Getting a classic puzzle archived

[+tozainamboku]

I'm a bit hesitant to start this topic, because there are several facts relating to it that those who believe that Grounspeak and reviewers can do no wrong can use to argue that this cache should in fact be archived. I doubt in this forum I will see many who might support my position so mostly I am just venting.

 

A newbie cacher has posted an SBA on a puzzle cache that hasn't been found in over two years. One reason is that this is a difficult puzzle (it's listed as 3 stars but my guess is that it closer to four stars). Another reason it that the area where the cache is has been fenced off for a major construction/restoration project for 2 and half years. Some people have ignored the no trespassing signs and have found the cache but lately nobody has gone that far. So the cache exists out of reach while waiting for the area to be opened up to the public once again.

 

For most of this time there were no other caches being placed near this area. Recently, a few new geocachers have begun placing caches in the area. My suspicion is that one of these cachers had a cache turned down because it is to close to the inaccessible puzzle. I doubt they have solved the puzzle. Based on the logs however, they may know it is in an inaccessible are. So they posted an SBA simply saying "Needs Archive". The puzzle is so old that I even wonder if the owner ever added an additional waypoint for the final. As far as I know this cache might not be blocking anything and the newbie just wants it archived because they can't stand seeing an unfound cache so close by. Should this cache be archived, I suspect the newbies will hide another cache in the area and this will block the possibility of the cache being restored when the area becomes accessible again. This particular puzzle could probably be recreated elsewhere but there are some elegant and rarely found older puzzles that exist under some grandfathered clause. In fact this puzzle involves downloading a PDF and who know if the reviewers might not allow that on a new puzzle. (In this case the puzzle could be recreated in HTML though it wouldn't look as elegant)

 

What's annoying is that this cache has existed in this limbo state for 2 and half years. A few people have solved the puzzle and are waiting for the area to open up again. I had half expected that the reviewer would do nothing about the SBA, but instead the reviewer has now posted a note asking the cache owner to do maintenance and verify the cache is accessible. But of course it isn't and nobody knows when the construction/rehabilitation project is going to end. So now a classic puzzle cache is in danger of being archived.

[Keystone]

I've seen a marked increase over the past year in "needs archived" logs designed to free up an area from a pesky old cache. Instead of the normal steps of contacting the owner, logging a "needs maintenance," or trying to fix the problem, it's expedient to "fast forward" to the "needs archived" stage.

 

It bothers me to see these.

 

Once summoned, I need to enforce the maintenance guideline fairly. If the concern is valid, and the owner doesn't respond, eventually I need to archive the listing.

 

If the owner responds with a valid reason ("the area is under construction and I will make the cache available when the project is finished") then that will typically put the matter on hold.

 

I am speaking generally and not with regard to the example in the OP, because I haven't studied the details.

[+Leaky Spoon]

Decided I didn't care and deleted my response

Edited September 19, 2009 by Leaky Spoon

[+Vater_Araignee]

Six of one half dozen of the other.

I do see your point, I myself appreciate older caches, but at the same time I do think that it is wrong for a cache that can't legally be done to block the placement of caches than can.

[Clan Riffster]

Since you opted against providing us with the GC number, my reply must therefor be generic:

If the owner is no longer active, and there are significant issues with the cache, it should be archived.

I would say that surrounding a cache with fences and "No Trespassing" signs would qualify as a significant issue.

A responsible, active cacher would have disabled the cache until the construction was done.

The occasional reviewer query regarding the long term disabled status would've been answered.

If I had mode data, my answer might change.

[AZcachemeister]

I have to agree that in general, this sux...with qualifications as pointed out by Clan Riffster.

Is the owner still active and able to maintain the cache? If so, then they should stand up for it. If not, then certainly something else will eventually happen that will 'necessitate' archival. It is sad that caches can no longer be maintained by the community, but that is just how it is these days.

 

Sometimes we just have to let go...

 

My first thought upon reading the OP, however, was wondering what kind of project is taking 2 1/2 years to complete? Are they rebuilding the Taj Mahal there?

[Clan Riffster]

what kind of project is taking 2 1/2 years to complete?

