Jump to content

Why has my cache has been archived


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I have had a cache archived by a reviewer after a complaint by a geocacher, despite the fact I have maintained it only very recently. and what is even more anoying is the reviewer has so far not responded to any messages.

 

AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh How annoying surely caches should be disabled first pending archiving if the issue cannot be resolved, what sort of dictatorship is this.

 

How do I esculate this if I get no answer?

 

Regards

 

TeaMasH

Link to comment

I have had a cache archived by a reviewer after a complaint by a geocacher, despite the fact I have maintained it only very recently. and what is even more anoying is the reviewer has so far not responded to any messages.

 

AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh How annoying surely caches should be disabled first pending archiving if the issue cannot be resolved, what sort of dictatorship is this.

 

How do I esculate this if I get no answer?

 

Regards

 

TeaMasH

 

Kind of depends what the complaint was, caches get archived for all sorts of reasons - not only lack of maintenance.

 

I expect there'll be a reveiwer along soon (we've got enough of them now!).

Link to comment

I assume your talking about GC1BZ1Z although this was actualy archived 3 weeks ago? 10 days from a NM to being archived does seem a bit of a quick turnaround but I gather the mention of syringes at GZ has prompted the speedy action and the jump straight to archiving rarther than disabling.

Edited by Raver Dave
Link to comment

I have had a cache archived by a reviewer after a complaint by a geocacher, despite the fact I have maintained it only very recently. and what is even more anoying is the reviewer has so far not responded to any messages.

 

AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh How annoying surely caches should be disabled first pending archiving if the issue cannot be resolved, what sort of dictatorship is this.

 

How do I esculate this if I get no answer?

 

Regards

 

TeaMasH

 

The reason for archiving is explained exceptionally clearly in the cache logs. I think your cries of 'dictatorship' are not called for.

 

Mark

Link to comment

I think that I am not glued to my computer every minute of the day, disabling the cache and an e-mail would have been more productive as I could have visited the site assessed the situation again and made adjustments if necessary. I do have a great deal of experience of public health and safety and would not have compromised that for a cache hide. (and i know a reviewer does not know anything about me) however, disabling would have been the preferred action, and answering my e-mails would have been a polite action.

 

As for using the word dictatorship please explorer the definition.

 

I am annoyed at the course of events and believe I have not been rude. However if anybody is offended please let me know. Otherwise you need to get out more.

Edited by TeaMash
Link to comment

Ok as the Reviewer involved, I'll deal with the different issues one at a time

 

The lack of reply to your email. Currently I've got a 100+ email backlog, this is down from over 300+. I've been actioning older emails first. As yours was made after the cache was Archived on the 19th April, you'll gather that yours has a shorter date to it than others. As to why the backlog, I'm my Families Carer, and at Christmas time my Mother fell ill, which meant I've been shuttling back and forth to take her to appointments and shopping (that's a hour and a half drive down the M56 each way). In March she had a extremely sever reaction to newly prescribed tablets (by extreme I mean she had 3 out of 4 of the very rarest of the listed reactions, plus a number of other listed reactions). That resulted in me rushing down to help her and a stay of several days with no Net access at all. So the emails backed up even further. I'm now in a position of catching up with the emails, and in fact have been putting in a hour a day on just clearing out that backlog.

 

Now for your cache. I consider Needs Maintenance log to be the Geocaching equivalent of a Yellow Card, a Needs Archiving log to be a Red card. Reviewers are not copied in on NM logs, but are on NA logs. Even then I leave at least a 7 day period before looking at a Na LOG, to allow a CO to take action, what's looked for is

 

A Owner Note in regards to the Maintenance of the cache

A Physical Owner Maintenance Visit to the cache

The Owner Voluntarily Archives the cache.

 

Failure to perform one of the listed affirmative actions when the Needs Archiving Log is reviewed (and please remember that Reviewers can not read minds) will result in the cache being Archived for Non Maintenance

 

Time line for your cache!

 

You personally Disabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

You personally Enabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

Needs maintenance Log 08/Apr/2011 (which you did not log a Owner Maintenance log in reply to)

Found Log 10/Apr/2011 which stated "Right on the money with this one. Though please exercise caution at GZ.Dont just launch your hand in. Lotts of broken glass torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide. FOR WARNED IS FOR ARMED"

Needs Archived Log 11/Apr/2011

Archive Log 19/Apr/2011 (Note that's 7 days after the NA log came in) which stated "As the Cache Owner has failed to action a Needs Archiving Log, I'm Archiving this cache for Non Maintenance.Please avoid geolitter by removing any remaining traces of your cache or contact a local cacher to do so for you. If you are having difficulty doing so then please contact me via my profile and I will try to get someone to assist. This is particularly important if your cache appears to contain Travelbugs or Geocoins.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer"

 

As can be seen from the above time line, the the cache was actioned following a set procedure and was not Archived on a whim.

 

I've made the following post several times, put this is worth repeating again

 

Ok this comes from a mixture of the Guidelines and personal experience both as a Reviewer and as a Member :o

 

Caches should only be Disabled for a short period, but if the owner keeps everyone updated by posting a note the cache every 6-8 weeks explaining what's happening that period can be extensive ie: access issues due to forestry work, Building Work or even Illness come to mind.

