Why has my cache has been archived

[+pitkin2020]

if your actually discussing this cache alone then 7 days is far too long, used needles are dangerous FACT and encouraging people to go to that area is just as dangerous and irresponsible. 7 days is more than ample time to sort out a cache. Even if the owner was on holiday would they really like to come back and find that several people had injured themselves on used needles because some people are getting upset about 7 days being too short?? Personally I would be happy the cache was pulled so I can decide what to do about it without the need to drop everything in my life to go and fix it straight away. I can decide to clean up the area, relocate or pull it all together. Its common sense surely??

 

In general 7 days for some complaints maybe too short but who decides what is dangerous to one person isn't a danger to another, a set standard has to be in place surely? Again if the whole process is reversible then surely its only the reviewers that have a right to complain about their time if they see it as a waste?

[Raver Dave]

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

 

No one's saying they should, 7 days is hardly "drop everything", and it was never suggested the problem had to be resolved within that time, only that a note be posted indicating that CO is aware of the issue and will do x to resolve the problem, in y days / weeks.

 

I'm sure so long as Deci or which ever reviewer is aware of a CO's intentions they will give them the time they need.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Raver Dave

[+Happy Humphrey]

used needles are dangerous FACT

Thanks for letting us know. I always thought they were perfectly safe.

Not sure what it has to do with this cache, however.

[+keehotee]

 

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

 

Exactly. It's a game, not life and death. So an unmaintained and potentially dangerous cache was archived. So what! Move along....

Edited May 11, 2011 by keehotee

[+t.a.folk]

 

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?

 

 

Question 1,2,and 3 = no.

Question 4 and 5 = don't own a Net book or Ipad and never used our lap top for caching outside our home .

[+geohatter]

I'm sure so long as Deci or which ever reviewer is aware of a CO's intentions they will give them the time they need.

 

This is exacly what happens. I've lost count of the number of notes I've sent about unmaintained caches and all it takes is a note and any quoted deadline will be increased.

 

 

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?

 

 

Question 1,2,and 3 = no.

Question 4 and 5 = don't own a Net book or Ipad and never used our lap top for caching outside our home .

 

You are one person and we have to cater for the entire country and with the increasing use of the above devices among the populace, deadlines are a lot shorter than in the old days of geocaching. Incidentally this was Deci's point which you seem to have missed.

 

Also, as any cache can be unarchived after discussion with the reviewer (which this one has been) there has been no real harm done.

[+pitkin2020]

used needles are dangerous FACT

Thanks for letting us know. I always thought they were perfectly safe.

Not sure what it has to do with this cache, however.

 

Maybe before giving a sarcastic reply you should take the time to read the whole thread. As from post 2 it was mentioned about syringes at the GZ and the link given to the cache showed logs stating the same. EPIC FAIL!!!!

[+FantasyRaider]

 

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

 

Making a log on your cache does not mean you have to drop everything in your real life to promptly take care of a cache?

I'm sure this is what Deci has said more than once now.

 

 

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

 

[+t4e]

 

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

 

Making a log on your cache does not mean you have to drop everything in your real life to promptly take care of a cache?

I'm sure this is what Deci has said more than once now.

 

 

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

 

 

yes it is, not everyone sits in front of the computer every day

 

no idea what you blinking about, the statement is very clear, in case you didn't notice i am not from UK

[+Hampk]

Personally, I think this thread is due for locking.

 

I am of the opinion that our reviewers do a tremendous job, and at the end of the day we are all human - Deci has acted as best he can, and he and the CO have resolved the problem between them.

 

As for those who seem to have an extremely negative attitude towards the way our reviewers act - put up or shut up! Volunteer as a reviewer if you don't think the job is being done as you would do it...

 

Though I hope I don't wind up in your area

[+FantasyRaider]

yes it is, not everyone sits in front of the computer every day

 

Niether do I, but i do read my mail wherever I am.

 

no idea what you blinking about, the statement is very clear, in case you didn't notice i am not from UK

Yes i did notice and .............I have something in my eye.

Edited May 11, 2011 by FantasyRaider

[+Happy Humphrey]

used needles are dangerous FACT

Thanks for letting us know. I always thought they were perfectly safe.

Not sure what it has to do with this cache, however.

 

Maybe before giving a sarcastic reply you should take the time to read the whole thread. As from post 2 it was mentioned about syringes at the GZ and the link given to the cache showed logs stating the same. EPIC FAIL!!!!

Not quite epic. Try reading the whole thread! The CO has stated that

the syringes were wrapped and clean. I don't know, I haven't been but the CO certainly has.

 

So what's dirty needles got to do with this cache? And you must admit that stating the obvious followed by "FACT" is rather likely to bring about a sarcastic reply on any internet forum...FACT! (sarcastic reply expected)

[+Mad H@ter]

Personally, I think this thread is due for locking.

 

I am of the opinion that our reviewers do a tremendous job, and at the end of the day we are all human - Deci has acted as best he can, and he and the CO have resolved the problem between them.

 

As for those who seem to have an extremely negative attitude towards the way our reviewers act - put up or shut up! Volunteer as a reviewer if you don't think the job is being done as you would do it...

 

Though I hope I don't wind up in your area

Fully agree, even though I don't always agree with them. In this case though:

 

• The CO did not respond to a needs maintenance log.
  
• Did not respond to a needs archiving log.
  
• Or a number of found logs indicating a problem.
  
• It had been indicated that there was a potentially serious health hazard.
  

 

IMHO it was a good call by Deci and struggle to see how on this occasion it could be argued otherwised, particularly as it was reversed once communication was started.

 

It seems to me that as is often the case on here, some posters are just intent on having an argument for the sake of it.

Also, as any cache can be unarchived after discussion with the reviewer (which this one has been) there has been no real harm done.

Just out of curiosity, is this ALWAYS the case, how about caches with grandfathered rights ie Virtual caches?

[+NickandAliandEliza]

used needles are dangerous FACT

Thanks for letting us know. I always thought they were perfectly safe.

Not sure what it has to do with this cache, however.

 

Maybe before giving a sarcastic reply you should take the time to read the whole thread. As from post 2 it was mentioned about syringes at the GZ and the link given to the cache showed logs stating the same. EPIC FAIL!!!!

Not quite epic. Try reading the whole thread! The CO has stated that

the syringes were wrapped and clean. I don't know, I haven't been but the CO certainly has.

 

So what's dirty needles got to do with this cache? And you must admit that stating the obvious followed by "FACT" is rather likely to bring about a sarcastic reply on any internet forum...FACT! (sarcastic reply expected)

 

......the last finder says -

 

'Lots of broken glass, torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide'.

 

If that doesn't ring alarm bells with a reviewer, then I'm not quite sure what would. Like I said above, initially in gest - ask G.com to include an attribute for syringes at the location. That way everyone who doesn't think this is a big deal can merrily go on looking for caches like this and the rest of us can avoid them.

[Deceangi]

Personally, I think this thread is due for locking.

 

I am of the opinion that our reviewers do a tremendous job, and at the end of the day we are all human - Deci has acted as best he can, and he and the CO have resolved the problem between them.

 

As for those who seem to have an extremely negative attitude towards the way our reviewers act - put up or shut up! Volunteer as a reviewer if you don't think the job is being done as you would do it...

 

Though I hope I don't wind up in your area

Fully agree, even though I don't always agree with them. In this case though:

 

• The CO did not respond to a needs maintenance log.
• Did not respond to a needs archiving log.
• Or a number of found logs indicating a problem.
• It had been indicated that there was a potentially serious health hazard.

 

IMHO it was a good call by Deci and struggle to see how on this occasion it could be argued otherwised, particularly as it was reversed once communication was started.

 

It seems to me that as is often the case on here, some posters are just intent on having an argument for the sake of it.

Also, as any cache can be unarchived after discussion with the reviewer (which this one has been) there has been no real harm done.

Just out of curiosity, is this ALWAYS the case, how about caches with grandfathered rights ie Virtual caches?

 

With Webcam caches that would need the Web cam to have been out of action for a extended period, I'm not talking a few weeks but months or even years. Once a webcam has it appears gone permanently Off-Line there is no cache to actually log. If instead the owner was allowing armchair logs, or photographs at the location instead of a Webcam picture, provided the Webcam was still "Active" the owner would be given a chance to Police the logs and follow the Guidelines in the future.

