existing cache "temporary unavailable"

[toczygroszek]

I know one cache what is "temporary unavailable" about 2 years. The owner lives in other country now and can't maintain it. After 2 DNF he probably decided archive it, but by mistake (?) used option "temporary disable". After that some geocacher placed his own container and logged "found" (sorry, but this is bad practice, you will see why). And since that time few people left theirs logs (founds and DNFs as well). About 2 months ago I found old container (!) - ad this is the reason I said is bad practice place new container only because you didn't find it. Bot the problem is different - cache is still "temporary unavailable", container exist and the cache owner didn't change the cache listing status to active. I tried contact him, I see his acivity in profile every few days, but still no change. Is no reason report "needs archive", because cache is there, and nobody except cache owner can change status of this cache. So now only way is just steal this cache and report "needs archive", but this will very bad practice. And is no point leave good cache with this status.

 

Any idea?

Edited November 4, 2009 by toczygroszek

[+Okiebryan]

I know one cache what is "temporary unavailable" about 2 years. The owner lives in other country now and can't maintain it. After 2 DNF he probably decided archive it, but by mistake (?) used option "temporary disable". After that some geocacher placed his own container and logged "found" (sorry, but this is bad practice, you will see why). And since that time few people left theirs logs (founds and DNFs as well). About 2 months ago I found old container (!) - ad this is the reason I said is bad practice place new container only because you didn't find it. Bot the problem is different - cache is still "temporary unavailable", container exist and the cache owner didn't change the cache listing status to active. I tried contact him, I see his acivity in profile every few days, but still no change. Is no reason report "needs archive", because cache is there, and nobody except cache owner can change status of this cache. So now only way is just stole this cache and report "needs archive", but this will very bad practice. And is no point leave good cache with this status.

 

Any idea?

 

Sounds to me like a good reason to file a NA log.

[+Castle Mischief]

Contact the local reviewer and let them know of the status.

[+Markwell]

Contact the local reviewer and let them know of the status.

 

Which would be accomplished by this:

 

Sounds to me like a good reason to file a NA log.

[+Castle Mischief]

Contact the local reviewer and let them know of the status.

 

Which would be accomplished by this:

 

Sounds to me like a good reason to file a NA log.

 

True enough. Contacting the review without the NA log might spare you some drama.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+briansnat]

A cache with an owner who can't maintain it. Sounds like a NA to me. Take the container, e-mail the owner and offer to mail it to him. If he doesn't respond you can toss in a new logbook, juice up the swag and submit your own cache for the spot.

[GOF and Bacall]

If you feel uncomfortable posting a NA contact the local reviewer.

[toczygroszek]

OK, you're right. Cache maintenance is not only take care about container but cache page as well. And owner can't maintain cache page for some reason. So cache should be archived. That makes sense. Thanks.

[+tozainamboku]

Other than the cache owner and set it to temporarily disabled and then ignores it, it doesn't sound like a needs archive. The local community is maintaining the cache (to the point of leaving a throw down container when they couldn't find the real container). People are looking for and finding this cache despite it being temporarily disabled so I would think there must be something special about. I would normally not even try looking for a temporarily disabled cache. It seems to me the best would be for some local to try to contact the owner about adopting the cache. If the owner is not interested in this option then maybe getting the cache archived so a local can place a new cache in this spot would make sense.

[+gpsfun]

OK, you're right. Cache maintenance is not only take care about container but cache page as well. And owner can't maintain cache page for some reason. So cache should be archived. That makes sense. Thanks.

I agree with this.

 

The subject of cache maintenance is often perceived to be only about the physical container, but maintenance of the cache page is important also.

 

I like to use the comparison with an automobile. The automobile may be kept spotlessly clean with the oil changed and the tires rotated regularly. But if the automobile registration and perhaps the insurance are not kept current, it may not be legal to operate the automobile on the roads.