How long can/should a cache be disabled for?

[+djdiggla]

I placed a cache near a spot where a cache used to be--I had thought it was archived, but I guess I assumed too much as it was disabled, not archived so my cache was rejected for being too close.

 

I looked into the first cache and it's been disabled for 5 months (going on 6). How long can she/he hold that location!? Seems like it should be archived so someone (me) can place a new cache.

 

Maybe this has been asked before, but I didn't find any answer when using the search feature.

 

Thanks

[+narcissa]

Post a "Needs Archived" on it and just mention that it's been disabled for a long time and needs reviewer attention.

[+roziecakes]

Post a "Needs Archived" on it and just mention that it's been disabled for a long time and needs reviewer attention.

 

+1 The reviewers may not know that it's still disabled. Sending them this kind of log will give them the heads up. Around here our reviewers give people about a month, sometimes a little longer to get their disabled caches taken care of.

[+djdiggla]

Thanks

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

But that won't always work.

One of the reviewers here checks up on a disabled cache every 3 months and the CO responds. Its been disabled for about 15 months now!

[+briansnat]

Post a "Needs Archived" on it and just mention that it's been disabled for a long time and needs reviewer attention.

 

+1 The reviewers may not know that it's still disabled. Sending them this kind of log will give them the heads up. Around here our reviewers give people about a month, sometimes a little longer to get their disabled caches taken care of.

 

If the reviewer rejected the first cache for proximity issues he knows the one blocking it is disabled. He may already be in contact with the cache owner of the disabled cache to determine his intentions.

 

But in case it slipped by the reviewer a needs archived or an e-mail to the reviewer might be in order.

 

To answer the OP, temporarily disabling a cache should only be for a month or two. Under certain circumstances it may be longer. For example I have a cache that has been temporarily disabled for nearly 2 years. It is in a mine and all mines and caves in NJ are off limits until they can figure out what causes the white nose syndrome that is decimating the bat population in the northeast. I put a note on the page periodically so the reviewer knows that I simply haven't forgotten about it.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

white nose syndrome

 

Some of the hipsters at the bars in Portland have that. They just didnt snort hard enough.

[+Don_J]

Post a "Needs Archived" on it and just mention that it's been disabled for a long time and needs reviewer attention.

 

+1 The reviewers may not know that it's still disabled. Sending them this kind of log will give them the heads up. Around here our reviewers give people about a month, sometimes a little longer to get their disabled caches taken care of.

 

If the reviewer rejected the first cache for proximity issues he knows the one blocking it is disabled. He may already be in contact with the cache owner of the disabled cache to determine his intentions.

 

But in case it slipped by the reviewer a needs archived or an e-mail to the reviewer might be in order.

 

To answer the OP, temporarily disabling a cache should only be for a month or two. Under certain circumstances it may be longer. For example I have a cache that has been temporarily disabled for nearly 2 years. It is in a mine and all mines and caves in NJ are off limits until they can figure out what causes the white nose syndrome that is decimating the bat population in the northeast. I put a note on the page periodically so the reviewer knows that I simply haven't forgotten about it.

 

I have a cache that has been disabled for ten months. Our local reviewers understand that it is the area of the largest reported wild fire in California History, (Station Fire). I drove by yesterday, but the road up to the cache is still closed.

 

Since the OP can obviously enter the area, a NA log would be appropriate.

[+Harry Dolphin]

There can be valid reasons for a cache to be disable for many months. I had one disabled for seven months due to the park being rebuilt. I noted that on the cache page. When the park reopened, I retrieved the cache and moved it twenty feet. All was well.

Different town, different park. Again rebuilding. I gave up waiting after eight months, and archived the cache. (Again, note on cache page explaining the reason for the disablement.) It took 18 months for the park to reopen.

Goodness. I seem to run into this problem a lot! Different park, different town... One of my favorite cache hides was 'temporarily unavailable' for a year before I archived it, and placed a new one. Year and a half later, it is still 'temporarily unavailable'. Loved that spot!! (Had something to do with closing a four hundred foot staircase because the ferry termnal moved...) (Again, note on the cache page explaining the disablement.) If they ever reopen the area (which, somehow, I doubt), I'll disable the new one and redo the original. Spectacular views!!!!!

So, there can be valid reasons for long-term disablement. And, keep your grubby mitts off my cache spot!

