Guidelines for posting a needs archived

[+Don_J]

Point taken... What about a requirement of like 25 cache finds before being able to start hiding your own? To gain "caching experienece" so to speak, and to make sure they stick with the hoppy and care of the cache they hid? Just another thought...

 

Here's the problem. A new person can find 25 Altoids tins hidden under a lamp post cover, in 2 or 3 hours. They are then qualified to hide a cache. Guess where the cache is going?

 

I'm seeing this with a local cacher. He found 50 or so parking lot micros. His entire idea of a geocache is a parking lot micro. He has now hid about 20 parking lot micros. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. I don't think that there is a magic number of finds that makes a cacher qualified to hide good caches. I know people that have thousands of finds that still stick film cans in a light post and I have seen people with 10 finds hide caches that are on my favorite list.

 

+1 I totally agree, not to mention power trails. You could find several hundred in a day and now you are "qualified" to hide____??

 

I personally have no where near the imagination that some of our locals have. To compensate, I'll bring you to a high vista, or perhaps a rock formation that looks like an elephant. The debate about urban micros has been going on for years. It just bothers me sometimes when I realize that because this is all a cacher has been exposed to, he thinks that this is the norm. That cacher may have a great imagination, and may already have some great idea, but it's stunted because every cache he has found was a film can under a lamp post cover.

 

[edit:clarity]

Edited March 5, 2011 by Don_J

[+popokiiti]

We know someone with few finds, but has quite a few very ingenious hides....no micros! I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule, other than hiding something that you would enjoy finding in an area you would like visiting.

[Clan Riffster]

What about a requirement of like 25 cache finds before being able to start hiding your own?

When I am approached by inquisitive newcomers to this hobby, asking advice about their first hide, I generally suggest they pick some entirely arbitrary number that has meaning to them, and find that many caches prior to hiding their own. I further suggest they bounce all over the map with D/T and size, while hunting those caches. I explain to them that this will hopefully give them the experience they need to determine what containers work, and what containers are utter failures, for their geographic region. If pressed, I will suggest the number 100. It has long been my belief that there is no greater teacher than hands on experience.

 

But making it a requirement? That's something I would fight tooth & nail.

[+Tape worm]

No I wouldn't like a requirement to find a certain number of caches before they hide a cache. It's not always the new cacher that leaves a cache in disrepair. I live in an area where a very experienced cacher doesn't check on his hides ever. They go missing for years on end, if you post a needs maintenance, you get flamed, if you post a needs archived, you get flamed. I've come to find the best thing to do is ignore these caches.

[+Don_J]

 

But making it a requirement? That's something I would fight tooth & nail.

 

And I'll standing next to you. Although to be honest, I ended up with 32 pretty good looking teeth. I may just run for the hills.

[+Don_J]

No I wouldn't like a requirement to find a certain number of caches before they hide a cache. It's not always the new cacher that leaves a cache in disrepair. I live in an area where a very experienced cacher doesn't check on his hides ever. They go missing for years on end, if you post a needs maintenance, you get flamed, if you post a needs archived, you get flamed. I've come to find the best thing to do is ignore these caches.

 

I read stories like this too often. It's too bad. I can't offer advice, but I can say that I'm happy that this sort of thing hasn't reached the Los Angeles area. The cachers out here basically take care of each other. We've managed to never get into the petty BS that I have read on these forums.

 

Desclaimer: This post excepts the geocacher Hazmatt. He comes from a different planet and has a 4,000,000 yr. plan on driving us mad, one cacher at a time

[+CluelessnLuV]

No I wouldn't like a requirement to find a certain number of caches before they hide a cache. It's not always the new cacher that leaves a cache in disrepair. I live in an area where a very experienced cacher doesn't check on his hides ever. They go missing for years on end, if you post a needs maintenance, you get flamed, if you post a needs archived, you get flamed. I've come to find the best thing to do is ignore these caches.

This very same reasons are the ones i even asked the previous questions... And you're right - some of those cachers are new and some aren't... Agree that "requirement" is a bit too harsh, but I am also against littering the parks with junk. Those are the reasons the muggles and some parks have a problem sometimes with the whole Geocaching thing. Just today while searching the park for a newer cache, i came across an ammo box that was supposed to be a final stage to the cache that the owner "archived" 9 months ago saying that they didn't have enough time to do the upkeep on caches... Wish the CO would care to remove their stuff from the woods then (geocoin inside wouldn't have to have been marked lost either). Sorry, maybe it's just frustration coming out from recently coming across quite a few "abandoned" caches in the area with the COs nowhere to be found.

