Jump to content

Problem Solved


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

There is too much snow just now to determine if that's the case.

 

If that is the case, then waiting till spring to check on it should be OK. However, nowhere in your OP did you mention snow as being a reason.

 

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.

 

Sorry, the Reviewer is only doing his/her job. The geo-litter is yours, they didn't take over your job, they did their's. Now you need to do your's.

 

It sounds like you felt a little insulted that your cache got Archived, and your feelings are hurt. However, you shouldn't take it personal, sounds like the rules were being followed. If you go out "in the spring", take care of the cache, then note it, it will be no harm no foul.

Link to comment

I believe that archiving the cache was the correct thing to do.

Cache maintenance is very important to geocaching. It is not right to ask and expect cachers to wait several months for a cache owner to check on their cache.

This is the exact same reason they do not publish 'vacation' caches. Too long between maintenance intervals.

Of course this is just a game and there are many more important things in life.

However, if anyone wants to play this game as a cache owner, they should do it in a manner that allows the game to continue.

Link to comment

I believe that archiving the cache was the correct thing to do.

Cache maintenance is very important to geocaching. It is not right to ask and expect cachers to wait several months for a cache owner to check on their cache.

This is the exact same reason they do not publish 'vacation' caches. Too long between maintenance intervals.

Of course this is just a game and there are many more important things in life.

However, if anyone wants to play this game as a cache owner, they should do it in a manner that allows the game to continue.

 

Wow!!

 

What a thread.

 

Things do happen in life that change the way we play the game. Last January my wife's health started to slip. By April she was in the hospital with congestive heart failure. It has been a slow recovery. She didn't cache at all from January to the end of September and then only easy walks.

 

I am glad that non of her or my caches needed maintenance during those 8 months. She was too ill and I was too busy with work and running and cleaning a house to get to them if they needed it, especially the ones that require a day to hike in and back out.

 

Nobody should have to announce to the caching community the exact circumstances why they can't get to a cache immediately, especially health related.

 

The local community will not fix caches that need fixed. There is a cache close to me that has had 22 comments about a cracked and broken container and 3 Need Maintenance notes in about 18 months, and not one of the 30+ finders since then or the owner will take care of it. I won't because it was placed in a rest stop and the owner is from out of state and should do his own. I also don't care for those kind of caches.

 

I have repaired a cache the next day, that was damaged when I was with a group of cachers on my wife's first caching trip after her illness.

 

If she gets sick again I guess I shall just archive everything right away so that none of the poster here will blast us.

Link to comment
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.

 

What? Someone took in from you? Has it been adopted or are you saying because it has been archived it is no longer your responsibility?

 

If it's the latter.........wow......... :back:

Link to comment

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 winter-no.gif 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 winter-no.gif require a disabling? Or does that Icon supply enough information that this particular cache may not be available for three or four months?

 

When it comes to attribute icons, they are still optional and I don't find that they really affect the review process. What does work is when a cache is disabled by a player that they include something to the effect of "Disabled for winter". Then I understand the nature of the disable and then the cache is left disabled and can be for a much longer time.

 

When I said "Just like Keystone" it was also meant to point out that if a valid reason for a longer disabled period is provided, like winter or construction, then that goes a long way to being more flexible.

 

In response to your question though about the winter-no.gif in Ontario. Since it is an owner to player indication, I take it to mean that the area might not be accessible, the park might be closed, it might be unsafe or impossible to find due to snow cover. But you can still try if you want. Truly though, if the cache cannot be found in the winter due to a park or trail closure then it should be disabled.

Link to comment

I believe that archiving the cache was the correct thing to do.

Cache maintenance is very important to geocaching. It is not right to ask and expect cachers to wait several months for a cache owner to check on their cache.

This is the exact same reason they do not publish 'vacation' caches. Too long between maintenance intervals.

Of course this is just a game and there are many more important things in life.

However, if anyone wants to play this game as a cache owner, they should do it in a manner that allows the game to continue.

 

Wow!!

 

What a thread.

 

Things do happen in life that change the way we play the game. Last January my wife's health started to slip. By April she was in the hospital with congestive heart failure. It has been a slow recovery. She didn't cache at all from January to the end of September and then only easy walks.

 

I am glad that non of her or my caches needed maintenance during those 8 months. She was too ill and I was too busy with work and running and cleaning a house to get to them if they needed it, especially the ones that require a day to hike in and back out.

 

Nobody should have to announce to the caching community the exact circumstances why they can't get to a cache immediately, especially health related.

 

The local community will not fix caches that need fixed. There is a cache close to me that has had 22 comments about a cracked and broken container and 3 Need Maintenance notes in about 18 months, and not one of the 30+ finders since then or the owner will take care of it. I won't because it was placed in a rest stop and the owner is from out of state and should do his own. I also don't care for those kind of caches.