 

After many DNF's the owner should Disable it to allow a Maintenance visit to be paid. We're not talking after one or 2 ;) but a large No indicates that there is a issue which needs looking into.

 

Caches Disabled for extended periods where the owner has not post a genuine reason risks having the cache Archived.

 

Warning system to owners :o .

 

A Needs Maintenance Visit log should flag up to a owner that there is a issue that needs quickly seeing to. It should be considered a Yellow Card :D as Reviewers aren't copied the log.

 

Needs Archiving [sBA (the wording has been changed)] this should be considered a Red Card Final Warning by cache owners, as Reviewers are copied in on this Log Type. Owners who have not logged in for a extended period can reasonably expect to have it Archived Immediately on the Grounds that it has been Abandoned. In other cases it's on a case by case basis. I've seen NA logs made by mistake :D, and not always by new cachers :D

 

If your aware of a cache with Issues, which you do not fell needs a Needs Archiving Log being immediately made to it should receive a Needs Maintenance log. If after 4 weeks the owner has not actioned the log, then post a Needs Archiving log. The owner can't complain that they haven't received fair warning.

 

If your aware of issues with a cache ie: Multiple DNF's, extended Disabled without good reason. Needs Maintenance ignored. But do not wish to post a needs Maintenance or Needs Archiving log, please feel free to contact me or my colleagues directly. We [well i] won't shout or bite :P

 

Both the Needs Maintenance and Needs Archiving log types are for Members to flag up issues with other members caches to the owners. and in the case of Needs Archiving to Reviewers as well.

 

Removal of Needs Maintenance Icons, the cache owner has to post a Owner Maintenance log. This log type should only be used after the owner has physically visited the cache location, maintained the cache and enabled it if needed. The use of this log type for any other purpose should be flagged back up with another Needs Maintenance log or by contacting one of the Reviewers. The Needs Maintenance Icon can not be removed by deleting the NM log [something I've seen happen to hide the fact that the cache needed urgent maintenance] , if you make a NM log and the cache owner deletes it without Maintaining the cache. Please post a Needs Archiving log or again make direct contact with a Reviewer.

 

As I have stated the above is a mixture of the Guidelines and personal experience, but above all it's based on common sense :D

 

Deci

 

Please note a partial post was submitted by accident due to Fat Finger Syndrome :anicute:

Edited by Deceangi
Link to comment

Many thanks for you actions, as I have eluded to previously nobody is full aware of everybodys personal circumstances and time is given freely, but there has to be some continutity and consistency.

 

For my part, now that the cache is disabled I will visit the site and look at cito'ing myself, I have always checked on this site and have cleared many chip papers from it, there has been no broken glass at any time. I can imagine that the syringes where alarming even though they where clean and still wrapped up. I will however amend some of the instructions and look at minor relocation of the cache if looks like the site is becoming a further mess in the future

Link to comment

Many thanks for you actions, as I have eluded to previously nobody is full aware of everybodys personal circumstances and time is given freely, but there has to be some continutity and consistency.

 

There is, he explained the procedure and it was followed to the letter.

 

Personally I don't think reviewers should be under any obliagation to justify what they are doing in their personal lives.

Link to comment

Ok as the Reviewer involved, I'll deal with the different issues one at a time

 

The lack of reply to your email. Currently I've got a 100+ email backlog, this is down from over 300+.

 

Now for your cache. I consider Needs Maintenance log to be the Geocaching equivalent of a Yellow Card, a Needs Archiving log to be a Red card. Reviewers are not copied in on NM logs, but are on NA logs. Even then I leave at least a 7 day period before looking at a Na LOG, to allow a CO to take action, what's looked for is

 

A Owner Note in regards to the Maintenance of the cache

A Physical Owner Maintenance Visit to the cache

The Owner Voluntarily Archives the cache.

 

Failure to perform one of the listed affirmative actions when the Needs Archiving Log is reviewed (and please remember that Reviewers can not read minds) will result in the cache being Archived for Non Maintenance

 

Time line for your cache!

 

You personally Disabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

You personally Enabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

Needs maintenance Log 08/Apr/2011 (which you did not log a Owner Maintenance log in reply to)

Found Log 10/Apr/2011 which stated "Right on the money with this one. Though please exercise caution at GZ.Dont just launch your hand in. Lotts of broken glass torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide. FOR WARNED IS FOR ARMED"

Needs Archived Log 11/Apr/2011

Archive Log 19/Apr/2011 (Note that's 7 days after the NA log came in) which stated "As the Cache Owner has failed to action a Needs Archiving Log, I'm Archiving this cache for Non Maintenance.Please avoid geolitter by removing any remaining traces of your cache or contact a local cacher to do so for you. If you are having difficulty doing so then please contact me via my profile and I will try to get someone to assist. This is particularly important if your cache appears to contain Travelbugs or Geocoins.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer"

 

 

with all due respect for the job you do as a reviewer, your 7 day grace period is unrealistic

 

as we are not supposed to expect the reviewers to "live" on GC or rather treated as a full time job, you can't expect someone to drop everything and go check on their cache in 7 days, your own email lag shows that you may be behind more than 7 days

 

disabling the cache at first and allowing reasonable time(1 month where i am) for the CO to take proper action would have been more appropriate rather than just hitting the "archived" button and getting it off your list

Link to comment

7 days just seem a little quick... many of us take 2 week vacations, where maintaining a cache back home would be a tad difficult to do... and I'm still old school and don't check email or here when on vacation!