 

Is there a way for folks to adopt a cache if the original CO hasn't even logged on for many months?

Edited March 9, 2011 by CluelessnLuV

[+Ike 13]

Is there a way for folks to adopt a cache if the original CO hasn't even logged on for many months?

 

Not unless you can get them to log in and give it to you. Groundspeak does not own the listing or the container so when they adopt a cache they need permission from the current owner.

[+Ike 13]

I live in an area where a very experienced cacher doesn't check on his hides ever. They go missing for years on end, if you post a needs maintenance, you get flamed, if you post a needs archived, you get flamed. I've come to find the best thing to do is ignore these caches.

That is disappointing. In that case you have another option: Send an email to the reviewer with the details and GC code. They can then disable the cache and give the owner 30 days to maintain the cache. They take all the heat and that owner will never know you did it.

 

I always find it silly that some people get upset when you point out they're not maintaining their caches. How is it your fault that they're not doing their part?

[+Tape worm]

I live in an area where a very experienced cacher doesn't check on his hides ever. They go missing for years on end, if you post a needs maintenance, you get flamed, if you post a needs archived, you get flamed. I've come to find the best thing to do is ignore these caches.

That is disappointing. In that case you have another option: Send an email to the reviewer with the details and GC code. They can then disable the cache and give the owner 30 days to maintain the cache. They take all the heat and that owner will never know you did it.

 

I always find it silly that some people get upset when you point out they're not maintaining their caches. How is it your fault that they're not doing their part?

 

I try not to get our local reviewer involved if I don't have to. I kind of figured he gives alot of his free time already, but I know he will help if I would ask. So far I just slap the cache on my ignore list and don't worry about it.

[+Ecylram]

I live in an area where a very experienced cacher doesn't check on his hides ever. They go missing for years on end, if you post a needs maintenance, you get flamed, if you post a needs archived, you get flamed. I've come to find the best thing to do is ignore these caches.

We've got a couple of cachers like that in our area as well. Very frustrating. They seem to think their 1.5/1.5 hide has suddenly developed magical powers that make it impervious to muggles and other cachers.

 

Ironically, the grapevine spreads the word when a CO angrily deletes NM's and NA's. Karma takes care of the rest, over time.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Ironically, the grapevine spreads the word when a CO angrily deletes NM's and NA's.

 

It doesn't matter of a CO deletes an NA log, angrily or otherwise. The reviewer has already been alerted. The CA can delete the log, but he can't ignore it.

[RedShoesGirl]

so what is the best solution when a "mini" power trail has broken at least one guideline, that is burying or breaking the ground in order to hide a series of caches. in these instances a pvc pipe driven into the ground with a little glass or plastic tube with log dropped into the pipe with only the lid of the tube showing.

 

that clearly violates Groundspeak guidelines. how many guidelines can be ignored?

 

does one incur the wrath of the CO by suggesting the series be archived or just ignore the caches - and don't even ask the question of prior permission of caches along a roadside or on private property along the road.

 

rsg

[+niraD]

so what is the best solution when a "mini" power trail has broken at least one guideline, that is burying or breaking the ground in order to hide a series of caches. in these instances a pvc pipe driven into the ground with a little glass or plastic tube with log dropped into the pipe with only the lid of the tube showing.

I'm assuming that you're referring to the Geocaches are never buried guideline, and that "a shovel, trowel or other pointy object" was used by the cache owner to "dig or break ground" to place the PVC pipe.

 

does one incur the wrath of the CO by suggesting the series be archived or just ignore the caches

If you don't want to risk the wrath of the CO by posting a Needs Archived log, and you don't want to ignore what you perceive to be a violation of the guidelines, then you can contact the reviewer who published the cache listing via private email. Provide documentation for the violation that you observed, and let the reviewer handle the matter.

[+Ecylram]

so what is the best solution when a "mini" power trail has broken at least one guideline, that is burying or breaking the ground in order to hide a series of caches. in these instances a pvc pipe driven into the ground with a little glass or plastic tube with log dropped into the pipe with only the lid of the tube showing.

 

that clearly violates Groundspeak guidelines. how many guidelines can be ignored?

 

does one incur the wrath of the CO by suggesting the series be archived or just ignore the caches - and don't even ask the question of prior permission of caches along a roadside or on private property along the road.

 

rsg

 

When the topic came up a while back about the permissibility of driving pipes into the ground, the opinions were mixed. I'm not arguing, just pointing out there are grey areas in caching.

 

As for myself, I save my NA's for more serious violations such as caches on school grounds, Federal "No Trespassing" signs and missing caches with missing owners. I'm know I'm not alone, here are some 'violators' that cachers have let slide...

 

Bridge cache #1 - 72 finds in nearly two years.

Bridge cache #2 - 46 finds in nearly two years.

Bridge cache #3 - 95 finds in over four years.

Bridge cache #4 - 84 finds in nearly five years.

Bridge cache #5 - 36 finds in 1 year

Bridge cache #6 - 28 finds in a few months.

Bridge cache #7 - 78 finds in less than two years.

Sprinkler cache #1 - 85 finds in 2+ years

Sprinkler cache #2 - 25 finds in a few months

Sprinkler cache #3 - 32 finds in less than a year

Hole drilled in tree #1 - 73 finds in nearly two years

Hole drilled in tree #2 - 35 finds in one year.

Hole drilled in tree #3 - 33 finds in less than three years.

Hole drilled in tree #4 - 40 finds in two years.

Hole drilled in tree #5 - 88 finds in two years

Hole in ground #1 - 173 finds in nearly six years

Hole in ground #2 - 24 finds in a few months

Hole in the ground #3 -24 finds in a year

[RedShoesGirl]

so what is the best solution when a "mini" power trail has broken at least one guideline, that is burying or breaking the ground in order to hide a series of caches. in these instances a pvc pipe driven into the ground with a little glass or plastic tube with log dropped into the pipe with only the lid of the tube showing.

 

that clearly violates Groundspeak guidelines. how many guidelines can be ignored?

 

does one incur the wrath of the CO by suggesting the series be archived or just ignore the caches - and don't even ask the question of prior permission of caches along a roadside or on private property along the road.

 

rsg

 

When the topic came up a while back about the permissibility of driving pipes into the ground, the opinions were mixed. I'm not arguing, just pointing out there are grey areas in caching.

 

As for myself, I save my NA's for more serious violations such as caches on school grounds, Federal "No Trespassing" signs and missing caches with missing owners. I'm know I'm not alone, here are some 'violators' that cachers have let slide...

 

Bridge cache #1 - 72 finds in nearly two years.

Bridge cache #2 - 46 finds in nearly two years.

Bridge cache #3 - 95 finds in over four years.

Bridge cache #4 - 84 finds in nearly five years.

Bridge cache #5 - 36 finds in 1 year

Bridge cache #6 - 28 finds in a few months.

Bridge cache #7 - 78 finds in less than two years.

Sprinkler cache #1 - 85 finds in 2+ years

Sprinkler cache #2 - 25 finds in a few months

Sprinkler cache #3 - 32 finds in less than a year

Hole drilled in tree #1 - 73 finds in nearly two years

Hole drilled in tree #2 - 35 finds in one year.

Hole drilled in tree #3 - 33 finds in less than three years.

Hole drilled in tree #4 - 40 finds in two years.

Hole drilled in tree #5 - 88 finds in two years

Hole in ground #1 - 173 finds in nearly six years

Hole in ground #2 - 24 finds in a few months

Hole in the ground #3 -24 finds in a year

 

the guidelines are not grey. just how people want to follow them. opinions are should not sway how the guidelines are followed. that's kinda like anarchy. with everyone doing their own thing so they can play the game their way. if Groundspeak wants to change the guidelines, then that is their responsibility, not the cachers to just ignore them.

 

holes in trees? that one really bothers me. just because a cache has lots of finds doesn't mean it is a cache that shouldn't be archived. i hate to say it, but it is these kinds of caches that contribute to a negative image of geocaching. how to caches like these even get approved? or is it not apparent from the cache listing that something is not quite right?

 

and bridges? really?

 

this leads to the larger discussion of why certain cachers feel they do not have to respect the guidelines set out by Groundspeak. i mean the guidelines are there for a reason. all those caches should be archived.

Edited March 15, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[Clan Riffster]

The guidelines are not grey. All those caches should be archived.