 

I have repaired a cache the next day, that was damaged when I was with a group of cachers on my wife's first caching trip after her illness.

 

If she gets sick again I guess I shall just archive everything right away so that none of the poster here will blast us.

 

This isn't the case at all, if sickness is the problem, that has been explained as a very acceptible reason for the delay! As RK stated, he has no time for this. To me, that means he can't do what is required to own a cache (almost the same as not being in close proximity to own a cache) and the cache should have been archived. I would think that this would be understood by someone around as long as RK, you've seen this type of problem before in the forums, haven't you? Did you expect some extra consideration since you've been around longer (not picking here, just don't understand why you'd get so upset when this is pretty clear IMHO).

 

As was said, you can go out and DO what you promised to do and the cache CAN be enabled again...why do you think this was taken from you, why do you think it's now the reviewer's responsibility? You promised to maintain this site, you should either honor that promise or let someone else have a chance!! Getting upset and just leaving the mess behind probably won't make you any friends with those in position to stop you from placing MORE caches (which I found odd to see you HAD placed another while knowing this cache needed maintaining....shouldn't you have fixed this one before creating a new one?).

 

And Ironman....the cachers around your area sound less friendly than my area. I have had a container replaced by another cacher, we've seen baggies replaced (happened just the other day while I was with the cacher who did the maintaining ON MY CACHE), swag refilled contents removed etc....maybe it's just your area where others won't lend a hand??

 

Now...I'll have to check out my caches, I'm certain I have some in need as well!!

Link to comment

I believe that archiving the cache was the correct thing to do.

Cache maintenance is very important to geocaching. It is not right to ask and expect cachers to wait several months for a cache owner to check on their cache.

This is the exact same reason they do not publish 'vacation' caches. Too long between maintenance intervals.

Of course this is just a game and there are many more important things in life.

However, if anyone wants to play this game as a cache owner, they should do it in a manner that allows the game to continue.

 

Wow!!

 

What a thread.

 

Things do happen in life that change the way we play the game. Last January my wife's health started to slip. By April she was in the hospital with congestive heart failure. It has been a slow recovery. She didn't cache at all from January to the end of September and then only easy walks.

 

I am glad that non of her or my caches needed maintenance during those 8 months. She was too ill and I was too busy with work and running and cleaning a house to get to them if they needed it, especially the ones that require a day to hike in and back out.

 

Nobody should have to announce to the caching community the exact circumstances why they can't get to a cache immediately, especially health related.

 

The local community will not fix caches that need fixed. There is a cache close to me that has had 22 comments about a cracked and broken container and 3 Need Maintenance notes in about 18 months, and not one of the 30+ finders since then or the owner will take care of it. I won't because it was placed in a rest stop and the owner is from out of state and should do his own. I also don't care for those kind of caches.

 

I have repaired a cache the next day, that was damaged when I was with a group of cachers on my wife's first caching trip after her illness.

 

If she gets sick again I guess I shall just archive everything right away so that none of the poster here will blast us.

 

This isn't the case at all, if sickness is the problem, that has been explained as a very acceptible reason for the delay! As RK stated, he has no time for this. To me, that means he can't do what is required to own a cache (almost the same as not being in close proximity to own a cache) and the cache should have been archived. I would think that this would be understood by someone around as long as RK, you've seen this type of problem before in the forums, haven't you? Did you expect some extra consideration since you've been around longer (not picking here, just don't understand why you'd get so upset when this is pretty clear IMHO).

 

As was said, you can go out and DO what you promised to do and the cache CAN be enabled again...why do you think this was taken from you, why do you think it's now the reviewer's responsibility? You promised to maintain this site, you should either honor that promise or let someone else have a chance!! Getting upset and just leaving the mess behind probably won't make you any friends with those in position to stop you from placing MORE caches (which I found odd to see you HAD placed another while knowing this cache needed maintaining....shouldn't you have fixed this one before creating a new one?).

 

And Ironman....the cachers around your area sound less friendly than my area. I have had a container replaced by another cacher, we've seen baggies replaced (happened just the other day while I was with the cacher who did the maintaining ON MY CACHE), swag refilled contents removed etc....maybe it's just your area where others won't lend a hand??

 

Now...I'll have to check out my caches, I'm certain I have some in need as well!!

I look at this from both sides of the fence. It's a close call but i believe the reviewer was right in making the decision to archive. It does sting a bit to have a cache archived in this manner but the archival in this case is for the common good. A cache that is disabled or potentially mia for months does no one any good.

