Jump to content

Can reviewers remove a needs maintaince attribute?


Dgwphotos
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I think that cache should not be archived if actual container is still in the wild. Of course we cannot prevent cache owner from doing it, but reviewer should not do it.

As a reviewer, I have archived hundreds if not thousands of LISTINGS where the cache container is still in place. I don't remove the physical CACHE nor do I verify that it is removed. That is the cache owner's responsibility. The listing site's concern is with whether the cache meets the listing guidelines, including the guidelines applicable to cache maintenance.

Link to comment

I think that cache should not be archived if actual container is still in the wild. Of course we cannot prevent cache owner from doing it, but reviewer should not do it.

As a reviewer, I have archived hundreds if not thousands of LISTINGS where the cache container is still in place. I don't remove the physical CACHE nor do I verify that it is removed. That is the cache owner's responsibility. The listing site's concern is with whether the cache meets the listing guidelines, including the guidelines applicable to cache maintenance.

 

If you operate like our fine reviewer out here, I think it is worth adding to this that as a reviewer, you do what you can to prevent geo-litter. If you've archived a cache that for some reason the owner is not available, you will ask a local cacher to pick up what is out there or post a reviewer note on the cache page asking someone to please go pick it up. Right? If not, shame, shame, shame on you Keystone :mad:.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment
If you operate like our fine reviewer out here, I think it is worth adding to this that as a reviewer, you do what you can to prevent geo-litter. If you've archived a cache that for some reason the owner is not available, you will ask a local cacher to pick up what is out there or post a reviewer note on the cache page asking someone to please go pick it up.

 

What about if the local cacher and cache is still active on a different site? Are we supposed to check all those other sites to make sure that they aren't listed there? If cachers want to trash out archived caches, that is their choice. We don't support this activity.

Link to comment
If you operate like our fine reviewer out here, I think it is worth adding to this that as a reviewer, you do what you can to prevent geo-litter. If you've archived a cache that for some reason the owner is not available, you will ask a local cacher to pick up what is out there or post a reviewer note on the cache page asking someone to please go pick it up.

 

What about if the local cacher and cache is still active on a different site? Are we supposed to check all those other sites to make sure that they aren't listed there? If cachers want to trash out archived caches, that is their choice. We don't support this activity.

 

Just so I understand this correctly....If a cache that was once listed on GC.com is discovered to not have an owner by you, as a volunteer reviewer, you'd just archive it and be done with it? You would do this with the sole rationale that the same cache might be listed on another site?

 

I can only speak for my geographical area and express my relief that this is not the way things are done here. Folks would scream bloody murder if they were. All our local reviewer would have to do is to request that someone check the competing sites first before picking it up and it would be done. Are you aware that these sites (like GC.com) encourage you identify the cache but putting this information inside? Besides, if it was double listing most folks would know that ahead of time anyway. This is just me, but I'd much rather spend the five minutes to call up competing sites, or check the contents of the container when retrieving it, than leave it to rot.

 

If I do understand what you are saying correctly and when I consider GC.com's involvement with "no trace left behind" CITO, and other environmental efforts, I'm not sure how you can rationalize "not supporting this activity" based solely on avoiding a very rare mulitple listing.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

I think that cache should not be archived if actual container is still in the wild. Of course we cannot prevent cache owner from doing it, but reviewer should not do it.

As a reviewer, I have archived hundreds if not thousands of LISTINGS where the cache container is still in place. I don't remove the physical CACHE nor do I verify that it is removed. That is the cache owner's responsibility. The listing site's concern is with whether the cache meets the listing guidelines, including the guidelines applicable to cache maintenance.

 

If you operate like our fine reviewer out here, I think it is worth adding to this that as a reviewer, you do what you can to prevent geo-litter. If you've archived a cache that for some reason the owner is not available, you will ask a local cacher to pick up what is out there or post a reviewer note on the cache page asking someone to please go pick it up. Right? If not, shame, shame, shame on you Keystone :laughing:.

