Jump to content

My cache was retracted...not sure why


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". <_<

Link to comment

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". <_<

A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log.

Link to comment

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". <_<

A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log.

 

I could not disable it as I was driving to a vacation & stopped while passing by. I do not have a smart phone like many geocachers do. I did not temporarily try to turn it into anything nor do I know what a code word cache is. I did write on it so they knew they found it & I knew as well. :wacko:

Link to comment

What everybody else has said: ask the reviewer for clarification. The reviewers in my area have been more than willing to answer specific questions or discuss specific issues. But before resubmitting a cache, make sure that the log book is in place, the coordinates are accurate, you have at least adequate permission for a cache to be placed there, and you have read the guidelines to make sure that the cache is not in a restricted area.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". <_<

A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log.

 

I could not disable it as I was driving to a vacation & stopped while passing by. I do not have a smart phone like many geocachers do. I did not temporarily try to turn it into anything nor do I know what a code word cache is. I did write on it so they knew they found it & I knew as well. :wacko:

 

What little I know from my foibles and gaffes a cache is generally not retracted or redacted for missing its log book.

 

If the location is extremely unsafe (i.e. on a post in the middle of the median of I-75), restricted government property, in a US national park or monument I can see it being pulled. Also, if the location is quite inappropriate (i.e. outside an well known establishment of dubious repute, contrary to "Family-Friendly") Usual response from a reviewer is to archive it, not completely delete it. Could also be someone complained to Groundspeak about it, i.e. Local Law Enforcement ("we do not want a geocache placed here for [_reason_].")

Link to comment

 

What little I know from my foibles and gaffes a cache is generally not retracted or redacted for missing its log book.

 

If the location is extremely unsafe (i.e. on a post in the middle of the median of I-75), restricted government property, in a US national park or monument I can see it being pulled. Also, if the location is quite inappropriate (i.e. outside an well known establishment of dubious repute, contrary to "Family-Friendly") Usual response from a reviewer is to archive it, not completely delete it. Could also be someone complained to Groundspeak about it, i.e. Local Law Enforcement ("we do not want a geocache placed here for [_reason_].")

Not my experience. The one cache that I logged that was later retracted was a code word cache. Essentially, a reviewer might not have known the cache had no log when it was published. Particularly when a cache owner changes the page after the cache was published, the reviewer may choose to retract the cache. This actually gives the cache owner an opportunity to fix the problem and resubmit the cache. Any reviewer notes posted during this period will be delete if the cache is republished. This issue here is not that the cache was retracted but the the reviewer hasn't been specific with the cache owner in telling him what needs to be corrected for the cache to be published. (The reviewer may have done so in a reviewer note that cache owner might see if he looks at his unpublished cache page)

 

If a land manager asks that a cache be removed, it is more likely to get archived instead of retracted. That way the community can see the reason the cache was removed (even if we cannot search for archived caches <_<) There is no need for such a cache to go back in the review process, but if the cache owner is somehow able to get permission for the cache after the fact, they probably could ask to get it unarchived.

Link to comment

Retraction is not done for something like a missing logbook. It's usually for serious breaches of guidelines. "It should never have been put there!" I've only found two caches that have since been retracted. One was in the stone wall of a protected historic ruin. That's a No-No. The other was an excellent mystery cache, which, unfortunately, was within 70' of another cache. Not sure why it was retracted, rather than just archived.

There is a lot more wrong with the cache than just a missing log book. I'm sure that your reviewer will be happy to discuss when he/she/it has the time.

Link to comment
"archived" caches can be read by searching for "hidden by".

 

"retracted" caches....probably not so much.

 

Best bet for the OP would be to engage in dialogue with the Reviewer.

 

Forum discussion would only be guessing and wild speculation.

Thats right can't see a retracted, but I would love to see what the cache was and as I said see all the hypothetical theories the forum members have and add my own to the giant conspiracy!

Link to comment
"archived" caches can be read by searching for "hidden by".

 

"retracted" caches....probably not so much.

 

Best bet for the OP would be to engage in dialogue with the Reviewer.

 

Forum discussion would only be guessing and wild speculation.

Thats right can't see a retracted, but I would love to see what the cache was and as I said see all the hypothetical theories the forum members have and add my own to the giant conspiracy!