 

RK himself and others have stated that there are other things in life that are sometimes more important and i wholeheartedly agree. RK weighed things out and in this case, this one cache is not as important as those other things, otherwise he would make time to go check on it. The reviewers do give leeway for unforseen circumstances but this seems to be more of a case where it's just inconvenient for RK. Unfortunately, this is not a good reason for not doing owner maintenance in a timely manner....

 

Btw, i do believe that RK would follow up with his maintenance plans in the spring. But it would be hard for a reviewer to start allowing everyone to post that they would do maintenance months down the line and then try to keep up with that.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

How is caching not on your mind when you have almost 20,000 forum posts? You say forums aren't caching, but that's what the forums are about. I see you answering posts all over the place on this site about cache problems, maintenance issues, etc.

 

I looked at the map for the one in question and the one you just place and listed a couple of days ago. They aren't even an hour from one another. According to google maps they are at most, 30 miles, from one another. How would you need to take vacation to maintain the cache, but you can place the other? Just doesn't make sense to me. Seems the archival was in good order. It's one thing to have a major life issue stop you for awhile, but a whole other one to just say you have better things to do. I don't like having to maintain mine either. I doubt anyone LIKES it. But it's something you agreed to do when you listed the cache. And to top it off you said you promised to the reviewer that you would handle it in the Spring, but then just posted that if you forget to in the Spring, you'll get to it in the Summer. Maybe you were being sarcastic, but it comes off as being flippant about the entire issue.

Link to comment

As a cacher with some caches not only hundreds of miles from home, but in some caces in other countries, I thought I should reply here. Some interesting points are being made. For one thing, I only set caches in locations where I frequently visit (meaning at least every few months or less). If I have a problem with one of my caches I post a note as to what the problem is and in some cases even ask for help from other cachers. The point is, I DO SOMETHING.

 

Just recently I replaced one stage of a cache neareby my home because I knew the cacher was no longer active and I had read notes that there was a problem. I also replaced two caches in the caribbean near one of my other caches because I was going there and had read the notes. When I do this I usually send a personal note to the owner indicating that I can help if he wants me to. I have also had other cachers do the same for me.

 

The cachers I know are always ready and willing to help each other out. (I keep an entire filled cache and log books in my swag bag just for that reason.) Again the point is, you must do something. And if you ask for help you will usually get it.

Link to comment

...If that is the case, then waiting till spring to check on it should be OK. However, nowhere in your OP did you mention snow as being a reason. ...

 

It's not a reason. I flat out don't think I'm going to have a chance until spring. Snow or no snow. I may have a chance this saturday to slap in a replacment cache but the snow would keep me from confirming the cache may have fallen down the enbakment.

 

Regardless the cache was archived. It's not coming back. The point of my first post was simply to vent. Actions have consequences. Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it. When someone else does and has taken the decision from me, they can live with the result of their own decision. I'll cross the cach off my list of maintance responsiblites and worry about my active caches.

Link to comment

...How is caching not on your mind when you have almost 20,000 forum posts? ...

 

I tend to post during breaks at work, during my mandatory lunch, and as a break from doing the things that have kept me to busy to cache.

 

When I'm not in the forums I tend not to dwell on the caching issues as I've got other things to worry about. Like refinishing cabinets (almost done) plumbing (I can now change a toilet), painting (for when you have to sell a house in a hurry, which of course involves a move and new problems to fix..) Besides thinking about the latest CA Land Manager policy is not the same thing as reminding myself that I have a cache that had a DNF and may need a check.

 

My job is also problem solving. I tend to think about those problems. How do you explain to somone that the Report they want before they approve a contract can't be done without information that comes from executing the contract they won't approve? Or that shutting down a project after having spent 6 figures on it is a waste of money when you want to do it at the 11th hour?

 

It's simpler if you just accept what I said. "I forgot about it and the reminder helped". It cut's through the BS.

Link to comment

...If that is the case, then waiting till spring to check on it should be OK. However, nowhere in your OP did you mention snow as being a reason. ...

 

It's not a reason. I flat out don't think I'm going to have a chance until spring. Snow or no snow. I may have a chance this saturday to slap in a replacment cache but the snow would keep me from confirming the cache may have fallen down the enbakment.

 

Regardless the cache was archived. It's not coming back. The point of my first post was simply to vent. Actions have consequences. Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it. When someone else does and has taken the decision from me, they can live with the result of their own decision. I'll cross the cach off my list of maintance responsiblites and worry about my active caches.

 

This to me sounds like "I'll just take my ball and go home" RK!! Now, I completely respect you, even tend to look up to you...but this isn't how a cacher handles a cache! You put it out there with the full knowledge that you are responsible for that cache. To say someone else is now responsible isn't holding up to your end of the deal!! You didn't maintain it for more than half a year and now it angers you that a reviewer is doing their job?

