2010 Spring Cleaning Sweep in Ontario

[+CacheDrone]

This morning all of the Multi-Caches, Mystery Caches, Letterbox Hybrids and Wherigo caches in Ontario were checked to isolate any that have not been found for over a year.

 

My Bookmark List - Public

 

Certainly I'm not saying that anyone should go out and perform maintenance for the cache owner, as that is technically their responsibility, but if you are looking for something that might be rewarding and challenging then consider downloading this list and trying to find a few. Imagine the thrill of finding a cache that has gone unseen for more than a year!

 

Of course, I'm sure that any cache owner would appreciate any efforts that finders make to help them out with damp logbooks and containers. If you do anything for them then be sure to recommend that they log an "Owner Maintenance" log due in part to your wonderful community service

 

CD

[+t4e]

i have looked at the list and unfortunately there is nothing close by that i could try and fix

 

however, browsing through some of the listings, i noticed that quite a few are "finals", you have to find a series of other caches first and collect the information

 

in my opinion is the reason that keeps people away from finding them more often, rarely someone will choose to go for all at once, mostly will be overtime

 

perhaps is something that Groundspeak could consider discouraging in the future, or keep those at a lower "finds" before they can get the final

 

there is one in particular that was published recently that requires finding 14 different caches, scattered all over the place before one would have the information for the final

 

i see that one becoming an issue quite soon

Edited March 21, 2010 by t4e

[+res2100]

Many of us have been talking about this and would like to understand the reasoning for this current action that was taken this morning which seem to target Ontario caches. Is this something that Groundspeak has asked all reviewers around the world to do, or is this something you decided to do on your own based on personal opinion on how you think the game should be played? Also, why a needs maintenance log and not just a note? Most of these caches are just fine and do not need any type of maintenance. Needs Maintenance should really only be posted if there is something wrong with a cache like a wet log, missing stage, etc. I am assuming that if an owner does not visit and remove the needs maintenance flag then many of these caches will wind up being archived in the future. Also, why are these cache types being targeted and not others like traditionals? Any information that the we can share as to why this is happening and what may happen in the future will go a long way to help the Ontario geocaching community understand.

 

We were very disappointment to see that 2 very good high quality and memorable caches were archived as a result of these Needs Maintenance posts. There was nothing wrong with either of these caches, and because of this people can no longer enjoy them and based on the archival logs they will most likely just wind up being geotrash, which certainly something that would not reflect positively on the geocaching community.

 

res2100

Treasurer - Ontario Geocaching Association

[+Keith Watson]

I too would like to know why these caches are being targeted and if this is a general policy, or just a local thing. It would appear that two of these caches were targeted for nothing more than not being found for over a year and being specific cache types.

 

I find it disappointing that specific caches are being targeted in an unfair manor. This should have been applied to all cache types if any at all.

 

Please explain why this is being done to specific caches.

[+t4e]

the "cleanup" has been mentioned a while back that will take place sometime starting in march, its not an Ontario thing, it will take place all over the world in an attempt to clear anything that has not been found in over a year, which is the case with the ones on the list

 

i'll see if i can find the post where the clean up has bee discussed

 

i would hope that some judgment is used before picking a cache with no logs to be archived

 

some have no finds for a long time just because they are challenging caches that only few people will attempt, and i for one do not want to see those gone, by challenging i am referring to a single cache in one trip, not the series

[+CacheDrone]

Traditional Caches, of which there are many, represent a significant amount of data which will take some extra time to compile and go through. It is expected to be later this week.

 

Cache Owners that chose to archive their caches instead of checking on them made that choice themselves. It certainly sounds like they would not have performed any required maintenance had something been reported.

 

If you are a Cache Owner that received such a note, hopefully you can check on your cache in the next 6 months. For those that did not, and seem to be having trouble understanding what is being asked of other people then I fail to see how this is your issue. Cache Owners are 100% responsible for checking on their cache periodically, and that is what is being asked of them.