 

I can certainly say it is 1000% percent safe, easy & on proper ground. Yet, retracted. I personally think it was b/c whomever tried to find it & didn't, complained. Is that possible? The gc code was GC2DJ0B The reviewer stated that I should refresh his memory on how it is a puzzle cache. Which, it is not. I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional. The reviewer noted the reason you don't see "sign the wood log" caches is b/c they are not permitted. I don't even know what that means. I do know my cache had a tiny logbook that fell off. And, I do know it was retracted with the statement "so much wrong with it". I also know that the First to Find said it was unique cache & e-mailed me wondering (as I) why it would be retracted.

Link to comment
I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional.

I think I might finally understand a litte bit of what's going on here. You selected the question mark option as your cache type thinking it meant other when the question mark actually means Puzzle Cache. You should have selected Traditional Cache.

Link to comment
I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional.

I think I might finally understand a litte bit of what's going on here. You selected the question mark option as your cache type thinking it meant other when the question mark actually means Puzzle Cache. You should have selected Traditional Cache.

My understanding is that ? simply means UNKNOWN.. not just a puzzle... it can be a cache with an unusual twist etc... I've seen a few like what I hear described... all with question marks but not really a 'puzzle', although that is the effect. It is the choice for non traditionals, but still requires a log and something to put the log in...

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment
I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional.

I think I might finally understand a litte bit of what's going on here. You selected the question mark option as your cache type thinking it meant other when the question mark actually means Puzzle Cache. You should have selected Traditional Cache.

My understanding is that ? simply means UNKNOWN.. not just a puzzle... it can be a cache with an unusual twist etc... I've seen a few like what I hear described... all with question marks but not really a 'puzzle', although that is the effect. It is the choice for non traditionals, but still requires a log and something to put the log in...

 

Doug 7rxc

 

THANK YOU. I agree that a ? does not mean a puzzle cache. It means unknown. Nowhere does it say a ? is a puzzle cache. Maybe they need to make their own icon for a puzzle cache.

Link to comment

I see two issues.

 

1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size.

 

2.

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield.

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache.

Link to comment

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

We have a bunch of this type of cache around this area. Possibly out before this rule came into effect but I think they are kinda neat.

Link to comment

 

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, where is this written? I can't find it in the guidelines.

Link to comment

 

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, where is this written? I can't find it in the guidelines.

The guidelines say a cache must be a container with a log sheet. Some interpret this to mean that a flat magnetic sheet needs to have a pocket (container) and a removable log sheet that is kept in the pocket in order for it to be a cache. Others find no problem in writting on the back of the sheet.

Link to comment

I see two issues.

 

1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size.

 

2.

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield.

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache.

 

If you're going to quote guidelines, please do so accurately. They say no such thing.

Link to comment

I see two issues.

 

1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size.

 

2.

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield.

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache.

 

If you're going to quote guidelines, please do so accurately. They say no such thing.

 

To clarify, I originally posted my cache (flat magnetic as a ? cache). Then, a few said they couldn't find this "puzzle cache". So, I changed the listing to an OTHER cache, since it was by no means a puzzle cache & that was stated it in the cache listing. I had not seen anywhere that said a ? is a puzzle cache. Anyway, it was changed to an OTHER cache & it was found. It does have a log book (small in a tiny ziploc bag attached to the back of the flat cache). This log book unglued & needs replacement, yet I am on vacation right now & not in state. Yet, they retracted it.

Link to comment

To clarify, I originally posted my cache (flat magnetic as a ? cache). Then, a few said they couldn't find this "puzzle cache". So, I changed the listing to an OTHER cache, since it was by no means a puzzle cache & that was stated it in the cache listing. I had not seen anywhere that said a ? is a puzzle cache. Anyway, it was changed to an OTHER cache & it was found. It does have a log book (small in a tiny ziploc bag attached to the back of the flat cache). This log book unglued & needs replacement, yet I am on vacation right now & not in state. Yet, they retracted it.

 

I want to be sure we're not confusing "cache size" with "cache type".

 

In terms of "cache type", the Unknown type ("?" symbol) is typically used for puzzles. There is no option to change the type from a '?' cache to "Other" since they are one and the same. There is, however, an "Other" option when you are selecting the cache size.

 

I'm wondering if it was originally published as a Unknown cache type which caused confusion for some seekers since it sounds like it was a Traditional. Then, someone found it and remembered that Groundspeak frowns on the "magnetic sheet" style of caches and reported it to the reviewer who decided with all the confusion to simply retract the listing until everything can get sorted out.

