Reviewer notes to disabled cache

[+truckdweller]

I understand that the GS guidelines note that a disabled cache should not "disabled for an extended period of time" yet there is no time listed. I also understand that guidelines also say that the disable feature can be used "to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache."

 

I had a cache that was logged as missing. Three days later I checked on it & it was missing because there was tree trimming in the area & road work going on as I posted when I disabled the cache..... "I'll replace this one later after the tree trimming & road work is done."

 

I understand that two months later is more then likely beyond the "extended period of time" yet two months later there was still work being done in the area.

 

Now my question...are reviewers posts to these disabled caches a "canned" response? I kinda' felt like the reviewer was kinda' harsh....I dun-no? Maybe I'm just sensitive.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

They're generally pretty lenient, 2 months is a long time, and also usually responsive to direct communications. Send him/her an email explaining the situation and they'll probably give you a bit longer.

 

Remember, they're out to get caches published, not block them!

[Keystone]

Many reviewers post similar notes on caches that have been "temporarily" disabled for too long. Don't take it personally. I leave them on my friends' caches, when necessary.

 

All it takes to avoid the first note is to post periodic status reports. A note saying "I drove by, and construction work at this site is continuing" lets the reviewer know that the owner has not forgotten about their disabled cache. And, if you post a reasonable explanation after getting nudged by a reminder note, that should buy you more time as well. Example: "I ordered a new cache container and it finally arrived a week ago. I'll get out to replace the cache right after I return from a business trip." If your answer is "I just haven't gotten around to it yet," then ask yourself if you really ought to be owning this cache.

 

In any event, you chose to archive your listing. That's your prerogative.

[Keystone]

I'm posting again to address your question about the timeframe. The guidelines say "normally a few weeks." If your disable note explains special circumstances like a winter trail closure or a construction project, then the "normally" part is out the window. In the remaining cases, we're left to debate the definition of "a few weeks." If I left reminder notes after three weeks, I'd get complaints about being too trigger happy, and too many good caches would be archived. If I waited six months, I'd get complaints about all the disabled caches clogging up the search results and hogging good hiding places. So, I leave reminder notes between two and four months after the cache is disabled. Over the years, this seems to be the right "balance" in my review territory. Your reviewer may have a different practice.

 

I hope this information is helpful.

[+gpsfun]

Members of the reviewer community generally want to see caches remain in play or returned to play and we are willing to work with cache owners when unusual circumstances are involved. An important part of cache owners and reviewers working together is communication.

 

Unusual circumstances can include work activities blocking access to a cache site, cache owner health issues, weather issues (drought, flooding, snowfall) and the like. We can only be helpful if the cache owner keeps us posted on the reasons why a cache cannot be promptly restored.

[+simpjkee]

IMO, if you want to keep your cache active you'll keep it active. If you waver for more that a month or so, I'd rather your cache just get archived since someone who wants to keep their caches active will keep their caches active.

 

Point being, if you want to keep the cache, do something with it. If you don't care, then archive it. BUT please don't just sit there and do nothing and wait till your cache gets archived and then complain about it.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

IMO, if you want to keep your cache active you'll keep it active. If you waver for more that a month or so, I'd rather your cache just get archived since someone who wants to keep their caches active will keep their caches active.

 

Point being, if you want to keep the cache, do something with it. If you don't care, then archive it. BUT please don't just sit there and do nothing and wait till your cache gets archived and then complain about it.

You missed the point entirely in the current case, because the current case involves a cache site where municipal workers were conducting ongoing maintenance work, and thus the cache needed to be disabled for a few months.

[+truckdweller]

We can only be helpful if the cache owner keeps us posted on the reasons why a cache cannot be promptly restored.

 

The log did have the fact posted that there was work going on in the area.

 

I guess I should have been a little clearer. The fact that the reviewer

posted the notice to the log wasn't as much of a problem to me, it was the

wording of the post. It seemed pretty condescending.

 

"a period which is well in excess of the period of 'a few weeks'" Why the over kill?

 

"we can't do so forever" No one would ever expect to have a

spot held "forever". More over kill.

 

Why not a post that just basically says that we need an update on the cache

or we need to archive it?

