Problem Solved

[+Renegade Knight]

Yesterday I had two active caches that needed maintained. Both a fair distance from home. I received an archivers note on the one and so I let the archiver know that I'd take care of it in the spring or potentially sooner. The sooner is a trip that may or may not afford me the time to stop and check it out. Spring was the sure thing.

 

Today it was archived becauuse my time frame was too long. Fair enough, the guidelines say "a few weeks" and I was saying "a few months". But I was saying I'd maintain it and responded to the archiver who asked about it.

 

Yes I know people want you to jump on your cache the moment there is an issue. They just are not a priority. I'm not going to take time off from work, spend vacation, call in sick to deal with a cache. I'm not going to pass on a BBQ at a friends house, miss lunch with my wife, or any of a thousand other things. Nor am I going to spend the gas to just rush out there just for the sake of spending the gas and rushing out there. Instead I'm going to maintain them when I can as I can as time permits because this is a casual activity that I do for fun.

 

That's the crux. The cache is archived. In spite of an admittely slow time frame for maintaining the cache. The incentive to do anything is gone. Before it was a sure thing that when I took care of the cache it would be active. Now there are more hoops to jump through. What's the gain? I still can't get to it any sooner. I'm not going to pass on taking my daughter to the bank today and the other Christmas Eve things that need to be done to rush off and fix the cache.

 

So what now? The way I see it, maintaining the cache was the best option. That's the one I signed up for. However someone else archiving it knowing full well that I was on board to maintain it also solves the problem. The cache no longer needs maintained. The listing is archived. I will move on to other things and let any issues that arrise from the archive be solved the the folks who archived it.

 

Life is short.

 

Merry Christmas.

[+StarBrand]

Too bad.

 

Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You responded and posted a note about when you were able to go take care of the issue. It seems that is a very responsible thing to do. IMHO - it should not have been archived as a maintenance plan was in action. Just created some Geo-litter is all that happened there.

 

While I am able to go take care of most of my caches in a timely manner, I simply cannot gaurantee that I can get to them within a few weeks. A few are inaccessible for much of the winter. I sympathize with your feelings.

 

The least that could have been done is email some local and ask that they do some TLC on the cache. Archival should be a last resort not a first reaction.

 

Life happens to all of us. Around here, as long as you regularly post some kind of update, the reviewers will let disabled caches alone for very long periods of time.

[+Miragee]

Too bad.

 

Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

<snip>

 

Life happens to all of us. Around here, as long as you regularly post some kind of update, the reviewers will let disabled caches alone for very long periods of time.

I agree. Around here caches remain Disabled for a long time, even if they haven't been burned up by brush fires . . . Now, after the fires, there will be Disabled caches out there even longer time because the areas are closed.

 

I don't understand why there was a rush to Archive the cache . . . Disabled caches can be eliminated from PQs, so their existence shouldn't be a problem.

 

. . . and, now I am reminded I have a Disabled cache that isn't in the burned area that I need to get to . . . But, with the price of gas, it is hard to justify a drive to an area I don't normally get to . . .

[+Quiggle]

Life happens to all of us. Around here, as long as you regularly post some kind of update, the reviewers will let disabled caches alone for very long periods of time.

Life does happen, that's for sure. That's why there's no automatic archival process. If "life" is the holidays, a new child, sickness, etc., then that's one thing. If "life" really means "the cache is too far away for me to get to it to take care of it in a timely manner", that's another. Without knowing which caches the OP is talking about, it's hard to know exactly where the caches fall in line.

 

The important details are not available to form an informed opinion about whether or not the caches should have been archived, however the reviewer who archived them felt they should have been. If you can get out there to fix them at some point, feel free to send an e-mail to the reviewer who archived the caches and there's a good chance they will unarchive them for you so others can enjoy them.

[Keystone]

I sweep through all the disabled caches in my review territory every six to eight weeks. Any cache that's been disabled for more than two months gets a reminder note. In two weeks or so, I check each cache again for an update. I archive the ones where the owner has taken no action, and for the others I read the log left by the owner. Owner re-enabled the cache? Fantastic. The problem is a construction project in that park? Oh, OK -- keep us posted. The forest road is closed for the winter? Great, see you in the Spring. You're caring for an elderly relative right now? Sorry to hear that, get back to geocaching when you can.

 

"I'm really busy and the cache is a long ways away?" I think that demonstrates the boundary of the owner's "maintainable distance." It is different distances for different people.

 

The above is just a general description of how I deal with disabled caches and is not a specific comment on the OP's cache. That's because I don't feel like searching through all his hides to find the one described.

[+uxorious]

They just are not a priority. I'm not going to take time off from work, spend vacation, call in sick to deal with a cache. I'm not going to pass on a BBQ at a friends house, miss lunch with my wife, or any of a thousand other things. Nor am I going to spend the gas to just rush out there just for the sake of spending the gas and rushing out there.

 

It seems to me if any of the above cause you to delay maintaining the cache for a few months, perhaps the cache is too far away.

 

Any of those are good reasons to delay maintaining one of my caches, for a few weeks. However, none of my caches are so far away that list would cause a delay of months.

 

That being said, I also think, if the cache is remote and takes a lot of time to get to, the archiver should take that into consideration. A cache in the parking lot of a trail head should be given less time to have a maintenance run, than a cache five or ten miles up that trail.

[+CSpenceFLY]

There are many caches in my area that are disabled and have been for a while. It seems like there are people that treat it like claiming property when they have a cache or even a disabled cache in an area. They refuse to archive a cache to keep others from placing a cache in "their" area. I don't make a big deal about it because the best you can hope for is more micro spew in their place.I find it a bit annoying that people can find time to put out new caches but refuse to maintain the ones they already have.

Edited December 24, 2007 by CSpenceFLY

[+TexasGringo]

All my caches are within a few miles of where I live...on the way to work or the mall...so it is easy for me to check up on them.

[+belair56]

I'm wondering with the price of gas we'll geo-caching be as popular in the future.

[+CSpenceFLY]

People are never going to just sit home because of the price of gas. Well,some might but I won't.

[+Rattlebars]

I let the archiver know that I'd take care of it in the spring or potentially sooner. The sooner is a trip that may or may not afford me the time to stop and check it out. Spring was the sure thing.

 

If spring isn't soon enough to qualify for "a few weeks" then what is this for exactly? Does this not (more than) imply that a cache will unavailable for more than a few weeks?

 

I've had some issues with reviewers way back when.... but have had pretty good luck lately. I started a thread some time ago (probably three years) about how poorly the "guidelines" were written. There doesn't seem to be much improvement on that score.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Gotta go with the Reviewers on this one, if you can't maintain it in a timely fashion it's too far away.

[+hukilaulau]

Yesterday I had two active caches that needed maintained. Both a fair distance from home. I received an archivers note on the one and so I let the archiver know that I'd take care of it in the spring or potentially sooner. The sooner is a trip that may or may not afford me the time to stop and check it out. Spring was the sure thing.

 

Today it was archived becauuse my time frame was too long. Fair enough, the guidelines say "a few weeks" and I was saying "a few months". But I was saying I'd maintain it and responded to the archiver who asked about it.

 

Yes I know people want you to jump on your cache the moment there is an issue. They just are not a priority. I'm not going to take time off from work, spend vacation, call in sick to deal with a cache. I'm not going to pass on a BBQ at a friends house, miss lunch with my wife, or any of a thousand other things. Nor am I going to spend the gas to just rush out there just for the sake of spending the gas and rushing out there. Instead I'm going to maintain them when I can as I can as time permits because this is a casual activity that I do for fun.

 

That's the crux. The cache is archived. In spite of an admittely slow time frame for maintaining the cache. The incentive to do anything is gone. Before it was a sure thing that when I took care of the cache it would be active. Now there are more hoops to jump through. What's the gain? I still can't get to it any sooner. I'm not going to pass on taking my daughter to the bank today and the other Christmas Eve things that need to be done to rush off and fix the cache.

 

So what now? The way I see it, maintaining the cache was the best option. That's the one I signed up for. However someone else archiving it knowing full well that I was on board to maintain it also solves the problem. The cache no longer needs maintained. The listing is archived. I will move on to other things and let any issues that arrise from the archive be solved the the folks who archived it.

 

Life is short.

 

Merry Christmas.

If it was this one the history on the cache page tells a slightly different story. In June you said you would fix it as time permits. Nothing for five months, except for at least one more cacher who went looking for something that wasn't there. In November the reviewer asked you to at least leave a note saying what your intentions were. Nothing. In December it was finally archived. When I first started reading your post I was on your side, thinking you had a least responded, which is more than a lot of folks do. Now I see that your initial "response" was worse than not doing anything, as it fooled people into thinking you were actually going to do something for many months. And that's my fair and balanced analysis of the situation

[+robert]

I let the archiver know that I'd take care of it in the spring or potentially sooner. The sooner is a trip that may or may not afford me the time to stop and check it out. Spring was the sure thing.

If spring isn't soon enough to qualify for "a few weeks" then what is this for exactly? Does this not (more than) imply that a cache will unavailable for more than a few weeks?

There's a difference between "unavailable in winter" and "I don't feel like taking care of my cache right now so I'll get to it whenever". Take a look at the cache hukilaulau linked to. The reviewer was right to archive that one.

 

I've had some issues with reviewers way back when.... but have had pretty good luck lately. I started a thread some time ago (probably three years) about how poorly the "guidelines" were written. There doesn't seem to be much improvement on that score.

The guidelines appear to be written with some flexibility in them to allow things based on individual situations, which is perfect. There's nothing wrong with how these guidelines were applied. Way more than "a few weeks" as written in the guidelines was given, unfortunately the OP chose to do his own thing anyway, and the cache was archived. Now maybe someone who actually wants to hide a cache in that location and take care of it if and when it needs it will do so.

 

[+CSpenceFLY]

I don't get it. If you have a cache with a problem why not set it as un available with a note that you will fix it, instead of leaving it active and having people out there looking for crap or even worst, something that is not even there. It takes maybe two minutes and the problem is solved.

[+geowizerd]

Gotta go with the Reviewers on this one, if you can't maintain it in a timely fashion it's too far away.

