How long is "Temporary?"

3k · April 12, 2003

While reading another thread, a humorous thought struck me: The website doesn't allow temporary caches; should it therefore allow permanent "temporarily disabled" caches?

I've been noticing more and more caches that were "Temporarily Disabled" but have had no further action taken, in some cases for approximately a year.

Many of the long-term "TDs" have apparently been abandoned ... in some cases, the profiles of their owners indicate they haven't visited the website for practically as long as the cache has been "temporarily disabled."

I therefore offer two questions for your consideration:

1. What do you consider to be a reasonable amount of time for a cache to be "temporarily disabled?"

2. What action should occur at the expiration of that period?

2.4k · April 12, 2003

Personally, I think a month is long enough in most cases, two months tops. If it can't be made available in that amount of time, archive it. If at some point in the future it can be made available again, TPTB can un-archive it. Of course, people in snow country may feel the need for a little more time, if the cache becomes "temporarily unavailable" at the start of winter....

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you.

1.3k · April 13, 2003

I have a cache on the banks of the Mississippi river, which is subject to flooding several times a year. I like being able to disable the cache untill I can go check on it. This feature has already proven useful. I'd say give it a good five months before you get worried. The waters at my cache don't usually stay up that long, but I'd hate to have someone's cache archived because of conditions out of their control. In the case of caches where the user hasn't visited the site in months, it's probably fine to go ahead and archive it. Unless, of course, they are a contributing member with time left on their subscription.

"Searching with my good eye closed"

1.4k · April 13, 2003

I think it depends on what is written on the cache page. If it's just that it was reporting missing and the cache owner needs to check on it, a month is more than enough time if people are hiding them where they can maintain them. If it's because of weather conditions then of course the season has to pass.

---Real men cache in shorts.

38.2k · April 14, 2003

I'd say 6 months. Some people disable their caches seasonally. At the end of 6 months, perhaps an automated e-mail should be sent out asking the person to activate it, or archive it.

I'd be against automatic archival, because some people disable their cache, but don't actually remove it. I don't like the idea of automatic archival, unless there is a way to guarantee that the cache is removed (I have an earlier thread here on the expiration and removal of caches).

"You can only protect your liberties in this world, by protecting the other man's freedom. "You can only be free if I am" -Clarence Darrow

9.1k · April 14, 2003

I have three of these caches within 15 miles of my home coordinates. All have been inactive for more than a year, and all have been confirmed missing by people who previously had found the cache. A six-month or even a nine-month time limit would be a great improvement over today's "permanently temporarily disabled" caches.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

.sdrawkcab dootsrednu tub sdrawrof devil si efiL

5.7k · April 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:
I have three of these caches within 15 miles of my home coordinates. All have been inactive for more than a year, and all have been confirmed missing by people who previously had found the cache. A six-month or even a nine-month time limit would be a great improvement over today's "permanently temporarily disabled" caches.

I think the current system is working fine. We've had a few cases like these in our area. We just put in archive requests on them and if a couple people do, they are usually archived. Not that big a deal.

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

April 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I'd say 6 months. Some people disable their caches seasonally. At the end of 6 months, perhaps an automated e-mail should be sent out asking the person to activate it, or archive it.

I'd be against automatic archival, because some people disable their cache, but don't actually remove it. I don't like the idea of automatic archival, unless there is a way to guarantee that the cache is removed (I have an earlier thread here on the expiration and removal of caches).

I'd have to concur with Brian on this one. There has to be action taken. Even if the owner puts it up for adoption, depending on the situation.

3k · April 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I'd be against automatic archival, because some people disable their cache, but don't actually remove it. I don't like the idea of automatic archival, unless there is a way to guarantee that the cache is removed

Yes, I agree that is a legitimate concern ... in other threads dealing with related issues, I suggested that a reasonable compromise would be for the system to send a "red flag" to a site admin. (or perhaps the admin. who approved the cache) at the expiration of the period, who would then contact a local volunteer (or geocaching organization) able to remove/ascertain the cache had been removed prior to it being permanently archived.

3.5k · April 14, 2003

Hi,

If there is an archive log on a cache an email is automatically generated and sent to Groundspeak. They (Jeremy) will review the cache and archive it - or not.

If you wuld like more immediate service email your friendly local admin.

5.2k · April 14, 2003

I agree with Marky. There's already a mechanism for getting rid of these "permanently temporarily disabled" caches. Just post a "Cache should be archived" log to it, along with your reasoning, and the admins will take a look, and archive it if they agree.

I do not thing there should be any automatic mechanism for this. There are too many variables. The existing mechanism allows them to be treated on a case-by-case basis.

Lil Devil

3k · April 14, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by LilDevil:
I agree with Marky. There's already a mechanism for getting rid of these "permanently temporarily disabled" caches. Just post a "Cache should be archived" log to it, along with your reasoning, and the admins will take a look, and archive it if they agree.

Certainly that is one way to approach the problem, but that method places the onus on random individuals ... whose determination of the cache condition may or may not be accurate.

I think the onus should be placed on the owner of the cache. A semi-automated system with a human overseer would help keep things moving smoothly according to established guidelines, as mentioned in this and other threads.

A few of you who have commented on methodology didn't address the first question of the thread, which was:

1. What do you consider to be a reasonable amount of time for a cache to be "temporarily disabled?"

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on April 14, 2003 at 02:01 PM.]

2.4k · April 14, 2003

What do you do in cases where something has happened, and the cache owner hasn't logged into the site in a while? Like a couple months? Just post a "should be archived"?

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you.