A union job?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have archived two of my puzzles caches for this very reason. Area under reconstruction. I waited three months to see how the reconstruction was going, then archived. But, I did mark them 'temporarily unnavailable' first. The one reconstruction took just about a year. For the second one, absolutely nothing has been done in the past year. I'm starting to think that nothing will ever be done.

True, neither of these qualified as classic, time-honored caches. But two and a half years seems an extreme amount of time for a cache not to be available.

[+*TnT*]

I've seen a marked increase over the past year in "needs archived" logs designed to free up an area from a pesky old cache. Instead of the normal steps of contacting the owner, logging a "needs maintenance," or trying to fix the problem, it's expedient to "fast forward" to the "needs archived" stage.

And, it seems many of these are by cachers with double digit finds who don't seem to understand what "hide" means

[+DavidMac]

My first thought upon reading the OP, however, was wondering what kind of project is taking 2 1/2 years to complete? Are they rebuilding the Taj Mahal there?

 

I bet you've never been to Tennessee. We're lucky if a project is only two and a half years behind schedule

[+Team Taran]

Let me play devil's advocate here. There apparently has not been legal access to the hide location for more than 2 years. The cache owner has not bothered to disable the cache or post a note. Cachers have documented violating no trespassing signs to access the cache.It would seem to me that this cache is in clear violation of the rules which require the owner to maintain their cache. Why should it get a pass and who decides a cache is a classic and exempt from ordinary rules?

Team Taran

[+fegan]

It is sad that caches can no longer be maintained by the community, but that is just how it is these days.

Sorry, but I've got to say something here...

 

Perhaps there are folks who only find 1 or 2 caches a week and they don't mind maintaining 1 or 2 caches. But when I'm finding 25 to 100 caches a week and regularly find 5 to 20 that need some type of maintenance I simply can't afford more than replacing a wet log, or perhaps a torn ziploc.

 

Add to that the number of highly creative micros with special containers or camo...there's simply no way to repair those specialized hides without prior knowledge and preparation...that's a Needs Maintenance log.

 

And there's no way I'm leaving an ammo can, even if I had a spare with me (I might have one in the car for a hide I have planned, I don't normally hike into the woods carrying it with me), because there was a controlled burn that took out somebody else's cache...that's a Needs Maintenance log.

 

I don't expect others to maintain my caches...that's my responsibility as the cache owner. It might take me a few weeks to get around to the repair...but it gets done eventually.

[+welch]

I've seen a marked increase over the past year in "needs archived" logs designed to free up an area from a pesky old cache. Instead of the normal steps of contacting the owner, logging a "needs maintenance," or trying to fix the problem, it's expedient to "fast forward" to the "needs archived" stage.

 

It bothers me to see these.

 

Once summoned, I need to enforce the maintenance guideline fairly. If the concern is valid, and the owner doesn't respond, eventually I need to archive the listing.

 

If the owner responds with a valid reason ("the area is under construction and I will make the cache available when the project is finished") then that will typically put the matter on hold.

 

I am speaking generally and not with regard to the example in the OP, because I haven't studied the details.

 

I want my find NOW NOW NOW!!

And If I can't get that I want this page outta my way, yesterday

[+Steve and Sara]

If I am reading this right, the cache in question, a puzzle cache, is located in a No Trespassing area. Does the person who is trying to or is posting a SBA, trying to place a cache in this No Trespassing area?

Just wondering.

[CoyoteRed]

While the reviewers have a job to do, as someone who might not want a cache to go bye-bye, here's what I might do.

• Determine if the cache is, in fact, completely inaccessible. If so, try to determine when access might return. If not, post the fact that it accessible by legal means. Pass the details along to the reviewer.
  
• What is going on in the area? Is the cache in danger of being destroyed in the process of the project? If so, let it go.
  
• Try to contact the owner by whatever means available. If unable to contact, then become a surrogate owner and check on the cache.
  

As someone who has fond memories of old caches and feel the top treasures of this hobby are old caches and especially seldom found caches, I'd hate to see these types of cache go away simply because someone is impatient. These are rare enough as it is for someone it doesn't deserve to be there simply because they are unable to find it. The hobby is becoming harder and harder to find the true adventures as it is. Archive this old puzzle and you'd probably see a LPC micro replace it.

