Caches being "Unpublished" instead of archived?

[+DanPan]

It seems that the EarthCache Team is starting re-reviewing existing EarthCaches.

 

If the educational task of the EC has no relation to the specific Earth Science, the EC will be disabled and the CO will be asked to modify his EC. If not the EC will be "unpublished".

 

Over the past weeks many EarthCaches are disabled or "unpublished".

Examples can be found here.

 

Why caches being "Unpublished" instead of Archived?

Any comments from EC Team?

[Keystone]

Where are the examples? I only saw one example in the linked thread. The cache was not an earthcache and was published as one in error.

[+geoaware]

This is not the case.

 

However, we do re-evaluate EarthCaches that are brought to our attention ("needs maintenance" logs for example) when they obviously do not meet the current guidelines.

 

We would strongly encourage all EarthCache owners to make sure that their existing active EarthCaches meet the guidelines as part of their regular cache maintenance work.

[+DanPan]

We would strongly encourage all EarthCache owners to make sure that their existing active EarthCaches meet the guidelines as part of their regular cache maintenance work.

I would expect if an EC is reviewed he meets the guidelines...

[+DanPan]

Where are the examples? I only saw one example in the linked thread. The cache was not an earthcache and was published as one in error.

link

 

retracted Earthcache (5 logs)

archived Earthcache (after 81 logs; no "needs maintenance" logs)

 

My questions remains, why Earthcache (GC38WWD) being "retracted" instead of Archived?

Edited June 4, 2012 by DanPan

[BlueRajah]

We would strongly encourage all EarthCache owners to make sure that their existing active EarthCaches meet the guidelines as part of their regular cache maintenance work.

I would expect if an EC is reviewed he meets the guidelines...

 

Photo's are an example.

Requests for photographs must be optional. Exceptions to this guideline will only be considered if the requested photograph is related to an Earth Science logging activity such as recording a phenomenon. This particular guidelines was updated on 1 January 2011. All EarthCaches must conform to this guideline as photo requests are considered "optional tasks" and follow the guidelines set forth by Geocaching.com.

Existing EarthCaches that do not meet this guideline must be updated to comply. Cache owners may not delete the cacher's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Cachers were asked to change them. Though many have not.

 

Where are the examples? I only saw one example in the linked thread. The cache was not an earthcache and was published as one in error.

link

 

retracted Earthcache (5 logs)

disabled Eartcache (after 81 logs)

 

My questions remains, why Earthcache (GC38WWD) being "retracted" instead of Archived?

 

In general Groundspeak and their volunteers do not discuss specific caches and the issues involved. However I have retracted caches when there is a issue with the cache I review; my error hitting the wrong button, cache does not meet requirements, owner changing requirements soon after publishing, or if it should not have been listed the first time. Every situation and reviewer is different.

[+hzoi]

We would strongly encourage all EarthCache owners to make sure that their existing active EarthCaches meet the guidelines as part of their regular cache maintenance work.

I would expect if an EC is reviewed he meets the guidelines...

 

Photo's are an example.

Requests for photographs must be optional. Exceptions to this guideline will only be considered if the requested photograph is related to an Earth Science logging activity such as recording a phenomenon. This particular guidelines was updated on 1 January 2011. All EarthCaches must conform to this guideline as photo requests are considered "optional tasks" and follow the guidelines set forth by Geocaching.com.

Existing EarthCaches that do not meet this guideline must be updated to comply. Cache owners may not delete the cacher's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

Cachers were asked to change them. Though many have not.

 

Side note on this: the word has definitely not gotten to many earthcache owners on this. The guideline change was January 2011, right? (Edit: right. Helps if I read the posts I'm quoting!) Yet unless someone has tried creating a new earthcache with that requirement and been told it's no longer acceptable, I don't think the change has been advertised at all. The majority of the earthcaches we've found that predate the guideline change still mandate photos to log.

 

When emailing answers to earthcache questions, I try to politely point out the change. Something like, "FYI, although we are going to upload photos with our logs, the rules for earthcaches changed in January 2011; you can no longer require photos. This change was retroactive. You might want to edit your cache listings." A couple cache owners have changed their listings after they've gotten this, most have not.

Edited June 4, 2012 by hzoi

[+Harry Dolphin]

I do remember the last re-evaluation, where a number of caches were archived for not meeting new guidelines. But they were archived...

Hey. Ya want to archive some, I know of a series in a landfill that have almost nothing to do with Earth Sciences. "Which way is the wind blowing'??? Which way are the birds flying???

[+GeoawareGSA1]

These are just a few small examples, and are definitely not the norm. Without getting into specifics, it looks like there may have been some rather unique issues here that the reviewer was working through with these particular caches.

 

The EarthCache review team does not make a practice of re-evaluating previously published EarthCaches unless there is a good reason to do so. For one, it would be impractical, because the volume of new EarthCache submissions is quite high, so there is plenty of work to do in reviewing new EarthCaches, which does not leave time for hunting for old EarthCaches that might have issues

 

There are a variety of ways an EarthCache may be brought to a reviewer's attention besides a "Needs Archived" log. (Communications from the cache owner, or messages from people attempting to log the cache, etc.)

 

And as pointed out earlier, there are a variety of reasons for which a previously published EarthCache may, at some point, no longer be in compliance with the current guidelines. One obvious reason is that guidelines have changed. Another is that sometimes an EarthCache changes (the text, questions, etc.), or the situation "on the ground" changes (land changes ownership, trails/roads are closed, etc.).