To the contrary, Groundspeak expressly asks the volunteer reviewers NOT to become involved in cache retrieval efforts in our official capacity. We may choose to do so in our individual capacity as geocachers, however, but not as representatives of Groundspeak. I hope this clarifies things.

 

And no, I don't feel ashamed. I am doing my job precisely as I've been instructed to do it.

Link to comment

I think that cache should not be archived if actual container is still in the wild. Of course we cannot prevent cache owner from doing it, but reviewer should not do it.

As a reviewer, I have archived hundreds if not thousands of LISTINGS where the cache container is still in place. I don't remove the physical CACHE nor do I verify that it is removed. That is the cache owner's responsibility. The listing site's concern is with whether the cache meets the listing guidelines, including the guidelines applicable to cache maintenance.

 

If you operate like our fine reviewer out here, I think it is worth adding to this that as a reviewer, you do what you can to prevent geo-litter. If you've archived a cache that for some reason the owner is not available, you will ask a local cacher to pick up what is out there or post a reviewer note on the cache page asking someone to please go pick it up. Right? If not, shame, shame, shame on you Keystone :laughing:.

To the contrary, Groundspeak expressly asks the volunteer reviewers NOT to become involved in cache retrieval efforts in our official capacity. We may choose to ut not walking all the talk of being concerned with our environment! In the case of a cache wdo so in our individual capacity as geocachers, however, but not as representatives of Groundspeak. I hope this clarifies things.

 

And no, I don't feel ashamed. I am doing my job precisely as I've been instructed to do it.

 

Well, it does clarify your position and I'll direct my disappointment towards GC.com for giving this direction to their reviewers. In the case where an orphaned cache is being archived by GC.com (for this very reason of not having an owner), it's amazing that GC.com doesn't have a mechanism in place for it's retrieval rather they discourage it. You've cut off it's lifeline and the chances it will become geo-rubble are very good.

 

Mountains of shame on GC.com for not walking the talk.

Link to comment

Shame on the cache owners for abandoning their property. Geocaching.com is not their mommy.

 

I concur with this but that isn't a solution that is going to keep geo-litter from forming.

 

Caches that are orphaned are not always maliciously abandoned either. People's life situations can change dramatically, people die, people are kidnapped*. I prefer to call a spade a spade. This looks to me like a next step towards being a steward of the land that GC.com is unwilling to take and this reflects in this particular reviewer policy.

 

 

*Granted, this is a rare circumstance but how common are archived orphaned caches that were once listed on GC.com have an owner maintaining them on competing sites.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

Shame on the cache owners for abandoning their property. Geocaching.com is not their mommy.

 

I concur with that this isn't a solution that is going to solve the problem that isn't going to go away any time soon if this how you GC.com treats this.

 

Caches that are orphaned are not maliciously abandoned either. People's life situations can change dramatically, people die, people are kidnapped*. I prefer to call a spade a spade. This looks to me like a next step towards being a steward of the land that GC.com is unwilling to take and this reflects in this particular reviewer policy.

 

 

*Granted, this is a rare circumstance but so are caches that are listed on multiple listing sites.

 

Many times cachers cross list the cache. If you retrieved it when it was archived on geocaching.com and they still had it listed on one of the other sites they might be pretty upset if you picked it up.

Link to comment

Caches that are orphaned are not maliciously abandoned either. People's life situations can change dramatically, people die, people are kidnapped*. I prefer to call a spade a spade. This looks to me like a next step towards being a steward of the land that GC.com is unwilling to take and this reflects in this particular reviewer policy.

 

How many abandoned, archived and un-retrieved caches do you know about?

Link to comment

Shame on the cache owners for abandoning their property. Geocaching.com is not their mommy.

 

I concur with that this isn't a solution that is going to solve the problem that isn't going to go away any time soon if this how you GC.com treats this.