 

I don't understand why anyone would place a cache that is more than a short drive (less than a hour) away from home. I haven't placed any caches yet, but when I do, if I can't spend an hour or two to maintain it when needed, I won't place it.

[+sbell111]

RK, you made the mistake of being far too forthright.

 

I hope you have leaned your lesson.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Gotta go with the Reviewers on this one, if you can't maintain it in a timely fashion it's too far away.

 

I don't understand why anyone would place a cache that is more than a short drive (less than a hour) away from home. I haven't placed any caches yet, but when I do, if I can't spend an hour or two to maintain it when needed, I won't place it.

That's why the flexibility is built in. Some folks, like myself, regularly travel a good way from home and can maintain a cache farther from home than normal.

 

I have several that are 50 to 100 miles from home, but they are in places I regularly go to, my lake place or on the way to it, another lake I regularly fish at least monthly year-round, etc.

 

If the Reviewer knows, initially from your word and over time from your performance, that you can and will get to a cache maintenance issue quickly (2 weeks) they'll generally allow you to exceed the normal distance guidelines.

 

Still, if I get two DNFs or a Needs Maintenance note I disable it immediately until I can get there so that no one wastes time looking... I hate DNFs, that's not a fun part of the game for anyone!

[+sbell111]

Gotta go with the Reviewers on this one, if you can't maintain it in a timely fashion it's too far away.

I don't understand why anyone would place a cache that is more than a short drive (less than a hour) away from home. I haven't placed any caches yet, but when I do, if I can't spend an hour or two to maintain it when needed, I won't place it.

The length of the drive shouldn't matter as long as the owner can maintain the cache. That being said, sometimes life gets in the way and the owner cannot (or will not) take the time to visit the cache as quickly as some people would like. Obviously, each reviewer uses his own measure to determine whether the cache has been, in effect, abandoned by it's owner and should be archived.

 

Even though RK stated that it would be a few months before he would check on this one, I don't think that a reasonable person would determine that it was abandoned. Therfore, it should not have been archived, in my opinion. The presense of the maintainance flag was sufficient to let potential seekers know about any problems. They could choose to ignore the cache or seek the cache. If they chose to seek the cache, they could leave it in it's current condition or fix it up. No immediate action was required of the reviewer, in my opinion.

Edited December 25, 2007 by sbell111

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Even though RK stated that it would be a few months before he would check on this one, I don't think that a reasonable person would determine that it was abandoned....

 

It's a tough call.

 

When I was reviewing Alabama and Arkansas it only came up once; a cacher had hidden one deep in a forest as a tribute to a close friend who had died. She already had several caches out that were always maintained, even one that was an hour paddle by kayak.

 

This cache was emotionally important to her, but evidently not enough to maintain it in a timely fashion.

 

After several DNFs I asked her to check on it. She told me that it was hunting season and she was scared to go in the woods to check it. She did disable it.

 

After a few months when our long deer and turkey seasons were over (hunting season is always open for something in Alabama year-round) I asked her to take care of it and she promised to do so.

 

When it still wasn't maintained I archived it. She called me in tears, furious that I had archived her cache.

 

I unarchived it.

 

In another six weeks or so I archived it again; she pitched a fit and committed geocide.

 

I truly believe that she had good intentions, but for whatever reason couldn't follow through on them.

 

Intention and desire is important, but reality is more so... if the reality, despite all good intent and promise, is that the cache isn't being maintained it needs to go (with a nod to seasonal accessibility, which is really not an issue in my area).

 

While that may be more extreme than RK's situation it does point out how difficult it is to decide such things.

[+sbell111]

In your example, the cacher made you a promise and didn't follow through. RK hasn't had the opportunity to follow through on his promise.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Gotta go with the Reviewers on this one, if you can't maintain it in a timely fashion it's too far away.

 

I don't understand why anyone would place a cache that is more than a short drive (less than a hour) away from home. I haven't placed any caches yet, but when I do, if I can't spend an hour or two to maintain it when needed, I won't place it.

Huh? At least two of our more well-known caches are located about 75 miles from our home, which translates to about a 1.4 hour drive each way in light traffic (and a two hour drive each way in heavy traffic), and I own two caches (one which I have since archived and removed due to reasons not at all related to maintenance or lack of it but rather external factors) which are located 1750 miles from my home; they are located along the ID/WY border, were placed several years ago, and we have never had any problems or complaints about maintenance (of course, I do have a co-hider for those caches, she is a licensed wilderness guide who lives near them, and I also visit her fairly regularly.)

 

The reality is that some people would have a hard time competently maintaining a cache located across the street from their house, while other would have little problem maintaining a cache located 600 miles from their home. There is no hard and fast rule such as "the cache must be located closer than a one half-hour drive away."

[ljay]

I agree that distance shouldn't be a factor as long as you are able to acess it on a regular basis (as the above have stated) if you pass on the way to work, the lake ect!

I maintained a cache for another cacher. He lives over 500 miles away, he wasn't geting up for a couple more months and his regular maintainer was away. i had reported the cache as muggled and was back in the area so i replaced for him.

It was a great site and it would have been a shame for everyone to miss out on it...