[+BlueDeuce]

If your cache has been or will be disabled for many months, how about putting that status on your cache page?

 

In my opinion if the owner can't handle that much maintenance (updating the cache page) the cache is up for SBA after 6 months.

Edited July 31, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+slukster]

Goodness. I seem to run into this problem a lot! Different park, different town... One of my favorite cache hides was 'temporarily unavailable' for a year before I archived it, and placed a new one. Year and a half later, it is still 'temporarily unavailable'. Loved that spot!! (Had something to do with closing a four hundred foot staircase because the ferry termnal moved...) (Again, note on the cache page explaining the disablement.) If they ever reopen the area (which, somehow, I doubt), I'll disable the new one and redo the original. Spectacular views!!!!!

So, there can be valid reasons for long-term disablement. And, keep your grubby mitts off my cache spot!

Hey Harry, I remember that cache GCKRMN Weehawken View. I was the last one to find it before they closed it off. It was a tough one for me (early in my caching career) but very satisfying once I found it.

[+djdiggla]

I ended up asking the owner if they wanted me to adopt the cache since they either moved or are no longer active caching (based on the last time they logged into the site). They said yes, and had a second she wanted me to adopt. ...seemed like a good solution.

Unfortunately, CO has not transferred ownership yet (been a week).

Edited August 4, 2010 by djdiggla

[+TeamEpik]

I have had a cache not posted do to a cache that has been disabled for a very long time was close to my new one.I think it would be nice if it was an automatic system that removed them from the system.That way new caches could be placed.

[+dbrierley]

I have had a cache not posted do to a cache that has been disabled for a very long time was close to my new one.I think it would be nice if it was an automatic system that removed them from the system.That way new caches could be placed.

 

A cache may be disabled longer than "a few weeks" due to some reason beyond the cache owner's control, such as construction, timber harvesting, etc. An automated purge of disabled caches would unfortunately remove such exceptions. If a cache has been disabled for an extended period without explanation, a "needs archived" request might be in order.

Edited August 5, 2010 by dbrierley

[+BlueDeuce]

I have had a cache not posted do to a cache that has been disabled for a very long time was close to my new one.I think it would be nice if it was an automatic system that removed them from the system.That way new caches could be placed.

 

Remind me to tell you sometime about the response I got on posting "Any Status?" on a 15 month disabled cache. Two of them actually. (It is not appropriate for the forums)

 

The problem with automated is that it can create geotrash - stuff left in the field.

I'm not saying automated is bad but geotrash is something that needs to be addressed.

Edited August 5, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+ras_oscar]

I had a cache within my radius that was temporarailly disabled by the CO 2 weeks after my first DNF. Something about the hide location being reconstructed. Eventually I posted a SBA and the reviewer archived it. I waited quietly for 12 months.

[+TeamEpik]

I have had a cache not posted do to a cache that has been disabled for a very long time was close to my new one.I think it would be nice if it was an automatic system that removed them from the system.That way new caches could be placed.

 

Remind me to tell you sometime about the response I got on posting "Any Status?" on a 15 month disabled cache. Two of them actually. (It is not appropriate for the forums)

 

The problem with automated is that it can create geotrash - stuff left in the field.

I'm not saying automated is bad but geotrash is something that needs to be addressed.

I do agree about geotrash. The owners of the disabled caches need to clean up their disabled caches . That way we would not have the geotrash problem.I read so many logs that the owner can not find their cache so the just disable the cache and leave it that way.Their are s many of them that way in my area.

It would be nice if they would be taken care of.

[+Prescott Patrol]

So there is a difference if a cache has been "temporiarily disabled" and archived.

 

I refer you this cache. Would an NA be appropriate?

Edited August 5, 2010 by Prescott Patrol

[+BlueDeuce]

So there is a difference if a cache has been "temporiarily disabled" and archived.

 

I refer you this cache. Would an NA be appropriate?

 

Given the two notes and the time-line, I'd post an NA.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have had a cache not posted do to a cache that has been disabled for a very long time was close to my new one.I think it would be nice if it was an automatic system that removed them from the system.That way new caches could be placed.

 

A cache may be disabled longer than "a few weeks" due to some reason beyond the cache owner's control, such as construction, timber harvesting, etc. An automated purge of disabled caches would unfortunately remove such exceptions.