[+Vater_Araignee]

While the reviewers have a job to do, as someone who might not want a cache to go bye-bye, here's what I might do.

• Determine if the cache is, in fact, completely inaccessible. If so, try to determine when access might return. If not, post the fact that it accessible by legal means. Pass the details along to the reviewer.
  
• What is going on in the area? Is the cache in danger of being destroyed in the process of the project? If so, let it go.
  
• Try to contact the owner by whatever means available. If unable to contact, then become a surrogate owner and check on the cache.
  

As someone who has fond memories of old caches and feel the top treasures of this hobby are old caches and especially seldom found caches, I'd hate to see these types of cache go away simply because someone is impatient. These are rare enough as it is for someone it doesn't deserve to be there simply because they are unable to find it. The hobby is becoming harder and harder to find the true adventures as it is. Archive this old puzzle and you'd probably see a LPC micro replace it.

[+flask]

all diligent care should be exercised by the commmunity at large to preserve and maintain the historic caches, even when their owners have passed from the sport or even from the planet.

 

there's an evolution of cachers : each of us seems to go through the stage in which we see every place where a container could be hidden as an imperative for us to put a cache there regardless of worht of the location or what might already be there.

 

the older a cache is, the more likely it will be to be visited infrequently, but old caches are our collective heritage and even in the absence of an active owner we can care for them, maintain them, and replace logs and containers if need be.

 

the oldest caches in my state, some of them, have little to recommend them in terms of location or container; they were placed before there was as great a body of knowledge regarding good locations or containers.

 

they are precious caches simply because they are old caches, and they conjure up for me and many of the others those first wondrous days in which we suddenly became captivated by this hidden network, this web we can trace of the movement of people and objects on the land.

 

it is my opinion that the majority of us do eventually come to a stage in our caching where we become more purists (as opposed to the derogatory term "puritans" we see bantered about) and if the passion for the sport stays fresh in us, we see beyond our smilies or beyond our urge to put a cache everywhere, and we come back and back to the basics of the hunt and the story of location.

[+bittsen]

all diligent care should be exercised by the commmunity at large to preserve and maintain the historic caches, even when their owners have passed from the sport or even from the planet.

 

there's an evolution of cachers : each of us seems to go through the stage in which we see every place where a container could be hidden as an imperative for us to put a cache there regardless of worht of the location or what might already be there.

 

the older a cache is, the more likely it will be to be visited infrequently, but old caches are our collective heritage and even in the absence of an active owner we can care for them, maintain them, and replace logs and containers if need be.

 

the oldest caches in my state, some of them, have little to recommend them in terms of location or container; they were placed before there was as great a body of knowledge regarding good locations or containers.

 

they are precious caches simply because they are old caches, and they conjure up for me and many of the others those first wondrous days in which we suddenly became captivated by this hidden network, this web we can trace of the movement of people and objects on the land.

 

it is my opinion that the majority of us do eventually come to a stage in our caching where we become more purists (as opposed to the derogatory term "puritans" we see bantered about) and if the passion for the sport stays fresh in us, we see beyond our smilies or beyond our urge to put a cache everywhere, and we come back and back to the basics of the hunt and the story of location.

 

Purists or elitists....sometimes it's hard to tell.

 

Just as some would want to preserve a delapidated building in the downtown district, others would ask "why?". Sure, the community may come together and get this thing back to the condition it was in its glory days but is it necessary? No, it's not necessary.

If the cache is squatting, which it is based on its unavailable status, then maybe it should be archived.

 

Based on the guidelines alone, if a cacher can't (or won't) maintain their cache then it should be archived. Simply claiming "but it's an antique cache" isn't enough to save it IMHO.

[GOF and Bacall]

It is sad that caches can no longer be maintained by the community, but that is just how it is these days.

Sorry, but I've got to say something here...

 

Perhaps there are folks who only find 1 or 2 caches a week and they don't mind maintaining 1 or 2 caches. But when I'm finding 25 to 100 caches a week and regularly find 5 to 20 that need some type of maintenance I simply can't afford more than replacing a wet log, or perhaps a torn ziploc.