 

I recently requested a cache to be archived that had nothing but DNF's,

messages posted in the log, & maintenance request dating back to Jan. '07. I

realize that these types of logs don't raise a red flag to the reviewers but

it seems the thing to do next time would just let people look for & DNF the

cache until one gets a chance to replace it instead of disabling the cache.

[Keystone]

Number of characters in a log entry saying "Municipal work continues at this site, and I will fix the cache when they are finished": 86.

 

Number of characters in the OP's posts to this thread: 1,897.

 

Relax. It's only a game.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Keystone

[+ArcherDragoon]

We can only be helpful if the cache owner keeps us posted on the reasons why a cache cannot be promptly restored.

 

The log did have the fact posted that there was work going on in the area.

 

I guess I should have been a little clearer. The fact that the reviewer

posted the notice to the log wasn't as much of a problem to me, it was the

wording of the post. It seemed pretty condescending.

 

"a period which is well in excess of the period of 'a few weeks'" Why the over kill?

 

"we can't do so forever" No one would ever expect to have a

spot held "forever". More over kill.

 

Why not a post that just basically says that we need an update on the cache

or we need to archive it?

 

I recently requested a cache to be archived that had nothing but DNF's,

messages posted in the log, & maintenance request dating back to Jan. '07. I

realize that these types of logs don't raise a red flag to the reviewers but

it seems the thing to do next time would just let people look for & DNF the

cache until one gets a chance to replace it instead of disabling the cache.

The log posted by the reveiwer seems to be fairly standard...I would not take any offense to it being posted.

 

I had a cache of mine (two actually in the same park) that had issues for almost 9 months...but I posted an update note to the cache on a monthly basis to let the local reveiwer know that I was still active with the caches in question. I would tend to lean the same here...your last note was late August...I think the reveiwer wanted to be sure you still had your eye on this one...

[+simpjkee]

IMO, if you want to keep your cache active you'll keep it active. If you waver for more that a month or so, I'd rather your cache just get archived since someone who wants to keep their caches active will keep their caches active.

 

Point being, if you want to keep the cache, do something with it. If you don't care, then archive it. BUT please don't just sit there and do nothing and wait till your cache gets archived and then complain about it.

You missed the point entirely in the current case, because the current case involves a cache site where municipal workers were conducting ongoing maintenance work, and thus the cache needed to be disabled for a few months.

 

I don't think I missed the point at all. If he wants to keep his cache going he can keep it going, no problem. If he lets it sit unactive for a period of time, it could get archived.

 

I'm in a similar position. Except that my cache is a puzzle cache and if I move it, I will have to rework the whole puzzle. No worries though, I wont let it get archived. I move it and rework the puzzle as many times as I need to. I WILL NOT let my cache sit disabled for months at a time because of a little construction. Thats nonsense

[+HockeyPuck]

I see the initial message from your reviewer as a generic reminder message that it's time to either post a status report or fix the problem and not intended to be offensive. It was your decision to take "the easy way" and archive the listing.

 

the location is obviously special to you, why not place a new cache in the area and create a "Smith Cemetery: redux". ...Problem solved.

[+J-Way]

Now my question...are reviewers posts to these disabled caches a "canned" response? I kinda' felt like the reviewer was kinda' harsh....I dun-no? Maybe I'm just sensitive.

Usually, in my experience, the reviewer posts in these situations are "canned". That way if a cache owner is overly sensitive and complains the reviewer can more easily calm the situation. So yes, it looks like you took this a little too personally.

[+Renegade Knight]

I understand that the GS guidelines note that a disabled cache should not "disabled for an extended period of time" yet there is no time listed. I also understand that guidelines also say that the disable feature can be used "to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache."

 

I had a cache that was logged as missing. Three days later I checked on it & it was missing because there was tree trimming in the area & road work going on as I posted when I disabled the cache..... "I'll replace this one later after the tree trimming & road work is done."

 

I understand that two months later is more then likely beyond the "extended period of time" yet two months later there was still work being done in the area.

 

Now my question...are reviewers posts to these disabled caches a "canned" response? I kinda' felt like the reviewer was kinda' harsh....I dun-no? Maybe I'm just sensitive.

