Jump to content

Caches up for adoption, West Yorkshire Area


rutson

Recommended Posts

In the light of recently introduced local rules regarding cache maintenance, I am not in a position to guarentee that I can get to my caches within the newly prescribed three to four weeks. It was my understanding when I placed them that maintenance should take place within a "reasonable time" which has previously regarded as as rarely as three to four times per year. It seems that things have changed.

 

As a result, all of my physical caches with the exception of those placed by or for my children are up for adoption. Contact me through the normal channels.

 

I would be particularly pleased if Becoming a Truthbeater, Dung Rangers Tour #2 - McAlpine View and Dean Gets Cobbled (W Yorks) could be adopted as they were not placed by me and would hate to have to archive them.

Edited by rutson
Link to comment

The above was a purely practical response to the current situation. I do not want to see the caches that I've placed, some of which I spent many hours, in some cases, many dozens of hours, creating go 'to waste'. What follows is more of an emotional response.

 

I now feel guilty. I've found 1246 caches to date. Given the new maintainance policy, there is nothing I can give back to the community. OK, I can pay my two quid a month or whatever for premium membership and will continue to do so. But that's giving to Groundspeak.com.

 

I have heaps of ideas for new caches and I've enjoyed the caches, especially the puzzles, I've placed. If I can do that no longer, then I'm just a taker, and that's not me at all.

 

I travel all over the world, the "holiday cache" policy (which I understand fully) means I cannot place abroad. The new UK maintenance policy means I can't place at home. So basically, I can't place caches. It's a pity, because some of my caches have had great logs in the past. I will miss them.

 

It's a crazy situation IMHO, I'm a responsible cacher, I want to place caches and return the favour to those who have expelled the time and effort of those that place the caches that I find, but I cannot.

Edited by rutson
Link to comment

Well this new policy has been clear from certain reviewers notes on caches of late, but was stated in black and white here.

 

The 3/4 weeks is GC's recommended maximum period that a cache should be Temporarily Disabled, if you read my post it does say I give plenty of leeway, with 2 warnings in most cases.

 

I believe a cache Temporarily Disabled for over 10 months and then only given a warning is plenty of leeway, if the owner then decides to Archive it rather than performing the requested maintenance, that had been promised to others for months. That is the owners decision.

 

I have not warned, nor have I Archived any caches that have been Disabled for 3/4 weeks unless it is obvious from the owner profile that the cache has been abandoned.

 

Hard as it might be to be believed, I've actually received emails from owners of caches that have been disabled for long periods, who have received a warning. Thanking me for reminding them about their caches.

Link to comment

I would have thought that, knowing Rutson's reputation as a responsible cache owner, the moderators (and the caching community in general) would be prepared to give plenty of leeway if any of his caches needed to be temporarily disabled pending maintenance on his next visit back to the UK.

 

I've seen so many instances of cachers voluntarily maintaining other's caches that I'm sure there's no need to adopt out these caches. If I lived nearby, I'd be happy to keep an eye on your caches as a 'maintainer' rather than 'adopter', and I'm sure that many others would do the same.

Link to comment

If I had any time to spare myself I would be the first to offer to look after some of these quality caches. As it is at the moment I barely have time to solve the tricky little 'Rutson' blighters, never mind look after them.

 

 

I thinks it's a very sad day indeed when such a dedicated and challenging cacher such as Rutson has to feel guilty about contributing to the community despite the massive and greatly appreciated effort he/they have put into West Yorkshire and beyond. I for one will be very sorry not so see his regular brain teasing contributions to the local countryside.

 

 

If anyone could bank 'Geocaching Contribution Credits' for future use then Rutson would be right up there at the top of the list IMHO.

 

 

Good luck & keep caching Ian you've definately pushed and inspired me to try a bit harder with those never ending conundrums of yours! :laughing:

 

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

Don't give them away, I bet if you have one that needs maintenance and that for whatever reason you could not get to within a time span, ask on the message if someone will do a maintenance visit for you.

 

I recently did a maintenance job on a damaged find and I was not even asked to, I just did.

 

muscateers1.jpg

 

One for all and all for one... :laughing:

New forum motto? :laughing:

Link to comment

Timperley Teaser..

 

From the warning note I posted to it on the 2 of July after it had been Temporarily Disabled for nearly 20 weeks.

 

If you plan on repairing this cache, please log a note so I don't archive the listing for non-communication.

 

You voluntarily decided to Archive it, when all that was needed was a note posted to it by you.

 

Since you seem to think that I'm doing such a poor job as a Reviewer please send me a email or PM stating so, and I will provide you with a direct email address for Groundspeaks Volunteer Reviewer Coordinator so that you can make a formal request that I AM REMOVED as a Volunteer Reviewer for Groundspeak

 

Dave Palmer

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer for Geocaching.com

Link to comment

Much as I find the old game of publically beat the mods with a big stick highly edifying, I have chosen to read into Deceangi's statement that he would be inclined to not arbitarily archive any caches, as long as he got some sort of response to reassure him that the cache owner was still awake and was intending to do something about it. Somebody else could read into it they will be summarily zapped after 4 weeks? Perhaps our warm and cuddly UK mods have been given gc guidelines to strictly apply and they are attempting to do so in a friendly fashion, allowing us some leeway without out and out stating the fact? Oh oh, TPTB will be after us now! :laughing:

 

Must dash, I have a pleading cache note to post....

Link to comment

Since you seem to think that I'm doing such a poor job as a Reviewer please send me a email or PM stating so, and I will provide you with a direct email address for Groundspeaks Volunteer Reviewer Coordinator so that you can make a formal request that I AM REMOVED as a Volunteer Reviewer for Groundspeak

 

Dave Palmer

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer for Geocaching.com

I don't see anywhere where Ruston accuses you of doing a poor job.

 

You need to talk to Eckie and Lacto and find where they get their "chill pills" from.

 

The ability to take a couple of paces back and reviewing your review is essential in your job.

(having just re-read that, even I'm not sure what that means)

 

Chill out Dave. :laughing: - and Rutson too. :laughing:

Edited by SlytherinAlex
Link to comment

What I'm questionning is the reasonable response time that's being enforced in the UK. I see nothing in the guidelines that states three/four weeks, but that is what is being required.

 

To quote from the original post you linked to

 

3/4 weeks is considered a reasonable enough time in which a cache owner should perform maintenance on a cache.

 

The first time I went through the list of temporarily Disabled caches, there were caches that were disabled early 2005, not a single cache which had been disabled under 12 weeks was warned! I recently went through the list again and only warned posted a "warning" to caches which had been disabled over 10/12 weeks, unless it was obvious that the owner had abandoned them. So please show me where I am enforcing a 3/4 limit. Of those warned the last time over half have either been Archived by their owners, Repaired and enabled or the owner has posted a note to the cache showing that it has not been forgotten. So all of these have been removed from the book mark list I keep of such caches.

 

Also the guidelines are constantly being revised so are not fully up to date.

Link to comment

On the last point, if the guidelines are constantly being revised, then we should be constantly informed. It's clear that the reviewers are privy to this information, so how can we, the caching community be expected to conform if we're in the dark?

 

It's like driving down the motorway at 70mph and being pulled for speeding. "But officer, I was only doing 70!". "Well, the law's changed, please sign here..."

Link to comment

OK, I have to confess, I'm not 100% sure myself of the current guidelines...

 

3/4 weeks is considered generally enough time for maintenence. However, leeway is given in the UK to the effect that a note will only be posted after about 10 - 12 weeks. Is that right?

 

At this point, I assumed the cache needed to be fixed pronto. However, it appears from Deci's comment that all that is needed is a note from the owener saying it hasn;t been forgotten, and they're still looking for suitable new hidey hole, or are still ill in hospital, or are still slaving away on creating a stats macro in china :laughing: (or whatever)!

 

So by posting a note in response to a warning, does this effectively get us another 10-12 weeks 'breathing space'? I appreciate this can't go on for ever, and may depend on how popular the location is, but are we talking 9 months ish before a forced archive?

 

It would be helpful to know as we can judge whether we have to drop everything and replace a cache within a week or two of a reviewer note (not always possible) or not.

 

Hmmm - bit garbled this post, but hopefully understandable! Its early....

 

Dave

Link to comment

Not to put words in other people's mouths but I reckon:

 

-3/4 weeks is what is expected to reactivate a cache.

-If you can't do it in that time and have a reason other than "I can't be bothered" you should probably post a note saying what the position is.

-After about 12 weeks or so a reviewer may put a note asking you to clarify the situation

-If you don't respond your cache may get archived some time later

 

Seems fairly straightforward and reasonable to me.

Edited by Pieman
Link to comment

 

Indeed Pieman, if that IS the case, I just wish it was clarified.

 

 

Ian, I think it really has been clarified.

 

Deceangi said:

 

The first time I went through the list of temporarily Disabled caches, there were caches that were disabled early 2005, not a single cache which had been disabled under 12 weeks was warned! I recently went through the list again and only warned posted a "warning" to caches which had been disabled over 10/12 weeks, unless it was obvious that the owner had abandoned them. So please show me where I am enforcing a 3/4 limit. Of those warned the last time over half have either been Archived by their owners, Repaired and enabled or the owner has posted a note to the cache showing that it has not been forgotten. So all of these have been removed from the book mark list I keep of such caches.

 

The much bandied 3/4 weeks was a guide figure, not a mandatory time limit. The three of us have tried to apply this very liberally. The Disabled list is gone through on an occasional basis and as stated owners of caches that have been out of action for a couple of months or so get the so called "warning" note. Those I have seen, and those I have sent have, I hope, been informative and chatty. As Deci says the usual response I get is in the form of, "Blimey, I'd forgotten that one!" and prompt repair or, in some rare cases, archive. (Indeed the other short fat guy with breard and specs got one from Lactod. a year or so ago :laughing: )

 

So please, no one is hounded with dire, dark notices of foreclosure at midnight on the 28th day after they temped a cache, we try, all three of us, to keep the balance steady.

Link to comment

Indeed Pieman, if that IS the case, I just wish it was clarified.

 

The guidelines (which are aparently "constantly being revised" but were last updated ten months ago) state "a few weeks". A Uk reviews says 3/4 weeks is a reasonable period. It's just rather wooly to my mind.

I have always associated the word 'couple' as being two and the word 'few' as being 3. Just checked the dictionary and it says 'few' a small number, so 3/4 weeks is clarification in my view and meets the guidelines.

Link to comment

OK, food for thought.....

 

Since I started keeping gsak records of all UK caches (about a year ago), 1807 caches have been archived; out of those, 52 have been un-archived (2%)

 

Out of those.....

 

Originally Archived by owner = 24

Originally Archived by reviewers/Groundspeak = 19

Can't tell (logs deleted) = 9

 

Of course this doesn't include caches that are archived, then replaced and re-submitted (that would take a bit more than a few clicks in gsak to figure out).

 

There was going to be a point to this post, but my brain is fried after looking at all those caches, but thought a few people might be interested in the numbers :laughing:

 

For the record, I don't believe Ian should feel pressured into archiving any of his caches whilst he's away from home. There are enough of us in the West Yorks area who are only to happy to do any maintainance in his absence (providing we've worked out all those darn puzzles).

 

If a cacher has a disabled cache, but still regulary logs into the site, I see no need for anything more than a gentle reminder from our reviewers. If the cacher rarely visits the site, fare enough, archive away.

Link to comment

For the record, I don't believe Ian should feel pressured into archiving any of his caches whilst he's away from home. There are enough of us in the West Yorks area who are only to happy to do any maintainance in his absence (providing we've worked out all those darn puzzles).

 

 

I agree, whilst I currently can't commit to adopting lots of caches, we would be able to help out with the odd maintenance run.

Link to comment

Does the cache owner have to be the one who does the maintenance ?

 

I would have thought that the people who are prepared to adopt Rutsons caches would be prepared to leave them in Rutsons name , and just help maintain them as and when it is needed.

 

Given Rutsons standing in the community, I am sure he will have plenty of people willing to "co-manage" his caches in this way, so he can continue to set his caches safe in the knowledge that maintenance is only an email away.

 

edit to say: I didnt read the above 2 posts fully, they say the same thing as I mean.

Edited by The Royles
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...