 

Maybe a "needs archived" could, as well as alerting cache owner and reviewer... also disable the cache?

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

7 days just seem a little quick... many of us take 2 week vacations, where maintaining a cache back home would be a tad difficult to do... and I'm still old school and don't check email or here when on vacation!

 

Maybe a "needs archived" could, as well as alerting cache owner and reviewer... also disable the cache?

 

The reviewer didn't know the needles were 'clean and still wrapped up'. What if they weren't (or if next time they're used ones)? Without going into too much detail, that could be putting someone at risk of getting scratched and contaminated by a variety of very nasty diseases (I'm sure you know what I mean). Imagine someone having to get their child checked out after something like that? Really not worth it. They're not the kind of hazards geocachers should be dealing with to find a cache.

Link to comment

Wow, I can't believe a cache owner would place a cache where he KNOWS there are syringes. Yeah, they may have been "clean and unused" at the time, but the fact that they're there indicates to me something is going on in the area.

 

This surprised me as well!

 

Sometimes areas deteriorate after placing a cache, but to be honest, there's no excuse for placing a new cache or hanging onto an existing cache cache in a grotty area.

 

We placed a short series of caches on a pleasant footpath in the countryside with nice views. We had nothing but good logs on them, but when we went to check on them one evening a large farm building had been built near the path between two of them.

It didn't block the path or affect the caches in anyway but the walk was now not as nice as when we placed the caches a couple of years earlier so we archived them.

 

Mark

Link to comment

Ok as the Reviewer involved, I'll deal with the different issues one at a time

 

The lack of reply to your email. Currently I've got a 100+ email backlog, this is down from over 300+.

 

Now for your cache. I consider Needs Maintenance log to be the Geocaching equivalent of a Yellow Card, a Needs Archiving log to be a Red card. Reviewers are not copied in on NM logs, but are on NA logs. Even then I leave at least a 7 day period before looking at a Na LOG, to allow a CO to take action, what's looked for is

 

A Owner Note in regards to the Maintenance of the cache

A Physical Owner Maintenance Visit to the cache

The Owner Voluntarily Archives the cache.

 

Failure to perform one of the listed affirmative actions when the Needs Archiving Log is reviewed (and please remember that Reviewers can not read minds) will result in the cache being Archived for Non Maintenance

 

Time line for your cache!

 

You personally Disabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

You personally Enabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

Needs maintenance Log 08/Apr/2011 (which you did not log a Owner Maintenance log in reply to)

Found Log 10/Apr/2011 which stated "Right on the money with this one. Though please exercise caution at GZ.Dont just launch your hand in. Lotts of broken glass torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide. FOR WARNED IS FOR ARMED"

Needs Archived Log 11/Apr/2011

Archive Log 19/Apr/2011 (Note that's 7 days after the NA log came in) which stated "As the Cache Owner has failed to action a Needs Archiving Log, I'm Archiving this cache for Non Maintenance.Please avoid geolitter by removing any remaining traces of your cache or contact a local cacher to do so for you. If you are having difficulty doing so then please contact me via my profile and I will try to get someone to assist. This is particularly important if your cache appears to contain Travelbugs or Geocoins.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer"

 

 

with all due respect for the job you do as a reviewer, your 7 day grace period is unrealistic

 

as we are not supposed to expect the reviewers to "live" on GC or rather treated as a full time job, you can't expect someone to drop everything and go check on their cache in 7 days, your own email lag shows that you may be behind more than 7 days

 

disabling the cache at first and allowing reasonable time(1 month where i am) for the CO to take proper action would have been more appropriate rather than just hitting the "archived" button and getting it off your list

 

I'd be interested to hear your views on waiting one month to archive the cache, if you'd been jabbed by one of the needles in the meantime. I write as someone who spent a very jolly 3 hours plus in A + E (then a good few weeks of worry) after being bitten by someone with hepatitus. No one expects you to be on the computer 24/7, but the reviewer was acting in the way he thought best for the safety of others. But yet again, they are damned if they and do and damned if they don't.

Link to comment

Wow, I can't believe a cache owner would place a cache where he KNOWS there are syringes. Yeah, they may have been "clean and unused" at the time, but the fact that they're there indicates to me something is going on in the area.

 

what did i miss, where you got the that from?

 

 

I'd be interested to hear your views on waiting one month to archive the cache, if you'd been jabbed by one of the needles in the meantime. I write as someone who spent a very jolly 3 hours plus in A + E (then a good few weeks of worry) after being bitten by someone with hepatitus. No one expects you to be on the computer 24/7, but the reviewer was acting in the way he thought best for the safety of others. But yet again, they are damned if they and do and damned if they don't.

 

and you got jabbed in the first place because?

i'm sorry but if you didn't learn one of the most important rules in geocaching (mind you is a general rulle too) "don't stick your hands in dark places" you have yourself to blame only

furthermore if you saw the needle and chose to go ahead and get the container, you still have yourself to blame...the lure of that smilie must have impaired your common sense and judgement

 

so, yes, while its not good to have syringes at GZ how on Earth do you get jabbed unless you deliberately and carelessly handle one?

 

just typical attitude...i'm gonna be careless and if something happens i blame someone else...

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

so, yes, while its not good to have syringes at GZ how on Earth do you get jabbed unless you deliberately and carelessly handle one?

 

With out knowing what kind of area GZ is can only generalise, but they may be in long grass or under a bush, they get covered by something else dumped on site?

 

As you say if people see the needles they will act accordingly, it's those that don't see them for reasons above or a multitude of others that may end up getting pricked by one.

Link to comment

Ok as the Reviewer involved, I'll deal with the different issues one at a time

 

The lack of reply to your email. Currently I've got a 100+ email backlog, this is down from over 300+.

 

Now for your cache. I consider Needs Maintenance log to be the Geocaching equivalent of a Yellow Card, a Needs Archiving log to be a Red card. Reviewers are not copied in on NM logs, but are on NA logs. Even then I leave at least a 7 day period before looking at a Na LOG, to allow a CO to take action, what's looked for is

 

A Owner Note in regards to the Maintenance of the cache

A Physical Owner Maintenance Visit to the cache

The Owner Voluntarily Archives the cache.

 

Failure to perform one of the listed affirmative actions when the Needs Archiving Log is reviewed (and please remember that Reviewers can not read minds) will result in the cache being Archived for Non Maintenance

 

Time line for your cache!

 

You personally Disabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

You personally Enabled it on the 27/Mar/2011

Needs maintenance Log 08/Apr/2011 (which you did not log a Owner Maintenance log in reply to)

Found Log 10/Apr/2011 which stated "Right on the money with this one. Though please exercise caution at GZ.Dont just launch your hand in. Lotts of broken glass torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide. FOR WARNED IS FOR ARMED"

Needs Archived Log 11/Apr/2011

Archive Log 19/Apr/2011 (Note that's 7 days after the NA log came in) which stated "As the Cache Owner has failed to action a Needs Archiving Log, I'm Archiving this cache for Non Maintenance.Please avoid geolitter by removing any remaining traces of your cache or contact a local cacher to do so for you. If you are having difficulty doing so then please contact me via my profile and I will try to get someone to assist. This is particularly important if your cache appears to contain Travelbugs or Geocoins.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer"

 

 

with all due respect for the job you do as a reviewer, your 7 day grace period is unrealistic

 

as we are not supposed to expect the reviewers to "live" on GC or rather treated as a full time job, you can't expect someone to drop everything and go check on their cache in 7 days, your own email lag shows that you may be behind more than 7 days

 

disabling the cache at first and allowing reasonable time(1 month where i am) for the CO to take proper action would have been more appropriate rather than just hitting the "archived" button and getting it off your list

 

The first option I listed for CO's was

A Owner Note in regards to the Maintenance of the cache

 

I do not consider a 7 day grace period in which to just post a Owner Note to a cache unreasonable. That takes 2 minutes, I do not action NA logs, when a Cache Owner posts a Owner Note as that shows that the cache is being dealt with. Neither do I action NA logs which are not genuine NA logs, examples being wrong log type by accident, or malicious logs (and yes it does occasionally happen). And as I've already pointed out, I consider a Needs Maintenance log as a Yellow card Warning. Very few Needs Arching logs are made to caches which do not have at least one NM log, so the Owner has already had a warning in each case.

 

I normally action NA logs after 7 days, but in fact it can be 8/9/10 day lead in period, several times there have been over 20 day lead in, and apart from those caches which had a owner note the day the NA log was made, every cache ended up being Archived. So sorry, my personal experience has been that if a Cache owner does not immediately act in regards to a NA log, it's generally not actioned in any sort of way.

 

t4e have a look at the Avatar for Nick & Ali, he doesn't have a Policeman for the fun of it, he happens to be a serving Police Officer. And did state he'd been "bitten by someone"

 

Deci

Link to comment

 

I do not consider a 7 day grace period in which to just post a Owner Note to a cache unreasonable. That takes 2 minutes, I do not action NA logs, when a Cache Owner posts a Owner Note as that shows that the cache is being dealt with. Neither do I action NA logs which are not genuine NA logs, examples being wrong log type by accident, or malicious logs (and yes it does occasionally happen). And as I've already pointed out, I consider a Needs Maintenance log as a Yellow card Warning. Very few Needs Arching logs are made to caches which do not have at least one NM log, so the Owner has already had a warning in each case.

 

I normally action NA logs after 7 days, but in fact it can be 8/9/10 day lead in period, several times there have been over 20 day lead in, and apart from those caches which had a owner note the day the NA log was made, every cache ended up being Archived. So sorry, my personal experience has been that if a Cache owner does not immediately act in regards to a NA log, it's generally not actioned in any sort of way.