 

As an active and interesteed cache owner who's working diligently to maintain their cache, you are vested in your cache. It represents YOUR work, YOUR passion, YOUR pride. When a reviewer (Out of neccessity) comes along and treats you and your cache like a number, and you find that you resent it, you are neither alone, nor out of place in how you feel.

 

The thing to do is let it pass, then contact the reviewer with real information (had you been posting updates they likely would have not posted a note). That's the point you move from a number to a real person and can have a real conversation.

 

Your cache is fine, obviously you can't replace it yet and that's likely to be understood.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I see the initial message from your reviewer as a generic reminder message that it's time to either post a status report or fix the problem and not intended to be offensive. It was your decision to take "the easy way" and archive the listing.

 

the location is obviously special to you, why not place a new cache in the area and create a "Smith Cemetery: redux". ...Problem solved.

 

Sometimes there's more to a cache than the location. I know of a cache that was while quite a pretty spot not exceptionally interesting. However, at that location was a structure that allowed the creation of a container that was placed in such a way that the CO legitimately rated it a 4 for difficulty. I was one of the fortunate to find it before it was disabled due to some construction that was going on. The construction ended up lasting more than a couple of months (as is often the case during "construction season" in the northeast) and the cache was archived. While a new cache could be published in the exact same location with the same kind of hide I think many of the locals would rather see the original waypoint with all the interesting logs that were written about it than see a "new" cache in that spot. Some caches develop a history that I think is worth maintaining.

[+briansnat]

Maybe I'm just sensitive.

 

Yes.

[+truckdweller]

Maybe I'm just sensitive.

 

Yes.

Great insight. Post count issues, eh?

[+fizzymagic]

Maybe I'm just sensitive.

Yes.

Well, count me in on the "sensitive" side. Because of the problem of reviewers posting notes to disabled caches and then archiving them, I no longer disable my caches when they are reported missing.

 

If Groundspeak wants to punish me for use of a very helpful feature of the website (the ability to disable caches temporarily), than I won't use it.

 

Call me sensitive, but that's how it is for me.

 

Watch, though... I bet I get called all sorts of names here by the oh-so-conscientious forum denizens.

Edited November 15, 2008 by fizzymagic

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... I was one of the fortunate to find it before it was disabled due to some construction that was going on. The construction ended up lasting more than a couple of months (as is often the case during "construction season" in the northeast) and the cache was archived. While a new cache could be published in the exact same location with the same kind of hide I think many of the locals would rather see the original waypoint with all the interesting logs that were written about it than see a "new" cache in that spot. Some caches develop a history that I think is worth maintaining.

 

I have some sympathy for this argument, but not a lot, because the archived logs can be linked to on the new cache listing.

 

I adopted one of the really great caches in this area, a really fun but very tough multi. It had great logs. Every stage was right out in the open but extremely hard to spot. People went back time and again until they completed it, and felt a real sense of accomplishment when they did.

 

GCJJFC Patton Creek Challenge

 

It was disabled due to construction that is still ongoing, and after a while it was archived.

 

When they finally get through with this work I will rebuild the cache because it is fun and one of the few in a shopping center that actually has explicit permission.

 

I would love to be able to recover the historical logs on the new cache page, but it's just as easy when I do rebuild it to put a link on the new cache listing to the archived one, folks who wish to can still go read the old logs.

[+Mudfrog]

IMO, if you want to keep your cache active you'll keep it active. If you waver for more that a month or so, I'd rather your cache just get archived since someone who wants to keep their caches active will keep their caches active.

 

Point being, if you want to keep the cache, do something with it. If you don't care, then archive it. BUT please don't just sit there and do nothing and wait till your cache gets archived and then complain about it.

You missed the point entirely in the current case, because the current case involves a cache site where municipal workers were conducting ongoing maintenance work, and thus the cache needed to be disabled for a few months.

 

I don't think I missed the point at all. If he wants to keep his cache going he can keep it going, no problem. If he lets it sit unactive for a period of time, it could get archived.

 

I'm in a similar position. Except that my cache is a puzzle cache and if I move it, I will have to rework the whole puzzle. No worries though, I wont let it get archived. I move it and rework the puzzle as many times as I need to. I WILL NOT let my cache sit disabled for months at a time because of a little construction. Thats nonsense

 

I do not understand what you are saying. The cache is in an area that is undergoing construction. How would the OP keep that cache active?