 

Add to that the number of highly creative micros with special containers or camo...there's simply no way to repair those specialized hides without prior knowledge and preparation...that's a Needs Maintenance log.

 

And there's no way I'm leaving an ammo can, even if I had a spare with me (I might have one in the car for a hide I have planned, I don't normally hike into the woods carrying it with me), because there was a controlled burn that took out somebody else's cache...that's a Needs Maintenance log.

 

I don't expect others to maintain my caches...that's my responsibility as the cache owner. It might take me a few weeks to get around to the repair...but it gets done eventually.

 

For the most part I agree with you. A cache in need of attention should be either maintained or removed by the owner. However, there are a select few special caches that deserve a bit more of a helping hand than most. Those are usually older caches that have a historic value to this hobby. Like the first cache east of the Mississippi. That said, most caches should be left to run there course. After which another cacher can try his hand at creating a great cache possibly worthy of being helped along by the community at large.

[GOF and Bacall]

all diligent care should be exercised by the commmunity at large to preserve and maintain the historic caches, even when their owners have passed from the sport or even from the planet.

 

there's an evolution of cachers : each of us seems to go through the stage in which we see every place where a container could be hidden as an imperative for us to put a cache there regardless of worht of the location or what might already be there.

 

the older a cache is, the more likely it will be to be visited infrequently, but old caches are our collective heritage and even in the absence of an active owner we can care for them, maintain them, and replace logs and containers if need be.

 

the oldest caches in my state, some of them, have little to recommend them in terms of location or container; they were placed before there was as great a body of knowledge regarding good locations or containers.

 

they are precious caches simply because they are old caches, and they conjure up for me and many of the others those first wondrous days in which we suddenly became captivated by this hidden network, this web we can trace of the movement of people and objects on the land.

 

it is my opinion that the majority of us do eventually come to a stage in our caching where we become more purists (as opposed to the derogatory term "puritans" we see bantered about) and if the passion for the sport stays fresh in us, we see beyond our smilies or beyond our urge to put a cache everywhere, and we come back and back to the basics of the hunt and the story of location.

 

Purists or elitists....sometimes it's hard to tell.

 

Just as some would want to preserve a delapidated building in the downtown district, others would ask "why?". Sure, the community may come together and get this thing back to the condition it was in its glory days but is it necessary? No, it's not necessary.

If the cache is squatting, which it is based on its unavailable status, then maybe it should be archived.

 

Based on the guidelines alone, if a cacher can't (or won't) maintain their cache then it should be archived. Simply claiming "but it's an antique cache" isn't enough to save it IMHO.

 

It isn't necessary to save every old building but it sure would be sad to see every one of them razed. Hard to talk in absolutes here, especially with little data to go on.

[+bittsen]

It isn't necessary to save every old building but it sure would be sad to see every one of them razed. Hard to talk in absolutes here, especially with little data to go on.

 

Why is it sad?

[GOF and Bacall]

Because some old buildings do have historic value worth of restoring and preserving.

[+Team Taran]

I assume this is the cache, GCM6DF, that is being discussed. I'm not sure why the original poster didn't tell us which one it is since they gave plenty of information to identify it. It was hidden in November 2004 and has been found 9 times. If I didn't find the right one, I apologize.

Team Taran

[+bittsen]

Because some old buildings do have historic value worth of restoring and preserving.

 

Please quantify this "value" and "worth" and how society would be harmed by its demolition and how the world would be a worse place if it were, say, demolished by Mother nature.

 

And then we can add that quantification to the GC in question, if it so deserves preservation.

[+bittsen]

I assume this is the cache, GCM6DF, that is being discussed. I'm not sure why the original poster didn't tell us which one it is since they gave plenty of information to identify it. It was hidden in November 2004 and has been found 9 times. If I didn't find the right one, I apologize.

Team Taran

 

Nine finds in 5 years and people feel it needs to be preserved?

 

EDIT: EIGHT finds. The last "find" log wasn't even a find. ~end edit~

 

Is there an extra large RME emoticon?

 

(maybe you have the wrong one)

Edited September 20, 2009 by bittsen

[GOF and Bacall]

Because some old buildings do have historic value worth of restoring and preserving.

 

Please quantify this "value" and "worth" and how society would be harmed by its demolition and how the world would be a worse place if it were, say, demolished by Mother nature.