 

t4e have a look at the Avatar for Nick & Ali, he doesn't have a Policeman for the fun of it, he happens to be a serving Police Officer. And did state he'd been "bitten by someone"

 

Deci

 

takes 2 minutes if you are home or some place with internet access, so if i'm in nomansland on vacation for 2 weeks i can come home to all my caches being archived and having no chance to do anything about it...makes me really appreciative of the reviewers in my area

 

i'm sorry, i don't see what connection has being bitten by someone with being pricked by syringes

 

not to take away from his traumatic experience, but the situation is totally unrelated to geocaching, besides the job does expose them to that sort of danger

 

all i'm saying is that there are very few situations where someone else can be blamed for our mishaps due to negligence, most times is our own fault for not paying attention to our surroundings and exercising good judgement

Link to comment

 

takes 2 minutes if you are home or some place with internet access, so if i'm in nomansland on vacation for 2 weeks i can come home to all my caches being archived and having no chance to do anything about it...makes me really appreciative of the reviewers in my area

 

i'm sorry, i don't see what connection has being bitten by someone with being pricked by syringes

 

not to take away from his traumatic experience, but the situation is totally unrelated to geocaching, besides the job does expose them to that sort of danger

 

all i'm saying is that there are very few situations where someone else can be blamed for our mishaps due to negligence, most times is our own fault for not paying attention to our surroundings and exercising good judgement

 

As I put in my last post, used syringes could be contaminated. One of the diseases they could carry is hepatitis, but another is HIV (similar testing - in that there is a long wait to get the results. I know this because my sister had to get tested after nursing/caring in an orphanage in Romania.) Children are allowed to cache, you know, and their parents don't have to scrutinize their every move to be safe. A child could brush their hand against a sharp edge, thinking they are well clear. If needles are found outdoors like that, there's a fair chance they're shared, and also a fair chance they might carry HIV. (Where do people get money for drugs...?)

Link to comment

The connection is the stuff you can pick up from syringes and I used my case (perhaps a bit dramatic) to highlight the fact it's not too nice. You're 100% right about not sticking fingers where your eyes can't see, but try explaining that to an excited 5 yr old. In addition, then put yourself in the reviewers position of having been forwarned of the problems but not taking sufficient action. Irrespective of the disclaimer, I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

Link to comment

I find it amazing that Deci is having to justify his position ????? :blink: Surely common sense dictates that a cache in an area like this is unsuitable and doing something about it is just common courtesy. When one of my caches found itself on the other side of a dogs toilet I did something about it PDQ as the last thing I wanted was cachers having to walk through that.

Link to comment

I find it amazing that Deci is having to justify his position ????? :blink: Surely common sense dictates that a cache in an area like this is unsuitable and doing something about it is just common courtesy. When one of my caches found itself on the other side of a dogs toilet I did something about it PDQ as the last thing I wanted was cachers having to walk through that.

A new cache 'local' to me has this in the description:

... take care when getting this cache and don't slip, also mind the dog poo around there seems to be lots in the area (bad owners)..

(My bold)

 

It's part of a series, but WHY place a cache there?

Link to comment

 

takes 2 minutes if you are home or some place with internet access, so if i'm in nomansland on vacation for 2 weeks i can come home to all my caches being archived and having no chance to do anything about it...makes me really appreciative of the reviewers in my area

 

i'm sorry, i don't see what connection has being bitten by someone with being pricked by syringes

 

not to take away from his traumatic experience, but the situation is totally unrelated to geocaching, besides the job does expose them to that sort of danger

 

all i'm saying is that there are very few situations where someone else can be blamed for our mishaps due to negligence, most times is our own fault for not paying attention to our surroundings and exercising good judgement

 

As I put in my last post, used syringes could be contaminated. One of the diseases they could carry is hepatitis, but another is HIV (similar testing - in that there is a long wait to get the results. I know this because my sister had to get tested after nursing/caring in an orphanage in Romania.) Children are allowed to cache, you know, and their parents don't have to scrutinize their every move to be safe. A child could brush their hand against a sharp edge, thinking they are well clear. If needles are found outdoors like that, there's a fair chance they're shared, and also a fair chance they might carry HIV. (Where do people get money for drugs...?)

 

 

you don't get HIV in the situation you're describing,

 

unfortunately in this day and age things are much more complicated than they were when i grew up, so consequently parents and all of us in general should exercise extra care

 

my point is that unless someone intentionally places the cache in a known hazardous place and does not appropriately put a warning on the cache page, you can not blame them

Link to comment

 

takes 2 minutes if you are home or some place with internet access, so if i'm in nomansland on vacation for 2 weeks i can come home to all my caches being archived and having no chance to do anything about it...makes me really appreciative of the reviewers in my area

 

i'm sorry, i don't see what connection has being bitten by someone with being pricked by syringes

 

not to take away from his traumatic experience, but the situation is totally unrelated to geocaching, besides the job does expose them to that sort of danger

 

all i'm saying is that there are very few situations where someone else can be blamed for our mishaps due to negligence, most times is our own fault for not paying attention to our surroundings and exercising good judgement

 

As I put in my last post, used syringes could be contaminated. One of the diseases they could carry is hepatitis, but another is HIV (similar testing - in that there is a long wait to get the results. I know this because my sister had to get tested after nursing/caring in an orphanage in Romania.) Children are allowed to cache, you know, and their parents don't have to scrutinize their every move to be safe. A child could brush their hand against a sharp edge, thinking they are well clear. If needles are found outdoors like that, there's a fair chance they're shared, and also a fair chance they might carry HIV. (Where do people get money for drugs...?)