 

I had a similar situation where construction moved in earlier this year, it is still going on, and now my caches are archived by the reviewer. Yes it's a long time to have a cache disabled, but with "no unauthorized persons beyond this point" signs posted near the entrance of where the caches are hidden, i didn't have many options. I did post a couple of times on each cache why they were disabled and that i would keep checking on the status of the area but that wasn't enough to keep them from getting archived. I guess i should have posted a "i checked and construction is still going on" log every month. Other than that, i can't think of what more i could have done to save those caches.

[Neos2]

I understand the issues from everyone's point of view.

 

For the reviewer, there is a need to show some kind of alert has been made on a cache that has been un-findable for a lot longer than anyone would like. How many times have we seen complaints that a cache was "temporarily disabled' for months or even years with no action taken? Once their note is there at least they have a way to keep track of caches that might need more action later.

 

As a cache owner, you want to get the cache back up and running, but if there are circumstance beyond your control, well, you just can't. It does rankle a bit to get a form letter saying "the spot can't be held for you indefinitely" when you know full well that no one else could put a cache in that particular spot right now anyway. Perhaps that one line is the one that causes the squirmy reaction? The rest of the form letter is merely professional and informational, but that one line makes me feel like pthers think I am doing something smarmy.

 

Most of the time a short note now and then to the reviewer saying you are still waiting for X, Y, or Z to happen and then you'll get it active again is all it takes to keep the cache from being archived.

 

I always add a note to the cache page in case there are others nagging the reviewer behind the scene, so "they" know I'm not giving the cache up and they may as well look for another spot to hide their cache or keep ignoring my cache or whatever their issue is with my cache.

[+Hrethgir]

I just had to disable my only hide, due to the fact that the dock it is attached to is taken out of the water every winter. I have a not that the dock might not even be back in the water for me to replace the cache on until April, depending on water levels, so hopefully that won't be a problem, but I guess I'll find out. But can't keep the cache active, as there is nowhere to put it right now!

Edited November 15, 2008 by HondaH8er

[+gpsfun]

I just had to disable my only hide, due to the fact that the dock it is attached to is taken out of the water every winter. I have a not that the dock might not even be back in the water for me to replace the cache on until April, depending on water levels, so hopefully that won't be a problem, but I guess I'll find out. But can't keep the cache active, as there is nowhere to put it right now!

Several cachers in this area have similar issues to deal with, except in our case area lakes are down so far that most boat ramps are closed and large areas of the lakes are now unusable and will remain so until we get quite a bit of rain. I also have a cache in a local park that is closed from November through April. Disabling the cache page with a note and adding updates lets everyone know that the the cache is not ignored or abandoned.

[+Prime Suspect]

It does rankle a bit to get a form letter saying "the spot can't be held for you indefinitely" when you know full well that no one else could put a cache in that particular spot right now anyway.

Just because a cache can't be hidden in "that particular spot" doesn't mean you're not blocking someone else's cache. It does mean that you're blocking anyone from hiding a cache within a tenth mile radius. That's about 20 acres you're blocking.

[jholly]

It does mean that you're blocking anyone from hiding a cache within a tenth mile radius. That's about 20 acres you're blocking.

 

Isn't that more like a .05 mile radius? If each cache has a tenth mile radius then they would be .2 of a mile apart, twice the saturation guidelines. Or should just go sit in a corner and drink my beer.

 

Jim

[Neos2]

It does rankle a bit to get a form letter saying "the spot can't be held for you indefinitely" when you know full well that no one else could put a cache in that particular spot right now anyway.

Just because a cache can't be hidden in "that particular spot" doesn't mean you're not blocking someone else's cache. It does mean that you're blocking anyone from hiding a cache within a tenth mile radius. That's about 20 acres you're blocking.

Moot point. If you look at things that way, every cache out there is doing just that-- and we should all just wait for something to go wrong with the spot your cache is in so we can put out our cache.

 

Does a temporarily disabled cache have less intrinsic value than "some other cache that might be put nearby"?

 

After all, the 'other spot' is obviously second rate, or you would have put your cache there instead of the place you chose.

[Neos2]

It does rankle a bit to get a form letter saying "the spot can't be held for you indefinitely" when you know full well that no one else could put a cache in that particular spot right now anyway.

