Time Limits on Disabled Caches

[+6NoisyHikers]

Another cacher, who happens to be a real-life friend of mine, placed a cache in a neat, family-friendly spot. After a few months, the cache was muggled so he disabled it with a promise to get a new container in place "soon". This was almost a year ago! I've spoken to him in person, offered to co-own or adopt the cache, but he hasn't done anything about it yet and the cache remains disabled.

 

How would everyone else feel about having a time limit on disabled caches? I think three months is plenty of time to see to a cache that needs maintenance or replacement. If the cache owner voluntarily disables a cache, they obviously know it needs work. If they won't or can't maintain it, it would be nice to "free up the space" so that another cache can be placed.

 

In a nutshell, what I'm suggesting is a rule that says a disabled cache needs to be fixed up and re-enabled within three months or it automatically gets archived. What say ye all?

[GOF and Bacall]

Too many reasons why a cache can be disabled. In your situation I would recommend contacting the reviewer and raising your concerns.

[+StarBrand]

I have had one disabled for about 9 months now. The area is inaccessible during some de-construction. I have another disabled for almost 4 months due to flooding. I had a serious leg infection and could not get outdoors for about 4 months this last winter - I had to disable 3 caches and defer maintenance until I was healthy again. I post regular updates (if I remember).

 

Just a handful of reasons that a strict hard time limit would never work. They have to be looked at case-by-case.

 

The one you mention sounds like it needs to have an 'NA' log and let a reviewer deal with it.

[+6NoisyHikers]

That's a good point about inaccessibility at certain times of the year - I hadn't thought of that. Hmm...

 

Contacting a reviewer feels like tattling . As I know this particular CO, I can go poke him in the eye myself. Hopefully I can guilt him into turning over his cache site

[GOF and Bacall]

Contacting the reviewer was offered as a way try and get movement without causing animosity between you and your friend. However, if you are comfortable prodding him yourself that's fine.

[AZcachemeister]

Over a year is just too long!

I'm surprised the local reviewer hasn't archived it.

 

Tough call to post a 'Needs Archived' in this case.

 

I think I would just keep on needling my friend and hope they finally take action.

[+fizzymagic]

what I'm suggesting is a rule that says a disabled cache needs to be fixed up and re-enabled within three months or it automatically gets archived. What say ye all?

 

I say that without a good reason people not directly involved should mind their own business.

 

Do you want to place a cache there? If so, then you are directly involved and you should say something to the owner. If not, then I would gently suggest that geocaching already has a surfeit of busybodies.

[Allie McG]

The idea of a clear cut-off time appeals to me - for the sake of active caches everywhere. But 3 months is not enough time. (You may have just tossed "3 months" into your original post to get the ball rolling.) For example, in my neck of the woods, I could see disabling caches during winter - which lasts much longer than 3 months. Maybe another way to slice this pie would be to have a "seasonal" attribute. Oh wait, there are aren't there? The snowflake, right? (Can you tell I'm not an avid winter-cacher?)

 

To wrap up my rambling, I sympatsize with your intentions, but I'd say a more resonable deadline would be a whole year.

[+niraD]

In a nutshell, what I'm suggesting is a rule that says a disabled cache needs to be fixed up and re-enabled within three months or it automatically gets archived. What say ye all?

The idea of automatically archiving caches after being disabled for 6 months has already been suggested (and declined) on the feedback site:

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1306759-archive-a-cache-if-it-has-been-disabled-for-6-mont

 

Somehow, I don't think reducing the time to 3 months will improve the idea's chance of being implemented.

 

FWIW, I had a cache that was inaccessible due to construction for 5 months. Once construction was done, I discovered that something had changed that I was told wouldn't change, so I needed to rework the camouflage. I see no reason to automatically disable caches in situations like this.

[+The_Incredibles_]

If I've seen a cache disabled for more than 6 months, I post a Needs-Archived log. Sometimes, there's a good reason, such as inaccesbility, but 99% of the time, I think it's because the CO has other priorities and is not realizing that they are blocking someone else from putting a cache there.

 

If you're worried because this is your friend, maybe create a 2nd account and log the NA through that one. Or get someone else you know to post it.

