Resurrecting Archived Geocaches

[+Referee]

Hi, I've sent two emails to reviewers (publisher, archiver) asking for help in getting my two caches reactivated. I currently have GCX7EB and GCXGJB. Could someone please tell me what I need to do (other than have replacement caches ready) to reactivate my cahces?

 

Thanks,

 

Referee

[+gpsfun]

Each of the caches was published by a volunteer who is no longer active in that role.

 

Since the caches were archived more than two years ago, I would personally recommend creating new caches in those locations over unarchiving the old ones.

[+Touchstone]

Submit new Listing for Review perhaps?

 

If it's been more than a few months, as it appears to be in your case, the Local Reviewer may feel that it deserves an entirely new Listing.

 

The amount of time between Archiving a Listing for non maintenance issues, and Unarchiving, varies somewhat from one area to the next, but 2-3 months is the usual standard in my area.

 

Best of luck

[+Referee]

Submit new Listing for Review perhaps?

 

If it's been more than a few months, as it appears to be in your case, the Local Reviewer may feel that it deserves an entirely new Listing.

 

The amount of time between Archiving a Listing for non maintenance issues, and Unarchiving, varies somewhat from one area to the next, but 2-3 months is the usual standard in my area.

 

Best of luck

 

Ok thanks for the info. Guess I'll just re-do them and call them B-Dubya 2 and Dead Heat 2

[Mr.Yuck]

Each of the caches was published by a volunteer who is no longer active in that role.

 

Since the caches were archived more than two years ago, I would personally recommend creating new caches in those locations over unarchiving the old ones.

 

Wow, the publishing reviewer last logged in in 2007. And I had no idea there were ever pirate reviewers.

 

Yeah, I would have to think with these things being archived 2 and 3 years respectively, that they are going to require new listings. Assuming you are 528+ ft. from any newer caches.

[Keystone]

I did receive your email on Friday but had not yet had a chance to respond to this non time sensitive question. I agree that you should submit new caches.

[GPS-Hermit]

I did receive your email on Friday but had not yet had a chance to respond to this non time sensitive question. I agree that you should submit new caches.

 

It is time sensitive - he is waiting for an answer and to do the right thing. People get into and out of Geo-caching for job or health related reasons. Archiving the cache is a good thing rather than not maintaining. Bringing it back is fine for everyone and keeps the log and comment of others in place which can be helpfull.

 

I say bring it back unless it is terribly difficult to do. The owner knows where to put the cache quite accurately. The years would not matter to me - the continuing of what was already started. This also keeps FTF from occuring again and old cachers thinging I already found this one. I don't like to find the same one again if I can avoid it.

Edited October 13, 2010 by GPS-Hermit

[AZcachemeister]

I did receive your email on Friday but had not yet had a chance to respond to this non time sensitive question. I agree that you should submit new caches.

 

Non-time sensitive?

 

At least you could let the poor SOB know the re-activation was under consideration.

 

Of course, NEW CACHES, by which cachers can increase their almighty smiley count take precedent over anything else, don't they?

 

Bad reviewer protocol IMNSHO.

[+OldLog]

Non time sensitive is a poor response in my opinion.

[Keystone]

I stand by my response. Helping a geocacher who decides to resurrect long-archived geocaches -- one of which was archived due to lack of response to maintenance needs -- is secondary to the 72 hour service goal for new cache reviews. The 10/10/10 weekend was an especially busy one for many cache reviewers. Starting a forum thread on Monday after sending an email on Friday rather surprised me as a service standard.

 

I work seven days a week for free. Sorry if I'm not volunteering my time quickly enough.

 

By the way, the new versions of the caches have not yet been submitted. When they are, I'll look at them promptly and within 72 hours in any event.

[+addisonbr]

A few days doesn't seem that bad to me, especially crossing a weekend.

[knowschad]

I did receive your email on Friday but had not yet had a chance to respond to this non time sensitive question. I agree that you should submit new caches.

Would have been a much better response, but that's hindsight for you.

[+ras_oscar]

Hey, lets not pick on the non-paid volunteers that assure our sport is lively and current.

 

In my office we have a communal kitchen that is maintained by volunteers who buy foodstufs for others to buy, run the dishwasher and keep the microwave clean. The rule is of you complain about the actions of the volunteers, you get volunteered next!!! Reduces the complaining quite a bit.

 

Back on original topic: as a finder I would assume if the hide is the same spot, same cammo and same container type, it would have the same GC code. I would be confused if I arrived at GZ with a new GC code and "found" one I had already found. I would assume that for some reason my original log had not stuck. Not sure about the mechanism for unarchiving a long archived hide, but assuming unarchiving is not possible for technical reasons, I would hope the cache page makes mention of the previous hide.

 

Of course, I'm all for easy smileys, too!!!

[+Touchstone]

Hey, lets not pick on the non-paid volunteers that assure our sport is lively and current.

 

In my office we have a communal kitchen that is maintained by volunteers who buy foodstufs for others to buy, run the dishwasher and keep the microwave clean. The rule is of you complain about the actions of the volunteers, you get volunteered next!!! Reduces the complaining quite a bit.