 

Caches that are orphaned are not maliciously abandoned either. People's life situations can change dramatically, people die, people are kidnapped*. I prefer to call a spade a spade. This looks to me like a next step towards being a steward of the land that GC.com is unwilling to take and this reflects in this particular reviewer policy.

 

 

*Granted, this is a rare circumstance but so are caches that are listed on multiple listing sites.

 

Many times cachers cross list the cache. If you retrieved it when it was archived on geocaching.com and they still had it listed on one of the other sites they might be pretty upset if you picked it up.

 

I'll admit to not having gotten into other areas besides my own. This is pretty common where you are? What percentage of the caches are cross posted?

Link to comment

Caches that are orphaned are not maliciously abandoned either. People's life situations can change dramatically, people die, people are kidnapped*. I prefer to call a spade a spade. This looks to me like a next step towards being a steward of the land that GC.com is unwilling to take and this reflects in this particular reviewer policy.

 

How many abandoned, archived and un-retrieved caches do you know about?

 

None, myself and many local cachers would go take care of this ASAP. It is our home and no GC.com policy or lack of policy is going to make it okay to leave junk out there to rot.

 

Going back to the original reviewer who said that this retrieving archived caches isn't something that they encourage.. that really surprised me. Most of the things that I see GC.com do are both logical and follow their ideologies but this doesn't.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

Many times cachers cross list the cache. If you retrieved it when it was archived on geocaching.com and they still had it listed on one of the other sites they might be pretty upset if you picked it up.

 

If they're inactive on geocaching.com I'd say odds are pretty good that they're inactive on other sites as well. If that's not the case then they should have archived their cache on geocaching.com...they'd have nobody but themselves to be upset at.

Edited by Yossarian
Link to comment

Groundspeak is a listing service and does not own the cache container. Therefore we can not direct someone to pick up and remove something we do not own. Groundspeak has no way of knowing the status of the cache or any other way it might be listed. It is not ours to say it can be removed.

Edited by Michael
Link to comment

Groundspeak is a listing service and does not own the cache container. Therefore we can not direct someone to pick up and remove something we do not own. Groundspeak has no way of knowing the status of the cache or any other way it might be listed. It is not ours to say it can be removed.

 

Thanks Michael. I am pretty sure I understand this much.

 

I'm just pointing out the irony of what you just stated. It seems that Groundspeak has written a mountain of guidelines on how a cache can be placed. If any of those guidelines are violated during the life of the cache, Groundspeak is known to send the hammer down pretty hard on the owner. But when there's no owner... all of the sudden, -poof- there's no guidelines and Groundspeak wants nothing to do with it.

 

This seems contradictory to much of what I see Groudspeak publically taking stands on, with all the CITO, leave no trace, and other environmental programs..

 

Thanks for listening and that's pretty much all I have to say about this.

Link to comment

There is a cache (GCDEA6) that I did today that has a needs maintaince attribute due to a wet log book, but the log book is now dry. However, the cache owner is inactive, so I am wondering if a reviewer could remove the attribute.

Here is the true irony.

 

The cache that is 4.2 miles from this one, hidden by the same owner, dissapeared just before a big event in the area. At least 2 weeks ago. It was confirmed missing by at least a half dozen people (myself included), searched for by probibly 50 others and has multiple SBA notes to the page.

 

It is gone and yet one post to the forums and a cache THAT IS IN PLACE, and not in that bad of shape is archieved. :ph34r:

 

Dwoodford - I hope you can adopt it or at least remove the geolitter when the time comes. I understand Groundspeaks position and understand the can of worms that they are potentially opening if they ask to have the containers pulled... But something still doesn't seem right about archieving a cache in place that will then become litter.

Link to comment

I'd much rather see a reviewer note posted on the cache page asking for somebody to adopt it instead of archiving it.

 

Around my area, we tend to take a lot of pride in our caches and will take care of the those old caches where the owner isn't around anymore if the cache is worth keeping. We update the container, logbook, swag, etc. If somebody came through the area and posted a "Needs Maintenance", we could take care of the physical action of maintaining it, but not remove the attribute from the listing.