 

And then we can add that quantification to the GC in question, if it so deserves preservation.

Its value is in the understanding of how we have moved through our history. How we got where we are and where it may lead us in the future. In the case of the Darwin Martin house it is a piece of the history of architecture and building construction and how they react and blend or contrast with art and nature. In the case of a few special caches it is the understanding of how our little pastime has grown and from what roots. Too esoteric for a monetary value if that is what you seek but would be a tragic loss none the less.

 

I never said that this particular cache was special enough to warrant a preservation effort. Truth is I don't know. Most, like many of the buildings the preservationists get worked up over, aren't. I just think it is something to consider.

[+Harry Dolphin]

But the main problem with this cache is that it has been unavailable for two and a half years! If it is behind a construction 'no trespassing' sign, it no longer has proper permission.

[Clan Riffster]

all diligent care should be exercised by the commmunity at large to preserve and maintain the historic caches

I'm wondering if a group as diverse as us can determine if a cache is old enough to qualify for "historic" status?

For me, I guess any hide placed in 2001 would qualify. Maybe 2002, if there was significant reasons for saving it.

Assuming for the moment that the aforementioned cache is the one in question, a 2004 hide wouldn't quite meet my inner definition of "historic".

[+bittsen]

all diligent care should be exercised by the commmunity at large to preserve and maintain the historic caches

I'm wondering if a group as diverse as us can determine if a cache is old enough to qualify for "historic" status?

For me, I guess any hide placed in 2001 would qualify. Maybe 2002, if there was significant reasons for saving it.

Assuming for the moment that the aforementioned cache is the one in question, a 2004 hide wouldn't quite meet my inner definition of "historic".

 

It's pretty sad when anything such as a geocache that is 5 years old can be considered "historic".

[+The Blorenges]

Considering that many geocaches are quite ephemeral, 5 years would be a pretty "senior cache".

 

(Rather like having a 5 year-old hamster )

 

I'm not sure that I'd consider a 5 year-old cache "historic" though.

 

MrsB

Edited September 20, 2009 by The Blorenges

[+Vater_Araignee]

Because some old buildings do have historic value worth of restoring and preserving.

 

Please quantify this "value" and "worth" and how society would be harmed by its demolition and how the world would be a worse place if it were, say, demolished by Mother nature.

 

And then we can add that quantification to the GC in question, if it so deserves preservation.

One mans trash is another mans _____

all diligent care should be exercised by the commmunity at large to preserve and maintain the historic caches

I'm wondering if a group as diverse as us can determine if a cache is old enough to qualify for "historic" status?

For me, I guess any hide placed in 2001 would qualify. Maybe 2002, if there was significant reasons for saving it.

Assuming for the moment that the aforementioned cache is the one in question, a 2004 hide wouldn't quite meet my inner definition of "historic".

 

It's pretty sad when anything such as a geocache that is 5 years old can be considered "historic".

I would think it is no more historic than a 20 year old waystash or a 50 year old letterbox, but consider what percentage of geocachings age 5 years is, or geocaching.coms.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

what kind of project is taking 2 1/2 years to complete?

A union job?

 

A public works project in Rhode Island (a 300' bridge over 20' deep water has been in the works for 20+ years!).

[+BlueDeuce]

What's annoying is that this cache has existed in this limbo state for 2 and half years. A few people have solved the puzzle and are waiting for the area to open up again. I had half expected that the reviewer would do nothing about the SBA, but instead the reviewer has now posted a note asking the cache owner to do maintenance and verify the cache is accessible. But of course it isn't and nobody knows when the construction/rehabilitation project is going to end. So now a classic puzzle cache is in danger of being archived.

 

It seems to me that the normal operating procedure should have the cache archived, but if I ask that it be enforced then I'm the bad guy?

 

Granted I tend to by overly pragmatic but if the cache is worth saving why not ask gc.com to make an exception? Take the issue above me - the general public cacher. Make your case with the people who decide.

