Reinstate an archived cache

[+OzzOzz]

Do I treat it like a new hide? http://coord.info/GC3MKV1

 

Thanks.

[+ChileHead]

Email your reviewer with the details. Chances are if it's been archived a short time they can unarchive it, but if it's been out of commission for a while you might have to write up a new one.

[+The A-Team]

You logged an Owner Maintenance note saying "It was found, so I guess it is still there!", but there haven't been any finds recently. What makes you think it's still there? Before asking for it to be unarchived, you should visit the site yourself to confirm it's still there and in good shape. You don't want to have it be unarchived only to later find out it really was missing.

[Keystone]

I don't see a recent "found it" log on your listing, either visible or archived. How do you know it was found recently?

 

When was the last time you visited your cache location? That's the best way to know whether it's still there.

[+Trav'lin Two]

If you aren't personally going to check the cache, leave it archived. With that many DNFs, we wouldn't waste our time on it.

[AZcachemeister]

If you aren't personally going to check the cache...

 

The cache is in Missouri.

The owner/OP lives in the 'west valley' of Phoenix, AZ.

 

It doesn't seem like they are going just 'run out for a quick check-up'.

[+Markwell]

If you aren't personally going to check the cache...

 

The cache is in Missouri.

The owner/OP lives in the 'west valley' of Phoenix, AZ.

 

It doesn't seem like they are going just 'run out for a quick check-up'.

Then it should be unarchived. Right? Can't maintain it...

[AZcachemeister]

 

Then it should be unarchived. Right? Can't maintain it...

 

Is that a trick question?

[+The_Incredibles_]

There are many people that log finds, even if they didn't find the cache. They figure they did a good search and deserve a smilie. Sometimes people also make a mistake when logging.

 

The only way to know for sure if it's there is to check yourself. If you're not able to do that, I would vote for leaving the cache archived.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

There are many people that log finds, even if they didn't find the cache. They figure they did a good search and deserve a smilie. Sometimes people also make a mistake when logging.

There are people that say they found the cache, probably did, but didn't actually remove the container and log it. I think this is the case with many people that do hundred plus caches in a day.

The only way to know for sure if it's there is to check yourself. If you're not able to do that, I would vote for leaving the cache archived.

I agree that Cache owner should put eyes on it themselves before any archiving reversal is done. The exception being if cache is adopted.

 

I've had a couple of unarchived caches, but one was unarchived due to DNFs, and I didn't get to it in time, but then went to replace the cache and restart a new on in an identical spot, but actually found the original container just sitting there fine! Then there was a cache that was archived because a local cacher made up some story (aka lied) about the site owners (it was a small airport) not wanting the cache there (when in fact when I spoke with them....they not only loved it, but also ended up inviting my local ham radio group there for their field day operations).

 

I would love to reinstate my first placed cache, but already attempted it, and the then reviewer said no, because it was too long since it was archived and no "special" circumstance existed.

[+The_Incredibles_]

There are many people that log finds, even if they didn't find the cache. They figure they did a good search and deserve a smilie. Sometimes people also make a mistake when logging.

There are people that say they found the cache, probably did, but didn't actually remove the container and log it. I think this is the case with many people that do hundred plus caches in a day.

 

I'm actually talking about the situation where there's a long string of DNFs, with a clearly-bogus Find somewhere in the middle. I've seen this a number of times.

[+The A-Team]

I'm wondering now if someone back-dated a find that they only submitted recently. The OP may have received an email saying someone found the cache in question, but they neglected to look at the date it was logged. There certainly aren't any recent finds on the cache page.

Regardless, with all those DNFs, even if someone did find it, it appears to have a problem and should be visited by the owner (which doesn't sound feasible now).

[+NanCycle]

I'm wondering now if someone back-dated a find that they only submitted recently. The OP may have received an email saying someone found the cache in question, but they neglected to look at the date it was logged. There certainly aren't any recent finds on the cache page.

 

 

I was wondering this too. Is this something that a reviewer can determine?

[+Lil Devil]

I'm wondering now if someone back-dated a find that they only submitted recently. The OP may have received an email saying someone found the cache in question, but they neglected to look at the date it was logged. There certainly aren't any recent finds on the cache page.

I was wondering this too. Is this something that a reviewer can determine?

Sometimes. In this case I can. Colorado Mamba's log, dated Aug/25/2012 was actually entered into the system on Feb/17/2013.

[+The A-Team]

I'm wondering now if someone back-dated a find that they only submitted recently. The OP may have received an email saying someone found the cache in question, but they neglected to look at the date it was logged. There certainly aren't any recent finds on the cache page.

I was wondering this too. Is this something that a reviewer can determine?

I'm not sure if they can, but I think I just found it myself.

GLA8YCTY:

Found with my dad (DrPowercat), we had a combined account at that time, sorry for the late log,

started my own account and trying to catch up

I looked at the GL code for all of the find logs on that cache (there's only 44, it didn't take long). This is the only one for which the GL code places the submission within the last few days. By comparing the GL code to some other logs I know the exact logging time of, I'd say the above log was submitted sometime late Saturday night, Missouri time. As per the content of the log, it wasn't a new find, but rather just a cacher splitting off from a shared account and re-logging all the caches they found with the shared account.

 

Therefore, I see no reason for this cache to be unarchived at this time. It is most likely still missing.

 

Edit: Ack! Lil Devil beat me to it while I was typing this up!

Edited February 19, 2013 by The A-Team

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

There are many people that log finds, even if they didn't find the cache. They figure they did a good search and deserve a smilie. Sometimes people also make a mistake when logging.

There are people that say they found the cache, probably did, but didn't actually remove the container and log it. I think this is the case with many people that do hundred plus caches in a day.

 

I'm actually talking about the situation where there's a long string of DNFs, with a clearly-bogus Find somewhere in the middle. I've seen this a number of times.

I knew that, I was building (not refuting) on what you said. I didn't write that clearly though. I have seen what you are talking about. I see it a lot more with nanos and micros than regular and large caches. Not sure if you've noticed the same.

[+OzzOzz]

Thanks for the help on this. It was a small hanging container with a camo cover.

I do have a nice cacher that is covering for me while we are in the west valley here in Arizona.

I will be back late March and do a maint. run on all my caches there.

This cache was a 'hanger' and every time I visited it, the container was in a different location, which is Ok, as long as it was accessible.

I imagine it got dropped into the weeds on the far side of the tree.

After reviewing the posts, I imagine the recent log entry was not a recent find. I will leave it 'as is' for now.

I do have a neat cache just down the road a bit: 'The Bunker' GC3KZJH so it wouldn't be a waste of time to visit the site, but I will wait.

You folks are super, thanks for the input.

Edited February 19, 2013 by OzzOzz

[+wmpastor]

Do I treat it like a new hide? http://coord.info/GC3MKV1

 

Thanks.

We're sure it's not a throwdown, right? Or is it only experienced cachers who get that devious?

[+Don_J]

There are many people that log finds, even if they didn't find the cache. They figure they did a good search and deserve a smilie. Sometimes people also make a mistake when logging.

There are people that say they found the cache, probably did, but didn't actually remove the container and log it. I think this is the case with many people that do hundred plus caches in a day.

The only way to know for sure if it's there is to check yourself. If you're not able to do that, I would vote for leaving the cache archived.

I agree that Cache owner should put eyes on it themselves before any archiving reversal is done. The exception being if cache is adopted.

 

I've had a couple of unarchived caches, but one was unarchived due to DNFs, and I didn't get to it in time, but then went to replace the cache and restart a new on in an identical spot, but actually found the original container just sitting there fine! Then there was a cache that was archived because a local cacher made up some story (aka lied) about the site owners (it was a small airport) not wanting the cache there (when in fact when I spoke with them....they not only loved it, but also ended up inviting my local ham radio group there for their field day operations).

 

I would love to reinstate my first placed cache, but already attempted it, and the then reviewer said no, because it was too long since it was archived and no "special" circumstance existed.

 

You can't adopt an archived cache and Groundspeak will no longer unarchive a cache for the purpose of adoption. In fact, they haven't for the last five years. I'm surprised you didn't know that.