 

To answer your question, I don't think they could put a specific time limit. At least in my area, somebody will after many months post a Needs Archived. Our reviewer sometimes archives the cache immediately, if the CO is inactive. Or she gives them a 1 month deadline and if nothing's done, she proceeds to archive the cache.

Edited July 10, 2011 by The_Incredibles_

[+briansnat]

I don't think there should be a hard rule. It depends on the situation. Sometimes there is a good reason for having a cache disabled for more than a few months. I have a cache that has been disabled for 3 years. It is in a mine that has been closed due to white nose syndrome in the region's bats. Until scientist figure out what is causing the condition nobody is allowed to enter any caves or mines in NJ state parks and forests.

 

I don't want to archive it because I don't want to give up the spot. It's a great cache and hopefully the mine will open again.

 

I'm sure there are many other good reasons for disabling a cache for longer than 3 months.

[+TomToad]

The reviewers here will go through the disabled caches every so often. If they see that a cache has been disabled more than a month, they will post a note on the cache page. You then have a month to either fix the cache, archive the cache, or explain your intentions with the cache. If you do none of those, yhe cache gets archived

[+addisonbr]

I post regular updates (if I remember).

This is pretty key. There may certainly be good reasons to keep a cache disabled for more than a few weeks, but posting regular updates and keeping other cachers and the local reviewer apprised of what's going on can preemptively reduce a lot of drama.

[+TerraViators]

There are situations that justify a longer time allotment, but all too often I see disabled caches of several months yet find the CO is still finding caches yet neglecting the cache.

[+Ambient_Skater]

Contacting a reviewer feels like tattling .

Maybe, but it's really the only way to get anything done around here.

 

There's a cache in my area which was hung in a hollow tree trunk with a string tied to a screw/hook thing which used to get muggled often. After replacing the cache a couple times, the CO said he didn't want to replace it anymore so he was disabling the cache, but leaving the string and hook behind. Any cacher who finds the string and hook can log a find. I've posted a few NA logs, but the reviewer doesn't seem to care.

 

EDIT: just checked, it was archived a few weeks ago.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Ambient_Skater

[4wheelin_fool]

Contacting a reviewer feels like tattling .

Maybe, but it's really the only way to get anything done around here.

 

There's a cache in my area which was hung in a hollow tree trunk with a string tied to a screw/hook thing which used to get muggled often. After replacing the cache a couple times, the CO said he didn't want to replace it anymore so he was disabling the cache, but leaving the string and hook behind. Any cacher who finds the string and hook can log a find. I've posted a few NA logs, but the reviewer doesn't seem to care.

 

EDIT: just checked, it was archived a few weeks ago.

 

I didnt see any NA logs by you. I noticed that someone urinated in the cache a few months ago, and then another cacher replaced it. Next the replacement was taken, and then a single NA log after that.

[+edscott]

I'd go with 3 months unless the CO has contacted the reviewer offering a solid reason for an extension. The clock would begin ticking when the cache is disabled and the Reviewer could reset it at any time prior to the deadline. If the CO is active and reliable that can easily happen and it would weed out those caches that need maintenance from a CO that hides them then ignores them.

[+NeverSummer]

Contacting a reviewer feels like tattling .

Maybe, but it's really the only way to get anything done around here.

 

There's a cache in my area which was hung in a hollow tree trunk with a string tied to a screw/hook thing which used to get muggled often. After replacing the cache a couple times, the CO said he didn't want to replace it anymore so he was disabling the cache, but leaving the string and hook behind. Any cacher who finds the string and hook can log a find. I've posted a few NA logs, but the reviewer doesn't seem to care.

 

EDIT: just checked, it was archived a few weeks ago.

 

I didnt see any NA logs by you. I noticed that someone urinated in the cache a few months ago, and then another cacher replaced it. Next the replacement was taken, and then a single NA log after that.

Bu...buh..bu..but nu-uh!