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I agree that distance shouldn't be a factor as long as you are able to acess it on a regular basis (as the above have stated) if you pass on the way to work, the lake ect!

I maintained a cache for another cacher. He lives over 500 miles away, he wasn't geting up for a couple more months and his regular maintainer was away. i had reported the cache as muggled and was back in the area so i replaced for him.

It was a great site and it would have been a shame for everyone to miss out on it...

Distance really isn't the issue, if you give your Reviewer contact info for a reliable local maintainer you can hide one most anywhere - it's 'time responding to maintenance issues' that makes the difference.

[+briansnat]

Gotta go with the Reviewers on this one, if you can't maintain it in a timely fashion it's too far away.

 

I don't understand why anyone would place a cache that is more than a short drive (less than a hour) away from home. I haven't placed any caches yet, but when I do, if I can't spend an hour or two to maintain it when needed, I won't place it.

 

Depends on the person. I have a few caches that are a 4 hour drive away. But it's a place that I visit frequently, as I have family in the area. If something happens, I can usually get there within a few weeks to check.

 

On the other hand some people can't (or won't) maintain a single cache a mile from their house.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I think that demonstrates the boundary of the owner's "maintainable distance." It is different distances for different people.

Yes. And it is subject to change because of family, holidays etc.

 

The reality is that some people would have a hard time competently maintaining a cache located across the street from their house, while other would have little problem maintaining a cache located 600 miles from their home. There is no hard and fast rule such as "the cache must be located closer than a one half-hour drive away."

 

Generally "can you maintain this cache that's a hundred miles away?" is a question that is asked before the cache is approved.

 

If the approver knew the cache was quite a ways away when heshe approved it in the first place, the note from the owner should have been sufficient IMO.

 

As Vinny so rightly points out, distance is often irrelevant in cache maintenance. RK has been around a long time. I would think he could be trusted.

 

The OP question really raised here is "was this action in the best interest of the game?"

 

I agree with RK that the answer is "NO!"

 

Now he has no incentive to get to it. If he finds it OK, he still has to apply for unarchival. In the mean time, if JoeNewbie10101 wants to drop a film can 20 feet from it, the original cache is SOL.

 

If someone makes a promise, albeit a new promise (the promise to maintain promptly being the old promise which was not fulfilled), to get something done in a specific manner and in a specific time period, doesn't the promisor deserve at least ONE chance to make good?

[+CSpenceFLY]

Nothing is stopping him from going to maintain the cache and having it un-archived. If there is no incentive now it is because there was none before.

 

We had a similar incident in our area from someone that had moved from the area. Caches needed maintainence, some were proved missing and an owner that promised action but did nothing. I still don't get it. If your cache need maintainence why not disable it and do what you said you were going to do?

[+hukilaulau]

for some of us cleaning up after ourselves is the only incentive we need. We learned it somewhere around second grade. I have to say, looking at RK's history, he used to follow up on distressed caches in a timely and responsible manner, which makes his current complaint rather curious. It's not even so much the fact that he left a cache in distress for 6 months and let it get archived, it's that he came on the forums looking for... what? Sympathy? Redemption? Agreement with his position? Well, I guess he did get some of that.

But if it gave him the peace of mind to continue not doing what he didn't do all summer (because now he has "no incentive") then I guess that's a good thing. Enjoy your Christmas!

Oh, and my vote for, "Was it in the best interest of the game?" definite "Yes!"

Edited December 25, 2007 by hukilaulau

[+StarBrand]

The inconsistency here is what really bugs me.

 

I have seen a number of local caches sit for 4 to 6 months without being archived with issues. The owners posted notes about when they were going to take care of an issue and most everybody was satisfied. Later when life wasn't so busy - the cache got taken care of. Notes on the listing page that clearly give updates and timelines should be enough.

 

While the guidelines allow for a great deal of flexibility, I think that shutting down a cache should be taken a bit more seriously. No need to act swiftly. I just do not see the maintenance plan as being "too long". I see Spring as being no more than 8 to 10 weeks away. Just not a real long time.

 

I have always tried my best to go take care of cache issues quickly (within 2 - 3 weeks) but I also know how busy our everyday lives can get. Some flexability should be allowed from time to time.

[+Rattlebars]

I let the archiver know that I'd take care of it in the spring or potentially sooner. The sooner is a trip that may or may not afford me the time to stop and check it out. Spring was the sure thing.

If spring isn't soon enough to qualify for "a few weeks" then what is this for exactly? Does this not (more than) imply that a cache will unavailable for more than a few weeks?

There's a difference between "unavailable in winter" and "I don't feel like taking care of my cache right now so I'll get to it whenever". Take a look at the cache hukilaulau linked to. The reviewer was right to archive that one.

 

 

Absolutely. I did not investigate the matter and took the OP at his word, which turns out not to be very good in this instance. Hindsight is always 20/20, of course.

[+Trucker Lee]

I'm wondering with the price of gas we'll geo-caching be as popular in the future.

 

Even with the price of gas where it is, I see no change in the number of folks who just jump up and race onto the highway without a thought. As gasoline prices go higher, there are things you can do to save.