 

 

you don't get HIV in the situation you're describing,

 

unfortunately in this day and age things are much more complicated than they were when i grew up, so consequently parents and all of us in general should exercise extra care

 

my point is that unless someone intentionally places the cache in a known hazardous place and does not appropriately put a warning on the cache page, you can not blame them

 

HIV - you're right - a very very low chance (but still a chance). Hepatitis - a very scarey high chance. (I can't remember which Hep it is, but if you get jabbed with a needle infected with it - the chances are about 3/1 that you will be infected)

 

If you're doing a 5/5 high up in the middle of no-where then you probably have a rough idea of the risks. But where syringes are concerned, finding a box or film pot seriously isn't worth the risk. Surely better safe than sorry.

 

As for the warning on the cache page. Perhaps you can ask G.com if they'll consider an attribute for syringes.....

 

But I can see that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

Link to comment

<snip>

my point is that unless someone intentionally places the cache in a known hazardous place and does not appropriately put a warning on the cache page, you can not blame them

 

Similarly if someone places a cache in a location that is subsequently found to be hazardous (as in this case) then they should take action to do something about it, which is what started this whole thread when the reviewer thought the CO didn't take action and therefore (quite rightly) stepped in.

Link to comment

There seems to be a little hysteria about this cache. Looking at the logs it appears to be in a less than ideal location, but not so bad that it needs archiving.

 

Be that as it may, my only comment is that I find it hard to accept that a reviewer would actually archive a cache 7 days after a NA log is posted. Surely that is incorrect? It sounds ludicrously quick, based on little more than the opinion of one cacher.

One of my most highly regarded caches (more than 7 years old now) has had a log stating that the location is dangerous (even though it isn't and has been appreciated by hundreds of people as one of the best caches in the country). Imagine if he'd pressed the "Needs Archived" button when I was away on a three-week trip, and I returned to find it archived. I'd be more angry than t4e, who's shown admirable restraint.

Link to comment

It would seem that t4e is just exercising his right to disagree!

Perhaps he should not be taken too seriously.

 

SHE indeed does like to exercise HER right to disagree

 

as for not taking seriously people that don't agree with the masses and dare to have a different opinion is just typical of today's society "just follow the herd" kinda of attitude

 

There seems to be a little hysteria about this cache. Looking at the logs it appears to be in a less than ideal location, but not so bad that it needs archiving.

 

 

i see this one, as well as many of the other Urban Psycho caches are alive and well,aren't they dangerous too?

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

To clarify my position

 

The reviewers do a great job

 

If syringes are around, I'd say 7 days is too long, which is why I suggested it would be nice to have a cache disabled on an NA. It could be reversed by the CO when they've had a look, but in general nobody should be seeking the cache, which would be much safer.

 

For NA where there is no danger to the cacher, 7 days is too short IMHO.

 

As a rule of thumb. I build PQs now to ignore the ones with the first aid sign, and disabled caches as there's a little one in the team. Sometimes I'll go on my own where I can be a little less cautious, and here ill look at why a cache is in need of tlc and take a decision.

 

As for comments about blame/risk... We're becoming more and more trigger happy when it comes to calling a lawyer... So it'll happen one day :(

 

www.geolawyers4cachers.com for when you absolutely probably deserved that but there's someone else who didnt think to warn you that rocks get slippery when it rains??????

Edited by NattyBooshka
Link to comment

It would seem that t4e is just exercising his right to disagree!

Perhaps he should not be taken too seriously.

 

SHE indeed does like to exercise HER right to disagree

 

as for not taking seriously people that don't agree with the masses and dare to have a different opinion is just typical of today's society "just follow the herd" kinda of attitude

 

There seems to be a little hysteria about this cache. Looking at the logs it appears to be in a less than ideal location, but not so bad that it needs archiving.

 

 

i see this one, as well as many of the other Urban Psycho caches are alive and well,aren't they dangerous too?

 

That's different, any risks are on the cache page.

Link to comment

I have to say in Deci's shoes I would have done exactly the same,

 

Several people had mentioned syringes at GZ,

Firstly it was actualy 8 days from the NA to the cache being archived,

It had how ever been 11 days since the first mention of the syringes and the posting of a NM log.

 

The fact that it was three weeks after it was archived that the CO raised the thread on here suggests it would have been at least that long before they had spotted / actioned the logs.

If I was the reviewer and had to decided to leave it any longer only to read a log that some one had been caught by one of the needles I woulld be feeling rather bad.

 

The CO had now responded, promised to CITO the area and the cache has been unarchived, no permenant damage done but possibly some cachers saved from injury,

whats the problem??

Link to comment
As for comments about blame/risk... We're becoming more and more trigger happy when it comes to calling a lawyer... So it'll happen one day sad.gif

 

www.geolawyers4cachers.com for when you absolutely probably deserved that but there's someone else who didnt think to warn you that rocks get slippery when it rains??????