 

We'd hesitate to adopt the cache, because we want to preserve the history. I realize that this can be done throgh adoption and making notes on the page, but it doesn't feel the same.

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd like to see the cache adopted before being archived. Maybe it will be unarchived after hte adoption, and in the end the result will be the same.

 

Just thinking out loud......(sort of)

Link to comment
Around my area, we tend to take a lot of pride in our caches and will take care of the those old caches where the owner isn't around anymore if the cache is worth keeping. We update the container, logbook, swag, etc. If somebody came through the area and posted a "Needs Maintenance", we could take care of the physical action of maintaining it, but not remove the attribute from the listing.

 

I think the thing that is being missed is that a cache that is being maintained, even by the community, will probably never show up to a reviewer radar so nothing will happen to it. Most times, when it's brought to the reviewers attention, the problems are so bad that something has to be done.

 

Adoptions can not always happen because of many reasons like there is no container so there is nothing to adopt, etc.

Link to comment

There is a cache (GCDEA6) that I did today that has a needs maintaince attribute due to a wet log book, but the log book is now dry. However, the cache owner is inactive, so I am wondering if a reviewer could remove the attribute.

Here is the true irony.

 

The cache that is 4.2 miles from this one, hidden by the same owner, dissapeared just before a big event in the area. At least 2 weeks ago. It was confirmed missing by at least a half dozen people (myself included), searched for by probibly 50 others and has multiple SBA notes to the page.

 

It is gone and yet one post to the forums and a cache THAT IS IN PLACE, and not in that bad of shape is archieved. :laughing:

 

Dwoodford - I hope you can adopt it or at least remove the geolitter when the time comes. I understand Groundspeaks position and understand the can of worms that they are potentially opening if they ask to have the containers pulled... But something still doesn't seem right about archieving a cache in place that will then become litter.

I sent a email and left a note on the cache page, though I don't expect a response from the owner. I also posted an adoption request on the NW forum page adoption thread. As I am somewhat inexperienced in this area, what seems to be the approprate course of action for dealing if I do need to pull the cache itself? I doubt I will be able to find the owner to return it to her. I do understand that Aaron's cache, the one you refer to, has been located, but is not in its correct location. One of the local cachers knows where it is.

Link to comment

I sent a email and left a note on the cache page, though I don't expect a response from the owner. I also posted an adoption request on the NW forum page adoption thread. As I am somewhat inexperienced in this area, what seems to be the approprate course of action for dealing if I do need to pull the cache itself? I doubt I will be able to find the owner to return it to her. I do understand that Aaron's cache, the one you refer to, has been located, but is not in its correct location. One of the local cachers knows where it is.

 

Unfortunately it is quite rare that TPTB will allow you to adopt a cache once it has been archived (even in the current case). If you had asked before it was archived, it may have been possible.

 

Once archived, they will typically say just create a new cache listing in the same location. (you could even use the same container)

 

I agree it would be far preferable to use the original listing to get all the old logs and history on the page. It's too bad they don't do this for people often.

Edited by benh57
Link to comment

I sent a email and left a note on the cache page, though I don't expect a response from the owner. I also posted an adoption request on the NW forum page adoption thread. As I am somewhat inexperienced in this area, what seems to be the approprate course of action for dealing if I do need to pull the cache itself? I doubt I will be able to find the owner to return it to her. I do understand that Aaron's cache, the one you refer to, has been located, but is not in its correct location. One of the local cachers knows where it is.

 

Unfortunately it is quite rare that TPTB will allow you to adopt a cache once it has been archived (even in the current case). If you had asked before it was archived, it may have been possible.

 

Once archived, they will typically say just create a new cache listing in the same location. (you could even use the same container)

 

I agree it would be far preferable to use the original listing to get all the old logs and history on the page. It's too bad they don't do this for people often.

 

This is true. Once the original listing has been archived the only person who can ask that it be unarchived is the original cache placer.

