Jump to content

What would you suggest I do?


Coldgears
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

(Read the log here)

 

There was a local cache near me. It had 69 favorites and 500+ finds. It was a true classic, a hollowed out book at a library.

 

The issue?

 

It was archived unjust! It is still there!

 

I actually went to see if it was there today (I had wanted to find it months ago but it was closed, and I check back another time... Still closed)

 

See, when it was reopened the cache owner never enabled it again. But the cache is still being held there by the librarians.

 

They said they have been trying to e-mail the cache owner, and he has completely ignored them. The cache owner does not geocache actively, and has only found two within the past two years, and not one in this country! He has not even logged in this year!

 

My biggest fear is another cache will be published within .1 miles of the library. Than it could not be unarchived or relisted.

 

Usually in this case, I would relist it, or even reuse the container. The issue? The container is not reuseable, for obvious reasons. And relisting it would get rid of all the history, it would get rid of placed date in 2002. It would ignore the 500+ finds. The 69 favorites.

 

It'd lose so much, that made it so great.

 

Nobody has really been doing anything, but this cache is a classic. I don't want it to go.

 

What should I do? E-mail the CO again?

Link to comment

CJ found this one (introducing relatives to caching) while on the Tut tour in '07. They all found it a fun hide.

But, the CO didn't re-enable the listing after remodeling was done, forcing it to be archived.

You know how this works. Try the CO contact once more (if you must) then fuggetaboutit.

This isn't the first "classic" that had to go byebye for lack of interest by a CO.

Link to comment

"Unjust?"

 

I think you're being very disrespectful of your reviewer. He doesn't enjoy archiving classic caches, none of us do, but we have rules to follow. The cache lacked an active owner. The warning note failed to change that, so archival became inevitable.

 

Studying the record on the cache page, including your own complaint note, I would have handled the situation identically.

 

If the cache were handled differently than what's prescribed by the Cache Maintenance guideline, then that might be "unjust." As it stands, though, the only injustice I'm seeing is in your OP.

Link to comment

Now that it's been archived, it can't be unarchived for adoption. The owner has the option to get it unarchived so they can continue to look after it, but considering what has already happened, that seems exceedingly unlikely. Basically, it's done. You can place your own there, but the old one is done forever.

Like cerberus1 said, there have been many "classic" caches that have died due to inactive owners. This wasn't the first, and certainly won't be the last.

Link to comment

Remember, part of the rules that you agree to when you publish a cache is that you will maintain it. MIA CO's are ultimately bad for geocaching on whole.

"As there's been no response to my earlier note, I am forced to archive this listing.

 

If you wish to repair/replace the cache sometime in the future, just contact me email, including the GC Code, and assuming it meets the guidelines, we'll be happy to unarchive it"

 

Doesn't mean it's gone forever. The conditions are pretty clear.

If it's that good of a cache, fix it up and re-list it under your account. I'm sure after 500 logs it could us some refreshing

Edited by ekitt10
Link to comment

Yeah, I agree that it sucks when a really great old cache gets archived.

You probably saw the mess on the forums when the old ape cache in WA State was archived. Some people are still mad about it.

 

I guess just take it as one of those lessons in life. Nothing is permanent. Nothing. None of us, no cache anywhere, nothing.

 

Or as they use to say on the X-Files, "Everything dies."

 

The Buddhists say, "attachment brings suffering."

 

So once more, we get life lessons out of geocaching:

We've got to let go sometimes, no matter how much it sucks.

Link to comment

"Unjust?"

 

I think you're being very disrespectful of your reviewer. He doesn't enjoy archiving classic caches, none of us do, but we have rules to follow. The cache lacked an active owner. The warning note failed to change that, so archival became inevitable.

 

Studying the record on the cache page, including your own complaint note, I would have handled the situation identically.

 

If the cache were handled differently than what's prescribed by the Cache Maintenance guideline, then that might be "unjust." As it stands, though, the only injustice I'm seeing is in your OP.

I did not pass the blame to anyone. I just detailed this "tragic" loss in geocaching. I guess I should have explained my opinion on the matter, but I decided to remain neutral. If I must give my stance, you just echoed my thoughts... The CO should have enabled it, then the cache would not have been archived unjustly.