 

Without knowing exactly what the reviewer had to say and without being able to see the listing it's pretty much impossible to know the full story.

Link to comment

I see two issues.

 

1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size.

 

2.

A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield.

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache.

 

If you're going to quote guidelines, please do so accurately. They say no such thing.

 

I am not quoting guidelines, as I said the guidelines do not single out specific cache types if they did they would be pages long. "Thou shalt hide clear film cans but not black ones, thou may hide match tubes, but not Altoids tins..." I am repeating what I have been told by a Reviewer. Under the current Groundspeak guidelines a cache must have a log and a container, a sheet magnet is not a sufficient container.

 

I will repeat what I said above, I like these type of hides when used creatively, I believe they are caches. But I am not a Reviewer.

Link to comment

 

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, where is this written? I can't find it in the guidelines.

The guidelines say a cache must be a container with a log sheet. Some interpret this to mean that a flat magnetic sheet needs to have a pocket (container) and a removable log sheet that is kept in the pocket in order for it to be a cache. Others find no problem in writting on the back of the sheet.

So something like this is still allowed as long as there is a bag (zip sealed) on the back, correct?

JM-TAG.png

The Tag Geocache is incredibly thin! It is not much thicker then a credit card yet still able to hold a log! This cache is completely magnetic with a special holder on the back to hold a log securely. It comes with a random set of numbers and letters on it so that the geocache blends in looking just like a utility number tag. Even with the log in there it lays nice and flat on the surface.
Link to comment

I was under the impression it was not radak, baggie or no. But if a Reviewer would clarify I would be much obliged.

I would be curious to know as well. I found an LPC a few weeks ago that was just a log inside a mini baggie under the skirt. What is considered the "container" for that? Is it the bag or the skirt?

 

If that type of magnet cach with a bag attached to the back and a log inside of it is not allowed, how could a camo taped ziplock bag thrown under a bush be considered following the guidelines? Because it's a larger bag? :unsure:

Edited by radak9
Link to comment

A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log.

 

I could not disable it as I was driving to a vacation & stopped while passing by. I do not have a smart phone like many geocachers do. I did not temporarily try to turn it into anything nor do I know what a code word cache is. I did write on it so they knew they found it & I knew as well.

Yeah. That smells like a code-word cache.

Link to comment

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

A magnetic sheet is allowed as a container as long as it has a replaceable sheet of paper (waterproof, preferably). The magnetic sheet contains the log between itself and whatever it is stuck to. It's been like that for quite a while.

Link to comment

Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently.

A magnetic sheet is allowed as a container as long as it has a replaceable sheet of paper (waterproof, preferably). The magnetic sheet contains the log between itself and whatever it is stuck to. It's been like that for quite a while.

 

That isn't the way it was explained to me but I am glad to hear that this is the case.

Link to comment
"archived" caches can be read by searching for "hidden by".

 

"retracted" caches....probably not so much.

 

Best bet for the OP would be to engage in dialogue with the Reviewer.

 

Forum discussion would only be guessing and wild speculation.

Thats right can't see a retracted, but I would love to see what the cache was and as I said see all the hypothetical theories the forum members have and add my own to the giant conspiracy!

 

I can certainly say it is 1000% percent safe, easy & on proper ground. Yet, retracted. I personally think it was b/c whomever tried to find it & didn't, complained. Is that possible? The gc code was GC2DJ0B The reviewer stated that I should refresh his memory on how it is a puzzle cache. Which, it is not. I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional. The reviewer noted the reason you don't see "sign the wood log" caches is b/c they are not permitted. I don't even know what that means. I do know my cache had a tiny logbook that fell off. And, I do know it was retracted with the statement "so much wrong with it". I also know that the First to Find said it was unique cache & e-mailed me wondering (as I) why it would be retracted.

Can you copy and paste the notation that the reviewer sent so there is no paraphrasing?

A note to the reviewer to also say that initially it was coded puzzle in error then changed to "other" (though in my opinion it is a traditional cache) due to an error, and that you felt it should have been disabled rather than retracted (due to the fact that you are on vacation)and would have been remedied once you came home. And for the reviewer to let you know what "so much is wrong with it" so you won't repeat the "mistake" again in the future.

But then again w/o seeing the actual quote in the note its all speculation on our part (well everything is speculation period)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...