 

As I said before, this certainly doesn't sound like something a reviewer is going to like when reviewing your next cache. Actions have consequences...

Link to comment

.....But it would be hard for a reviewer to start allowing everyone to post that they would do maintenance months down the line and then try to keep up with that.

 

This is true. The reviewer has the option of reviewer notes. Accepting that guidelines are flexable, and letting the cacher get to it because they know they will. I'm sure the adaptable reviewer could come up with something.

 

Or they can stick to the plan. "a few weeks" means "3" and by gosh it's all archived.

 

That's their choice. Mine is to cross the cache they have archived using their own discression from my list of concerns. If something comes up involving the archive I'll refer them to the person who archived the cache. If that's me...I'll take care of it. If it's someone else so be it.

 

In the irony department. I've just inhereted the Safe Routes to Schools program. Strangly enough I'll be working with folks who would not give me the time of day as a parent. Good thing for them I'm more flexable in my job than they are in theirs.

Link to comment

Actions have consequences. Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it. When someone else does and has taken the decision from me, they can live with the result of their own decision. I'll cross the cach off my list of maintance responsiblites and worry about my active caches.

 

I have always respected your posts and opinions in the three years I have visited these forums.

 

However, the comments you made concern me considerably. :rolleyes:

 

The fact remains, the guidelines state "the cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings." Regardless of archive circumstances, it is still your listing! I do not follow the logic of violating the "in the event that a cache ... has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time" part of the guidelines with the subsequent follow-on consequence as advertised "we may archive or transfer the listing" magically transfers the responsibility to a Reviewer.

 

Responsibility has to stay with the listing owner, since anyone who decides to quit could easily put all their caches to "disabled", await archival, and "not worry" about cleaning up what is now litter.

 

In short, I disagree vehemently with the attidue expressed above. A newer cacher could read this, coming from a "charter member," and believe this attitude and passing of responsibilities as appropriate. I do not think this is in line with the greater caching community's culture.

Edited by Jeep_Dog
Link to comment

....The fact remains, the guidelines state "the cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings." Regardless of archive circumstances, it is still your listing! ....

 

Lets explore this.

 

When I as an active (and admittedly slow) owner have lost control of my listing at what point did it stop being my listing? I did activly assert that I would maintain the cache. I told the reviewer my time frame. They chose to interceede and archive the listing. Their actions effectivly took control out of my hands. To be responsible I need the control.

 

Sure, the site has a guidelines that says "I assume all responability" and I did. Then someone else took responsiblity and archived it. They were not acting under my authority or in my own interests. They did act against my wishes on my cache. That clearly means we don't actually have full control. Control and responsiblity are related. Take away control and you have assumed responsibility.

 

Right now I have no listing. Before if I maintained the cache I'd email the last DNF the status and clear the disabled flag. The cache would be back in operation. Now I have no gurantee that the cache would be listed. It has to run the approval gauntlet and since obviosly it was archived it would be a fair qustion to ask "is this really in your maintainable area?" to which I would honestly reply "yes, as time and life permit and often well outside a few weeks, and you already know that you archived it due to the time frame, so nothing really has changed on this cache". That's probably not approvable. If it is approvabable then it should not have been archived and my time frame would have been valid. The cache was killed. That person having taken control, and creating a dead zone in my cache inventory, can have the responsiblity for the dead zone they created. They took control, they took responsiblity. I'm guilty of a "slow zone". Not a dead zone.

 

Simplifying the entire issue.

I'm saying. Let me do my job and let me face the consequences of owning the cache. Don't take away my incentive, or my cache (a cache is both the container and the listing, take away one and you don't have a geo cache). If you do I'm assigning you any problems created by interfering right down to picking up the geolitter you created the moment you hit the archive switch.

Others are saying "It really doesn't matter that a cache is archived against your will and in spite of your willingness to maintain it, it's your own dang fault for being slow and, are still responsible".

 

Regardless I do think it does matter when a cache is archived aginst someones will and against their willingness to maintain it. Maybe I don't need to go the extra step and tell them "now you deal with it" but I'm going to anyway out of sheer frustration.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Gotta agree with Jeep_Dog. I can relate to the frustration, but having been in positions like this in other realms outside of geocaching I can see where if I had been a reviewer I may of done it just out of mere consistency on an issue. If, as a reviewer, you extend the courtesy of a multi-month long maintenance schedule to once cacher on a standard cache with no real unique circumstances then you have to do it with everyone.

 

Is it possible you're taking this a bit too personal? The initial reply seems pretty much like you're going to blow it off, but subsequent replies suggest it's really eating at you...especially the one pointed out by Jeep_Dog.

 

I am not saying I wouldn't be disappointed in the same circumstance, but conversely it doesn't serve any justice to just allow the cache to become geo-litter on purpose.