Just because a cache can't be hidden in "that particular spot" doesn't mean you're not blocking someone else's cache. It does mean that you're blocking anyone from hiding a cache within a tenth mile radius. That's about 20 acres you're blocking.

And I come up with a bit over 6 acres, rather than 20. It was a quick and dirty rough estimate based on square feet instead of circles around a center point, but still, I can't see how you got 20 acres...care to share?

[+gpsfun]

Try (pi * 528 * 528) / 43 000 = 20.3680411

[+Prime Suspect]

Try (pi * 528 * 528) / 43 000 = 20.3680411

Give that man a Cupie Doll!

 

As for the others, well...

[jholly]

Actually it is closer to 5 acres. pi*264*264/43500.

 

Unless I'm reading the guidelines wrong, the cache separation is 528 feet. So with a proximity circle of 264 around each cache and no proximity circle over lapping you get the 528 foot separation. The pi*528*528 implies the cache separation distance is 1024 feet. Was this changed recently?

 

Jim

[+Isonzo Karst]

Illustration below demonstrates the difference between the 6 acre / 20 acre notions. A cache occupies ~20 acres, with its "exclusion zone" allowing overlap to other caches. Or a cache occupies ~6 acres with no overlap.....

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I just had to disable my only hide, due to the fact that the dock it is attached to is taken out of the water every winter. I have a not that the dock might not even be back in the water for me to replace the cache on until April, depending on water levels, so hopefully that won't be a problem, but I guess I'll find out. But can't keep the cache active, as there is nowhere to put it right now!

 

There's one close to where I live (.5 miles) that is located in one of the gorges that runs through town along a trail that runs through the gorge. The trail is mostly a stone stairway that runs down one side, crosses over the creek about halfway down, then continues to the bottom of the hill. There are six large waterfalls in the gorge. Every year, around November, the gorge trail is closed due to the dangerous conditions the ice poses and it typically doesn't open back up until April, and thus every year the cache is disabled while it is inaccessible. The cache was placed in June 2001 and has had several owners.

 

Exceptions can be made. Just keep in touch with your reviewer. It's probably more work for them to archive then publish a new listing then to flag the cache as an exception and let you do all the work of disabling/enabling the cache when accessibility conditions change.

[+Bad_CRC]

The log posted by the reveiwer seems to be fairly standard...I would not take any offense to it being posted.

 

I had a cache of mine (two actually in the same park) that had issues for almost 9 months...but I posted an update note to the cache on a monthly basis to let the local reveiwer know that I was still active with the caches in question. I would tend to lean the same here...your last note was late August...I think the reveiwer wanted to be sure you still had your eye on this one...

 

That reminds me, we made a special trip back to the truck to get the GPS so we could claim your earth cache there a couple weeks ago, and I forgot to log it.

 

[+Prime Suspect]

Actually it is closer to 5 acres. pi*264*264/43500.

 

Unless I'm reading the guidelines wrong, the cache separation is 528 feet. So with a proximity circle of 264 around each cache and no proximity circle over lapping you get the 528 foot separation. The pi*528*528 implies the cache separation distance is 1024 feet. Was this changed recently?

 

Jim

You're confusing the distance to where another cache can be placed, with the total distance being blocked. Look at it from a linear point of view. While you can put a cache 528 east of mine, that doesn't mean my cache is only blocking 528 feet, because it's also blocking 528 feet to the west. So in linear terms, it's blocking 1056 feet (not 1024). Expand this out into 2 dimensions, and you see that my cache is blocking a radius of 528 feet in ALL directions, creating a circle with an area of Π•528² sq ft, which is 875,826 square feet, or 20.1 acres.

Edited November 16, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+Prime Suspect]

Illustration below demonstrates the difference between the 6 acre / 20 acre notions. A cache occupies ~20 acres, with its "exclusion zone" allowing overlap to other caches. Or a cache occupies ~6 acres with no overlap.....

 

 

Actually the 5 acres solution (Π•264² sq ft = 5.02 acres, not 6 - sheesh!) has no basis in reality. If you plot all the closest locations the second cache could exist, you would actually circumscribe a circle that the second cache could not enter. That circle represents the area that is blocked to the second cache. And the area of that circle? Yup, 20 acres.

