+KD_cachers Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I have a cache that I am trying to unarchive but when I try to edit the listing this is what I get "Sorry. This listing has been locked by an administrator and you cannot edit it. If you believe this is in error please contact the web site." I have tried e-mailing a reviewer and recieved no response. Can a listing that is locked be unlocked and was I wrong to expect a reply from a reviewer? Quote Link to comment
+Fairly Oddparents Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 I have a cache that I am trying to unarchive but when I try to edit the listing this is what I get "Sorry. This listing has been locked by an administrator and you cannot edit it. If you believe this is in error please contact the web site." I have tried e-mailing a reviewer and recieved no response. Can a listing that is locked be unlocked and was I wrong to expect a reply from a reviewer? Yes, a listing that is locked can be unlocked. No, you were not wrong to expect a reply. I would send an e-mail to the cache approver who first published your cache. If that doesn't work, I would look at some of the newer caches in your area and see who published them. If there is a different approver, try sending them an e-mail. If that doesn't work, go to the bottom of the Groundspeak page and click on "Contact Us", then click on "Groundspeak Help Page", then click on "Submit a Ticket" and follow the directions. It is also possible to just submit a new cache at the same coordinates and start all over with a new cache at the same location. If the reviewer doesn't get back to you immediately don't be too alarmed. They have lives in addition to administrating hundreds of caches. It may take several days for them to get back to you. If it were me, I would just cut and paste the info from my old cache to a page for a new cache and submit a new cache request, that is assuming no one else as placed a cache in the same location. Quote Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 If it has been archived by you or anybody else then only a reviewer or admin can re-enable it. Contact your local reviewer and explain things. Work with your reviewer and I as long as a new cache hasn't sprung up - you might get it going again. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 June 2, 2006 by cache agent (10 found)This cache has been moved too close to another cache and appears to be a traditional now. Please resubmit a new cache within the listing guidelines. Thank you, Cache Agent Volunteer Cache Reviewer Good luck. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Looks like you changed a multi to a traditional, then moved it too close to another cache. You are probably better off just submitting a new cache because what you had in the end was completedly different from what you originally submitted. Quote Link to comment
+Cache-tech Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Drop me an email from my profile and I will take a look at the cache. Quote Link to comment
+Quiggle Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 (edited) Looks like you changed a multi to a traditional, then moved it too close to another cache. You are probably better off just submitting a new cache because what you had in the end was completedly different from what you originally submitted. Corrrect. You can't take a multi and make it a single stage, that's a brand new cache which should have a brand new cache page. All the cachers that find it after you change it will have a in their profile when really they only found a . Changing the cache type will give the opposite effect for those that found it early. Also if your cache is archived (whether by you or a site admin/reviewer), only a site admin/reviewer can unarchive it. Drop me an email from my profile and I will take a look at the cache. Work with Cache-tech on a replacement cache of the appropriate cache type and you may be able to get an exception for the proximity violation. edit: clarification Edited January 24, 2007 by Quiggle Quote Link to comment
+KD_cachers Posted January 24, 2007 Author Share Posted January 24, 2007 The cache in question was always a multi, never a traditional. I changed the waypoint when a new home built close to the start waypoint. Note sent to Cache-tech, hopefully this cache will be up and running again soon. Thanks everyone for your comments. Quote Link to comment
+Quiggle Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The cache in question was always a multi, never a traditional. I changed the waypoint when a new home built close to the start waypoint. Note sent to Cache-tech, hopefully this cache will be up and running again soon. Thanks everyone for your comments. What does this log from Saturday, April 22, 2006 mean then: Changing the cache from a multi to a traditional cache. No need for anyone to bother the new home owners. Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 The cache in question was always a multi, never a traditional. I changed the waypoint when a new home built close to the start waypoint. Note sent to Cache-tech, hopefully this cache will be up and running again soon. Thanks everyone for your comments. What does this log from Saturday, April 22, 2006 mean then: Changing the cache from a multi to a traditional cache. No need for anyone to bother the new home owners. Man, I HATE when that happens! Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted January 24, 2007 Share Posted January 24, 2007 Of course, since the other cache that is too close is also his, moving each one 60 feet away might solve the proximity issue. Quote Link to comment
saopaulo1@hotmail.com Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Based on the comment "The new coordinates are less than the suggested minimun distance but route 114 separates the two points so there should be no confusion." I think the owner is trying to use the natural obstacle as a reasining. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Based on the comment "The new coordinates are less than the suggested minimun distance but route 114 separates the two points so there should be no confusion." I think the owner is trying to use the natural obstacle as a reasining.There's another perfectly good reason for the OP to discuss the issue with the reviewer. 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.