I think a blanket statement like this bears scrutiny. From where I sit, the guidelines do have some grey areas. Not just in interpretation, but in practice as well. Looking at the list prepared by Ecylram, I don't see a single one that should be archived, based on just those descriptions. For instance, we know that bridges are not entirely verboten. Only those bridges that might make a handy terrorist target, or otherwise cause undue alarm were a cache to be hidden there. Quaint little bridges along country lanes seem to be perfectly OK for hiding near. It is unclear from the descriptions Ecylram posted what kind of bridges were involved in these hides. It is also unclear if sprinkler head caches actually violate the buried guideline. I've seen Reviewers in this forum opine that wiggling a container into leaf litter or soft soil is OK, so long as it's not completely covered. The sprinkler head caches I've seen were similar, in that the stem portion simply had to be wiggled into the soft soil. No dirt was removed, and no pointy object was used. Personally, I think sprinkler head caches are horrible ideas, as I feel they lead to folks disassembling real sprinklers, but I'm not convinced they are automatic violations. Again, with Ecylram's list, it is unclear from the description whether or not those should be archived. It gets a little clearer with the holes drilled in trees caches listed. What mook would drill a hole in a tree? And yet, if I created one of these in my front yard, and described in detail how it was made so there was no doubt in the Reviewer's eyes that a hole was drilled into a living tree, I could probably get it published. After all, it's my tree. Finally, the hole in the ground caches. In Ecylram's description, he doesn't mention whether or not the owner utilized an existing hole. As I understand it, if I hide a cache in a natural depression, it does not violate the guidelines.

 

While Ecylram's list gives great examples of terrible cache hides, there are potential exceptions which could make each of those types legal, from a Reviewer standpoint.

Exceptions = grey areas.

[jholly]

The guidelines are not grey. All those caches should be archived.

I think a blanket statement like this bears scrutiny. From where I sit, the guidelines do have some grey areas. Not just in interpretation, but in practice as well. Looking at the list prepared by Ecylram, I don't see a single one that should be archived, based on just those descriptions. For instance, we know that bridges are not entirely verboten. Only those bridges that might make a handy terrorist target, or otherwise cause undue alarm were a cache to be hidden there. Quaint little bridges along country lanes seem to be perfectly OK for hiding near. It is unclear from the descriptions Ecylram posted what kind of bridges were involved in these hides. It is also unclear if sprinkler head caches actually violate the buried guideline. I've seen Reviewers in this forum opine that wiggling a container into leaf litter or soft soil is OK, so long as it's not completely covered. The sprinkler head caches I've seen were similar, in that the stem portion simply had to be wiggled into the soft soil. No dirt was removed, and no pointy object was used. Personally, I think sprinkler head caches are horrible ideas, as I feel they lead to folks disassembling real sprinklers, but I'm not convinced they are automatic violations. Again, with Ecylram's list, it is unclear from the description whether or not those should be archived. It gets a little clearer with the holes drilled in trees caches listed. What mook would drill a hole in a tree? And yet, if I created one of these in my front yard, and described in detail how it was made so there was no doubt in the Reviewer's eyes that a hole was drilled into a living tree, I could probably get it published. After all, it's my tree. Finally, the hole in the ground caches. In Ecylram's description, he doesn't mention whether or not the owner utilized an existing hole. As I understand it, if I hide a cache in a natural depression, it does not violate the guidelines.

 

While Ecylram's list gives great examples of terrible cache hides, there are potential exceptions which could make each of those types legal, from a Reviewer standpoint.

Exceptions = grey areas.

+1

Ask yourself is the cache itself, i.e., the container holding the log buried? Does one need a pointy object to retrieve the container? If the answer is no then your probably entering a twilight area that has lots of grey. I've pulled lots of containers out of pipes that were in the ground. Would I post a NA? No, first of all because I can not say for certain how the pipe was placed in the ground and by who, and secondly because I did not have to dig to retrieve the container. We are dealing with guidelines, not rules, interpretation and exceptions do count for a lot.

[+hotshoe]

The guidelines are not grey. All those caches should be archived.

I think a blanket statement like this bears scrutiny. From where I sit, the guidelines do have some grey areas. Not just in interpretation, but in practice as well. Looking at the list prepared by Ecylram, I don't see a single one that should be archived, based on just those descriptions. For instance, we know that bridges are not entirely verboten. Only those bridges that might make a handy terrorist target, or otherwise cause undue alarm were a cache to be hidden there. Quaint little bridges along country lanes seem to be perfectly OK for hiding near. It is unclear from the descriptions Ecylram posted what kind of bridges were involved in these hides. It is also unclear if sprinkler head caches actually violate the buried guideline. I've seen Reviewers in this forum opine that wiggling a container into leaf litter or soft soil is OK, so long as it's not completely covered. The sprinkler head caches I've seen were similar, in that the stem portion simply had to be wiggled into the soft soil. No dirt was removed, and no pointy object was used. Personally, I think sprinkler head caches are horrible ideas, as I feel they lead to folks disassembling real sprinklers, but I'm not convinced they are automatic violations. Again, with Ecylram's list, it is unclear from the description whether or not those should be archived. It gets a little clearer with the holes drilled in trees caches listed. What mook would drill a hole in a tree? And yet, if I created one of these in my front yard, and described in detail how it was made so there was no doubt in the Reviewer's eyes that a hole was drilled into a living tree, I could probably get it published. After all, it's my tree. Finally, the hole in the ground caches. In Ecylram's description, he doesn't mention whether or not the owner utilized an existing hole. As I understand it, if I hide a cache in a natural depression, it does not violate the guidelines.

 

While Ecylram's list gives great examples of terrible cache hides, there are potential exceptions which could make each of those types legal, from a Reviewer standpoint.

Exceptions = grey areas.

+1

Ask yourself is the cache itself, i.e., the container holding the log buried? Does one need a pointy object to retrieve the container? If the answer is no then your probably entering a twilight area that has lots of grey. I've pulled lots of containers out of pipes that were in the ground. Would I post a NA? No, first of all because I can not say for certain how the pipe was placed in the ground and by who, and secondly because I did not have to dig to retrieve the container. We are dealing with guidelines, not rules, interpretation and exceptions do count for a lot.

 

Well said, thanks.

[RedShoesGirl]

The guidelines are not grey. All those caches should be archived.

I think a blanket statement like this bears scrutiny. From where I sit, the guidelines do have some grey areas. Not just in interpretation, but in practice as well. Looking at the list prepared by Ecylram, I don't see a single one that should be archived, based on just those descriptions. For instance, we know that bridges are not entirely verboten. Only those bridges that might make a handy terrorist target, or otherwise cause undue alarm were a cache to be hidden there. Quaint little bridges along country lanes seem to be perfectly OK for hiding near. It is unclear from the descriptions Ecylram posted what kind of bridges were involved in these hides. It is also unclear if sprinkler head caches actually violate the buried guideline. I've seen Reviewers in this forum opine that wiggling a container into leaf litter or soft soil is OK, so long as it's not completely covered. The sprinkler head caches I've seen were similar, in that the stem portion simply had to be wiggled into the soft soil. No dirt was removed, and no pointy object was used. Personally, I think sprinkler head caches are horrible ideas, as I feel they lead to folks disassembling real sprinklers, but I'm not convinced they are automatic violations. Again, with Ecylram's list, it is unclear from the description whether or not those should be archived. It gets a little clearer with the holes drilled in trees caches listed. What mook would drill a hole in a tree? And yet, if I created one of these in my front yard, and described in detail how it was made so there was no doubt in the Reviewer's eyes that a hole was drilled into a living tree, I could probably get it published. After all, it's my tree. Finally, the hole in the ground caches. In Ecylram's description, he doesn't mention whether or not the owner utilized an existing hole. As I understand it, if I hide a cache in a natural depression, it does not violate the guidelines.

 

While Ecylram's list gives great examples of terrible cache hides, there are potential exceptions which could make each of those types legal, from a Reviewer standpoint.

Exceptions = grey areas.

 

good points all. something to think about.

[+Ecylram]

The guidelines are not grey. All those caches should be archived.

I think a blanket statement like this bears scrutiny. From where I sit, the guidelines do have some grey areas. Not just in interpretation, but in practice as well. Looking at the list prepared by Ecylram, I don't see a single one that should be archived, based on just those descriptions. For instance, we know that bridges are not entirely verboten. Only those bridges that might make a handy terrorist target, or otherwise cause undue alarm were a cache to be hidden there. Quaint little bridges along country lanes seem to be perfectly OK for hiding near. It is unclear from the descriptions Ecylram posted what kind of bridges were involved in these hides. It is also unclear if sprinkler head caches actually violate the buried guideline. I've seen Reviewers in this forum opine that wiggling a container into leaf litter or soft soil is OK, so long as it's not completely covered. The sprinkler head caches I've seen were similar, in that the stem portion simply had to be wiggled into the soft soil. No dirt was removed, and no pointy object was used. Personally, I think sprinkler head caches are horrible ideas, as I feel they lead to folks disassembling real sprinklers, but I'm not convinced they are automatic violations. Again, with Ecylram's list, it is unclear from the description whether or not those should be archived. It gets a little clearer with the holes drilled in trees caches listed. What mook would drill a hole in a tree? And yet, if I created one of these in my front yard, and described in detail how it was made so there was no doubt in the Reviewer's eyes that a hole was drilled into a living tree, I could probably get it published. After all, it's my tree. Finally, the hole in the ground caches. In Ecylram's description, he doesn't mention whether or not the owner utilized an existing hole. As I understand it, if I hide a cache in a natural depression, it does not violate the guidelines.