[jholly]

Actually it is closer to 5 acres. pi*264*264/43500.

 

Unless I'm reading the guidelines wrong, the cache separation is 528 feet. So with a proximity circle of 264 around each cache and no proximity circle over lapping you get the 528 foot separation. The pi*528*528 implies the cache separation distance is 1024 feet. Was this changed recently?

 

Jim

You're confusing the distance to where another cache can be placed, with the total distance being blocked. Look at it from a linear point of view. While you can put a cache 528 east of mine, that doesn't mean my cache is only blocking 528 feet, because it's also blocking 528 feet to the west. So in linear terms, it's blocking 1056 feet (not 1024). Expand this out into 2 dimensions, and you see that my cache is blocking a radius of 528 feet in ALL directions, creating a circle with an area of Π•528² sq ft, which is 875,826 square feet, or 20.1 acres.

 

Your using the right hand model provided by Isonzo Karst. If we place caches to the east, south and west, your circle is completely over lapped and we end up that your not blocking any turf. Using my model, the left hand side of the above diagram, using an exclusion zone around each cache then there is a real area blocked for each cache. Using the model of the exclusion zone with no overlapping circles the 528 foot rule is enforced for any cache in any direction.

 

Your right about the 1056, sometimes the power of two brain doesn't function.

 

But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. As I see it your using a model that allows over lapped circles while I'm using a model that does not allow overlapped circles.

 

Jim

[Neos2]

To be frank "20 acres" means that you can't place a cache in the same city block as the first cache. Oh my! Horrors!

 

All this talk about blocking this and that is still a moot point...Blocking other caches or not, the cache on the temporary disabled list was there first and has the right to a little time to get fixed up and put back in play no matter how much others may covet our little block of paradise.

 

The issue the OP had was the nature of the note that comes to us when we have a cache disabled for a long period of time.

 

And I still say that the line about "holding this spot for you indefinitely" is the line that gets under my skin.

 

After all, if my cache is up and operating I can keep that spot indefinitely. If the reason the cache isn't operable is beyond my control, then it can wait a bit--and the reviewers interpret the guidelines just that way over and over again.

 

Now if I'm just not willing to make time to get over there and tend to it in a reasonable amount of time, all mercy is off--I should let someone else have that spot if I'm not going to use it!

[+gpsfun]

Somewhere a math teacher is crying "Where did I go wrong?"

[+Hrethgir]

I just had to disable my only hide, due to the fact that the dock it is attached to is taken out of the water every winter. I have a not that the dock might not even be back in the water for me to replace the cache on until April, depending on water levels, so hopefully that won't be a problem, but I guess I'll find out. But can't keep the cache active, as there is nowhere to put it right now!

 

There's one close to where I live (.5 miles) that is located in one of the gorges that runs through town along a trail that runs through the gorge. The trail is mostly a stone stairway that runs down one side, crosses over the creek about halfway down, then continues to the bottom of the hill. There are six large waterfalls in the gorge. Every year, around November, the gorge trail is closed due to the dangerous conditions the ice poses and it typically doesn't open back up until April, and thus every year the cache is disabled while it is inaccessible. The cache was placed in June 2001 and has had several owners.

 

Exceptions can be made. Just keep in touch with your reviewer. It's probably more work for them to archive then publish a new listing then to flag the cache as an exception and let you do all the work of disabling/enabling the cache when accessibility conditions change.

 

That's pretty much what he told me to do, just disable it and puyt a not in about when it might be available again, so reveiwers will know it will go back. And mine isn't just unaccesible, it's totally gone, I have it back home. Guess this gives me plenty of time to do some tweaking and perfecting of the whole apperatus, now that I can see how it's faired the elements in its location. Seems to have held up well overall, but I see a problem or two that I can correct now.

[+tozainamboku]

Somewhere a math teacher is crying "Where did I go wrong?"

The problem is based on the premise of a disabled cache blocking an area and preventing other caches from being placed. Isonzo Karst's right side diagram illustrates that this is not always so. Another cache .1 mile away will be blocking area overlaping with the area "blocked" by this cache. So if there is one cache .1 mile away and no other caches less than .2 miles away, the disabled cache is actually blocking

(pi * ((528 ft)^2)) - (((528 ft)^2) * (((2 * pi) / 3) - sin((2 * pi) / 3))) = 12.2446269 acres

because the other 7.86156607 acres are already blocked by the other cache. And with as few as three caches .1 mile away from the disabled cache, you could have a disabled cache that is only blocking the one point where it is located.