Link to comment

I know you don't want to get rid of the history, but as a compromise, re-use the container, and put a link to the previous cache in the description?

Those are very wise words there Clipper247. Archiving a cache actually preserves the history of a cache. I've seen caches that were forced adopted instead of achieved where the adopter claimed that all they want to do was preserve the history of the cache. Then when they gained control of the cache listing they proceed to change the description and delete some (or in one case all) of the old log entries. That isn't preserving the history of a cache!

 

If you want to preserve the history of the cache I'd do exactly what Clipper247 said. Submit a new cache listing, re-use the container, and provide a link to the old listing in the description for the new listing.

Link to comment

"Unjust?"

 

I think you're being very disrespectful of your reviewer. He doesn't enjoy archiving classic caches, none of us do, but we have rules to follow. The cache lacked an active owner. The warning note failed to change that, so archival became inevitable.

 

Studying the record on the cache page, including your own complaint note, I would have handled the situation identically.

 

If the cache were handled differently than what's prescribed by the Cache Maintenance guideline, then that might be "unjust." As it stands, though, the only injustice I'm seeing is in your OP.

I did not pass the blame to anyone. I just detailed this "tragic" loss in geocaching. I guess I should have explained my opinion on the matter, but I decided to remain neutral. If I must give my stance, you just echoed my thoughts... The CO should have enabled it, then the cache would not have been archived unjustly.

 

Why are you continuing to accuse the reviewer of being "unjust" in his actions? :blink:

 

un-just

adj.

1. Violating principles of justice or fairness; unfair:

 

And relisting it would get rid of all the history, it would get rid of placed date in 2002. It would ignore the 500+ finds. The 69 favorites.

A new listing won't affect the history of the archived listing at all. The history is preserved right there, on the archived listing's page.

 

Where do you get these ideas?

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

And relisting it would get rid of all the history, it would get rid of placed date in 2002. It would ignore the 500+ finds. The 69 favorites.

A new listing won't affect the history of the archived listing at all. The history is preserved right there, on the archived listing's page.

 

Coldgears, preserve the history by relisting and mention the old archived listing in your description then link to it.

Link to comment

"Unjust?"

 

I think you're being very disrespectful of your reviewer. He doesn't enjoy archiving classic caches, none of us do, but we have rules to follow. The cache lacked an active owner. The warning note failed to change that, so archival became inevitable.

 

Studying the record on the cache page, including your own complaint note, I would have handled the situation identically.

 

If the cache were handled differently than what's prescribed by the Cache Maintenance guideline, then that might be "unjust." As it stands, though, the only injustice I'm seeing is in your OP.

I did not pass the blame to anyone. I just detailed this "tragic" loss in geocaching. I guess I should have explained my opinion on the matter, but I decided to remain neutral. If I must give my stance, you just echoed my thoughts... The CO should have enabled it, then the cache would not have been archived unjustly.

 

I thought unjust was a synonym for "wrongly" not "unfairly".

However...in either case it is not a statement of neutrality...

Link to comment

I thought unjust was a synonym for "wrongly" not "unfairly".

I think your only point is that the cache is still there and it's a shame that it's been archived. It's obvious that you understand the CO is responsible for the archival. Try to contact him a time or two and then move on from there.

 

If the owner doesn't answer your queries, list a new cache at the library. It shouldn't be difficult. The staff is in on it and playing along so permission should be a snap.

 

Whether you use the existing container or fashion a new one is up to you. I don't have strong feelings on it either way, but others do.

Link to comment

If the cache was archived and it was still there to be found, it was archived wrongly. Now whose fault it was? I left that out of my post.

You posted this while I was posting my last response. It wasn't archived "wrongly".

 

It was archived because the library re-opened in December and the owner never re-activated his cache.

The reviewer took all of the proper steps and the cache was archived properly.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment

I read this as Coldgears really meant, unnecessarily, as in, if the CO had enabled it someone could have adopted it and then it would be unnecessary to have archived it? Inferring the CO did the wrong thing by ignoring it rather than the reviewer being wrong in archiving it, but maybe I read funny............

 

But saying all that, as others have said you can't unarchive it so re-list it with a link. And again I too am missing the obvious reasons for

 

'Why can't the container be reused?'