 

I can remember Archiving one webcam cache in the last 12 months due to a NA log to it. in that case the Webcam had been Off-Line for years. With a blind eye being the case as no one had reported it. (if this is a dig about a specific webcam cache which got archived, I had communication off the owner after the action had been taken. And we still happily communicate with each other)

 

Virtual caches, again I can remember Archiving one in the last 12 months, but in that case the Owner was given a chance to fix it. From memory the item at the location from which the required information to log was obtained. Had been missing for a extended period. The Owner allowing logs for anyone who just stated they'd been at the Location, with no attempt to obtain the Logging Information.

 

In fact the last time I did a sweep of Virtual Cache owners, Guideline requirements to log into the site once a month. Created a rather unique situation, because at that time Grandfathered caches had been unlocked, adoption was possible. A large number of UK Virtual caches got adopted by cachers highly respected within the community, who were prepared to and continually Maintain those Virtual caches. So unless they find themselves in a position of no longer being able to set a logging requirement, due to the location changing too much. Those Virtual caches are extremely safe, unless at some time in the future the Category is removed from GC.

 

Deci

[+pitkin2020]

used needles are dangerous FACT

Thanks for letting us know. I always thought they were perfectly safe.

Not sure what it has to do with this cache, however.

 

Maybe before giving a sarcastic reply you should take the time to read the whole thread. As from post 2 it was mentioned about syringes at the GZ and the link given to the cache showed logs stating the same. EPIC FAIL!!!!

Not quite epic. Try reading the whole thread! The CO has stated that

the syringes were wrapped and clean. I don't know, I haven't been but the CO certainly has.

 

So what's dirty needles got to do with this cache? And you must admit that stating the obvious followed by "FACT" is rather likely to bring about a sarcastic reply on any internet forum...FACT! (sarcastic reply expected)

 

The last log 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" no mention that the syringes were unused, to me if your warning people of syringes they generally are open and a hazard, end of.

 

In the end this is a game, thats all so no one should be risking their health for this "GAME", the reviewer gave the CO plenty of time to do something about but for what ever reason he/she didn't do anything in the time frame, so it was archived. The CO has now made a move to sort the cache out and it will no doubt be enabled again. No one has visited the site looking for the cache and potentially got stuck with a needle and the cache will be live again soon. I wonder how many peoples day was truly ruined by this single cache after being archived. I suspect those on this thread kicking up the most fuss aren't even effected by this cache at all anyway.

[+Happy Humphrey]

......the last finder says -

 

'Lots of broken glass, torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide'.

 

If that doesn't ring alarm bells with a reviewer, then I'm not quite sure what would. Like I said above, initially in gest - ask G.com to include an attribute for syringes at the location. That way everyone who doesn't think this is a big deal can merrily go on looking for caches like this and the rest of us can avoid them.

I've read all the logs. But I tend to believe the cache owner, who's offered to clear the area and who's found a pack of clean syringes nearby. Worrying - yes. "Dirty needle" advice required - no; I'm surprised you hadn't realised before this thread that dirty needles aren't safe. Also I don't understand why you would go looking for this cache had it been disabled? I wouldn't.

[+pitkin2020]

You wouldn't go looking for an archived cache, but if it had been archived after the last log or the CO left a note to say that GZ was now clean why wouldn't you go looking for that cache?

 

Just because the CO only found clean wrapped needles doesn't mean the area hasn't been cleaned between the last log and CO getting down to GZ, the site may be a frequent spot for users, who knows.

[+t.a.folk]

I'm sure so long as Deci or which ever reviewer is aware of a CO's intentions they will give them the time they need.

 

This is exacly what happens. I've lost count of the number of notes I've sent about unmaintained caches and all it takes is a note and any quoted deadline will be increased.

 

 

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?

 

 

Question 1,2,and 3 = no.

Question 4 and 5 = don't own a Net book or Ipad and never used our lap top for caching outside our home .

 

You are one person and we have to cater for the entire country and with the increasing use of the above devices among the populace, deadlines are a lot shorter than in the old days of geocaching. Incidentally this was Deci's point which you seem to have missed.

 

Also, as any cache can be unarchived after discussion with the reviewer (which this one has been) there has been no real harm done.

 

Oh, we always miss the point .LOL

 

So it wasn't a genuine questionaire ?

 

Any cache can be unarchived?

