month or so to check for caches that have been disabled for a period of time longer than the guidelines allow (under the cache maintenance section). Sometimes there are caches that are more or less disabled (missing, in real bad shape, etc.) that the owner has not disabled for one reason or another. In these cases I don't mind someone giving me a heads up so that I can look into it and determine whether it needs to be disabled or archived.

[+Pablo Mac]

I hate to run a pocket query of local caches and 20 or 30 of them are disabled.(archived).

That's why I only include active caches in my pocket queries.

[+ZackJones]

Groundspeak should set up some scripts that check to see how long a cache has been disabled. After 60 days email the owner, after 90 days assign to local reviewer to determine status and after 120 days archive the cache. One big flaw to this is automatic archiving would result in a lot of geo litter

 

I do realize some caches are disabled for extended periods of time (during hunting season for example) and those could be flagged as exceptions to the rule. Under normal circumstances there should be no reason why a cache owner couldn't resolve the issue in 60 days or less.

[+Quiggle]

Groundspeak should set up some scripts that check to see how long a cache has been disabled. After 60 days email the owner, after 90 days assign to local reviewer to determine status and after 120 days archive the cache. One big flaw to this is automatic archiving would result in a lot of geo litter

 

I do realize some caches are disabled for extended periods of time (during hunting season for example) and those could be flagged as exceptions to the rule. Under normal circumstances there should be no reason why a cache owner couldn't resolve the issue in 60 days or less.

 

Right.

 

There are a lot of potential variables which would cause automatic archiving to be more of a problem than the problem it is trying to solve. I had one recently reactivated after a year of being disabled due to construction in the area around the cache, preventing access. The construction was finally finished and the cache reactivated. In another case the park was closed for 6 months for renovations. In both cases these caches would have been archived unnecessarily.

 

I don't mind checking them once a month, it's nice to help get them back up and running or get the area cleared out for new hides.

[+Sagefox]

...Nothing againist the owner and I don't really even care to re-use the area but it just bugs me to see it going on for so long. I may email the owner again and offer to run a new cache out for him. I feel these things tend to give some people the wrong idea about our pastime. Just me tho.........

 

It bugs me too. Order or Anarchy? - I prefer order. The sport should be self-policing to a degree but with a LIGHT hand. I feel perfectly comfortable posting an SBA. If the cache owner is still active then they can bring the cache back to life. If not then archiving is appropriate.

 

But... sometimes the community keeps neglected caches alive by replacing logbooks or containers as necessary. If a cache owner is not responsive then the community can take over if they want.

[+briansnat]

Groundspeak should set up some scripts that check to see how long a cache has been disabled. After 60 days email the owner, after 90 days assign to local reviewer to determine status and after 120 days archive the cache. One big flaw to this is automatic archiving would result in a lot of geo litter

 

I do realize some caches are disabled for extended periods of time (during hunting season for example) and those could be flagged as exceptions to the rule. Under normal circumstances there should be no reason why a cache owner couldn't resolve the issue in 60 days or less.

 

Right.

 

There are a lot of potential variables which would cause automatic archiving to be more of a problem than the problem it is trying to solve. I had one recently reactivated after a year of being disabled due to construction in the area around the cache, preventing access. The construction was finally finished and the cache reactivated. In another case the park was closed for 6 months for renovations. In both cases these caches would have been archived unnecessarily.

 

I don't mind checking them once a month, it's nice to

 

help get them back up and running or get the area cleared out for new hides.

 

I have a cache that has been disabled for close to a year. The approaches to the cache are now closed to the public after toxic waste was discovered in the valley below the cache (which is on a mountain).

I can't even get there to remove it. I plan to reactivate it once the cleanup is complete, but that may take a year or more. Because of the situation, it's not exactly holding the area because nobody else can place a cache there at the moment without crossing the off limits area. So there it sits and will for a while. Great cache too. Bummer.

 

Point is that there are some (very limited) circumstances where a cache can legitimately be disabled for a long time. Generally though, 3 months should be tops before some action is taken.

[+Kit Fox]

While I understand your concern about the caches in your area, i'm sure Socal Admin, and West Coast Admin are already aware of them. You did the right thing trying to contact the owners.

 

My advice to you is to start finding the other great caches in your area.

 

BTW, the Conejo Valley has some of the greatest caches, especially puzzles that I have ever found.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Kit Fox