 

Sadly your too late :yikes: the CO went through months of distress and worry, before the claim was dropped. The person making the claim had contacted a Claims Chaser company. It's not a situation I ever want to see another cacher be in.

 

Deci

Link to comment

If syringes are around, I'd say 7 days is too long, which is why I suggested it would be nice to have a cache disabled on an NA. It could be reversed by the CO when they've had a look, but in general nobody should be seeking the cache, which would be much safer.

One point; syringes weren't around (not used, loose ones of the type that are an immediate danger).

 

But more importantly, the cache wasn't disabled on an NA; it was Archived. I don't think that anyone would have been concerned too much had it been disabled, but basically it was decided that the cache had to be completely delisted with a notice period of only a week or so.

 

The CO says

I do have a great deal of experience of public health and safety and would not have compromised that for a cache hide.
and I'd have thought that the cache being disabled would be quite sufficient. As it eventually was. Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

Agree with you raver dave and the reviewers actions, not everyone reads the logs but may filter out those that need attention. If the fact the cache can be removed from archive again whats the issue?? Let the cache owner sort the problem, let the reviewer know its been resolved and away it goes again. It could have been worse like someone getting injured just because someone may get upset at a cache being archived. Atleast the owner of the cache is taking steps to sort it out or even relocate it if needs be, you could have an owner whos no longer interested in maintaining the cache at all.

Link to comment

If the fact the cache can be removed from archive again whats the issue?? Let the cache owner sort the problem, let the reviewer know its been resolved and away it goes again.

 

unnecessary waste of time for reviewer and CO

Link to comment

It would seem that t4e is just exercising his right to disagree!

Perhaps he should not be taken too seriously.

SHE indeed does like to exercise HER right to disagree

 

as for not taking seriously people that don't agree with the masses and dare to have a different opinion is just typical of today's society "just follow the herd" kinda of attitude

Apologies for getting your gender incorrect, poor assumption made based on gender of avatar (I think?), hope you were not too offended!

 

Regarding not taking people seriously who do not agree with an opinion, yes I fully agree with you. However there are times when some people are deliberately disagreeable (is that the right word?) just to cause/prolong an argument. Your sig in my mind seemed to suggest such a scenario.

Link to comment

If the fact the cache can be removed from archive again whats the issue?? Let the cache owner sort the problem, let the reviewer know its been resolved and away it goes again.

 

unnecessary waste of time for reviewer and CO

 

How so, if the CO doesn't care about the cache there is nothing to resolve and it will stay archived, if the CO does care about it he/she is going to put time into fixing it which means the reviewer is going to have put time in anyway. Either way time is needed from someone to sort any problem out.

Link to comment

Scenario:

 

Reviewer Temporary Disables the cache.

 

Cache Owner posts Owner Maintenance log of "Will sort this out next week..." which removes the Needs Maintenance attribute, and puts the cache back in to peoples PQ's...

For sure that would happen... But most of us wouldn't do it... At least I'd like to think not!

 

A syringe, used or unused, even sealed, isn't something I'd want a kid getting hold of.

 

I'm sure that wasnt the case here and both owner and reviewer have done their jobs well. Sadly this is a thing we have to be careful of these days.

Link to comment

Scenario:

 

Reviewer Temporary Disables the cache.

 

Cache Owner posts Owner Maintenance log of "Will sort this out next week..." which removes the Needs Maintenance attribute, and puts the cache back in to peoples PQ's...

 

"Owner maintenance" does not enable a disabled cache, only an "enable listing" log will. This should only be used after the issue has been fixed. The reviewer has the option of monitoring the listing for an inappropriate enabling and then taking further action if necessary.

Link to comment

If the fact the cache can be removed from archive again whats the issue?? Let the cache owner sort the problem, let the reviewer know its been resolved and away it goes again.

 

unnecessary waste of time for reviewer and CO

 

How so, if the CO doesn't care about the cache there is nothing to resolve and it will stay archived, if the CO does care about it he/she is going to put time into fixing it which means the reviewer is going to have put time in anyway. Either way time is needed from someone to sort any problem out.

 

how do you know they care or not if you haven't given them appropriate time to fix it, 7 days is not appropriate

 

the point many of us are trying to make in this thread, unfortunately seems to be missed, is that simply disabling the cache would be sufficient while giving the CO time to fix it, more than 7 days that is, people do have a life outside of geocaching

Link to comment

the point many of us are trying to make in this thread, unfortunately seems to be missed, is that simply disabling the cache would be sufficient while giving the CO time to fix it, more than 7 days that is, people do have a life outside of geocaching

That sums it up well... and if the disabling was made automatic for a NA log, the reviewer would be aware of it without having to do anything in the first instance... saving them valuable time. If the cache was then put on a watchlist... the reviewer can passively watch what happens... including first logs after the cache was enabled again. Maybe that would save them time? Maybe that would help them work on what we all like... new caches! More importantly, maybe the reviewer could nip down the pub for a well deserved live mulit-vitamin drink before the place closed!!

Link to comment

If the fact the cache can be removed from archive again whats the issue?? Let the cache owner sort the problem, let the reviewer know its been resolved and away it goes again.