 

Back on original topic: as a finder I would assume if the hide is the same spot, same cammo and same container type, it would have the same GC code. I would be confused if I arrived at GZ with a new GC code and "found" one I had already found. I would assume that for some reason my original log had not stuck. Not sure about the mechanism for unarchiving a long archived hide, but assuming unarchiving is not possible for technical reasons, I would hope the cache page makes mention of the previous hide.

 

Of course, I'm all for easy smileys, too!!!

 

I'm actually a big proponent of, what I refer to, as Moose Turd Pie Principle

 

I would imagine that Keystone has to do a fair amount of triaging in his territory. I think he does the right thing in putting Publishing caches first on the list.

[+sbell111]

I think that we all need to take a step back and look at the facts.

• Two caches were archived years ago. One was archived for lack of maintenance.
  
• Last friday, the cache owner sent an email regarding bringing the cache back from archival.
  
• Tuesday morning, a thread is started inquiring about the issue. This thread was begun not even 2 business days after the email was sent to the reviewer.
  
• Keystone made the comment that he didn't feel that his email response was time sensitive and that due to the 10/10 weekend, the reviewers were super busy this past weekend.
  
• Some forum participants got wadded by his use of the term 'time sensitive'.
  

Is bringing these two long dead caches back from archival 'time sensitive'? Certainly not. They've been dead for years, a few more days isn't going to hurt anything.

 

Was responding to the email 'time sensitive'? Certainly not. Nothing bad happens to a cacher, land manager, or the game itself if the email doesn't get replied to for a few days.

 

So why are people upset by (or even in disagreement with) the 'time sensitive' comment?

[knowschad]

I think that we all need to take a step back and look at the facts.

• Two caches were archived years ago. One was archived for lack of maintenance.
  
• Last friday, the cache owner sent an email regarding bringing the cache back from archival.
  
• Tuesday morning, a thread is started inquiring about the issue. This thread was begun not even 2 business days after the email was sent to the reviewer.
  
• Keystone made the comment that he didn't feel that his email response was time sensitive and that due to the 10/10 weekend, the reviewers were super busy this past weekend.
  
• Some forum participants got wadded by his use of the term 'time sensitive'.
  

Is bringing these two long dead caches back from archival 'time sensitive'? Certainly not. They've been dead for years, a few more days isn't going to hurt anything.

 

Was responding to the email 'time sensitive'? Certainly not. Nothing bad happens to a cacher, land manager, or the game itself if the email doesn't get replied to for a few days.

 

So why are people upset by (or even in disagreement with) the 'time sensitive' comment?

Well-put. To which I will add that the 10-10-10 weekend very likely did have some very time-sensitive publication requests.

[AZcachemeister]

I stand by my response. Helping a geocacher who decides to resurrect long-archived geocaches -- one of which was archived due to lack of response to maintenance needs -- is secondary to the 72 hour service goal for new cache reviews. The 10/10/10 weekend was an especially busy one for many cache reviewers. Starting a forum thread on Monday after sending an email on Friday rather surprised me as a service standard.

 

I work seven days a week for free. Sorry if I'm not volunteering my time quickly enough.

 

By the way, the new versions of the caches have not yet been submitted. When they are, I'll look at them promptly and within 72 hours in any event.

 

What Harry Truman said.

[+J the Goat]

I think that we all need to take a step back and look at the facts.

• Two caches were archived years ago. One was archived for lack of maintenance.
  
• Last friday, the cache owner sent an email regarding bringing the cache back from archival.
  
• Tuesday morning, a thread is started inquiring about the issue. This thread was begun not even 2 business days after the email was sent to the reviewer.
  
• Keystone made the comment that he didn't feel that his email response was time sensitive and that due to the 10/10 weekend, the reviewers were super busy this past weekend.
  
• Some forum participants got wadded by his use of the term 'time sensitive'.
  

Is bringing these two long dead caches back from archival 'time sensitive'? Certainly not. They've been dead for years, a few more days isn't going to hurt anything.

 

Was responding to the email 'time sensitive'? Certainly not. Nothing bad happens to a cacher, land manager, or the game itself if the email doesn't get replied to for a few days.

 

So why are people upset by (or even in disagreement with) the 'time sensitive' comment?

 

Totally agree with this. Stop complaining. Be patient. Your cache revival isn't any more important that anything else on the reviewer's list. Stop acting like it is.

[+sbell111]

I stand by my response. Helping a geocacher who decides to resurrect long-archived geocaches -- one of which was archived due to lack of response to maintenance needs -- is secondary to the 72 hour service goal for new cache reviews. The 10/10/10 weekend was an especially busy one for many cache reviewers. Starting a forum thread on Monday after sending an email on Friday rather surprised me as a service standard.

 

I work seven days a week for free. Sorry if I'm not volunteering my time quickly enough.

 

By the way, the new versions of the caches have not yet been submitted. When they are, I'll look at them promptly and within 72 hours in any event.

 

What Harry Truman said.

I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.

[Keystone]

"This administration is going to be cussed and discussed for years to come."

- Harry S. Truman

[+sbell111]

"If you can't convince them, confuse them."

[+sbell111]

"Intense feeling too often obscures the truth."