 

1. Combine trips. One trip out for multiple errands whenever possible.

2. Long, slow, smooth acceleration. Your car never uses more gas then when you punch the throttle.

3. Avoid braking. Look ahead and think ahead. You spent good gas getting that car moving, why scrub it off on the brake shoes. Light ahead red with a line waiting in front of you? Coast in until it turns and for a bit after to allow those other folks to get moving. You got a turn coming up? Coast in the last half mile, let nature slow you down. Not only saves gas, saves maintenance $$ too.

4. Just running into the Quicky Mart? Turn it off! Idling is using fuel for no purpose, and the car is less likely to get stolen with the keys in your pocket.

5. Carpool and split the gas costs. Public transit when possible. Saves gas and maintenance $$ again. Lets you both ride in the HOV lane as well.

6. Slow down. Slow down. Slow down. You are most efficient just after you car shifts into the higher gear, the most speed for the least RPM. If you drive a manual, don't wind up each gear before shifting, but shift as early as you can for the terrain. High RPM means high consumption.

7. Keep the car maintained. Rough idling, smoking, check engine lights, or a really acrid smelling exhaust can all indicate problems. Low tires use more gas to overcome resistance. Get a gauge and check weekly.

[+CacheDrone]

If the owner is unwilling to meet the listing guidelines for maintenance after publication then often archival is the only option left to the reviewer. This whole issue of incentive is merely smoke and mirrors. Either the owner is willing to do the maintenance or not. If not within a reasonable time like is suggested in the guidelines then the right selection is to archive it. It can be unarchived later if it meets the listing guidelines.

 

Just like Keystone, I sweep my area every month and for any listing that has been disabled for a period longer than two month I issue a warning about prolonged disabling. On my next sweep a month later, any listing without any note is archived. In my view, having a listing disabled for a total period of over three months is well beyond what is outlined in the guidelines. Some still call me "Militant" but if I wanted to be the rules lawyer it would be easy to argue that after three weeks I could archive without warning, but I don't because life does not always afford everyone the opportunity to run out within three weeks for various reasons.

 

Also, I don't buy this whole "I promised to...." line since at the time of any geocache being published there was also the promise that the owner would follow the guidelines that they agreed to when they sent the listing in for review.

 

You shouldn't have put the reviewer in that position in the first place, especially since you were the one that agreed to the listing guidelines in the first place. Now to try to shift the blame over is also not right.

[+sbell111]

... Just like Keystone, I sweep my area every month and for any listing that has been disabled for a period longer than two month I issue a warning about prolonged disabling. On my next sweep a month later, any listing without any note is archived. In my view, having a listing disabled for a total period of over three months is well beyond what is outlined in the guidelines. Some still call me "Militant" but if I wanted to be the rules lawyer it would be easy to argue that after three weeks I could archive without warning, but I don't because life does not always afford everyone the opportunity to run out within three weeks for various reasons.

It's possible that you are projecting your own dramas onto this situation. As explained in the OP, a note was left by the cache owner explaining when, at the latest, he would visit the cache.

Also, I don't buy this whole "I promised to...." line since at the time of any geocache being published there was also the promise that the owner would follow the guidelines that they agreed to when they sent the listing in for review.

I would recommend caution here. You are coming very close to the forum guidelines, in my opinion.

 

The fact is, we all have lives. What happens in these lives is much more important than doing a maintenance run. I promise to try to maintain my caches well, but I didn't take a blood oath to do it at the detriment of things in my life that are actually important.

 

For a slightly different take on this issue, I wonder if one of the previous finders wouldn't be willing to visit the cache to give it whatever care it needed. After all, this is nohting if not a social game. If one of us can't visit our cache temporarily, it would be nice if someone else wouldn't mind helping out. This would serve to help out a respected member of the community and salvage a viable cache. Instead, the actions taken upsets a peer and threatens to create geotrash.

 

This cache need not be archived. There were other, better, solutions including believing the cache owner and taking no action at this time.

Edited December 26, 2007 by sbell111

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Is it a game that is meant to be fun? Whether it be Geocaching, Benchmark Hunting or even Way Marking, it is spelled *F U N* and *S M I L E Y S*. It is also not meant to be a "Life or Death" situation, or a burden of any kind to 'any' of the "players" of said game.

 

I believe that everyone needs to remember who the OP is and trust him in what he says.

 

I also know that everyone is human and things tend to get blown out of proportion, high feelings start to run Amok (I love that word ). So everyone just take a deep breath, if anyone wants to go and repair or replace that dang cache for RK and get a note to the reviewer...that would help. We are all "friends" here. We have repaired caches that we have found to be in need and others have done the same for us and we have even had people stop by to check on a cache that was logged as missing. So what is the big deal? Nothing, it seems, except that it is a game that runs into snags at times.

 

It is still a GAME. Enjoy it or Sit back for a while and let your feelings calm down.

 

Just the ramblings of an old lady who happens to be half of the 2oldfarts. This post was meant to help and if it did not, please disregard it all together.

 

Shirley~

[+Rattlebars]

In my view, having a listing disabled for a total period of over three months is well beyond what is outlined in the guidelines.

 

So, then, especially up in Ontario. How long does this signify? In my first post about it, I did not know that the OP had not responded AT ALL for over six months during the SUMMER before the reported "short shrift" archive thereby making my reference irrelevant. But here I think it is relevant. Do require a disabling? Or does that Icon supply enough information that this particular cache may not be available for three or four months?

[+Bad_CRC]

"I'm really busy and the cache is a long ways away?" I think that demonstrates the boundary of the owner's "maintainable distance." It is different distances for different people.

 

pretty much sums it up. People are depending on cache owners to either maintain the caches in a usable state or archive them.

 

If a cache needs maintenance, and the owner can't be bothered to get out there for *months* because "it's not important enough" then by any account, that person is not a responsible cache owner, regardless of distance. Leaving a cache out there in an unusable state isn't good for anyone. Nothing wrong with having priorities other than your cache ...as long as you recognize what that means in the bigger picture, and why the cache should certainly be archived.

 

In my state we have King Boreas, who has over 1500 cache hides over thousands of square miles and a few states... yet I have NEVER seen one of his caches in need of maintenance for long because somehow he watches every one of those darn things, and will drive across state if needed to fix any problems with any of them. It'd be great if every cache owner was like that, but of course most people don't care that much.

 

Can you imagine if you ran a pocket query, and 3/4 of the caches were disabled or in need of maintenance, but the owners simply didn't give a carp, and just said "they'd get around to it whenever." It'd pretty much kill the hobby.

 

If you are unwilling or unable to maintain a cache in a timely manner, you owe it to cachers to either adopt it out to someone who does care, or archive it so others can put a properly maintained one there.

[+PhxChem]

Just created some Geo-litter is all that happened there.

 

How is that? If it is Geo-litter now...it was geo-litter before. The OP knows it's there. I suspect he wouldn't knowingly leave it. If the OP picks it up "in the Spring" there will be no litter.

 

From the OP description, it doesn't sound like a catastrophic incident has kept him from maintaining it. It sounds like the cache might have been too far away to maintain.

 

Now he has no incentive to get to it

 

What? Why not. Is he quiting the game? You might not want to speak for the OP......

Edited December 26, 2007 by PhxChem

[+pdxmarathonman]

Just created some Geo-litter is all that happened there.

 

How is that? If it is Geo-litter now...it was geo-litter before. The OP knows it's there. I suspect he wouldn't knowingly leave it. If the OP picks it up "in the Spring" there will be no litter.

 

From the OP description, it doesn't sound like a catastrophic incident has kept him from maintaining it. It sounds like the cache might have been too far away to maintain.

 

Now he has no incentive to get to it

 

What? Why not. Is he quiting the game? You might not want to speak for the OP......

Wholeheartedly agree. Having the cache archived shouldn't have any impact on the cache owner's willingness to maintain the site of the cache

[+sbell111]

In my view, having a listing disabled for a total period of over three months is well beyond what is outlined in the guidelines.

So, then, especially up in Ontario. How long does this signify? In my first post about it, I did not know that the OP had not responded AT ALL for over six months during the SUMMER before the reported "short shrift" archive thereby making my reference irrelevant. ...

I think that most posters are ignoring the reality of the cache in question.

 

Per the cache page, RK decided that it needed to be visited not because there were problems reported with the cache, but because two people couldn't find it. The first person reported that the the snow was possibly still too high. Since RK posted that it might need a visit, one other person couldn't find it.

 

Many cachers wouldn't visit a cache (that had been reported to be tricky), simply because of a couple of DNFs. If there was a reported problem with this cache that needed to be corrected, I might agree that a quicker maintenance visit or a temporary disablement was warranted, but not necessarily for a couple of DNFs.

[+robert]

While the guidelines allow for a great deal of flexibility, I think that shutting down a cache should be taken a bit more seriously. No need to act swiftly. I just do not see the maintenance plan as being "too long". I see Spring as being no more than 8 to 10 weeks away. Just not a real long time.

What do you mean "swiftly"? The last note was SIX MONTHS AGO (and even then the attitude was "when I get around to it" rather than any definite time frame), so yeah, 8-10 weeks is a really long time when you add the 6 months that have already passed to it. And who's to say he'd even check on it "sometime this next Spring" if he didn't check on it in the last 6 months? Is he going to have time "sometime this next Spring" that he didn't have since June 13 when the cache was disabled?

 

If the cache is worth keeping, when he gets around to it the OP can head out there, check on it, fix it up, whatever, and the reviewer can unarchive it. If he doesn't plan to keep it, he needs to go out there anyway and retrieve the container (if there's one still out there).

 

This is a lot like those threads where a n00b comes in jumping up and down about how the awful reviewers didn't publish their cache. When the real information comes out it ends up being the cache is an ammo can tied to train tracks going through an elementary school playground.

[+robert]

Per the cache page, RK decided that it needed to be visited not because there were problems reported with the cache, but because two people couldn't find it. The first person reported that the the snow was possibly still too high. Since RK posted that it might need a visit, one other person couldn't find it.

 

Many cachers wouldn't visit a cache (that had been reported to be tricky), simply because of a couple of DNFs. If there was a reported problem with this cache that needed to be corrected, I might agree that a quicker maintenance visit or a temporary disablement was warranted, but not necessarily for a couple of DNFs.