[+gpsfun]

Somewhere a math teacher is crying "Where did I go wrong?"

The problem is based on the premise of a disabled cache blocking an area and preventing other caches from being placed. Isonzo Karst's right side diagram illustrates that this is not always so. Another cache .1 mile away will be blocking area overlaping with the area "blocked" by this cache. So if there is one cache .1 mile away and no other caches less than .2 miles away, the disabled cache is actually blocking

(pi * ((528 ft)^2)) - (((528 ft)^2) * (((2 * pi) / 3) - sin((2 * pi) / 3))) = 12.2446269 acres

because the other 7.86156607 acres are already blocked by the other cache. And with as few as three caches .1 mile away from the disabled cache, you could have a disabled cache that is only blocking the one point where it is located.

The original post by Prime Suspect dealt with the area blocked by a single cache. When additional hypothetical issues are invoked, the answer to the new hypothetical configuration is different. For the single cache example the ~20 acre answer stands.

[+Prime Suspect]

Your using the right hand model provided by Isonzo Karst. If we place caches to the east, south and west, your circle is completely over lapped and we end up that your not blocking any turf. Using my model, the left hand side of the above diagram, using an exclusion zone around each cache then there is a real area blocked for each cache. Using the model of the exclusion zone with no overlapping circles the 528 foot rule is enforced for any cache in any direction.

 

Your right about the 1056, sometimes the power of two brain doesn't function.

 

But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. As I see it your using a model that allows over lapped circles while I'm using a model that does not allow overlapped circles.

 

Jim

As someone once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. A cache prevents anyone from placing a cache within a 528ft radius around that cache. That's about 20 acres. You can draw all the circles you want. It doesn't change the facts.

[jholly]

Your using the right hand model provided by Isonzo Karst. If we place caches to the east, south and west, your circle is completely over lapped and we end up that your not blocking any turf. Using my model, the left hand side of the above diagram, using an exclusion zone around each cache then there is a real area blocked for each cache. Using the model of the exclusion zone with no overlapping circles the 528 foot rule is enforced for any cache in any direction.

 

Your right about the 1056, sometimes the power of two brain doesn't function.

 

But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. As I see it your using a model that allows over lapped circles while I'm using a model that does not allow overlapped circles.

 

Jim

As someone once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. A cache prevents anyone from placing a cache within a 528ft radius around that cache. That's about 20 acres. You can draw all the circles you want. It doesn't change the facts.

 

My facts are fine, no cache can be closer than 528. But you end up mowing a lot more grass than I do.

 

Jim

[+FireRef]

Interesting discussion...

 

I have several points on this one:

 

1) I know reviewers are volunteers, and have a limited amount of time to dedicate to this hobby. But I feel as the OP does, and several others early in the thread, that the wording of some of these canned responses is a little harsh. If the reviewer is taking the time to say "Hey - your cache was disabled for a long time...what's going on?", then why use a 3-4 paragraph canned response instead of just simply asking? I personally hate canned responses, canned emails, canned snail-mail, canned responses on phone lines, etc. If you want to communicate with me, please do so as a person, not as a machine.

 

2) Time frame from Keystone - sounds good - 3-4 months seems like a good time to consider a cache while disabled. However, the problem I have here is that often, caches have a series of DNF's for a much longer time than that, and have no owner response to queries, and have likely disappeared. In many of these cases, the owner isn't contacted by a reviewer noticing a series of DNF's over an extended period of time on a low diff/terr cache, and therefore, it slides for a long time (since many people are hesitant to post an OM or SBA log). I'm assuming reviewers are alerted to OM logs, and definitely to SBA logs. Shouldn't they be alerted to a large number (open to discussion) of DNF's, based on the diff/terr of the cache?

 

Or should we be more free with the OM logs - I go to post my DNF, see 5-6 or more DNF's before me on an easy cache, and post an OM with my DNF?