 

If its because you are worried the Co might re-appear then if that happens you could simply adopt it back? No? (at a risk that they might neglect it again sure)

 

Edited, I have left my post standing but in writing it I see CG has proved me wrong by posting again.

Edited by The Real Boudica.
Link to comment

If the cache was archived and it was still there to be found, it was archived wrongly. Now whose fault it was? I left that out of my post.

Nope...pretty well documented that it is the cache owner's fault that it is now archived...still do not see how "unjust" the result really is...

 

You even mention the library emailing the CO without a reply...seems the result is indeed correct.

Link to comment

If the cache was archived and it was still there to be found, it was archived wrongly. Now whose fault it was? I left that out of my post.

 

It was the COs fault for not responding. If he posted a note with an update it would not have been achieved. It appears he is welcome to have it unachived if it meets the guidelines, but listing caches for people who are not interested anymore is not a good idea.

Link to comment

What should you do?

 

1) Read this forum.

 

2) Take some sort of action from it.

 

3) Get over the fact that you may have used unjust incorrectly. It's no big.. really.

 

4) Post the replacement cache link so others here can get some closure.

 

Shaun

Link to comment

I read this as Coldgears really meant, unnecessarily, as in, if the CO had enabled it someone could have adopted it and then it would be unnecessary to have archived it? Inferring the CO did the wrong thing by ignoring it rather than the reviewer being wrong in archiving it, but maybe I read funny............

 

But saying all that, as others have said you can't unarchive it so re-list it with a link. And again I too am missing the obvious reasons for

 

'Why can't the container be reused?'

 

If its because you are worried the Co might re-appear then if that happens you could simply adopt it back? No? (at a risk that they might neglect it again sure)

 

Edited, I have left my post standing but in writing it I see CG has proved me wrong by posting again.

Thank you, unnecessarily is the perfect word. As for reuse, I meant, when you find an ammo box, you might take it, add new swag and hide it in a new location. Relist is if the cache is in the same location and you just make a new listing.

Link to comment

Felt that I have to post on this thread also as we were the last ones to find this before it got archived.

 

While we appreciated the history behind this cache, all things must come to an end. That's just the way of the world.

Otherwise, the A.P.E. caches would still be active, new virtuals and new locationless would still be allowed.

Actually met a cacher at a Leap Day event that had logged the A.P.E. cache that was in Maryland. Got in the game a little

late for those but still enjoy what geocaching is about.

 

If you want to place a new cache in that library, please do since the staff seems amenable to it and you'll get hundreds

of people to go back to find it. We haven't been back since it closed for renovations and would gladly welcome a new cache there.

Link to comment

The CO disabled the cache on 5/16/11

Comments were made on the cache listing page on 5/28/11 and 6/27/11

The reviewer posted a note on 1/11/12 ,,,,7 months after the CO disabled it

The reviewer archived it on 2/13/12

The CO has not responded to notes or emails. Just because the cache is still there is irrelevant. A cache must have an active owner.

Looks like the CO and the cache were given 5 months more time than is reasonable.

Archived,,,,no response from owner. That was the correct action taken

Edited by sabrefan7
Link to comment
Thank you, unnecessarily is the perfect word.

 

I would still disagree. It's necessary to archive a cache page when the owner cannot or is unwilling to respond to maintenance issues. It would be necessary for the archival to happen so that someone else can put a cache at that location eventually. Caches do not live forever, although some can have a very long life.

 

But just because a cache is old doesn't mean it should never be archived. I'd rather see an abandoned cache archived from a lack of owner so that a new fresh cache can be placed and bring people BACK to the location. Based on my join date, you can tell that I own some pretty old caches. As long as they are viable and have a log book and can be found, great. But if I were ever to leave the game unexpectedly, I wouldn't grouse about a reviewer archiving my abandoned caches. I also don't think anyone else should grumble about the archival either. IMHO, in that scenario, other cachers would just be bystanders and should not interfere in the dialog (or lack thereof) between reviewer and owner.

 

relisting it would get rid of all the history, it would get rid of placed date in 2002. It would ignore the 500+ finds. The 69 favorites.

Actually, all of these stay with the original listing. Once the venerated historic cache is archived (and preserved in its cache page for posterity), someone else can come by and make a stellar cache out of the location. Whether they do so with the container that was left in the woods or with a new one is between the new cache owner and the old - and the reviewer doesn't even get involved in that.