 

unnecessary waste of time for reviewer and CO

 

How so, if the CO doesn't care about the cache there is nothing to resolve and it will stay archived, if the CO does care about it he/she is going to put time into fixing it which means the reviewer is going to have put time in anyway. Either way time is needed from someone to sort any problem out.

 

how do you know they care or not if you haven't given them appropriate time to fix it, 7 days is not appropriate

 

the point many of us are trying to make in this thread, unfortunately seems to be missed, is that simply disabling the cache would be sufficient while giving the CO time to fix it, more than 7 days that is, people do have a life outside of geocaching

 

Sorry but you keep harping on about 7 days in which to fix it is not enough time. Yet I've pointed out that just posting a Owner Note is sufficient. Of the logs I looked at today, apart from one the rest of the owners had posted a note the same day, one had gone out and checked it the next day (in that particular case, the NA should not have been made, as the owner had actioned it by physically checking the cache a couple of weeks ago. As it was a case of over eager trigger, I'd have ignored the log anyway) those caches have been deleted out of my email account.

 

Also it's interesting to note, I've also had the argument several times on this forum, that caches should not be Immediately Archived. When a Landowner requests the removal of a cache. It would seem that a small number will find any reason to moan about affirmative action taken by a Reviewer. Yet how many members moan about the poor standards of caches in the UK? So it would seem Reviewers are on a loose loose road whatever happens

 

You keep stating I should allow a reasonable period! Is 20-30 days reasonable enough? There have been several periods when That was the period before actioning NA logs, in one case a even greater period. When I did get around to actioning the logs. 90%+ where archived due to the Owner not Maintaining those caches, in fact a large number had 2 or more NA logs to them. So sorry the 7 day period was not a instant cut off date, but one which has slowly been brought into place due to personal experience.

 

You keep harping on about Disabling those caches, given that there is a clear issue with them, the Owner should already have done that. And in the case of the caches already Disabled, the Owner should have already actioned them, before a genuine NA log was made.

 

It's far to easy for a Owner to ignore a Disabled log, true example, when I became a Reviewer May 2006, I did the very first sweep of Disabled caches in the UK. would you like to guess what the year the longest Disabled cache was put into that status?

 

 

Answer 2002!

 

In 2006 with just around 3,500 active caches in the UK, there was over 250 Disabled caches. Which had been Disabled over 12 weeks. At one point in the last couple of Years there was over 1,300 Disabled caches in the UK. Which had been Disabled over 2 months!

 

I personally estimate that I get requests to unarchive caches in less than 1% of all the cases where I've actioned a NA log. So sorry my experience is that the way I work is suitable. Yes a occasional cache will get archived before a genuine owner can action it, But as stated, all that's looked for is a Owner Note to the cache. Here's some questions

 

How many now days get their emails on their phones?

How many can access GC via their phones?

How many check GC for cache details or actively use their phones to hunt caches?

How many have WIFI enable Lap tops/Net Books/Ipads?

How many have Mobile Broadband?

 

That alone has increased the number of Cache Owners who are able to make a log to their caches. Even away from home.

 

Your all working from the point of view of just one Cache, I work from the Point of view of the whole picture. And 5 years experience of being a Reviewer, that is a very different point of view. I have to deal with those owners who cb* to Maintain their caches, that covers those with just one cache up to those with hundreds of caches. And the worst thing is, is those with the greater number of owned caches, and thousands of finds, who go out caching every week who cb* to maintain their caches! And sadly I'm not joking. The big picture is full of abscesses, and not the nicer picture those that care for their caches see.

 

Deci

 

It's interesting to note that even one of the most popular E Book Readers, has a version which can access the Internet through a basic browser (I know from personal experience that it's possible to access GC using it)

Link to comment

 

Here's some questions

 

How many now days get their emails on their phones?

How many can access GC via their phones?

How many check GC for cache details or actively use their phones to hunt caches?

How many have WIFI enable Lap tops/Net Books/Ipads?

How many have Mobile Broadband?

 

That alone has increased the number of Cache Owners who are able to make a log to their caches. Even away from home.

 

 

while that is true it still doesn't mean that people should drop everything their real life requires them to do in order to promptly take care of a cache, which is a hobby and not a matter of life and death by any means

 

Your all working from the point of view of just one Cache, I work from the Point of view of the whole picture. And 5 years experience of being a Reviewer, that is a very different point of view. I have to deal with those owners who cb* to Maintain their caches, that covers those with just one cache up to those with hundreds of caches. And the worst thing is, is those with the greater number of owned caches, and thousands of finds, who go out caching every week who cb* to maintain their caches! And sadly I'm not joking. The big picture is full of abscesses, and not the nicer picture those that care for their caches see.

 

Deci

 

It's interesting to note that even one of the most popular E Book Readers, has a version which can access the Internet through a basic browser (I know from personal experience that it's possible to access GC using it)

 

my comments are based on my experience in my area and we were strictly talking about this cache and not discussing your reviewing habits in general...and no, i am not the only one not agreeing with the 7 day notice on this particular cache, one is quoted right bellow

 

but as i said before, i am sure glad i don't fall under your jurisdiction of reviewing

 

 

Good rant! I'm sure you're right. 7 days still seems rather short to me though.

 

What's a cb* ?

 

*=a :anibad:

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...