1.3k · April 15, 2003

I changed my mind. Every cache is different, (if they weren't, I'd stop caching) and the appropriate amount of time for a cache to remain disabled depends on conditions at the site, and the ability of the owner to get to it. I think a year should be the limit. That's about the very edge of responsible cache maintenance. The next question would be, should caches that haven't been visited by the owner for maintenance in more than a year be archived? Might be an incentive for people to keep up their caches better. It could also stifle those vacation caches. (Why place one when you know it's going to be archived when you don't drive 1,000 miles to check on it?)

"Searching with my good eye closed"

38.2k · April 15, 2003

quote:
The next question would be, should caches that haven't been visited by the owner for maintenance in more than a year be archived?

Absolutely not.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

April 15, 2003

I agree with those that say there's already a mechanism in place. We had a similar situation here, but in our case, myself and another geocacher had confirmed that the cache was in great shape and had no busniess being disabled. So, with Jeremy's help, I eventually adopted it, and re-activated it.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

5k · April 15, 2003

I think it appropriate for me to respond to this thread. When we were first discussing the temporary disable feature, I supported the idea, but I strongly suggested that there be some sort of time limit placed on temporary disabling because I figured it would be abused.

Well.. in some cases it has. Here's the irony. I'm guilty of it myself. I have a cache that I adopted more than a year ago. I took over ownership because the owners had moved and the cache had fallen into disrepair. Anyway, the first thing I did when I got ownership was to disable it until I could make the necessary repairs. It's still disabled.

I'd still like to see some sort of time-limit.

I've tried to find the threads where we hashed out the ideas for the disabling feature, but I can't find it.

Jamie

April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by IV_Warrior:
What do you do in cases where something has happened, and the cache owner hasn't logged into the site in a while? Like a couple months? Just post a "should be archived"?

I just did a cache that was in terrible shape. I looked at the owners profile, and he hadn't logged in in a year. I sent an email to him, and he gave me permission to Archive it, and move the contents to a different cache.. Again, the onus is on the individuals. Not sure what the answer is though...

3k · April 15, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:
The next question would be, should caches that haven't been visited by the owner for maintenance in more than a year be archived?

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Absolutely not.

"Absolutely not?" That is, in my opinion, far too strong a position. It absolves cache owners of any responsibility for their cache after placement ... yet cache maintenance is already practically nonexistent.

To the further detriment of geocaching, it also equates to carte blanche for cachers to place, and immediately abandon, as many caches as they desire ... with a clear conscience. Egads.

1.3k · April 16, 2003

Here is a cache placed on private property. It was, by the owner's admission "never intended to last that long (temporary cache), placed on vacation, and now temporarily disabled. The sole reason for it's placement was to leave a travel bug in another state, without even leaving your hotel. How did this slip through the cracks? The owner states "I won't be returning to New Orleans any time soon."

"Searching with my good eye closed"

3k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BloenCustoms:
... It was, by the owner's admission "never intended to last that long (temporary cache), placed on vacation, and now temporarily disabled. The sole reason for it's placement was to leave a travel bug in another state, without even leaving your hotel. How did this slip through the cracks?

When I read your post, my first thought was "it was probably placed long ago." I was surprised to see it had been placed less than two months ago. Yet it was approved, and now its owner has temporarily disabled it until someone can remove it for him.

There are several issues there that are off-topic for this thread, but I think the cache owner has used the "temporarily disabled" feature properly ... hopefully, s/he will remember to archive the cache after someone has claimed it.

1.7k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I think the cache owner has used the "temporarily disabled" feature properly ... hopefully, s/he will remember to archive the cache after someone has claimed it.

I'm not so sure. Remember, the "temporarily disabled" feature puts the cache at the bottom of your search page and strikes it out. That's a strong visual cue that it's not worth reading the cache description because you can't hunt it anyway (especially since the same cue is used to mark archived caches in someone's "found" list.)

So what we have is a cache that's in desperate need of attention, pretending to be a cache we shouldn't pay attention to until it's re-enabled.

I think the best thing for the owner to do, in this case, would be to change the cache description asking for the container to be picked up and giving a precise description of what and where the container is (so the second person to try to pick up the container doesn't trash the area looking for it.) Then, if there's anyone on the watch list, post a note with the same information. Quietly disabling the cache will just make it hang around longer, in my opinion.

A bit off-topic: I guess I'd rather a slightly-wrong but not dangerous cache got approved than that the travel bug that was in it when it was placed got lost, provided that someone ensures that it gets cleanly archived shortly after.

April 16, 2003

Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy, luv your new sig line! We're big fans of the VT...

20.7k · April 16, 2003

I'm not sure that any action is required on this. Certainly, how long a particular cache should remain disabled depends on the cache.

My 'Caesar's Greetings' cache was designed to be temporary in nature. I placed it to give trinks to cachers during the holidays. Once the Christmas season was over, I removed the box and disabled the cache. The cache was designed to be placed periodically in different locations to share gifts. I intended to enable it for the Easter season, but I got too busy.

Certainly, this cache could remain disabled for the bulk of the year, only being placed and enabled for short periods of time.

3k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

I think the best thing for the owner to do, in this case, would be to change the cache description asking for the container to be picked up and giving a precise description of what and where the container is (so the second person to try to pick up the container doesn't trash the area looking for it.) Then, if there's anyone on the watch list, post a note with the same information. Quietly disabling the cache will just make it hang around longer, in my opinion.

That's true; I had forgotten the disabled cache would go to the bottom of the page ... for that specific cache, your suggestion seems much more practical.

3k · April 16, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

My 'Caesar's Greetings' cache was designed to be temporary in nature. I placed it to give trinks to cachers during the holidays. Once the Christmas season was over, I removed the box and disabled the cache. The cache was designed to be placed periodically in different locations to share gifts.

Wow. A moving temporary cache. Thank God for 'grandfathering,' eh?

How long is "Temporary?"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment