+sbell111 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I assume "temporarily archived" means "disabled". me too. Quote Link to comment
+budd-rdc Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I assume "temporarily archived" means "disabled". And that's a very important distinction, especially for old-timer cachers who haven't realize the difference yet. I've seen quite a number of caches that the owner "archived temporarily" only to realize later that it's a permanent action. It needs to be "re-reviewed" to become enabled again. The cache also loses its grandfathered status, so it risks being subjugated to the "528 feet rule" even if it was archived for less than a day. Seen numerous listings die that way. When in doubt, "DISABLE" the listing, not "Archive." Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I assume "temporarily archived" means "disabled". And that's a very important distinction, especially for old-timer cachers who haven't realize the difference yet. I've seen quite a number of caches that the owner "archived temporarily" only to realize later that it's a permanent action. It needs to be "re-reviewed" to become enabled again. The cache also loses its grandfathered status, so it risks being subjugated to the "528 feet rule" even if it was archived for less than a day. Seen numerous listings die that way. When in doubt, "DISABLE" the listing, not "Archive." This was a much bigger problem before the disable/enable log types. In addition, now when you archive a cache there is a confirmation page that explains that archiving is permanent. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I assume "temporarily archived" means "disabled". And that's a very important distinction, especially for old-timer cachers who haven't realize the difference yet. I've seen quite a number of caches that the owner "archived temporarily" only to realize later that it's a permanent action. It needs to be "re-reviewed" to become enabled again. The cache also loses its grandfathered status, so it risks being subjugated to the "528 feet rule" even if it was archived for less than a day. Seen numerous listings die that way. When in doubt, "DISABLE" the listing, not "Archive." Sorry I meant "Temporarily Disabled!" Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I assume "temporarily archived" means "disabled". And that's a very important distinction, especially for old-timer cachers who haven't realize the difference yet. I've seen quite a number of caches that the owner "archived temporarily" only to realize later that it's a permanent action. It needs to be "re-reviewed" to become enabled again. The cache also loses its grandfathered status, so it risks being subjugated to the "528 feet rule" even if it was archived for less than a day. Seen numerous listings die that way. When in doubt, "DISABLE" the listing, not "Archive." Sorry I meant "Temporarily Disabled!" Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) I see your point, but a NM cache should be temporarily archived until it is repaired so people don't waste their time on it. Perhaps a timit limit could be set for that to happen..... Why? Someone posts 'needs maintenance' because the log book is full, or because someone stole all the swag but left the logbook in the container, or there is PI nearby, or because the super cool camo is damaged. Should the cache be automatically 'temporarily archived' for these reasons? I wouldn't post NM if someone took the swag and left the logbook If the cache needs a logbook, I'll put one in the cache. If I don't have one then I'll post a note to the owner in my log. Only if the cache is in bad shape will I post an NM log. I would also indicate in my log exactly what needs maintenance. But I can see the application of NM will have a wide variance. However, if one or more NM logs are posted and the cache owner does nothing for a long period of time, it is evidence that he is not maintaining his cache per the guidelines. So a time limit would make sense if this were the case. Edited November 16, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I see your point, but a NM cache should be temporarily archived until it is repaired so people don't waste their time on it. Perhaps a timit limit could be set for that to happen.....Why? Someone posts 'needs maintenance' because the log book is full, or because someone stole all the swag but left the logbook in the container, or there is PI nearby, or because the super cool camo is damaged. Should the cache be automatically 'temporarily archived' for these reasons? I wouldn't post NM if someone took the swag and left the logbook If the cache needs a logbook, I'll put one in the cache. If I don't have one then I'll post a note to the owner in my log. Only if the cache is in bad shape will I post an NM log. I would also indicate in my log exactly what needs maintenance. But I can see the application of NM will have a wide variance. However, if one or more NM logs are posted and the cache owner does nothing for a long period of time, it is evidence that he is not maintaining his cache per the guidelines. So a time limit would make sense if this were the case.I don't doubt that you wouldn't use it willy-nilly, but others might. For this reason, automatically diasbling all caches that need maintenance is a bad idea. It seams to me that this would also reduce the amount of maintenance provided by the caching community and result in more geotrash when these caches eventually get archived, under your plan. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) I don't doubt that you wouldn't use it willy-nilly, but others might. For this reason, automatically diasbling all caches that need maintenance is a bad idea. It seams to me that this would also reduce the amount of maintenance provided by the caching community and result in more geotrash when these caches eventually get archived, under your plan. Willy-nilly behavior seems to kill most ideas. Anyhow, it wasn't my "plan," it was an idea, which was open for discussion. However you misunderstood what I suggested anyhow. I said if the cache owner does nothing for a long period of time after an NM was posted that the cache should be disabled. If the owner fixes the cache and deletes the NM log, then we know that he is active. If he doesn't fix it, then more people get the pleasure of finding geotrash for an even longer period of time than if there was a time limit. Edited November 16, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I don't doubt that you wouldn't use it willy-nilly, but others might. For this reason, automatically diasbling all caches that need maintenance is a bad idea. It seams to me that this would also reduce the amount of maintenance provided by the caching community and result in more geotrash when these caches eventually get archived, under your plan. ... However you misunderstood what I suggested anyhow. I said if the cache owner does nothing for a long period of time after an NM was posted that the cache should be disabled. ... You are correct. I didn't understand that you didn't intend for the disabling to be automatic and that there was a time frame involved. Isn't this sort of like the plan currently in place? Quote Link to comment
+welch Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I don't doubt that you wouldn't use it willy-nilly, but others might. For this reason, automatically diasbling all caches that need maintenance is a bad idea. It seams to me that this would also reduce the amount of maintenance provided by the caching community and result in more geotrash when these caches eventually get archived, under your plan. Willy-nilly behavior seems to kill most ideas. Anyhow, it wasn't my "plan," it was an idea, which was open for discussion. However you misunderstood what I suggested anyhow. I said if the cache owner does nothing for a long period of time after an NM was posted that the cache should be disabled. If the owner fixes the cache and deletes the NM log, then we know that he is active. If he doesn't fix it, then more people get the pleasure of finding geotrash for an even longer period of time than if there was a time limit. Currently to get rid of the 'first aid / needs maintance' attribute the owner has to post a maintance performed. Just deleting the NM log doesn't really do anything. It seems a number of people don't understand this... which would probably also mean some caches would get disabled automatically since they don't understand how to tell the system everythings ok. (but thats a minor problem of course) Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) I don't doubt that you wouldn't use it willy-nilly, but others might. For this reason, automatically diasbling all caches that need maintenance is a bad idea. It seams to me that this would also reduce the amount of maintenance provided by the caching community and result in more geotrash when these caches eventually get archived, under your plan. Willy-nilly behavior seems to kill most ideas. Anyhow, it wasn't my "plan," it was an idea, which was open for discussion. However you misunderstood what I suggested anyhow. I said if the cache owner does nothing for a long period of time after an NM was posted that the cache should be disabled. If the owner fixes the cache and deletes the NM log, then we know that he is active. If he doesn't fix it, then more people get the pleasure of finding geotrash for an even longer period of time than if there was a time limit. Currently to get rid of the 'first aid / needs maintance' attribute the owner has to post a maintance performed. Just deleting the NM log doesn't really do anything. It seems a number of people don't understand this... which would probably also mean some caches would get disabled automatically since they don't understand how to tell the system everythings ok. (but thats a minor problem of course) OK, then change my answer above from deleting the NM log to "posting a maintance performed" log. I have never needed to do this so I didn't know this. Thanks for pointing that out! BTW this makes my idea even better! Edited November 16, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
Not So Lost Puppies Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 ... If a cache is full of water or needs maintainance you are supposed to post a "Needs Maintenance" log. If a "Needs Maintenance log is posted and nothing is done after a certain period of time, then the cache should be either adopted by someone else or archived. A key problem is that people don't agree on a reasonable amount of time. I'm inclined to give folks at least a year. Maybe more. Things happen and knowing this I'm willing to cut others some slack. Plus I find it hard to remember at the time when it would do me some good. Right now I need a specific container found at WalMart. When I'm at walmart I'm in "groceries" mode or "home repair" mode and tend to forget the cache. I can make a list but I'm good at forgetting the list. I will remember but not "Immediatly" like some would like. That's life. If someone who doesn't know me doesn't have the patience they can go buy my container, they can go place it, fix the cache, then send me the bill. Otherwise they should probably either come over nad have a beer and help me out so I can get out, or just shut the heck up about my cache. Is my "NM Log" pet peeve showing? I think a year is way too long to leave a cache in "Needs Maintenance" without any other action. Part of the requirement for placing a cache is that you will perform needed maintenance in a time manner: As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing. Now of course it also depends on why it needs maintenance, poor swag doesn't call for a NM log, a full logbook would be a low level NM, but if its been half eaten, water logged, etc. then it definately calls for a NM, and a relatively quick temp-disabled. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 ...I think a year is way too long to leave a cache in "Needs Maintenance" without any other action. Part of the requirement for placing a cache is that you will perform needed maintenance in a time manner:... For an urban cache that's true. For a remote cache, maybe not. Take a remote cache. Should a problem have appeared on one of mine this year.... First I've got a 3 month window on some of them. That rules out 9 months right there. 3 months isn't long. Say someone dies and you are taking care of the estate? It happens just like being sent to Alaska for a summer for your company's field office. There go two years in real time. 9 + 3+ 9 + some time in the next 3 you can get to it. Real life happens. It's easy to say "take care of your caches" but even if you have every intention of doing it it just may not be possible until time and life allow you to do the job. That brings us back to cache angles who can help you out instead of those other folks who spend their with the SBA log button all fired up about trash caches that need some TLC. Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) ...I think a year is way too long to leave a cache in "Needs Maintenance" without any other action. Part of the requirement for placing a cache is that you will perform needed maintenance in a time manner:... For an urban cache that's true. For a remote cache, maybe not. Take a remote cache. Should a problem have appeared on one of mine this year.... First I've got a 3 month window on some of them. That rules out 9 months right there. 3 months isn't long. Say someone dies and you are taking care of the estate? It happens just like being sent to Alaska for a summer for your company's field office. There go two years in real time. 9 + 3+ 9 + some time in the next 3 you can get to it. Real life happens. It's easy to say "take care of your caches" but even if you have every intention of doing it it just may not be possible until time and life allow you to do the job. That brings us back to cache angles who can help you out instead of those other folks who spend their with the SBA log button all fired up about trash caches that need some TLC. That is soooo true. I've used the SBA button only 6 times. Every time it was for a cache that I knew for sure was missing. If a cache needs maintenance, I usually come prepared to help. I'll leave the cache policing to someone else. Edited November 16, 2006 by Snoogans Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) ...I think a year is way too long to leave a cache in "Needs Maintenance" without any other action. Part of the requirement for placing a cache is that you will perform needed maintenance in a time manner:... For an urban cache that's true. For a remote cache, maybe not. Take a remote cache. Should a problem have appeared on one of mine this year.... First I've got a 3 month window on some of them. That rules out 9 months right there. 3 months isn't long. Say someone dies and you are taking care of the estate? It happens just like being sent to Alaska for a summer for your company's field office. There go two years in real time. 9 + 3+ 9 + some time in the next 3 you can get to it. Real life happens. It's easy to say "take care of your caches" but even if you have every intention of doing it it just may not be possible until time and life allow you to do the job. That brings us back to cache angles who can help you out instead of those other folks who spend their with the SBA log button all fired up about trash caches that need some TLC. Wouldn't you typically temporarily disable your cache if you know it will be months until you can get to it? Edited November 16, 2006 by TrailGators Quote Link to comment
+jimear1e Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 It seems even more evident that some sort of time frame would reduce the majority of the logging and emailing that is currently the norm. Just a date in the future that you have to log on and UPDATE you’re listing or it gets disabled. If it has been disabled, it could still remain intact for some period of time before it is archived. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 ... Wouldn't you typically temporarily disable your cache if you know it will be months until you can get to it? That's going to depend on the problem. Wet soggy log...people can still find the cache. Bulldozed cache, missing cache, or the area sealed off for construction for two years...yes I'd disable it. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) ... Wouldn't you typically temporarily disable your cache if you know it will be months until you can get to it? That's going to depend on the problem. Wet soggy log...people can still find the cache. Bulldozed cache, missing cache, or the area sealed off for construction for two years...yes I'd disable it. Sorry I keep thinking that people are like me and only use NM logs when the cache is in really bad shape. Of course you wouldn't disable your cache for a damp log! Edited November 17, 2006 by TrailGators 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.