 

I've learned that reviewers have different systems for checking in on caches. Some were so on top of their game that they would look over multiple DNF'ed caches or "Needs Maintenance" logs and leave a reviewer note asking for the owner to take some action. Other reviewers did regular sweeps of Disabled caches to check on status. Some reviewers take a while to get to Should be Archived logs. So, if there is a reason you want the area from another cache that is disabled or missing, contact the owner and see what they say. If they say nothing, then take it to the local reviewer and ask them to nudge the cache owner. Eventually you might get to take over the spot with a great, amazingly better cache. (Right? *nudge-nudge* Right? )

[+6NoisyHikers]

Thanks for all the input everyone! From some of the comments, it sounds like local reviewers have their own unique ways of taking care of their territory and that we should look to develop a relationship with ours as we become more active in the cache community.

 

I'm not overly concerned about dealing with my friend, he isn't an active cacher and has plenty of other hobbies I just think that the spot is a good place for a cache and shouldn't be wasted.

 

And I see now that it would be difficult to set a world-wide time limit for disabled caches because we are all in different climate zones! I'm in the suburbs in a moderate climate where every cache is accessible all year round. Our density around cache-favourable sites is higher (being that there are less viable green spaces) which means that when a handful of disabled caches sit for too long (whatever that means!) it puts a dent in what is available to find - and to place - locally.

 

Maybe what I should do is count 150 giant steps away from a disabled cache and place a "While You're Waiting" cache until the disabled becomes enabled!

[+Ambient_Skater]

I've posted a few NA logs, but the reviewer doesn't seem to care.

I didnt see any NA logs by you.

It was under my old team account.

[+ras_oscar]

I logged a dnf on a cache some time ago. Then I put it on my watch list. A few weeks later the CO took it offline, stating that the area had changed and s/he was going to modify the cache and enable "later" I went back and added a needs archive 12 months after it went offline. It was archived the next week. Needs maintenance only goes to the CO. The NA log also goes to the reviewer.

[+humboldt flier]

Howzzzzzzzzzz about a progress report every three months then dropping the axe after the ninth month??????

[knowschad]

That's a good point about inaccessibility at certain times of the year - I hadn't thought of that. Hmm...

 

Contacting a reviewer feels like tattling . As I know this particular CO, I can go poke him in the eye myself. Hopefully I can guilt him into turning over his cache site

 

Uh.... I think its about one forum post too late to worry about tattling, isn't it?

 

What say ye all?

To be honest, we really don't set the rules, no matter what we think.

Edited November 16, 2011 by knowschad

[knowschad]

I'd go with 3 months unless the CO has contacted the reviewer offering a solid reason for an extension. The clock would begin ticking when the cache is disabled and the Reviewer could reset it at any time prior to the deadline. If the CO is active and reliable that can easily happen and it would weed out those caches that need maintenance from a CO that hides them then ignores them.

 

We have caches up here that are disabled for winter. Three months? LOL!!! That gets us to Christmas.

[knowschad]

dropping the axe after the ninth month??????

 

Kinda like having a baby, huh?

[+humboldt flier]

dropping the axe after the ninth month??????

 

Kinda like having a baby, huh?

 

Hmmmmmmmm, then the squalling, whining, and crying would truly begin. LOL

[+Chokecherry]

I'd go with 3 months unless the CO has contacted the reviewer offering a solid reason for an extension. The clock would begin ticking when the cache is disabled and the Reviewer could reset it at any time prior to the deadline. If the CO is active and reliable that can easily happen and it would weed out those caches that need maintenance from a CO that hides them then ignores them.

 

We have caches up here that are disabled for winter. Three months? LOL!!! That gets us to Christmas.

 

The handful that disable for the winter here usually post updates, especially after the reviewer floats around to question it because usually the disabling starts in Oct./Nov. like you said and depending on the year we're having can go until May or June (depending on the snow bank situation). I know one this year went into June due to snow just not melting.

 

What bothers me more are the people leave vacation caches. Disable them with a note saying they're too far to maintain it. It's those moments I appreciate the reviewer coming in and tossing a note on those caches and ultimately archiving them if nothing is done. We've had a small rash of unmaintained vacation caches this year.

[+wimseyguy]

As you have already learned, a hard line in the sand or snow won't work for everyone or everywhere. Some of the reviewers do periodic sweeps of disabled listings and weed out the ones that are overdue for archival that way.

I would never post a NA for a cache that I hadn't personally looked for, and I would never create a sock account to post NA logs. Both of those actions are unwise and uncalled for.