[+Vater_Araignee]

What's annoying is that this cache has existed in this limbo state for 2 and half years. A few people have solved the puzzle and are waiting for the area to open up again. I had half expected that the reviewer would do nothing about the SBA, but instead the reviewer has now posted a note asking the cache owner to do maintenance and verify the cache is accessible. But of course it isn't and nobody knows when the construction/rehabilitation project is going to end. So now a classic puzzle cache is in danger of being archived.

 

It seems to me that the normal operating procedure should have the cache archived, but if I ask that it be enforced then I'm the bad guy?

In the case of the cache? No you are not.

The simple fact that this particular cache would cause an hunter idiot to violate "no trespassing" and no owner to find out if those signs will come down in a reasonable time frame means that it should be archived.

BUT

I decent cacher should be prepared with a cache to prevent a lame up skirt from replacing it.

 

~~~edit~~~

made a change to a and hunter and added a word.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Vater_Araignee

[+BlueDeuce]

What's annoying is that this cache has existed in this limbo state for 2 and half years. A few people have solved the puzzle and are waiting for the area to open up again. I had half expected that the reviewer would do nothing about the SBA, but instead the reviewer has now posted a note asking the cache owner to do maintenance and verify the cache is accessible. But of course it isn't and nobody knows when the construction/rehabilitation project is going to end. So now a classic puzzle cache is in danger of being archived.

 

It seems to me that the normal operating procedure should have the cache archived, but if I ask that it be enforced then I'm the bad guy?

In the case of the cache? No you are not.

The simple fact that this particular cache would cause an hunter idiot to violate "no trespassing" and no owner to find out if those signs will come down in a reasonable time frame means that it should be archived.

BUT

I decent cacher should be prepared with a cache to prevent a lame up skirt from replacing it.

 

~~~edit~~~

made a change to a and hunter and added a word.

 

I want to get away from blaming cachers for getting it archived, to having the cache supported.

 

Back in context:

if the cache is worth saving why not ask gc.com to make an exception? Take the issue above me - the general public cacher. Make your case with the people who decide.

Edited September 20, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

I want to get away from blaming cachers for getting it archived, to having the cache supported.

 

Back in context:

if the cache is worth saving why not ask gc.com to make an exception? Take the issue above me - the general public cacher. Make your case with the people who decide.

It doesn't seem to me that I used anything out of context, but you did clarify your stance with that post.

The first one came off as...

Fine don't listen to us, just try to go over or heads. I have used that tactic to let people know that they will get nowhere and did it just as polity as your post reads.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

I want to get away from blaming cachers for getting it archived, to having the cache supported.

 

Back in context:

if the cache is worth saving why not ask gc.com to make an exception? Take the issue above me - the general public cacher. Make your case with the people who decide.

It doesn't seem to me that I used anything out of context, but you did clarify your stance with that post.

The first one came off as...

Fine don't listen to us, just try to go over or heads. I have used that tactic to let people know that they will get nowhere and did it just as polity as your post reads.

 

The posted word is hard to determine intent, but I think you'll find that what I say is what I mean.

[+Kit Fox]

I assume this is the cache, GCM6DF, that is being discussed. I'm not sure why the original poster didn't tell us which one it is since they gave plenty of information to identify it. It was hidden in November 2004 and has been found 9 times. If I didn't find the right one, I apologize.

Team Taran

 

That cache was hidden by a guy who was a master at puzzle cache design, before puzzle caches were cool! I sure wish I would have found "the Washi" years ago when I had the chance. It is quite clear to me that the person who actually posted the needs archived log has an agenda (caches all around this puzzle). It doesn't negate the fact that the areas is posted off limits.

 

A great example of long term disablement is Angeles National Forest after the "Station fire" where hundreds of caches were most likely destroyed by the fire. Nobody can access the forest until it is re-opened. This may not occur for a year or more.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

I recall the international outrage when the Taliban destroyed some ancient Buddhas in Afghanistan. I'm not saying that archiving this cache would rise to that level. But, from what I know of this puzzle, it would be an outrage to the caching community and to outstanding puzzles.

 

While I've never managed to solve this particular puzzle, I periodically try and have hoped to actually find the cache. Given the puzzle, itself, I would hate to see it go away.

 

I am generally familiar with the area where this cache is hidden and would expect that very few caches would last any length of time unless they are very well constructed and placed.