 

You make a very good point. One of the oldest caches in my town is also located in one of the most spectacular spots nearby as well. It's located in a deep gorge that has a stone trail along a creek with numerous waterfalls, one of which over 75' high. And yes, it's right in town, probably a 15 minute walk from the heart of the downtown area. Every winter the trail through the gorge is closed for the season as the type of rocks and accumulation of ice makes it a pretty dangerous area. In fact, the trail was closed all last summer as well while the trail was repaired due to ice damage. It will really be a shame to have a special cache as that one archived automatically.

[+TeamEpik]

I have had a cache not posted do to a cache that has been disabled for a very long time was close to my new one.I think it would be nice if it was an automatic system that removed them from the system.That way new caches could be placed.

 

A cache may be disabled longer than "a few weeks" due to some reason beyond the cache owner's control, such as construction, timber harvesting, etc. An automated purge of disabled caches would unfortunately remove such exceptions.

 

You make a very good point. One of the oldest caches in my town is also located in one of the most spectacular spots nearby as well. It's located in a deep gorge that has a stone trail along a creek with numerous waterfalls, one of which over 75' high. And yes, it's right in town, probably a 15 minute walk from the heart of the downtown area. Every winter the trail through the gorge is closed for the season as the type of rocks and accumulation of ice makes it a pretty dangerous area. In fact, the trail was closed all last summer as well while the trail was repaired due to ice damage. It will really be a shame to have a special cache as that one archived automatically.

Well it seems to be a big problem everywere. I know the volunteers look after publishing the caches and they are all so very busy. I think it would be good to see if they could find some more volunteers to start contacking all the people to have the disabled caches and find out what they plan to do. After they have been contacked they should be giving a time line on how soon they fix the cache or just remove it .

That way ones that have been disabled because of a trail closed for repair or something like that are ok.But the one's that are just missing and the people don't feel like fixing them are removed from the system.

[+t4e]

 

Well it seems to be a big problem everywere. I know the volunteers look after publishing the caches and they are all so very busy. I think it would be good to see if they could find some more volunteers to start contacking all the people to have the disabled caches and find out what they plan to do. After they have been contacked they should be giving a time line on how soon they fix the cache or just remove it .

That way ones that have been disabled because of a trail closed for repair or something like that are ok.But the one's that are just missing and the people don't feel like fixing them are removed from the system.

 

i don't think any more volunteers are need if everyone in the caching community was proactive and helped the reviewer by sending them a little message with a link to the disabled cache

 

those are the guidelines and in my area our reviewers are doing a great job at "clean up", but the community is involved too

 

a cache should not be disabled for more than 4 weeks for routine maintenance

 

Cache Maintenance

 

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.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing.

[+TeamEpik]

 

Well it seems to be a big problem everywere. I know the volunteers look after publishing the caches and they are all so very busy. I think it would be good to see if they could find some more volunteers to start contacking all the people to have the disabled caches and find out what they plan to do. After they have been contacked they should be giving a time line on how soon they fix the cache or just remove it .

That way ones that have been disabled because of a trail closed for repair or something like that are ok.But the one's that are just missing and the people don't feel like fixing them are removed from the system.

 

i don't think any more volunteers are need if everyone in the caching community was proactive and helped the reviewer by sending them a little message with a link to the disabled cache

 

those are the guidelines and in my area our reviewers are doing a great job at "clean up", but the community is involved too

 

a cache should not be disabled for more than 4 weeks for routine maintenance

 

Cache Maintenance

 

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.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing.

Yes if the owners would take care of the caches that fast would be good . For the reviewers in my area I think they have their hands full . It looks like geocaching is really on the rise in our area and having volunteers to look after older caches might be the best way to handle the problem .

[+fizzymagic]

a cache should not be disabled for more than 4 weeks for routine maintenance

Really? What if it's a ten-mile hike to get to the cache? You expect the cache owner to drop everything and make the trek within a month to fix something he/she put out as a free gift to others just so it will meet your standards?

 

Wow. The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.

[+TeamEpik]

a cache should not be disabled for more than 4 weeks for routine maintenance

Really? What if it's a ten-mile hike to get to the cache? You expect the cache owner to drop everything and make the trek within a month to fix something he/she put out as a free gift to others just so it will meet your standards?

 

Wow. The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.

I can see your side of it but do we not all to agree to take care of what we put out their. If the persone puts a cache out on a 10 mile hike they should be ready to take care of it as well