If that's the case, post a note, don't disable it. Less will look for a cache that is disabled than one that simply has a note on it from the owner saying they'll look at it when they get a chance. If someone wants to give it a shot and try to find it, there's a chance they will and all will be well again. If not maintaining the cache in a timely manner isn't the issue with this one, it's that it was disabled when a simple note would have worked.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

While the guidelines allow for a great deal of flexibility, I think that shutting down a cache should be taken a bit more seriously. No need to act swiftly. I just do not see the maintenance plan as being "too long". I see Spring as being no more than 8 to 10 weeks away. Just not a real long time.

What do you mean "swiftly"? The last note was SIX MONTHS AGO (and even then the attitude was "when I get around to it" rather than any definite time frame), so yeah, 8-10 weeks is a really long time when you add the 6 months that have already passed to it. And who's to say he'd even check on it "sometime this next Spring" if he didn't check on it in the last 6 months? Is he going to have time "sometime this next Spring" that he didn't have since June 13 when the cache was disabled?

 

If the cache is worth keeping, when he gets around to it the OP can head out there, check on it, fix it up, whatever, and the reviewer can unarchive it. If he doesn't plan to keep it, he needs to go out there anyway and retrieve the container (if there's one still out there).

 

This is a lot like those threads where a n00b comes in jumping up and down about how the awful reviewers didn't publish their cache. When the real information comes out it ends up being the cache is an ammo can tied to train tracks going through an elementary school playground.

Robert, thank you! You have essentially written, and very eloquently, what I have been wanting to write ever since stumbling upon this thread! You said it better than I could have! Thanks!

[+wimseyguy]

ASSuming that hukilaulau has linked us to the correct cache page, there doesn't appear to be anything there to maintain as it was disabled after several DNF's.

So what exactly is being discussed here? A placeholder in a virtual/digital world on an internet listing service is the only thing left. There isn't any geotrash, and there isn't any incentive (if there was one before) to return to the spot. If it was such a great spot, RK can return and replace the missing container and ask for unarchival, or some one else can now hide a cache there or within 528' of there and maintain it. How has anyone lost out on anything in this situation?

 

Or have I missed something as obvious as an 800# gorilla in the corner in this discussion?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Or have I missed something as obvious as an 800# gorilla in the corner in this discussion?

2 DNFs does not mean that the container is not there,

and

all of us commit to maintaining caches in a timely manner.

 

Is that 800 lb. worth?

 

The discussion has evolved to really be about timely maintenance more than specifically RK and his OP, but to his point... regardless of why one can't get to a cache, except for seasonal access, if they can't then it's outside their maintainable area.

 

To me "I can't get there for months" translates to "I shouldn't have a cache there"!

[+Renegade Knight]

....If it was this one the history on the cache page tells a slightly different story. In June you said you would fix it as time permits. Nothing for five months, except for at least one more cacher who went looking for something that wasn't there. In November the reviewer asked you to at least leave a note saying what your intentions were. Nothing. In December it was finally archived. When I first started reading your post I was on your side, thinking you had a least responded, which is more than a lot of folks do. Now I see that your initial "response" was worse than not doing anything, as it fooled people into thinking you were actually going to do something for many months. And that's my fair and balanced analysis of the situation

 

That is the cache. Between June and the Reviewer reminder I completely forgot. Call it reality. Caching isn't always at the forefront of my mind. The forums are not "caching".. The reminder did me some good and moved it to the back of my mind for when I did have a chance. ie Spring or possibly a trip this Saturday depnding on timing.

 

Like everthing though there is a bigger story. That will answer some of your other questions. Because of our local cache maggot I don't post my cache maintance. Ever. I don't advertise the cache is there for them to take. Instead I email the person who last had a problem directly. Then I know one person will find the cache before it's MIA again. If a reviewer askes whats up with the cache. I tell them. Directly for the same reasons. I did so with this reviwer. Deleting their archive note made me feel better but didn't accomplish much other than to remove your clue that I had given them a time frame which they had repeated intheir archive post.

 

Next: This cache. If hidden like it should be hidden a DNF is possible. Also if it's not replaced as it was orginally hidden it could be at the bottom of an embankment. 20' away and 40' down. Give or take a little. It could be there. It's sister cache in the other rest area met that exact fate. DNF after DNF and I went and found the cache and put it back. Simple. There is too much snow just now to determine if that's the case.

 

Next: The reminder that the reviewer gave me also jogged my memory on another cache. I checked on it, replaced it and emailed the last person it was back. That cache had never hit the reveiwer radar. This weekend I placed an urban cache because of a visit to Mr.Explorer3 and Explorer3. While doing that I had an email report on another cache and I checked on it, all good. It felt good. That's the first time in some time I've had to get out. Life changes. A few years ago I had more free time. This coming summer I anticipate more free time...Unless something comes up.