Link to comment

Sure, the site has a guidelines that says "I assume all responability" and I did. Then someone else took responsiblity and archived it. They were not acting under my authority or in my own interests. They did act against my wishes on my cache. That clearly means we don't actually have full control. Control and responsiblity are related. Take away control and you have assumed responsibility.

 

In my experience, control of something and responsibility are not related. Perhaps I am jaded from my profession, where I have many responsibilities but little control over much of that for which I am responsible.

 

An example that comes to mind is being a parent. I recently realized that responsibility can have a huge difference in meaning if you look at it as a "responsibility for" or a "responsibility to." Sure, I can control my children in every move they make, and ensuring the outcome of their future and behaviors. This is probably taking responsibility "for." Yet, is it not better to have a responsibility "to" them, by teaching them the values adults need in life, such as weighing outcomes, taking responsibility "for" their actions, having responsibility to others in a community, and making their own decisions? I can hardly teach/mentor them toward this endstate by controlling them.

 

Perhaps this cache in question has nothing to do with control. Perhaps it has to do with the responsiblity to geocaching and others that each of us theoretically should bring to the activity to maintain healthy relationships and community image.

Link to comment

....The fact remains, the guidelines state "the cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings." Regardless of archive circumstances, it is still your listing! ....

 

Lets explore this.

 

When I as an active (and admittedly slow) owner have lost control of my listing at what point did it stop being my listing? I did activly assert that I would maintain the cache. I told the reviewer my time frame. They chose to interceede and archive the listing. Their actions effectivly took control out of my hands. To be responsible I need the control.

 

Sure, the site has a guidelines that says "I assume all responability" and I did. Then someone else took responsiblity and archived it. They were not acting under my authority or in my own interests. They did act against my wishes on my cache. That clearly means we don't actually have full control. Control and responsiblity are related. Take away control and you have assumed responsibility.

 

Right now I have no listing. Before if I maintained the cache I'd email the last DNF the status and clear the disabled flag. The cache would be back in operation. Now I have no gurantee that the cache would be listed. It has to run the approval gauntlet and since obviosly it was archived it would be a fair qustion to ask "is this really in your maintainable area?" to which I would honestly reply "yes, as time and life permit and often well outside a few weeks, and you already know that you archived it due to the time frame, so nothing really has changed on this cache". That's probably not approvable. If it is approvabable then it should not have been archived and my time frame would have been valid. The cache was killed. That person having taken control, and creating a dead zone in my cache inventory, can have the responsiblity for the dead zone they created. They took control, they took responsiblity. I'm guilty of a "slow zone". Not a dead zone.

 

Simplifying the entire issue.

I'm saying. Let me do my job and let me face the consequences of owning the cache. Don't take away my incentive, or my cache (a cache is both the container and the listing, take away one and you don't have a geo cache). If you do I'm assigning you any problems created by interfering right down to picking up the geolitter you created the moment you hit the archive switch.

Others are saying "It really doesn't matter that a cache is archived against your will and in spite of your willingness to maintain it, it's your own dang fault for being slow and, are still responsible".

 

Regardless I do think it does matter when a cache is archived aginst someones will and against their willingness to maintain it. Maybe I don't need to go the extra step and tell them "now you deal with it" but I'm going to anyway out of sheer frustration.

 

IMHO, you DID face the consequences of owning the cache. You stated life was more important than the cache, the cache was archived. The guidelines apply to ALL.

Link to comment

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...mp;qpid=3223552

 

Gotta agree with Jeep_Dog. I can relate to the frustration, but having been in positions like this in other realms outside of geocaching I can see where if I had been a reviewer I may of done it just out of mere consistency on an issue. If, as a reviewer, you extend the courtesy of a multi-month long maintenance schedule to once cacher on a standard cache with no real unique circumstances then you have to do it with everyone.

 

Is it possible you're taking this a bit too personal?...

 

It's a pet peeve. If it's my cache then it's my cache and don't step on my toes. Do my job for me, and It's going to be your job, and you can face the music if you don't do it right. Want me to face the music? Stay out of the way. If it's not really my cache then that's another thing, I'd only make suggestions to the cache community on good locations for a cache and stick to finding. The community can worry about caches at large. I'd pitch in every now and then. That's a whole different way of caching. Since this site says I'm responsible...It's my cache. If this site wants’ to own the listings and not the cache then they need to assume responsibility for the listings and what happens when they change them at their own discression.

 

Finders like to point out that we can jump in a car and just go at a whim. Bull. Life happens. We can and do forget and need to remind ourselves. When I say life happens it happens on both sides of the fence. Nobody ever has enough time to find all the caches they would like. Why would it change for maintaining caches?