 

While Ecylram's list gives great examples of terrible cache hides, there are potential exceptions which could make each of those types legal, from a Reviewer standpoint.

Exceptions = grey areas.

 

good points all. something to think about.

 

Clan Riffster is exactly right in what he wrote.

 

All the caches I mentioned have not raised any alarm but someone with a zero tolerance policy, and not a lot of reason, could choose to file an NA. Problem is, I know at least one of those sprinkler heads made use of the existing terrain. As for the holes in trees, one was a dead tree and at least one probably made use of an existing hole for their hide. As for the bridges, you can argue that at least some of them aren't an issue for various reasons. That list of caches has about two dozen accumulated favorite votes.

 

Because I don't know the circumstances of a hide when it was made, I'm not going to issue an NA for what I believe to be technical violation if I don't see any problem being caused. Some caches that look like technical violations, might be in full compliance.

[+CluelessnLuV]

It's been bothering us for a while and i think now i am going to check with the reviewer on one cache hide - actually it's second stage - it's literally hidden in the bridge support... bridge carries 4 lanes of vehicle traffic - VA State route to boot. Below it is a perfectly legitimate walking trail, but you do have to walk up the rocks to the hiding spot in the supports of it, which could, in this day and age, seem suspicious to muggles and have lots of authorities alerted. (Witnessed all kinds of mess when someone left a briefcase next to bridge pillars carrying state route 60 in PA a couple years back) This 2nd stage container is an ammo can...

What makes matters worse this cache is by the CO who has had that "regular" cache with coords 300 ft off... (Any of you forum watchers remember that) and he already got reprimanded for that. ANd just recently his other cache that evidently had exception granted, got just archived for being too close to the RR tracks... I don't want this person to have so many bad things happen to their caches all at once... Never know - he either might go on rampage and start taking out other's caches, or just get very upset and never cache again. THe hides are creative but they really are pushing many boundaries...

Edited June 9, 2011 by CluelessnLuV

[+CluelessnLuV]

Hmmm - just looked up at the sattelite image of the place... Looks to be only 2 lane bridge... Still a State Route... Oh what to do what to do... I just don't want the CO to get into trouble with authorities either... I'll let it be for now and see what the majority of the communtiy would suggest...

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Hmmm - just looked up at the sattelite image of the place... Looks to be only 2 lane bridge... Still a State Route... Oh what to do what to do... I just don't want the CO to get into trouble with authorities either... I'll let it be for now and see what the majority of the communtiy would suggest...

 

If it's a multi, the CO has to supply the reviewer with the coordinates for each stage of the multi. Assuming the stage is hidden at those coordinates, the reviewer would be able to see the same thing you see...a two lane bridge along a state route highway and he/she found it acceptable.

[+CluelessnLuV]

Hmmm - just looked up at the sattelite image of the place... Looks to be only 2 lane bridge... Still a State Route... Oh what to do what to do... I just don't want the CO to get into trouble with authorities either... I'll let it be for now and see what the majority of the communtiy would suggest...

 

If it's a multi, the CO has to supply the reviewer with the coordinates for each stage of the multi. Assuming the stage is hidden at those coordinates, the reviewer would be able to see the same thing you see...a two lane bridge along a state route highway and he/she found it acceptable.

Actually this CO has been known to modify coords after posting the caches and getting them activated.

[+NeverSummer]

Isn't "Needs Reviewer Attention" the same as going to the publish log and emailing the Reviewer if there is an issue? Or perhaps knowing who the reviewers are for the area?

 

The geocaching.com cache placement guidelines state that the cache listing and placement are the responsibility of the placer, not the reviewer. The reviewer REVIEWS caches to double check that the placement fits GC.com guidelines. From there, why bother getting undies in a bundle about a cache listing service provided by Groundspeak?

 

If someone posts a NA log, great. That means that it (98% of the time) needs to be looked over again to see if it a) meets guidelines and/or b ) is still there.

 

Needs Maintenance logs are great to let an owner know that their cache is wet, needs a new log, is damaged, lost or stolen, etc... The hope is that the owner will follow their responsibility for their listing and cache (as denoted by the checkbox they had to check at the time of cache reporting). You'd HOPE that an owner gets to it. They might not. So another cacher might help. God bless them. Or nothing happens. Then a NA can be warranted.

 

It's nothing worth getting upset about. It is a way to communicate that there might be an issue with a cache. And if some sockpuppet abuses the system, you can delete the log, email your review that all is well, post an Owner Maintenance log to clear up the confusion, and MOVE ON.

