E-mail a cache owner regarding a long-disabled cache

[+DENelson83]

Well, I posted an SBA log for a cache that was out of action for almost a year, and the cache owner replied to me, saying he should have been contacted before the SBA was posted and that I was burning some bridges. I'm thinking that's probably good advice. Agree or not?

Edited March 24, 2010 by DENelson83

[+brslk]

Well, I posted an SBA log for a cache that was out of action for almost a year, and the cache owner replied to me, saying he should have been contacted before the SBA was posted and that I was burning some bridges. I'm thinking that's probably good advice. Agree or not?

 

Not hearing his or her side... some bridges are best burnt.

 

He or she could have stated his or her case better... threats make me reply in kind.

 

I realize this is not the way I should be but it is what it is.

 

However.. if you are involved with a local caching association in your area then be careful.. they can be cliqish.

 

I for the most part cache alone or with friend(s) and could care less what others think of me as long as I am a considerate cacher.

 

A note should have been posted first though.

[+DENelson83]

A note should have been posted first though.

Which I did, five months ago.

[+brslk]

A note should have been posted first though.

Which I did, five months ago.

 

Then don't take my advice because I am an angry vengeful man.

 

Honestly, look at other people that offer advise. Mine was humorous and I am new here.

 

Good luck in whatever you do.

[+briansnat]

So the cache was out of action for 5 months and you posted a note. Nothing was done and 7 months later you issued an NA? If that is the case then you did the right thing. You contacted the owner through your note and he still did nothing for half a year. Unless there are extenuating circumstances a cache should not be inactive for a year. The owner has nobody to blame but himself.

[+BlueDeuce]

I'll initially start with posting a Note on the cache page. That is considering contacting/emailing the owner and it also documents the contact. The reviewer needs to see the history in the log files showing that the cache owner had sufficient time to take care of business before they will archive it.

[+Walts Hunting]

You posted a note, that is contacting him. Don't wait months, do the SBA quicker so that he remembers you contacted him.

 

I am a little quicker. Had a micro with two DNF's when my group of 5 went by and searched hard but could not find. Posted Needs Maintenance and watched it. Two weeks later there were two more DNF's. That was enough for me. Posted SBA. Diabled the next day by reviewer and two weeks later no word from owner. Expect it to be archived by reviewer.

 

I generally think many people are to easy on CO's. No response two weeks after a NM log and subsequent DNF's is more than enough for a SBA. Some people need the 2x4 up side the head to get their attention.

 

As for burning bridges I suspect that in a group most people will side with the logger since no one likes to go to a cache that is not there and the CO won't do the maintenance needed.

[+simpjkee]

Unless there were exceptional circumstances, you made the right move by logging the SBA. No reason why a cache should sit disabled for that long.

[+t4e]

Well, I posted an SBA log for a cache that was out of action for almost a year, and the cache owner replied to me, saying he should have been contacted before the SBA was posted and that I was burning some bridges. I'm thinking that's probably good advice. Agree or not?

 

by "out of action" you mean disabled?

 

if that is the case personally i would have checked the CO's profile to see if he/she is still active, if not than a SBA log would be appropriate

 

having said that, in my area the reviewer keeps an eye on those things and usually after 3 months of a cache being disable he/she makes a log giving the CO a deadline to fix it or else will be archived

[+Touchstone]

...I posted an SBA log for a cache that was out of action for almost a year...

 

I'd tell them that you used the SBA log to contact them

 

Not seeing the Listing in question, it kind of depends. I would use the private email approach for any situation where the information might compromise the Hide, but otherwise, I usually just post any relevant information like full logbook/sheet, wet/damp contents, missing travelers and such, in my Log Entry. Likewise with an unresponsive owner.

[+J the Goat]

It depends a lot on the cache type as well. There are several caches around here that haven't been logged in a year or more. Without visiting them, I know they're fine. Did you DNF the cache and post a NM? Have there been DNF's since? Is this a cache that can survive a year without a visit? If I were the CO, (who is obviously still active if he/she responded to the SBA) and the cache were a seldom visited cache in a remote location, I'd be pretty ticked off if someone essentially posted an armchair SBA after one visit and one note. That may not be the case, but that's kind of the way it sounds like you went about it. Now, an urban hide that's likely to be seen at least once a month? Yes, needs to be checked.

 

Hey, who took my soap box...

[+StarBrand]

The 'NA' (Needs Archived) log type does not mean the cache will be automatically archived. Only that a reviewer is alerted to go take a look at it and decide if the issues are serious enough to archive it. No need for any owner to get offended or upset (especially if there aren't any 'real' issues).

 

There is no requirement or need to go through the drama of contacting the owner if any cacher sees a clear violation of the guidelines. It certainly is a polite thing to do but by leaving the note - I think you fullfilled the need to contact him/her.

[+Keith Watson]

If a cache is in a disabled state for an extended period around here, the reviewers tend to step in and let the owner know to get it fixed or archive it. I think a should be archived should almost never be used by a cacher unless there is a clear violation of the listing guidelines. A cache that has been disabled for an extended period of time would fall under that description. If the cache has a bunch of DNF's on it, that would be a different story. Could this just be a nasty hide, or could season be the cause of it? Try and contact the owner and see if the cache is still there. If you get no where with contacting the owner than consider posting a needs maintenance log. That should start to get the attention of local reviewers.

 

Jumping the gun with a should be archived log can lead to a few outcomes. The cache gets fixed. The cache get archived. You end up looking like a fool playing cache cop because days after you post the should be archived someone finds the cache after the snow has melted.

 

"Burning bridges" is also another unfortunate out come of posting a should be archived. You may inadvertently offend the wrong person which could lead to you being labeled by others.

 

If in doubt you could always contact a reviewer and let them take the heat should the cache owner have any issues.

[+GeoGeeBee]

If you get no where with contacting the owner than consider posting a needs maintenance log. That should start to get the attention of local reviewers.

 

Do reviewers get copied on "needs maintenance" logs? I thought I had read in the forums that they do not.

[+Keith Watson]

I am not sure if they get notified. Our local reviewers notice them though.

[+StarBrand]

If you get no where with contacting the owner than consider posting a needs maintenance log. That should start to get the attention of local reviewers.

 

Do reviewers get copied on "needs maintenance" logs? I thought I had read in the forums that they do not.

They do not get notified of NM logs. Some of the reviewers will occasionall query the system for caches with the NM flag in thier area but they get no automatic notifications.

[+Tequila]

If you get no where with contacting the owner than consider posting a needs maintenance log. That should start to get the attention of local reviewers.

 

Do reviewers get copied on "needs maintenance" logs? I thought I had read in the forums that they do not.

They do not get notified of NM logs. Some of the reviewers will occasionall query the system for caches with the NM flag in thier area but they get no automatic notifications.

 

In our area, an NM will hit the reviewer's radar. We have a great bunch of reviewers and they do a periodic check (every 90 days I think) for old NM's.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I don't know why a disabled cache seems to bother so many. They can show or not show on your pq's as you decide. The ONLY reason to contact the CO would be if you wanted to place your own cache in the area and in most cases I'm guessing the CO would gladly give you the area ( on 90% of mine I would )

I think some folks like to micro-manage things. I think adding NM and SBA was unecessary and counter-productive.....a note always worked before. Now from newbies I get " since I can't find it it must not be there and Should Be Archived " then I have to delete the log, etc.

[+Hosta Hillbillys]

This is a hot topic for me, the hillbilly of the Hosta Hillbillys. When one applies for a cache placement they check a box that says they've read and agree to the cache placement guidelines. When some cache placer gets 'huffy' with me for submitting a cache archive recommendation when it's been broken for several months (as opposed to the 'guidelines' of a 'few' weeks), I think they are not responsible, plain and simple, especially if it's a 'charter' member. I've even had the official cache cops waggle their fingers at me for reporting all the sloppiness I stumble across.

 

Can you really 'temporarily disable' a cache because you know it's snow covered? Not really, using the 'guidelines'. There are nutsoid cachers who may want to try to dig it out anyway. Or, perhaps, there are other locals who could and would figure out how to hide one in the area more winter friendly, hear hear.

 

I've even seen cache disabled because of hunting season. OMGosh, hunters don't own the woods! I'm fairly confident that most of us would know to wear bright clothing, make reasonable noise, or just pass for fear of being shot.

 

In a nutshell, there are areas where the official cache cops are bowing to 'biggie' cachers and other beyond the reason of reason to let cache that should so very obviously be archived to remain, perhaps it's the clique thing, but nonetheless, all guidelines should be applied evenly, across the board, and I've seen a little too much exception to that idea.