We(" we" not "me" lol! ) believe we have one cache that couldn't be unarchived .It is less than 1K from another that since being published has had a 1k distance between caches rule.

[+MartyBartfast]

... It is less than 1K from another that since being published has had a 1k distance between caches rule.

 

The rule's not 1K, it's 1/10 mile whick is about 150m IIRC (unless it's changed recently).

[+Mark+Karen]

The rule's not 1K, it's 1/10 mile whick is about 150m IIRC (unless it's changed recently).

 

162m, to be exact!

[+t.a.folk]

... It is less than 1K from another that since being published has had a 1k distance between caches rule.

 

The rule's not 1K, it's 1/10 mile whick is about 150m IIRC (unless it's changed recently).

 

Our caches are placed on areas where the following restriction is applied.

 

Quote

 

"No cache may be placed on FC Dorset land within 1 kilometer of an

existing cache or caches on FC Dorset land."

[+Pharisee]

The rule's not 1K, it's 1/10 mile whick is about 150m IIRC (unless it's changed recently).

 

162m, to be exact!

 

160.9344 to be pedantic

[+NickandAliandEliza]

......the last finder says -

 

'Lots of broken glass, torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide'.

 

If that doesn't ring alarm bells with a reviewer, then I'm not quite sure what would. Like I said above, initially in gest - ask G.com to include an attribute for syringes at the location. That way everyone who doesn't think this is a big deal can merrily go on looking for caches like this and the rest of us can avoid them.

I'm surprised you hadn't realised before this thread that dirty needles aren't safe.

 

.....looks like we disagree again, so I'll leave it there.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Nick & Ali

[+Happy Humphrey]

.....looks like we disagree again, so I'll leave it there.

Until the next time! Let's go caching in the meantime...

[+NickandAliandEliza]

.....looks like we disagree again, so I'll leave it there.

Until the next time! Let's go caching in the meantime...

 

But be careful of those needles though. The dirty ones are dangerous!

[+Mad H@ter]

[snip]

Also, as any cache can be unarchived after discussion with the reviewer (which this one has been) there has been no real harm done.

Just out of curiosity, is this ALWAYS the case, how about caches with grandfathered rights ie Virtual caches?

[snip]

 

I can remember Archiving one webcam cache in the last 12 months due to a NA log to it. in that case the Webcam had been Off-Line for years. With a blind eye being the case as no one had reported it. (if this is a dig about a specific webcam cache which got archived, I had communication off the owner after the action had been taken. And we still happily communicate with each other)

 

[snip]

 

Deci

Not a dig, honest, although I do know the webcam you mention and was rather surprised it lasted as long as it did.

It was a genuine question as it was my belief (it would appear incorrect) that an archived cache could only be unarchived if it met current rules guidelines.

[+PeakFault]

May as well add my two penneth to this debate.

The reviewer was absolutely right in their actions.

 

It's not as if Deci went to GZ, found the cache and burnt it in front of the CO's teary eyes, is it?

 

The decision has been reversed so there really is no harm done at all. You can't p**s about where needles are concerned, used or unused (who was to know there weren't other dirty ones) the cache had to be made so no one would go to it. I think the time frames for such a case were reasonable.

[team tisri]

......the last finder says -

 

'Lots of broken glass, torn cans and syringes and needles litter the ground around the hide'.

 

If that doesn't ring alarm bells with a reviewer, then I'm not quite sure what would. Like I said above, initially in gest - ask G.com to include an attribute for syringes at the location. That way everyone who doesn't think this is a big deal can merrily go on looking for caches like this and the rest of us can avoid them.

 

Why is it anyone else's responsibility to provide a 100% guarantee what I will find in any given area? If I choose to stick my fingers into holes in brickwork or rummage under rubbish I have to accept the risks involved whether I'm looking for film pots or snails or just doing it for fun.

 

I wouldn't want to see caches archived just because there was some broken glass there. At the same time I've seen enough caches in my area with Needs Maintenance logs that are months old and apparently not actioned that I have no trouble at all supporting the reviewers if they archive a cache for non-maintenance, especially given there the possibility to unarchive it if it does transpire that the owner was unable to action the log for whatever reason.

 

If I had to take a guess I'd imagine that the times owners don't action NM logs because they are on holiday or dealing with a family crisis are rare compared to owners who have moved on and lost interest in maintaining their caches.