 

Edited June 9, 2011 by NeverSummer

[jholly]

Isn't "Needs Reviewer Attention" the same as going to the publish log and emailing the Reviewer if there is an issue? Or perhaps knowing who the reviewers are for the area?

No, the Needs Reviewer Attention log goes to the queue for the reviewers in the area. The one that published the listing might not be an active reviewer anymore.

[Pup Patrol]

Posting a "needs archived" log on the cache page is public, emailing a reviewer is private.

 

One is a possible angst/angry communication magnet. Some cache owners might not be too pleasant to the reporter.

 

Emailing the reviewer can be less stressful, less dramatic. Private communication with the reviewer might result in the reporter discovering that the reviewer and the cache owner have already communicated, for example.

[+NeverSummer]

Isn't "Needs Reviewer Attention" the same as going to the publish log and emailing the Reviewer if there is an issue? Or perhaps knowing who the reviewers are for the area?

No, the Needs Reviewer Attention log goes to the queue for the reviewers in the area. The one that published the listing might not be an active reviewer anymore.

Erm, ok, but a "Needs Archived" log DOES notify the local reviewer, no? Sooo...if it ain't broke...

[+NeverSummer]

Posting a "needs archived" log on the cache page is public, emailing a reviewer is private.

 

One is a possible angst/angry communication magnet. Some cache owners might not be too pleasant to the reporter.

 

Emailing the reviewer can be less stressful, less dramatic. Private communication with the reviewer might result in the reporter discovering that the reviewer and the cache owner have already communicated, for example.

Yup.

A swiss-army knife of options. Still, thick skin is an underestimated tool too. A "Needs Archived" log doesn't need to be looked at as a passive-aggressive tool. It is a reporting tool for the community. I've had NA logs on my caches...so I looked into it, chatted with the reviewer and in some cases made adjustments to keep it on. In other cases, the log was deleted because someone didn't "use it properly" and the reviewer contacted me to check. (A cache that wasn't missing was "missing", so instead of a DNF log, they "NA" logged it).

 

We cache owners are responsible for our listings and placements. It's like having kids. Not going to be at home? Get a babysitter. Can't feed them or clothe them? Someone reports you and the authorities come on in. Can this make you mad? Sure. But if you ARE taking care of them and the authorities ask what's up, you show them the truth and it's a done deal. On with life.

[+dorqie]

That stinks. There should be a guideline to keep those that lack integrity from abusing the system.

 

When a NA is issued the reviewer will take a look at it. If the NA is warranted it will be archived. If it is not warranted it will be ignored. The system works well as far as this is concerned. While people may abuse the system, their abuse will have no effect. Someone happened to post unwarranted NAs on several of my caches this week. Those caches are still listed.

 

Same thing happened to me last week. I only have one hide and it's only been out for about 3 weeks now. But a couple of days ago I get a "needs archived" log. The guy who posted it only registered last week and is in Maryland (I'm in Louisiana) so how in the world would he know anything about my cache? He gave no reason why the cache should be archived.

 

Of course, I'm willing to assume that he maybe punched in the wrong GC code while logging caches, and that it was just a typo.

 

What should a CO do when such a log is posted? Just delete it? Because that's what I did because I know it's bogus. (I did go and check on the cache today just to make sure)

 

I also noted that the cache log contains a couple of finds I didn't know about, i.e., they were never logged online. Judging by their places on the log, the finds were made a couple of weeks ago, probably. Is this fairly common, people who sign the physical log but don't log it online? Or maybe just a case of procrastination?

 

Speaking to the not logging online matter, not everyone really cares to log online. Some of us don't care as much about the numbers. I used to live in Arizona, but you can't tell from my caching history. I never bothered to log online anything I found down there.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ask yourself is the cache itself, i.e., the container holding the log buried? Does one need a pointy object to retrieve the container? If the answer is no then your probably entering a twilight area that has lots of grey. I've pulled lots of containers out of pipes that were in the ground. Would I post a NA? No, first of all because I can not say for certain how the pipe was placed in the ground and by who, and secondly because I did not have to dig to retrieve the container. We are dealing with guidelines, not rules, interpretation and exceptions do count for a lot.

 

You will find that there are reviewers who will archive caches where a PVC pipe has been out into the ground. Whether the cache itself is underground is not relevant. The use of 'pointy object' is not just for retrieving the cache, but also for the original hide.

[+d+n.s]

I don't know why people are trying to make the OP into a "rules lawyer" or something. We have guidelines for a lot of stuff. Explaining to users what a NA is and why they should use it doesn't seem out of line... see a lot of threads here that ask about it and I see a lot of OTHER threads where "did you read the guidelines?" is an acceptable response.