 

I guess what it comes down to is that other than the possibility of someone placing a cache that doesn't quite meet your expectations for what this historic cache used to be like, why does it bother you that the cache is archived?

 

These are still pretty harsh phrases

It was archived unjust! It is still there!
I just detailed this "tragic" loss in geocaching.
the cache would not have been archived unjustly
I thought unjust was a synonym for "wrongly" not "unfairly".
If the cache was archived and it was still there to be found, it was archived wrongly.
Thank you, unnecessarily is the perfect word.

 

These all indicate that the archival was wrong. I would say the lack of maintenance was wrong, not the archival.

Link to comment

These all indicate that the archival was wrong. I would say the lack of maintenance was wrong, not the archival.

In my experience, most caches without active owners are not archived simply because lack of an active owner, rather it's been lack of a cache being there, and no one to replace it. I've never seen my reviewer archive a cache simply because the owner is gone. Many of the caches I have found have owners that have moved, quit the game, don't maintain any of there caches, ect.

 

Maybe it's because the disabled cache just brought it to the attention of the reviewer?

 

It's just never happened this way, so I thought it was archived unnecessarily. If it's always been that the reviewer simply didn't notice it, than I am sorry, just never noticed that.

Link to comment

I read this as Coldgears really meant, unnecessarily, as in, if the CO had enabled it someone could have adopted it and then it would be unnecessary to have archived it? Inferring the CO did the wrong thing by ignoring it rather than the reviewer being wrong in archiving it, but maybe I read funny............

 

But saying all that, as others have said you can't unarchive it so re-list it with a link. And again I too am missing the obvious reasons for

 

'Why can't the container be reused?'

 

If its because you are worried the Co might re-appear then if that happens you could simply adopt it back? No? (at a risk that they might neglect it again sure)

 

Edited, I have left my post standing but in writing it I see CG has proved me wrong by posting again.

Thank you, unnecessarily is the perfect word. As for reuse, I meant, when you find an ammo box, you might take it, add new swag and hide it in a new location. Relist is if the cache is in the same location and you just make a new listing.

 

With apologies to Inigo Montoya:

Unjust/Unnecessary- You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. :laughing:

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

I read this as Coldgears really meant, unnecessarily, as in, if the CO had enabled it someone could have adopted it and then it would be unnecessary to have archived it? Inferring the CO did the wrong thing by ignoring it rather than the reviewer being wrong in archiving it, but maybe I read funny............

 

But saying all that, as others have said you can't unarchive it so re-list it with a link. And again I too am missing the obvious reasons for

 

'Why can't the container be reused?'

 

If its because you are worried the Co might re-appear then if that happens you could simply adopt it back? No? (at a risk that they might neglect it again sure)

 

Edited, I have left my post standing but in writing it I see CG has proved me wrong by posting again.

Thank you, unnecessarily is the perfect word. As for reuse, I meant, when you find an ammo box, you might take it, add new swag and hide it in a new location. Relist is if the cache is in the same location and you just make a new listing.

 

With apologies to Inigo Montoya:

Unjust/Unnecessary- You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. :laughing:

"Post of the Day" Award. :lol:

Link to comment

These all indicate that the archival was wrong. I would say the lack of maintenance was wrong, not the archival.

In my experience, most caches without active owners are not archived simply because lack of an active owner, rather it's been lack of a cache being there, and no one to replace it. I've never seen my reviewer archive a cache simply because the owner is gone. Many of the caches I have found have owners that have moved, quit the game, don't maintain any of there caches, ect.

 

Maybe it's because the disabled cache just brought it to the attention of the reviewer?

 

It's just never happened this way, so I thought it was archived unnecessarily. If it's always been that the reviewer simply didn't notice it, than I am sorry, just never noticed that.

Caches cannot be disabled forever, it ties up the area. If a Reviewer notices a cache that's been disabled for a long time (either through regular sweeps, or a cacher brings it to the Reviewer's attention, etc.) they will put a note on it and give the owner a chance to respond. If the owner is absent and doesn't respond to the Reviewer, the cache gets archived. This is standard, and happens all the time.