 

edit to include: It really shouldn't matter if it is the final of a complicated and lengthy series. The Cache Owner simply needs to check that one cache and post an "Owner Maintenance". It has no bearing on the caches that lead up to it.

Edited March 21, 2010 by CacheDrone

[+Nozzletime]

Traditional Caches, of which there are many, represent a significant amount of data which will take some extra time to compile and go through. It is expected to be later this week.

 

Cache Owners that chose to archive their caches instead of checking on them made that choice themselves. It certainly sounds like they would not have performed any required maintenance had something been reported.

 

If you are a Cache Owner that received such a note, hopefully you can check on your cache in the next 6 months. For those that did not, and seem to be having trouble understanding what is being asked of other people then I fail to see how this is your issue. Cache Owners are 100% responsible for checking on their cache periodically, and that is what is being asked of them.

 

edit to include: It really shouldn't matter if it is the final of a complicated and lengthy series. The Cache Owner simply needs to check that one cache and post an "Owner Maintenance". It has no bearing on the caches that lead up to it.

 

If they don't do a maintenance visit do they get archived?

[+Tequila]

 

Of course, I'm sure that any cache owner would appreciate any efforts that finders make to help them out with damp logbooks and containers. If you do anything for them then be sure to recommend that they log an "Owner Maintenance" log due in part to your wonderful community service

 

CD

 

Looks like the caching community is already taking your suggestion to heart:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...02-2e2aeddcb413

 

 

Good work JP.

[+Keith Watson]

For those that did not, and seem to be having trouble understanding what is being asked of other people then I fail to see how this is your issue.

 

It is the issue of every one that does not understand how and why this is being done and want some answers. If you didn't want feed back on this subject you should have locked the thread after posting it.

 

Why is the length of time since the last find being used as the criteria? Why not post a list of caches that currently need maintenance? If you truly want to clean up caches that need to be cleaned up, start with these.

 

Why is the needs maintenance being used instead of a reviewers note? Viewing some of the caches, there seams to be nothing wrong with them. This could be giving a false impression of a cache indicating there is something wrong with it when in fact there is not.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Keith Watson

[+L0ne.R]

For those that did not, and seem to be having trouble understanding what is being asked of other people then I fail to see how this is your issue.

 

It is the issue of every one that does not understand how and why this is being done and want some answers. If you didn't want feed back on this subject you should have locked the thread after posting it.

 

Why is the length of time since the last find being used as the criteria? Why not post a list of caches that currently need maintenance? If you truly want to clean up caches that need to be cleaned up, start with these.

 

Why is the needs maintenance being used instead of a reviewers note? Viewing some of the caches, there seams to be nothing wrong with them. This could be giving a false impression of a cache indicating there is something wrong with it when in fact there is not.

 

Maybe it's more about dealing with abandonment issues. COs are supposed to be available to check on caches in a timely fashion. 6 months seems generous. My one concern is, will the caches be picked up and disposed of if they are deemed abandoned and then archived? I liked last year's effort to cleanup the abandoned 'Ontario GPS Treasure Hunting' caches. Cache-tech had set up a bookmark list (54 caches).

 

See also the January Spring Cleanup message:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=239422&hl=

[+northernpenguin]

Maybe it's more about dealing with abandonment issues. COs are supposed to be available to check on caches in a timely fashion. 6 months seems generous. My one concern is, will the caches be picked up and disposed of if they are deemed abandoned and then archived? I liked last year's effort to cleanup the abandoned 'Ontario GPS Treasure Hunting' caches. Cache-tech had set up a bookmark list (54 caches).

 

 

The major difference with the Ontario GPS Treasure Hunting caches was that the owner *requested* help having the caches picked up. Why does this matter? The owner basically told the geocaching community to CITO out the containers as they were no longer desired to be out in the field.

 

When Groundspeak delists a cache (archives it), it is removed from the Geocaching website but not from other websites the cache may be listed on. I don't know about you but I'd be some kinda ticked off if my caches that are cross listed on other sites got CITO'd out because one of the sites delisted it.

 

Yes, cache trash sucks but before running out to do a good deed, you better be sure it actually IS a good deed.