 

The best thing would be to submit a new listing at this point.

Link to comment

There is a cache (GCDEA6) that I did today that has a needs maintaince attribute due to a wet log book, but the log book is now dry. However, the cache owner is inactive, so I am wondering if a reviewer could remove the attribute.

Here is the true irony.

 

The cache that is 4.2 miles from this one, hidden by the same owner, dissapeared just before a big event in the area. At least 2 weeks ago. It was confirmed missing by at least a half dozen people (myself included), searched for by probibly 50 others and has multiple SBA notes to the page.

 

It is gone and yet one post to the forums and a cache THAT IS IN PLACE, and not in that bad of shape is archieved. :laughing:

 

Dwoodford - I hope you can adopt it or at least remove the geolitter when the time comes. I understand Groundspeaks position and understand the can of worms that they are potentially opening if they ask to have the containers pulled... But something still doesn't seem right about archieving a cache in place that will then become litter.

I'd have to agree, but in Groundspeaks attempts to "wash their hands of it" in the sense that they do not want to be associated with a Cache that has no currently active owner(understandable), over a course of years they will be allowing (or by their action, causing) a substantial number of unattended Caches to lay dormant, and by removing them from the list (and not having any easy means to even look up archived caches)they will one day be so abundant that they will in fact cause some problems for Groundspeak, if we presume that there is still a stashnote or some other refference to the site.

 

To put it simply...Groundspeak, in your attempts to have tight control over what is listed on the site, but yet claim no responsibility for it, you will one day end up suffering some ill effects, and the game as a whole(since so much of it is based at this site) will also.

 

Who knows how many caches are out there that have been archived, but had no effort to have them removed, there is no way to tell. If the number is not there already, one day it will be in the tens of thousands, and some of those caches will eventually cause some problems of one kind or another. There will be no owner, so the only ones there will be left to turn attention to is Groundspeak.

 

Anyone who want's to turn around and point to me as being negative towards the site, that is not what I am doing here. I am only providing a perspective in possible outcomes derived from a policy.

 

If it is in fact the policy of Groundspeak to archive caches for the cause of not having a respondant owner, I would think that in the long run, it would serve their best interest to make some effort to ensure that the Cache does not cause a problem for themselves later. A couple of possible solutions would be to assist in making arrangemants for removal, or assist in finding a new owner. Another way would be to create a paid position of "Archived Cache Remover", who would be on the staff, and travel around the world ensuring that archived caches are in fact removed. Salary + Expenses...Shall I send my resume? Too bad that would cost too much money.

Link to comment

After thinking about the fact that I'm going to begin my last year of college in the fall, I think it would be best for me to not adopt it. Maybe another local could adopt it. I doubt the owner is active on any caching site. I don't think there are many caches in the area that are hosted on other sites.

Link to comment

There is a cache (GCDEA6) that I did today that has a needs maintaince attribute due to a wet log book, but the log book is now dry. However, the cache owner is inactive, so I am wondering if a reviewer could remove the attribute.

 

They can. The cache is fine. The problem is the maintenance flag and not the cache. I'd say the site can fix the problem it created. I never remember to remove the flag when I fix a cache myself.

Link to comment

I think that cache should not be archived if actual container is still in the wild. Of course we cannot prevent cache owner from doing it, but reviewer should not do it.

As a reviewer, I have archived hundreds if not thousands of LISTINGS where the cache container is still in place. I don't remove the physical CACHE nor do I verify that it is removed. That is the cache owner's responsibility. The listing site's concern is with whether the cache meets the listing guidelines, including the guidelines applicable to cache maintenance.

 

If the container is in place and can be found what exactly is wrong with the cache that would force it's archival?

Link to comment

I think that cache should not be archived if actual container is still in the wild. Of course we cannot prevent cache owner from doing it, but reviewer should not do it.