Link to comment

The cache was disabled by the owner. The library, you, and the reviewer tried to contact the CO. The CO never responded (even though all they had to do was respond to an email or log in and click enable). The reviewer gave them plenty of leeway. The reviewer did their job and did nothing wrong.

Link to comment

These all indicate that the archival was wrong. I would say the lack of maintenance was wrong, not the archival.

In my experience, most caches without active owners are not archived simply because lack of an active owner, rather it's been lack of a cache being there, and no one to replace it. I've never seen my reviewer archive a cache simply because the owner is gone. Many of the caches I have found have owners that have moved, quit the game, don't maintain any of there caches, ect.

 

Maybe it's because the disabled cache just brought it to the attention of the reviewer?

 

It's just never happened this way, so I thought it was archived unnecessarily. If it's always been that the reviewer simply didn't notice it, than I am sorry, just never noticed that.

 

Yes, and sometimes it's not by a local reviewer. Probably just to avoid the hard feelings.

 

Don't think that we haven't noticed that you care about caches.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

I've never seen my reviewer archive a cache simply because the owner is gone. Many of the caches I have found have owners that have moved, quit the game, don't maintain any of there caches, ect.

 

And you still haven't seen your reviewer do this "simply" because the owner is gone. The cache was disabled. Caches can only be disabled for so long, with or without an owner who is active. I would have treated this cache exactly the same way if it were in my area.

Link to comment
Maybe it's because the disabled cache just brought it to the attention of the reviewer?

 

**ding, ding ding** We have a winner! Tell him what he's won, Bob!

 

There are caches all over the place where the owner has left the game but the caches remain viable and findable. You don't [often] see them archived by reviewers.

 

Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs -- with the library! How dare they renovate and cause us to lose this historic cache? :P

Link to comment
Maybe it's because the disabled cache just brought it to the attention of the reviewer?

 

**ding, ding ding** We have a winner! Tell him what he's won, Bob!

 

There are caches all over the place where the owner has left the game but the caches remain viable and findable. You don't [often] see them archived by reviewers.

 

Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs -- with the library! How dare they renovate and cause us to lose this historic cache? :P

It's because the libraries hate the chindldren.

Link to comment

See, that's how you do it :)

 

My one question is with your diff. rating. You state in the description that it's a really easy multi, but you rate it 2.5 stars. That's not what I would classify as really easy...

I had originally hid it as a traditional, but the reviewer was all liek, "Zomgz, that are teh cache from teh 10 yerz ago, teh rulezz has teh changedded". So I had to hide a micro with the name of the book in it so I could satisify, "u is r teh nedz teh GPS usage adequatezlyz".

 

If the cache was taken as a traditional it would be a 2.5. At least for me, because I can't use a library system to find a book. But, the first stage adds pretty much nothing other than satisfying the guideline.

 

TL;DR, I wanted people to know they didn't have to drive miles to do this multi, or solve an offset.

 

It's actually a different hallowed out book from "anne rices the mummy".

 

I'm worried the multi status will stop people from doing it. Especially all the tourists.

Edited by Coldgears
Link to comment

See, that's how you do it :)

 

My one question is with your diff. rating. You state in the description that it's a really easy multi, but you rate it 2.5 stars. That's not what I would classify as really easy...

I had originally hid it as a traditional, but the reviewer was all liek, "Zomgz, that are teh cache from teh 10 yerz ago, teh rulezz has teh changedded". So I had to hide a micro with the name of the book in it so I could satisify, "u is r teh nedz teh GPS usage adequatezlyz".

 

If the cache was taken as a traditional it would be a 2.5. At least for me, because I can't use a library system to find a book. But, the first stage adds pretty much nothing other than satisfying the guideline.

 

TL;DR, I wanted people to know they didn't have to drive miles to do this multi, or solve an offset.

 

It's actually a different hallowed hollowed out book from "anne rices the mummy".

 

I'm worried the multi status will stop people from doing it. Especially all the tourists.

 

They're different B)

 

I get the reasons, but you're still contradicting yourself. You could lower the difficulty and keep the description as it is, or keep the difficulty and change the wording in your description, either would stop the contradiction.

 

Either way, I'm glad to see you do something about the cache instead of complain about it from the sidelines. It's garnered good logs so far, so it appears you've done a good job :D

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...