[+L0ne.R]

Maybe it's more about dealing with abandonment issues. COs are supposed to be available to check on caches in a timely fashion. 6 months seems generous. My one concern is, will the caches be picked up and disposed of if they are deemed abandoned and then archived? I liked last year's effort to cleanup the abandoned 'Ontario GPS Treasure Hunting' caches. Cache-tech had set up a bookmark list (54 caches).

 

 

The major difference with the Ontario GPS Treasure Hunting caches was that the owner *requested* help having the caches picked up. Why does this matter? The owner basically told the geocaching community to CITO out the containers as they were no longer desired to be out in the field.

 

When Groundspeak delists a cache (archives it), it is removed from the Geocaching website but not from other websites the cache may be listed on. I don't know about you but I'd be some kinda ticked off if my caches that are cross listed on other sites got CITO'd out because one of the sites delisted it.

 

Yes, cache trash sucks but before running out to do a good deed, you better be sure it actually IS a good deed.

 

Doh! I always forget about the x-listed issue. I even have a bunch of letterboxes that are cross-listed on Atlas Quest. But I mention the cross-listing in the cache descriptions. I wonder what percent of abandoned caches on GC are actually cross-listed?

[7rxc]

We were very disappointment to see that 2 very good high quality and memorable caches were archived as a result of these Needs Maintenance posts. There was nothing wrong with either of these caches, and because of this people can no longer enjoy them and based on the archival logs they will most likely just wind up being geotrash, which certainly something that would not reflect positively on the geocaching community.

 

res2100

Treasurer - Ontario Geocaching Association

 

I suspect that all that it would take to unarchive those caches would be for someone to visit and report to the reviewer that it is a: in good serviceable condition b: that if the CO isn't looking after it that someone would continue to monitor it's condition... Archiving isn't always permanent.

 

Perhaps the OGA should promote cache maintenance efforts in accordance to the guidelines for cache ownership... and point out that cachers who decide not to do so could easily put them up for adoption, either to OGA or individuals... Or just let the archive stand and get someone to start over at that location or nearby.

 

As for why this grouping... one has to start someplace and CD said this was a group size that could be quickly isolated. Asking for locals (especially people who have already found) to check in the absence of owner action seems quite reasonable over the time period specified. Heck, I do that on my own if I see problems with a local cache, and I love to go after 'lonely' ones. I also look after a few for absentee owners I have contacted... not a problem...

 

Doug

[+Viajero Perdido]

If Groundspeak were to ask me to be a reviewer (you never know), I'd decline.

 

Don't even ask.

[+t4e]

 

I suspect that all that it would take to unarchive those caches would be for someone to visit and report to the reviewer that it is a: in good serviceable condition b: that if the CO isn't looking after it that someone would continue to monitor it's condition... Archiving isn't always permanent.

 

 

Doug

 

un-archiving a cache is done only in rare circumstances, and to my knowledge only possible at the request of the cache owner

 

adopting the cache would solve that problem, just saying that you will take care of it will not suffice

 

i would think that once a cache is archived adoption can't be initiated anymore

 

the best course of action i see in this situation, that would save a lot of time and hassle is that if someone finds a cache on that list that turns out to be abandoned, to initiate the adoption before the 6 months deadline and hope the CO responds

 

i stand corrected if any of the above is incorrect

[+northernpenguin]

Could be worse, the reviewer could be targetting caches that haven't had an "Owner Maintenance" note in 12 months. Hell of a lot more of those out there, even though we're all supposed to be checking our caches periodically.

 

I'll bet 90% of the caches in Ontario would be flagged if that Owner Maintenance frequency was the trigger.