 

A year isn't unreasonable for maintaining a cache. How many people do this as a career? Some do have the time to jump in a rig and maintain the cache on a moments notice. More power to them. Some did, and now don't. It takes all kinds. As long as that cache is accounted for in the end, who the heck really cares? Don't answer that. A lot of finders will still spit and slather over suggesting that they have to look at a disabled notice for more than a few weeks.

Link to comment

It's a pet peeve. If it's my cache then it's my cache and don't step on my toes. Do my job for me, and It's going to be your job, and you can face the music if you don't do it right. Want me to face the music? Stay out of the way. If it's not really my cache then that's another thing, I'd only make suggestions to the cache community on good locations for a cache and stick to finding. The community can worry about caches at large. I'd pitch in every now and then. That's a whole different way of caching. Since this site says I'm responsible...It's my cache. If this site wants’ to own the listings and not the cache then they need to assume responsibility for the listings and what happens when they change them at their own discression.

 

Well, it's your listing, but when you fail to comply with the terms then I'd say the reviewer has that right as stated in the maintenance section. I don't think they were necessarily trying to be a jerk about...it keeps things simple for them. If most caches go to this stage and the reviewers had to accommodate everyone distinct schedule it'd be a nightmare for them.

 

All I am saying is that it's entirely possible the reviewer is just trying to maintain consistency and being that there were no abnormal circumstances I can see where the did it out of principle. The reviewer did their due diligence in contacting you...it's not their job to keep following up and baby-sitting each situation and it's not fair to put the into a position where the have to make exceptions in circumstances that don't really qualify for that.

 

Finders like to point out that we can jump in a car and just go at a whim. Bull. Life happens. We can and do forget and need to remind ourselves. When I say life happens it happens on both sides of the fence. Nobody ever has enough time to find all the caches they would like. Why would it change for maintaining caches?

 

A year isn't unreasonable for maintaining a cache. How many people do this as a career? Some do have the time to jump in a rig and maintain the cache on a moments notice. More power to them. Some did, and now don't. It takes all kinds. As long as that cache is accounted for in the end, who the heck really cares? Don't answer that. A lot of finders will still spit and slather over suggesting that they have to look at a disabled notice for more than a few weeks.

 

I am not contesting your "I have a life outside of caching" stance. I own you and most everyone on this forum in that category if you look at my numbers. I am just saying that it's possible the reviewer was just trying to keep things simple and didn't mean to ruin your year.

 

If it's such a remote location and so likely that you aren't going to be able to get to it on a moments notice and you know this up front then why not work with a more centrally located cacher to assist in maintenance? I mean...there are alternatives. I don't think it's fair to put all of this on the reviewer when I can see where the reviewer seems to be following protocol.

Edited by egami
Link to comment

Wow, RK...you've always impressed me with the way you are able to intelligently argue a point that I might not agree with. Many times you have carefully chosen words and made me respect your differing opinion.

 

Unfortunately, you haven't done it this time.

 

That cache is still your responsibility whether or not it is listed on this or any other site.

Edited by Stunod
Link to comment
Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it.

 

Wow has my respect for your posts taken a major hit. If you really believe what you wrote here, you have no idea what responsibility is.

 

That cache is yours, when you hid it you agreed to take responsibility for it. Now, the reviewer does his job and somehow it's his responsibility? :(:):rolleyes:

 

If you cannot take care of your own geolitter, (and no matter what you say, this is still yours to attend to.) you might think about finding a different hobby.

Link to comment

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...mp;qpid=3223552

It's a pet peeve. If it's my cache then it's my cache and don't step on my toes.

 

I think the problem here is the concept of ownership. You own part and GC.com owns part. You own the physical cache that you hid out in the world. GC.com owns the listing that lets others know where to look.

 

The reviewer obviously felt you were not living up to the terms of the cache listing and therefore archived it. It wouldn't have been my choice of action.

 

But you still own that cache you placed. As of now, it's effectively geo-litter until you remove it, or re-instate it to active status.

 

I have seen a lot of great places to hide a cache in my travels. Most were within 100 miles from my home coords. I always kept driving becuase I didn't want to have to travel all the way back there for a maintenance problem. For me, 30 miles is a pretty acceptable distance given today's fuel prices. The only excetion to this is a 5/5 I am working on placing when I get back from deployment.

 

SD

Link to comment
Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it.

You seem to be mixed up. You placed the cache. You are responsible for the geo-litter.

Especially since his name is still on the cache. This is a prime case why people shouldn't be required to hide caches. Responsibility is a big part of geocaching, some aren't up to it even when they think they are.