 

All that diatribe aside, who gives a darn? Eventually I just forget my overly Boy Scout fairness indoctrination and go out and enjoy the outdoors finding the cache that are still good, woohoo!

 

Because I don't know how to receive notifications of replies to this post via my email, and because I don't very often have the time to browse the forums, if you really want to refute or flame me, doing it here will be a safe way, unless, ummm, you'd really like to enter a dialog with me on this subject, wherein you'll need to contact me direct, sorry, probably my ignorance of the operational quarks of this board.

 

mark the hillbilly

[+Knight2000]

As for burning bridges I suspect that in a group most people will side with the logger since no one likes to go to a cache that is not there and the CO won't do the maintenance needed.

It's not what you know it's who you know. There are a lot of geocaching friendships and cliques. You can't please everyone. It doesn't necessarily matter how "right" you are.

 

"Burning bridges" is also another unfortunate out come of posting a should be archived. You may inadvertently offend the wrong person which could lead to you being labeled by others.

Cache police comes to mind. If you don't want to burn bridges it's best to overlook the guideline infractions or you'll step on some toes. Live and let live comes to mind.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I've even seen cache disabled because of hunting season. OMGosh, hunters don't own the woods! I'm fairly confident that most of us would know to wear bright clothing, make reasonable noise, or just pass for fear of being shot.

 

A few thoughts on this point:

 

1-Yes, hunters do not own the woods (assuming, of course, that this is state owned, public land). But, especially for gun hunting, hunters only have a limited time that they can be in the woods to hunt. I think disabling a cache during gun hunting seasons is a considerate move on the cache owners part. Not going after a cache that is located inside public hunting boundries for two weeks out of the year isn't that much of a sacrifice for a cacher to make. Cachers don't own the woods, either.

 

2-There is a reason that blaze orange is required to be worn when hunting deer with a gun. Even wearing blaze orange, hunters get mistaken for deer and shot every hunting season, so it's not foolproof. How safe would you feel if you walked into a public hunting area wearing your normal clothes and started scouring the brush for a cache? Many cachers like to cache all over their home state and that will take them to places they aren't familiar with. They may not realize they are walking into a woods full of hunters.

 

3-Finally, as it is a considerate move on the owners part to disable the cache to allow hunters an undisturbed hunt, I also do not want to bother a hunter when I'm out caching. Frankly, it would irritate me to go searching for a cache and find myself being whistled at or scolded by a hunter because I'm out enjoying my hobby while they were trying to enjoy theirs. I wouldn't be irritated with the hunters but with the cache owner. I made the choice to seek out the cache, but if it's disabled, it wouldn't be loaded into my GPS.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't know why a disabled cache seems to bother so many. They can show or not show on your pq's as you decide. The ONLY reason to contact the CO would be if you wanted to place your own cache in the area and in most cases I'm guessing the CO would gladly give you the area ( on 90% of mine I would )

I think some folks like to micro-manage things. I think adding NM and SBA was unecessary and counter-productive.....a note always worked before. Now from newbies I get " since I can't find it it must not be there and Should Be Archived " then I have to delete the log, etc.

 

Another reason why I like a reviewer to clear out Disabled caches. It removes the "Why do you care?" part that locals have to deal with.

 

Maintaining your cache and local people having to address your unmaintained cache listing are two separate issues. You don't get to justify leaving a lame cache in place simply because people are complaining about it.

 

 

 

typo

Edited March 26, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[AZcachemeister]

If I failed to maintain (or at least a note for crying out loud) one of my caches after a note suggesting it needed some TLC, I would expect it to be archived after well before six months had passed.

 

Bridge, what bridge? Sounds like an offhand threat to delete some of your valid find logs.

 

I like to leave a lot of wiggle room for other folks' style...but come on!

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, I posted an SBA log for a cache that was out of action for almost a year, and the cache owner replied to me, saying he should have been contacted before the SBA was posted and that I was burning some bridges. I'm thinking that's probably good advice. Agree or not?

Although you did the right thing, some cache owners behave badly about such stuff. If you did burn a bridge it was because it was made out of straw. Any cache can be unarchived simply with a note to a reviewer. To leave it disabled for a year is unacceptable, but perhaps a note to the reviewer to archive it would have been better.