[+res2100]

The lack\avoidance of a response to a simple question speaks volumes. The consensus pretty much is that perhaps the wrong log type is being used here for what you are trying to do. The Needs Maintenance log type is usually used for when someone visits the cache and finds something wrong with it and hence posts that in their log or specifically posts a Needs Maintenance log. I doubt that you visited any of these caches and the example given early in this thread when you had posted a Needs Maintenance on the Away Mission cache and Juicepig just happened to be in the area visiting that cache anyways and reported that the cache was fine, is an excellent example of why the wrong log type was used. A Reviewer Note would be the more appropriate log type and reserve using the Needs Maintenance log type for it's intended use for when someone has actually visited the cache and discovered that something is wrong with it. Now we have dozens of caches that have a incorrect Needs Maintenance flag on them. Many people filter their pocket queries to exclude caches with this attribute and hence will even have a slimmer chance of being visited now.

 

As to whether or not someone should take action to pick the remains of an archived or abandoned cache. I think it comes down to a judgement call and is probably most if not all cases cachers that did this would probably be doing the cache owner and community a favour. I replaced a missing cache the other day since I knew the cache owner and I figure it would save him a trip, and he thanked me for it, so I know I used the correct judgement there.

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

If Groundspeak were to ask me to be a reviewer (you never know), I'd decline.

 

I said no once. And look where I ended up. -DeRock-

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+northernpenguin]

A Reviewer Note would be the more appropriate log type and reserve using the Needs Maintenance log type for it's intended use for when someone has actually visited the cache and discovered that something is wrong with it. Now we have dozens of caches that have a incorrect Needs Maintenance flag on them. Many people filter their pocket queries to exclude caches with this attribute and hence will even have a slimmer chance of being visited now.

 

This I can certainly agree with. The NM flag will cause less traffic to the caches, as there will be a perceived 'problem'. Having said that nobody has been to any of these caches for over a year, so there may already be a perceived 'problem'.

[+Tequila]

I see this as an opportunity for the caching community to give something back to the sport, and owners in particular.

 

There are lots of individuals and groups out caching every day. It won't take much effort to visit most of the caches on the list and verify their status. If they are in good shape, you can post a note to that effect. If they need maintenance or are missing, you can confirm that and the owner can hopefully fix it.

 

Perhaps, Cache Drone would be good enough to update the Bookmark list as caches are visited.

[+Keith Watson]

A Reviewer Note would be the more appropriate log type and reserve using the Needs Maintenance log type for it's intended use for when someone has actually visited the cache and discovered that something is wrong with it. Now we have dozens of caches that have a incorrect Needs Maintenance flag on them. Many people filter their pocket queries to exclude caches with this attribute and hence will even have a slimmer chance of being visited now.

 

This I can certainly agree with. The NM flag will cause less traffic to the caches, as there will be a perceived 'problem'. Having said that nobody has been to any of these caches for over a year, so there may already be a perceived 'problem'.

 

The Needs Maintenance attribute should only set based on evidence. If a cacher shows up and finds the cache in sad shape then yes post a Needs Maintenance. If a previous finder can not locate the cache where it should be then again a Needs Maintenance may be a good choice. Making the assumption that a cache needs maintenance based on the fact it can not be found or has not been found in a given time frame should not be done as it may lead to as res2110 said the cache never being found. It gives a false impression of the condition of the cache and also implies that the owner is not doing their job based purely on speculation.

 

The posting of a Needs Maintenance also puts a clock on the cache that otherwise would not have existed.

 

I would like it very much to have my questions answered by a reviewer rather than the community trying to speculate on what the reviewer's intentions are.

[+Keith Watson]

I see this as an opportunity for the caching community to give something back to the sport, and owners in particular.

 

There are lots of individuals and groups out caching every day. It won't take much effort to visit most of the caches on the list and verify their status. If they are in good shape, you can post a note to that effect. If they need maintenance or are missing, you can confirm that and the owner can hopefully fix it.

 

Perhaps, Cache Drone would be good enough to update the Bookmark list as caches are visited.

 

Unfortunately it is not the communities responsibility to maintain other peoples caches as has been communicated to cachers that have asked for help with their caches. The best intentions of helpful cachers will not guarantee that Needs Maintenance flag removed.

[+Tequila]

I see this as an opportunity for the caching community to give something back to the sport, and owners in particular.