 

The other day we were at the playground. Everyone was playing football and having fun, except one kid. When the others weren't playing by his rules, he went and sat on the edge of the playground and sulked. He sat all by himself, hoping someone would play with him. When nobody did, he eventually went home, wondering why nobody would play his way when everyone else seemed to be doing fine playing by the rules of the game. Maybe some day he'll learn that his way isn't always the right way. But then again, maybe not.

 

I wonder if Vinny somehow got ahold of RK's password and posted a story to see how far people would take it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it.

 

You seem to be mixed up. You placed the cache. You are responsible for the geo-litter.

 

If I archive the cache it's normally missing. No geo liter involved. If I'm tired of the cache I'll pull and archive it. No geo litter involved.

 

If someone archives the cache against my wishes as an active owner. They have created the problem. They can solve it. It's enough for me to solve the problems that I create.

Link to comment

...In my experience, control of something and responsibility are not related. Perhaps I am jaded from my profession, where I have many responsibilities but little control over much of that for which I am responsible....

 

People like to retain control even when they delegate responsibility. It lets them assign the blame to the responsible party even as it doesn’t give the responsible person the authority they need. For some it’s just hard to let go. Either way, it’s a universal problem.

 

In spite of that being how things are done. The one who’s really responsible is the one pulling the strings. Truly wise managers know this, most employees delegated the responsibility know this.

 

In geocaching I’m accountable to the land manager and my finders. Those are the people who rely on me. I need to be able to say what’s what with my caches and have it be so. Sometimes what’s what, is wishy washy and variable. I’m not afraid to say so because that’s reality. If I can’t, speak with assurance about my own cache, then I’m forced to tell them the reality of who’s pulling the strings. I choose not to give up my authority or my responsibly on my caches. Geocaching.com isn’t the source of my authority as a cache owner*. That alone is different from our work place. However that authority can be usurped. If an approver chooses to do that in spite of knowledge that I’m still active that’s their choice since they have ultimate control over the listing. If they do, I’m going to assign them the responsibility that goes with it.

 

*In order to insulate groundsepak from legal liability it has to be this way. Active involvement in a cache by Groundspeak or its volunteers though can erode this separation.

Link to comment

Do the right thing and accept responsibility for the things that you've created. All this is doing is hurting the game.

 

Right now it sounds like blame shifting. Usually happens when people can't accept that they might be wrong and instead dig themselves in deeper. Honestly I thought you were better than that. You often have written things that I've considered well thought out.

Link to comment

In geocaching I’m accountable to the land manager and my finders. Those are the people who rely on me. I need to be able to say what’s what with my caches and have it be so. Sometimes what’s what, is wishy washy and variable. I’m not afraid to say so because that’s reality. If I can’t, speak with assurance about my own cache, then I’m forced to tell them the reality of who’s pulling the strings. I choose not to give up my authority or my responsibly on my caches. Geocaching.com isn’t the source of my authority as a cache owner*. That alone is different from our work place. However that authority can be usurped. If an approver chooses to do that in spite of knowledge that I’m still active that’s their choice since they have ultimate control over the listing. If they do, I’m going to assign them the responsibility that goes with it.

 

*In order to insulate groundsepak from legal liability it has to be this way. Active involvement in a cache by Groundspeak or its volunteers though can erode this separation.

 

That reasoning would never stand in a court of law if you want to get into legal analysis. If for some odd reason legal repercussion were to come due to placement of the cache it was squarely on your shoulders regardless of how you have imagined that responsibility was magically transferred to some third party.

 

Save face and go get the dumb container...you are responsible, period.

 

I'll agree to disagree on your perception of who is truly in the wrong about the archiving, but at the end of the day you are responsible for that container and there is no questioning that.

Edited by egami
Link to comment

Do the right thing and accept responsibility for the things that you've created. All this is doing is hurting the game.

 

Right now it sounds like blame shifting. Usually happens when people can't accept that they might be wrong and instead dig themselves in deeper. Honestly I thought you were better than that. You often have written things that I've considered well thought out.

 

I agree here wholeheartedly.

Link to comment

Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it. When someone else does and has taken the decision from me, they can live with the result of their own decision. I'll cross the cach off my list of maintance responsiblites and worry about my active caches.

 

wow.

Link to comment

....The other day we were at the playground. Everyone was playing football and having fun, except one kid. When the others weren't playing by his rules, he went and sat on the edge of the playground and sulked. He sat all by himself, hoping someone would play with him. When nobody did, he eventually went home, wondering why nobody would play his way when everyone else seemed to be doing fine playing by the rules of the game. Maybe some day he'll learn that his way isn't always the right way. But then again, maybe not....

 

Your story, reworded to better fit.