 

In the end it comes down to a willingess to accept that some cache owners are slow. If this site isn't willing to accept that, then I'm going to lose caches even though I will maintain them as time and life permit. A nice reminder doesn't hurt. Since life is short I'm not going to fight the battle to get it listed again. That was a battle that I should never have had to fight. I don't mind the approval process for a new cache in a new location. I do mind having to duplicate my efforts. If I had all the time I need for everthing that I need to do this cache would not have been an issue to begin with.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[Keystone]

Since life is short I'm not going to fight the battle to get it listed again. That was a battle that I should never have had to fight. I don't mind the approval process for a new cache in a new location. I do mind having to duplicate my efforts. If I had all the time I need for everthing that I need to do this cache would not have been an issue to begin with.

The review process is not a "battle" for something north of 90% of all cache submissions. It should be even less of a battle if a cache is replaced after being archived, assuming there's been no change in applicable land manager policies at the location, and no caches placed nearby in the interim.

 

How is it "duplicating efforts" when, as in the case of this cache, you adopted the listing from the original owner?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Wholeheartedly agree. Having the cache archived shouldn't have any impact on the cache owner's willingness to maintain the site of the cache

 

I'm willing to maintain my caches. If a reviewer asks me about a time frame I'll give theim my best estimate. If I feel that the cache is a lost cause I will archive the cache myself as part of my maintance responsiblity. When people are made responsible they are also given the authority. (A lot of us work in places that like to delegate the responsiblity but not the authority...)

 

When someone else assume the authority they have also taken the responsiblity. In the case of a cache I find it flat out annoying that someone else would do my job for me. If I break a leg I'm not going to ask the locals to take care of my cache. Call it pride, call it an unwilliness to have someone else do my job for me. If they volunteer and insist I'll breathe a sigh of relief, but I won't ask. That's personality.

 

This cache was archived on me. I'm guilty of forgetting about it, I'm guitly of being slow in my time frame to get on it, but I'm not guilty of abandoning that cache or my responsiblity to maintain it. The person who took it from me, can now deal wiht the consequnces of their decision. They can check on it, they can see if it fell down the embankment, they can email the last finder, they can pick up the geo-litter made by their taking over my job.

 

Now if they relist my cache as disabled. Great we are exactly where we were. The cache is mine to worry about on the schedule I gave them. If I foget this spring, I'll remember this summer. My amount of free time changed betwenen that cache was first placed and now. I'm looking forward to having more time again.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Absolutely. I did not investigate the matter and took the OP at his word, which turns out not to be very good in this instance. Hindsight is always 20/20, of course.

 

Only if you are looking at the whole picture in hindsight.

Nobody has presented anything false. Nobody has presented the entire picture. Keep that in mind.

 

I'll bet you were not aware that I was finding hundres of caches a year when that cache was placed. I'll bet you were not aware that something changed and I stopped finding many at all and it was a rare time when I got out to do that. Check my history it's there to figure out with your hind sight. I'll bet you were not aware that the reason I said "spring" is that I'm finlly lookingt to be free of the issues and obligations that have come up.

[+Jeep_Dog]

If that's the case, post a note, don't disable it. Less will look for a cache that is disabled than one that simply has a note on it from the owner saying they'll look at it when they get a chance. If someone wants to give it a shot and try to find it, there's a chance they will and all will be well again. If not maintaining the cache in a timely manner isn't the issue with this one, it's that it was disabled when a simple note would have worked.

 

Good point, and perhaps one of the more pertinent ones (there's several other excellent posts as well) to RK - management of maintenance (at least online) can be as important as the actual maintenance. The difference between a note and a disable is perhaps the difference between suspecting a problem (but the cache is still there) and acknowledging a problem absolutely requiring maintenance.

 

At first, I could not figure out this difference to which robert referred, but then realized that I had applied exactly this technique on this cache.

 

why anyone would place a cache that is more than a short drive (less than a hour) away from home. I haven't placed any caches yet, but when I do, if I can't spend an hour or two to maintain it when needed, I won't place it.

 

Several folks have already addressed this one, I would just like to add that for some caches in remote areas, it does not matter if someone is 105 miles away or 10 miles away, those last 5 miles to the cache can make all the difference in "equalizing" the physical distance from residence to cache. Hence, your statement should merely have said "if I can't spend an hour or two to maintain it when needed, I won't place it," since depending on type of placement and what you consider a "worthy" geocache, the length of drive in some cases is completely moot.

[+robert]

In the end it comes down to a willingess to accept that some cache owners are slow. If this site isn't willing to accept that, then I'm going to lose caches even though I will maintain them as time and life permit.

The site and the volunteers do appear to be willing, but your time-frame was way too long. I'm sure even you can see that even though your perspective on it is a bit biased. What you're essentially doing is hogging that 528' of space for a cache you may never get around to checking. Should someone who wants to place a cache in that area (and is willing and able to take care of it) have to lose out because you aren't able to check on the one you've already got there?

 

If it's going to take nearly an entire year (or possibly longer, based on your own statement) for you to check on the cache, it still doesn't seem like archiving the cache was the wrong thing to do.

 

This cache was archived on me. I'm guilty of forgetting about it, I'm guitly of being slow in my time frame to get on it, but I'm not guilty of abandoning that cache or my responsiblity to maintain it.

When you're no longer guilty of forgetting about it and when "at some point" gets here, hide a new cache there or have the old one unarchived. If someone hides one there in between now and then, there's nothing wrong with that either.

 

Edited December 26, 2007 by robert