 

There are lots of individuals and groups out caching every day. It won't take much effort to visit most of the caches on the list and verify their status. If they are in good shape, you can post a note to that effect. If they need maintenance or are missing, you can confirm that and the owner can hopefully fix it.

 

Perhaps, Cache Drone would be good enough to update the Bookmark list as caches are visited.

 

Unfortunately it is not the communities responsibility to maintain other peoples caches as has been communicated to cachers that have asked for help with their caches. The best intentions of helpful cachers will not guarantee that Needs Maintenance flag removed.

 

I never said it was the community's responsibility. I said it was an opportunity to give back.

 

I also only suggested cachers could visit the caches, not necessarily maintain them. It can still be up to the owner to fix any physical issues that may be reported. Having said that, I doubt there are many CO's that would be offended if a cacher added a fresh log book, new ziploc etc.

 

As for removing the NM flag, I see no indication or reason as to why the flag would not be removed once a Found log or a Note confirming cache is in good condition is posted.

[+Keith Watson]

As for removing the NM flag, I see no indication or reason as to why the flag would not be removed once a Found log or a Note confirming cache is in good condition is posted.

 

According to the message being posted on the cache listings, it would suggest to me that the owners are being required to physically visit their caches.

 

"As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)."

 

I never said it was the community's responsibility. I said it was an opportunity to give back.

 

I didn't say it was or wasn't the communities responsibility. Only that that message has been relayed to cache owners when they ask for help. Both from reviewers and from other forum members.

[+RickOnTheRange]

Could be worse, the reviewer could be targetting caches that haven't had an "Owner Maintenance" note in 12 months. Hell of a lot more of those out there, even though we're all supposed to be checking our caches periodically.

 

I'll bet 90% of the caches in Ontario would be flagged if that Owner Maintenance frequency was the trigger.

 

I visited my caches last week, and they were all in good condition. Since no special maintenance was required, I just posted a note that said everything was "OK".

 

Should I post an "Owner Maintenance" log instead ? What is proper etiquette ?

[+res2100]

 

I visited my caches last week, and they were all in good condition. Since no special maintenance was required, I just posted a note that said everything was "OK".

 

Should I post an "Owner Maintenance" log instead ? What is proper etiquette ?

 

Since there are no "Needs Maintenance" logs on your caches, what you did by posting a note was good so there's no need to post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

[+Landsharkz]

If we visit and check on a cache (even if we do nothing) we often post an 'owner maintenance' because by visiting and checking we feel we are 'maintaining' them.

[+Tequila]

If we visit and check on a cache (even if we do nothing) we often post an 'owner maintenance' because by visiting and checking we feel we are 'maintaining' them.

 

If I visit/check one of my caches I post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

[+Keeper of Maps]

 

I visited my caches last week, and they were all in good condition. Since no special maintenance was required, I just posted a note that said everything was "OK".

 

Should I post an "Owner Maintenance" log instead ? What is proper etiquette ?

 

Since there are no "Needs Maintenance" logs on your caches, what you did by posting a note was good so there's no need to post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

 

I always post an "owner maintenance" log when I visit one of my caches. Even if my visit consists simple of retrieving the container, opening it, noting it's in good condition and putting it back it's still maintenance.

 

As well, it preempts situations like the one that started this thread.

[+northernpenguin]

I visited my caches last week, and they were all in good condition. Since no special maintenance was required, I just posted a note that said everything was "OK".

 

Should I post an "Owner Maintenance" log instead ? What is proper etiquette ?

 

There isn't a 'rule' about posting Owner Maintenance vs posting a note.

I usually post an Owner Maintenance log when I visit mine, to be clear that the cache is being maintained.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I post Owner Maintenance to keep my caches out of reviewers' Spring Cleaning PQs.

 

To save them effort, of course. I maintain my caches.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Viajero Perdido

[+Paul n Susan]

As we make plans to tackle our wish-list of caches, we see that one that was planned for Easter weekend is on this list. Added incentive! I assume it hasn't been found for so long because it's a multi, it's a 13k hike and although it's in a beautiful spot, it's off the beaten path for most.