I think a simple set of GUIDELINES (not rules) makes sense, even if I don't personally need them.

 

If nothing else, I don't know why the onus of understanding when to bother reviewers should fall on the reviewers themselves.

 

But making it a requirement? That's something I would fight tooth & nail.

Werd! You'll have my axe.

 

It makes complete sense to wait until you have found some caches before you hide them, but I would rather have people out there having fun and learning as they go. Personally, I don't have any issues finding caches I like, and it's confusing that so many people manage to accidentally find so many P&Gs if they hate them. The severity of the issue seems overstated.

 

On the inverse, owning a cache makes you a much better cacher IMO. but again, it shouldn't be a requirement either.

Edited June 9, 2011 by d+n.s

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Hmmm - just looked up at the sattelite image of the place... Looks to be only 2 lane bridge... Still a State Route... Oh what to do what to do... I just don't want the CO to get into trouble with authorities either... I'll let it be for now and see what the majority of the communtiy would suggest...

 

If it's a multi, the CO has to supply the reviewer with the coordinates for each stage of the multi. Assuming the stage is hidden at those coordinates, the reviewer would be able to see the same thing you see...a two lane bridge along a state route highway and he/she found it acceptable.

Actually this CO has been known to modify coords after posting the caches and getting them activated.

 

In that case, I'd definitely get the reviewer involved. I've seen that same sort of trickery and the caches were archived quickly because of it.

[+Coldgears]

I know people that have thousands of finds that still stick film cans in a light post.

At that point, they are doing it because they probably like LPC's themselves. I can't imagine after 1,000 finds they didn't find at least one creative cache yet.

[+JL_HSTRE]

My personal "rules" for posting a Needs Archived log:

 

1 ) The cache is significantly violating a guideline, and its continued existence could be a detriment to our hobby.

 

Failing that, I have a three stage mental process I go through:

 

1 ) The cache has some serious maintenance issues.

2 ) The owner is MIA.

3 ) The community is unwilling/unable to informally adopt the cache.

 

If I don't see the first one, and I don't see the other three combined, I choose a different log type.

 

I pretty much agree with Riffster's comment.

 

I would add that "serious maintenance issue" includes "you very strongly feel the container is missing".

[+JL_HSTRE]

If you see a cache that is in a gray area of the guidelines, you feel the cache is "wrong" somehow yet can't place your finger on where it violates the guidelines, or you worry a NA log will incur hate/revenge/grudge against you and/or your caches by the CO then sent a message to the Reviewer who published the cache rather than the NA log. Include photos of the area and/or cache so it's very clear to the Reviewer what the perceived issue is and they can make a full educated decision about whether or not to Archive the cache.

[Clan Riffster]

Good advice. I was going to question your earlier suggestion that believing a cache to be missing qualifies as a reason to log a NA, as I believe that actually finding the cache, or at least a part of it, is a prerequisite to determining if it's actually damaged and not simply well hidden, but I see where exceptions could be made to my way of thinking. If I get to ground zero of a 1.5/1.5, and the hint is "In a stump", and there's only one stump within a half mile radius, and it has an ammo can shaped impression inside it, I can make a fairly educated guess that it is gone. If the owner is MIA, that's a pretty good indicator that they are not going to replace it. Maybe a NA would be appropriate. The one argument I will retain is my belief that the NA should actually come from someone who actually went to ground zero. It really proms my poush when someone half a continent away logs a NA on a cache due to information left by others.

[+Don_J]

Isn't "Needs Reviewer Attention" the same as going to the publish log and emailing the Reviewer if there is an issue? Or perhaps knowing who the reviewers are for the area?

No, the Needs Reviewer Attention log goes to the queue for the reviewers in the area. The one that published the listing might not be an active reviewer anymore.

 

This is my biggest issue with emailing a specific reviewer. It puts the onus directly upon that reviewer. They could be sick, on vacation, dealing with a family emergency, etc. My state has five reviewers. Typically two handle my area, but if one needs to step back for a moment, one of the other three will help out. Posting a NA puts it out there for all of them to see.

 

Of course, a large amount of angst could be avoided by changing Needs Archive, (which sounds antagonistic), to Needs Reviewer Attention, something that Groundspeak agreed to do over nine months ago.

[+ras_oscar]

Back on topic: I post a NA only when I can describe in a sucinct manner the reasons why it should be archived. I've only done it once, when a locaL cache was taken offline by the CO for 12 months.