[Mr.Yuck]

all diligent care should be exercised by the commmunity at large to preserve and maintain the historic caches

I'm wondering if a group as diverse as us can determine if a cache is old enough to qualify for "historic" status?

For me, I guess any hide placed in 2001 would qualify. Maybe 2002, if there was significant reasons for saving it.

Assuming for the moment that the aforementioned cache is the one in question, a 2004 hide wouldn't quite meet my inner definition of "historic".

 

I don't believe Mr T. called it historic, but classic. Semi-historic if you will, placed in 2004 by a charter member. Believe me, as a so-called Puritan, no one is on board for the preservation of classic or historic caches more than myself. But if they gots to go, they gots to go. I'm set to archive one of the last 250 webcam caches in America (it was on a private owner's property, and he doesn't live there anymore, and the webcam is gone). It's got to go. Also within the past year, I've bit my tongue when an SBA was posted on a seriously historic cache in my area by someone with the most horrific record of ignoring their own cache placements while gallivanting around town collecting smiley's that you'll ever see anywhere. The cache was missing, the owner absent, and it had to go.

 

If the guesses at the cache in question are correct (and I have read the logs, and believe it is), it gots to go.

[Clan Riffster]

My primary exception to my earlier stated archival standard is when a cache is being well maintained by someone else.

It appears that there are folks in here that are close enough to take on the burden of babysitting a cache that is not their's.

One or more of these folks could contact the reviewer, give them the facts regarding the cache & the construction.

Submit a plan to keep the game piece in play.

Worst case scenario is the reviewer says "No".

[+tozainamboku]

It seems to me that the normal operating procedure should have the cache archived, but if I ask that it be enforced then I'm the bad guy?

 

Granted I tend to by overly pragmatic but if the cache is worth saving why not ask gc.com to make an exception? Take the issue above me - the general public cacher. Make your case with the people who decide.

This is not a bad response. I suppose in this particular case it was because a relative newbie posted an SBA and the only comment in the the SBA was "Needs Archive". So my question was really about why? Did the poster of the SBA try to contact the cache owner? Did he try to find out if the area the cache was in would be available any time soon? Is the issue that he wants to place a cache nearby and its is being blocked by this cache, or is he simply trying to eliminate a cache near his home that he may never find? Is that fact that cache hasn't be found in while sufficient reason to post an SBA?

 

The owner is still active and logs on to Geocaching.com from time to time. I believe he has done maintenance on some of his other caches. I think he maintains his charter membership. He has stopped logging finds (or hiding new caches) at least under this name. I'm not sure why he didn't disable the cache. It might be that is is possible to get to the cache without going thru the fenced construction zone. If this is so it might involved a significantly higher terrain. I don't know if this is the case, but perhaps that is why the owner has not disabled it.

 

A great example of long term disablement is Angeles National Forest after the "Station fire" where hundreds of caches were most likely destroyed by the fire. Nobody can access the forest until it is re-opened. This may not occur for a year or more.

Actually I know of a better example. Kit Fox had a couple of nice caches on a trail that was inaccessible for a long period because of construction. I actually found two of them when someone had noticed that on weekends when there was no constructions going on you could walk through the construction zone and access the trail. Kit Fox enabled the caches for a short time, till he found that the were still signs indicating the trail was closed. There was a new alignment of the trail due to the road that was put in to go to the new subdivision. It was really interesting to see how Kit Fox's caches survived the new road construction coming within a few feet of the them. A short time later, since the trail closed signs never did get taken down, Kit Fox archived these caches.

 

At this point I have not disabled any of the five caches I have that were in the burn area of the Station Fire. I don't know when I will do so. My concern is that if I did and the area remains closed for year or more, that some reviewer will decide that a year is too long to keep a cache disabled and will archive them. So perhaps what I'm looking for here is a clarification from Groundspeak as to how long a cache can be disabled if an area is not accessible.

Edited September 21, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+bittsen]

My primary exception to my earlier stated archival standard is when a cache is being well maintained by someone else.

It appears that there are folks in here that are close enough to take on the burden of babysitting a cache that is not their's.

One or more of these folks could contact the reviewer, give them the facts regarding the cache & the construction.

Submit a plan to keep the game piece in play.

Worst case scenario is the reviewer says "No".

 

All the good samaritan needs to do is wait for the archive and then publish the cache as theirs, backdating the placement to the original date it was placed.

 

Backdoor adoption of a cache!

[+mrbort]

My primary exception to my earlier stated archival standard is when a cache is being well maintained by someone else.

It appears that there are folks in here that are close enough to take on the burden of babysitting a cache that is not their's.

One or more of these folks could contact the reviewer, give them the facts regarding the cache & the construction.

Submit a plan to keep the game piece in play.

Worst case scenario is the reviewer says "No".

 

All the good samaritan needs to do is wait for the archive and then publish the cache as theirs, backdating the placement to the original date it was placed.

 

Backdoor adoption of a cache!

 

Except for the myriad problems with this plan:

 

1) Different GC#

2) It's not their cache to backdate the placement

3) Until the original owner gives up ownership of the cache, the cache and contents (other than travelers) are the property of the original CO.

4) Might be listed on another site.

 

I think that the cache adoption rules are there for a reason. "backdooring" them circumvents the protections built into the process. I think it's either better to, with care and respect, maintain others' caches or go the route that CR mentioned. The route you described is underhanded and essentially constitutes stealing the cache IMO.

 

edit: grammar

Edited September 21, 2009 by mrbort

[+Team Taran]

If you are truly curious about why the someone logged "needs archived," perhaps you should ask the person who did it. It would be much more productive to send a polite email to the person involved rather than post notes on the cache page or start a thread in the forum. The consensus seems to be that there has been no legal access to the cache for two years or more and this certainly calls into question if the hide still has permission. Your statements seem to indicate that you have not contacted the cache owner so how do you know that the newbie didn't. If I wanted to know why you did something, I would ask you, not several 100 people who have never met you. You might not tell me the truth about your motives but there is at least a much higher likelihood that you would actually know the answer.

Team Taran

Edited September 21, 2009 by Team Taran

[+bittsen]

Except for the myriad problems with this plan:

 

1) Different GC#

2) It's not their cache to backdate the placement

3) Until the original owner gives up ownership of the cache, the cache and contents (other than travelers) are the property of the original CO.

4) Might be listed on another site.

 

I think that the cache adoption rules are there for a reason. "backdooring" them circumvents the protections built into the process. I think it's either better to, with care and respect, maintain others' caches or go the route that CR mentioned. The route you described is underhanded and essentially constitutes stealing the cache IMO.

 

edit: grammar

 

All good points except for the first two and possibly the third one.

 

I didn't advise they backdoor the adoption, I just implied it was a possibility.

[4wheelin_fool]

If the cache doesn't need maintainence, then why can't someone just ask the reviewer to disable it until the area is open? If the area is closed, then a new hide can't be placed there anyway ..

[+tozainamboku]

If you are truly curious about why the someone logged "needs archived," perhaps you should ask the person who did it. It would be much more productive to send a polite email to the person involved rather than post notes on the cache page or start a thread in the forum. The consensus seems to be that there has been no legal access to the cache for two years or more and this certainly calls into question if the hide still has permission. Your statements seem to indicate that you have not contacted the cache owner so how do you know that the newbie didn't. If I wanted to know why you did something, I would ask you, not several 100 people who have never met you. You might not tell me the truth about your motives but there is at least a much higher likelihood that you would actually know the answer.

Team Taran

You are quite right that I should have just sent a private message to this person instead of starting this thread. So I am sending him a message now. I will not post the response, if any, here.

 

I did not post the cache name or id because I thought a generic discussion of why someone would post an SBA on a cache that while possibly not accessible or otherwise under the weather seemed to be still viable at some time in future. Why not leave that cache for when it can be hunted again? Although I knew that I gave enough information so that someone here would eventually identify the cache, I'm not really interested in discussing this particular cache in the forum.

[+sbell111]

I don't think that this cache needs to be archived, but I do think that it should be disabled until the area is opened back up.

[+Vater_Araignee]

If the cache doesn't need maintainence, then why can't someone just ask the reviewer to disable it until the area is open? If the area is closed, then a new hide can't be placed there anyway ..

528' radius may extend outside of the closed area.