 

Today I found a cache that had not been found for over a year and a half, although there was an owner visit in October. It seemed to be good when he checked it, it was good when I got it. So why no finds? Tricky puzzle, crazy semi-urban hike in an area that nobody would think of finding a parking spot to explore. Really glad that I made the trip today.

 

Spring cleaning is good, I'm doing it in my basement this week. But perhaps the criteria for this hit-list should be different. Maybe caches with NO logs for a year should be left alone, but caches with NOTHING but several DNF's in the last 6 mos should get the attention (I can think of a couple in my neighbourhood). If the weather and the family co-operate, we'll either have a find or DNF to report on our Easter goal. But let me say right now that it would be a real shame if the Minesing Final - another on our goal list - was archived before we get our chance to get to it, and that won't be until well after the spring season and the high water are gone.

 

As for owner maintenance - I notice that one of the listed caches is a virtual. Here is the owner maintence log. Wish I could go up there and log it.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Questions for CacheDrone:

1) Is this idea dead?

2) If not dead, is it limited to Ontario only?

3) Is this Groundspeak's idea (which would imply worldwide), or just an Ontario initiative?

 

Please re-assure me that "spring cleaning" is a non-starter.

 

(It boils my blood to think that the most desirable caches of all - remote ones - might be archived, leaving lots of room in the database for un-challenging drive-bys.)

[+CacheDrone]

Questions for CacheDrone:

1) Is this idea dead?

2) If not dead, is it limited to Ontario only?

3) Is this Groundspeak's idea (which would imply worldwide), or just an Ontario initiative?

 

Please re-assure me that "spring cleaning" is a non-starter.

 

(It boils my blood to think that the most desirable caches of all - remote ones - might be archived, leaving lots of room in the database for un-challenging drive-bys.)

 

1) What idea? To try to find some of the caches that haven't found in a long time? Based on the inference in your post, those caches sound like the type you prefer to seek. I hope that those people that enjoy attempting caches that have not been found in a long time will continue to do so.

 

2) The idea of visiting caches is not limited to Ontario. Or do you mean the idea that cache owners need to follow the guidelines that they agreed to? If yes, then no that isn't limited to Ontario.

 

3) Is what Groundspeak's idea? For people to try and find caches that haven't been found in a long time? Or that cache owners need to maintain their caches by responding to reported problems AND periodically checking on them? They are Groundspeak's listing guidelines for geocaching. Responsible cache owners check on their caches periodically.

 

I'm not sure what it is that you want me to re-assure you about. "Needs Maintenance" was used because the cache owners need to do maintenance as outlined in the listing guidelines that they agreed to when they submitted their listings. If one is supposed to perform maintenance periodically then it was the correct log types to have them log an "owner maintenance". No one said there was a reported problem, what was said is that periodic maintenance has not occurred.

[+Viajero Perdido]

"The idea" was the implied threat that a cache would be archived if the owner didn't see to it that their cache was visited periodically, with "periodically" now apparently being defined (by who?) as "a year or so". The threat that long-forgotten caches would be purged from the system. And the threat that a single year of inactivity would lead to a full-page, garish, multi-fonted, and undeletable warning message on an otherwise clean cache page.

 

Finding long-forgotten caches (or more often, failing at it) is what I do. I'd sincerely like those listings to remain findable via a search, which archiving would make impossible. Check out my profile - I've had some great adventures that would've been impossible if "spring cleaning" was carried out globally.

 

I have other hunts of lonely caches in the works, and I worry that you (or worse, the reviewers in other areas as well) will yank their listings before I have a chance to decide for myself whether they are worthwhile.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Viajero Perdido

[+Viajero Perdido]

Okay, I found this quote on another thread. (This initiative has caused quite a kerfuffle apparently.)

 

Caches do not get archived because they have not been found for long periods of time. Caches can go for years without being found and still be active and the source of dreams for the adventurous.

 

This is not about archiving caches. This is about cache owner maintenance.

Whew, I hope that's the final word. You had me scared.