 

3) I agree with the 20 acre radius - and I teach Chemistry (some math involved) - But keep in mind, as they always say, it's a guideline, not a rule - caches have been approved closer for various reasons, and often aren't approved further because reviewers generally don't like power trails (even though some people do).

[+Renegade Knight]

Your using the right hand model provided by Isonzo Karst. If we place caches to the east, south and west, your circle is completely over lapped and we end up that your not blocking any turf. Using my model, the left hand side of the above diagram, using an exclusion zone around each cache then there is a real area blocked for each cache. Using the model of the exclusion zone with no overlapping circles the 528 foot rule is enforced for any cache in any direction.

 

Your right about the 1056, sometimes the power of two brain doesn't function.

 

But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. As I see it your using a model that allows over lapped circles while I'm using a model that does not allow overlapped circles.

 

Jim

As someone once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. A cache prevents anyone from placing a cache within a 528ft radius around that cache. That's about 20 acres. You can draw all the circles you want. It doesn't change the facts.

The point being that the removal of said cache may not open up the entire radius. Other caches may be blocking. While we can't just make up facts, we also can't just pick and choose the ones we like either.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The original post by Prime Suspect dealt with the area blocked by a single cache. When additional hypothetical issues are invoked, the answer to the new hypothetical configuration is different. For the single cache example the ~20 acre answer stands.

 

It stands as a theoretical maximum area of potential blockage. There is also a theoretical mimimum. Then there is actual blockage based on where caches are actually located. Hopefully we can figure out actual better than theoretical or we are all in trouble.

[+markandsandy]

Your using the right hand model provided by Isonzo Karst. If we place caches to the east, south and west, your circle is completely over lapped and we end up that your not blocking any turf. Using my model, the left hand side of the above diagram, using an exclusion zone around each cache then there is a real area blocked for each cache. Using the model of the exclusion zone with no overlapping circles the 528 foot rule is enforced for any cache in any direction.

 

Your right about the 1056, sometimes the power of two brain doesn't function.

 

But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. As I see it your using a model that allows over lapped circles while I'm using a model that does not allow overlapped circles.

 

Jim

As someone once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. A cache prevents anyone from placing a cache within a 528ft radius around that cache. That's about 20 acres. You can draw all the circles you want. It doesn't change the facts.

 

I have to give this one to Prime Suspect. No matter how many overlapping circles you have, the initial cache is still blocking 20 acres. Its just that other caches are ALSO blocking some of that same area.

[+Quiggle]

I'm assuming reviewers are alerted to OM logs, and definitely to SBA logs.

Only if it's on our watchlist.

 

We get automatically get Needs Archived logs, but not Owner Maintenance or Needs Maintenance logs. In fact I have had this as a line in my sig for some time now due to the amount of people that say that we do.

[+FireRef]

So then what would be a good reasonable time or number of DNF's or combination to go from a needs maintenance log to a SBA log?

 

I mean, if you think about it, it would make more sense for a user to post notes rather than disable his cache, because it keeps it below the reviewer's radar if they don't want it archived without their knowledge. I'm not looking for a way around it - it just seems like the people who disable a cache because they know they have to fix it or it is unavailable for a time are dealing with a ticking time bomb, while those users who choose not to do anything, and just ignore needs maintenance logs (intentionally or through not checking online), stay below the radar and should be watched...while the person disabling their cache is doing their job.

Edited November 18, 2008 by FireRef

[+fizzymagic]

I mean, if you think about it, it would make more sense for a user to post notes rather than disable his cache, because it keeps it below the reviewer's radar if they don't want it archived without their knowledge. I'm not looking for a way around it - it just seems like the people who disable a cache because they know they have to fix it or it is unavailable for a time are dealing with a ticking time bomb, while those users who choose not to do anything, and just ignore needs maintenance logs (intentionally or through not checking online), stay below the radar and should be watched...while the person disabling their cache is doing their job.

This is exactly the problem I cited earlier; a responsible owner who disables his (or her) cache is being punished. That's why I refuse to do so until Groundspeak changes their policy.

 

This is a symptom of a larger problem with not thinking through policies and guidelines thoroughly, anticipating potential issues. Poorly-thought-out guidelines have led to the explosion of lame urban microcaches; poorly-thought-out policies like this lead to caches not being disabled when they need to be.