The other day we were playing football when someone said the football was a little flat. The kid who owned the football said “I need to fix this, but I can’t get to the store to buy the needle to inflate it for a while” The Coach said “well that’s not going to do.” He then let the rest of the air out and threw the football into the trash. The coach then asked the kid to take out the trash. The kid was mad and told the coach “haul your own dadgum trash away”. Everybody was shocked and said. “It’s your trash! You should haul it away!”. The kid said “No, it was my football. I liked it enough to fix it. Someone else made it trash”.

Link to comment

There are a few questions that seem to be important to this discussion:

 

1) How long from when the cache was reported in need of maintentance till archival?

2) How long from when you said you would take care of it till archival?

3) How long from when the cache was reported in need of maintenance till you said you'd take care of it?

Link to comment
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.

 

I agree with the above. One should not place a cache at a location, where one cannot maintain it in a timely manner. Nor should one place more caches than one can properly maintain.

 

I don't see archiving of caches as a big deal. If one's cache is archived, you still have the option of resubmiting it once you have done maintenance, or moving it to a location more convenient for your maintenace.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

I'll say this about RK's post... Thanks for the opportunity to discuss a controversial decision RK. He could do what many others have likely done and left the remnants of the archived cache to rot without comment. Instead he chose to post his intentions here for open debate. I think he ought to retrieve it but in the end, it's his decision to make.

Link to comment

How ridiculously irresponsible....

As with many policies of the site, this one discourages the placement of original, interesting, or challenging caches.

 

I can certainly see how those who think of placing a cache as throwing a film canister out the car window would be outraged that it would take a hider some time to perform maintenance on a cache.

 

I had a cache archived in much the same manner as RK. I had worked hard on the original container; it took me about 6 months to find the perfect container, figure out how to put a logbook in it, and then how to place it. It disappeared after about 6 months, likely stolen by a cacher, because it was really not findable by muggles. I started immediately looking for a replacement container, and I had found one and even assembled it, but hadn't completely figured out the attachment mechanism, when the cache was archived by the local reviewer. So I just let it go.

 

Disappointing, but apparently with the big emphasis on numbers, it matters more that the cache get put back into operation as quickly as possible than it does that difficult or original camo gets done correctly. I know my motivation to place anything that takes a lot of effort to prepare or would be difficult to place has been diminished considerably; the predominant attitude of the participants in this thread has reinforced those feelings.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

...If that is the case, then waiting till spring to check on it should be OK. However, nowhere in your OP did you mention snow as being a reason. ...

 

It's not a reason. I flat out don't think I'm going to have a chance until spring. Snow or no snow. I may have a chance this saturday to slap in a replacment cache but the snow would keep me from confirming the cache may have fallen down the enbakment.

 

Regardless the cache was archived. It's not coming back. The point of my first post was simply to vent. Actions have consequences. Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it. When someone else does and has taken the decision from me, they can live with the result of their own decision. I'll cross the cach off my list of maintance responsiblites and worry about my active caches.

 

You are acting like a 5 year old.

Link to comment
Anyone who archives my caches can assume the responsiblity for the geolitter they created when they chose to archive a cache they really don't know much about. When I archive my cache I'll take care of it.

 

You seem to be mixed up. You placed the cache. You are responsible for the geo-litter.

 

If I archive the cache it's normally missing. No geo liter involved. If I'm tired of the cache I'll pull and archive it. No geo litter involved.

 

If someone archives the cache against my wishes as an active owner. They have created the problem. They can solve it. It's enough for me to solve the problems that I create.

 

 

It should be archived because you are not willing to maintain it in a timely manner.

Link to comment

I again point out that RK JUST placed another cache not far from the cache that needed maintaining. IF it requires him to take vacation time to check on this other cache, how does he have time to place another nearby? I noticed, RK, that you failed to respond to that point in your post back to me.

 

I've always thought that by your posts you were an admirable cacher. But, leaving the container to be trash? It doesn't matter what your feelings are about the archival. You're not getting back at the reviewer by leaving litter, you're just trashing up the planet. And acting this way, while it might be honest, makes you no better than those you're mad at. The response was childish, and not what most of us clearly expected from you. You need to be mature enough to realize that you haven't done your part to take of the cache. The reviewer seems to be willing to relist the cache when you fix it. Really, by your response it just sounds like you had no intention on fixing it and just want to rant about it. Really surprised to see this is your attitude towards the geocaching community.

Link to comment

Either you have other issues with your reviewer ...

 

It's a new revewwer. They were nice, professional, responded exactly as they should when they are in a position to enforce the company line whether or not they agree with it themselves.. They approved my cache submittal without regard to this archival two days later. Exactly who I would hire if I wanted them to do the same job for me. I have no beef with this reviewer.

 

The issue is exactly what I have said in the first post. If I'm responsible, let me be responsbile. Don't cut in and take it away from me. You can call it a pet peeve. We all have them. That's one of mine.

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...