It is archived now. Interesting. I have caches that I have not visited in several years. The sole difference between that cache and my own is that I'm "active" the cache though is just as ignored and "neglected" as if I hadn't been active for all those years. The caches are fine and don't need maintenance and I won't visit them until they do need it, or I decide to pull them. Until then they are as viable an any other with our without active owners.

 

No reason to rush to pull the archive switch on a cache thats viable.

Link to comment

I'd much rather see a reviewer note posted on the cache page asking for somebody to adopt it instead of archiving it.

 

Around my area, we tend to take a lot of pride in our caches and will take care of the those old caches where the owner isn't around anymore if the cache is worth keeping. We update the container, logbook, swag, etc. If somebody came through the area and posted a "Needs Maintenance", we could take care of the physical action of maintaining it, but not remove the attribute from the listing.

 

<snip>

We do that around here also . . .

 

How sad that a cache that got found as frequently as that one was found, and had been in place since 2003, was Archived because someone asked a question about it in the Forums.

 

I agree with kealia and RK when he states.

No reason to rush to pull the archive switch on a cache thats viable.
Link to comment

Messing with folks' caches can lead to problems, too. One's perspective changes after receiving X number of "how dare you adopt out MY cache?" and "you encouraged the THEFT of MY cache" flame mails.

I'm actually able to see both sides. I've been starting to wonder if we may be getting into some situations where there are no workable solutions(we cannot do X oy Y because of the problems each would pose).

 

When you say "One's perspective changes" does that mean that you honestly cannot see how this policy will cause problems down the line, Or can you see it, but just don't have a solution. I can see the side you point out, I just don't know exactly how the problems should be handled.

 

Thanks to the success and popularity if this site, the game is growing to include all sorts of people, and the models used to grow the site may end up causing problems down the line.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

When the 'needs maintenance' flags were originally being discussed, I argued that they should be able to be reset by any cacher who provides the needed maintenance. I still believe that this should be the way to handle the issue.

That would work for me. I posted one on a Cache I found, but after a good period of trying to get in touch with the owner, I went back and did the work myself. The only issue now is the inventory. I actually sent a note to the reviewer who approved the Cache and asked the icon to be removed, but recieved no reply. I'll not mention the Cache as it might be archived(needlessly, as the cache is in good shape, and there are other users who keep an eye on it).

 

This same issue really had me peeved at one point. There was a point where I had worked with the now retired owner of the first Cache I ever found, and was given permission by her to adopt all her Caches. When I attempted to get the adoption done through Groundspeak, the result was the Cache just being archived, and me being told I could hide a new one there. Thank you very much, but that's beside the whole point. The whole point was to keep my first found Cache alive and kicking. Of course the moment it was archived (without anyone asking it to be done) that was made impossible. I never wanted to just have a Cache in that place, but wanted to care for the cache that was my first.

Link to comment

When the 'needs maintenance' flags were originally being discussed, I argued that they should be able to be reset by any cacher who provides the needed maintenance. I still believe that this should be the way to handle the issue.

Oops, (double post)screwy internet connection. Anyway, I'll add, even if not by ANY Cacher, at least by the ONE who added the icon. As it stands, even to delete the note will not remove the icon.

Edited by WRITE SHOP ROBERT
Link to comment

 

...cache that is 4.2 miles from this one, hidden by the same owner, dissapeared just before a big event in the area. At least 2 weeks ago. It was confirmed missing by at least a half dozen people (myself included), searched for by probibly 50 others and has multiple SBA notes to the page.

 

If the ammo box from the archived cache is ok, why don't you use it to replace the one that is missing and still listed? :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I think that cache should not be archived if actual container is still in the wild. Of course we cannot prevent cache owner from doing it, but reviewer should not do it.

<snip>

 

No reason to rush to pull the archive switch on a cache thats viable.

Here is a cache that is getting a chance to continue its "life" instead of just "pulling the Archive switch." Our Reviewer is giving time for either the owner to check on the cache or for someone else to adopt it.

 

Too bad a cache with four year's of history was Archived just because someone asked a question in the Forums . . . :mad:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...