Caches not being maintained - Owner not active for over 2 years

[+SaidCache]

I have be caching for about little over 2 years now, and I have been placing several new caches. I have been told that my area has been know for being a dead spot for caches. I am hopefully bringing some new life to this area with the help from other local cachers. But there is issue with several caches in this area and some outside the area where the owner has not been active for several years now and most of the caches need maintaince. I have notified Geocaching (new local reviewer) about this issue and they have stated that we can not just disable a cache because of the owner is not active or in the area anymore. Other cachers included myself have been maintaining these caches, and not to long ago one cache was finally archived and another cacher replaced in the same spot but they are the owner. This issue needs to be addressed but unknown how, according to Geocaching they do not condon other cachers maintaining caches, only thing that will start the process of archiving the cache needs to MIA or reports from land owners etc that the cache needs to be moved. I am pretty sure the is not the only place this happens but just wanted to direction or thoughts.

 

Saidcache

Iowa

[+Semper Questio]

I have be caching for about little over 2 years now, and I have been placing several new caches. I have been told that my area has been know for being a dead spot for caches. I am hopefully bringing some new life to this area with the help from other local cachers. But there is issue with several caches in this area and some outside the area where the owner has not been active for several years now and most of the caches need maintaince. I have notified Geocaching (new local reviewer) about this issue and they have stated that we can not just disable a cache because of the owner is not active or in the area anymore. Other cachers included myself have been maintaining these caches, and not to long ago one cache was finally archived and another cacher replaced in the same spot but they are the owner. This issue needs to be addressed but unknown how, according to Geocaching they do not condon other cachers maintaining caches, only thing that will start the process of archiving the cache needs to MIA or reports from land owners etc that the cache needs to be moved. I am pretty sure the is not the only place this happens but just wanted to direction or thoughts.

 

Saidcache

Iowa

 

And this is the problem with a community maintaining caches and not allowing the process to work and let caches reach the end of their life cycle. As long as caches are being maintained by someone, ANYone, and finds are being logged instead of the progression of DNFs, NM, NA, Archival; the caches will stay out there. And as long as you have cachers willing to do this maintenance for the absentee CO, you can't really do much of anything about it.

[+T.D.M.22]

...I have notified Geocaching (new local reviewer) about this issue and they have stated that we can not just disable a cache because of the owner is not active or in the area anymore. Other cachers included myself have been maintaining these caches, and not to long ago one cache was finally archived and another cacher replaced in the same spot but they are the owner. This issue needs to be addressed but unknown how, according to Geocaching they do not condon other cachers maintaining caches, only thing that will start the process of archiving the cache needs to MIA ...

 

Saidcache

Iowa

 

There's the problem (and answer). You guys are maintaining them, which you really shouldn't be doing. Since they are being maintained, there are no other issues, and therefore no reason to archive them. And since they caches are being maintained and are there, I doubt a Needs Archived log-which will be based only on the fact that the CO is not in the game anymore-will not be followed by an archival. It is only until the cache is missing or destroyed, or whatnot that an archival be be done.

 

In my experience a NA stating the cache is not in good shape and the CO is not in the game anymore will be followed through with. And if the Reviewer knows the cacher is experienced it will happen immediately. No your reviewer might be a little more than fair and post a reviewer note giving the CO 2 weeks or so to get it back up, or he might not. But nothing can be done if the cache is in good shape.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Agreeing with others. Don't maintain other people's caches, beyond new logs, or cleaning it up some. Sometimes taking the time to clean a dirty seal or threads can really make a difference. But if a cache is in really bad shape, log a DNF (or a find if you prefer - I tend to log something to the effect "the pile of garbage I removed wasn't a cache, so I didn't find it"), CITO out the trash, and note that you have.

 

Maybe go ahead and log a NA, include that you've removed geo-litter.

 

When each cache was rare and precious, back in 2002, it seemed to make sense for the community to maintain. Now, not so much. Minor stuff sure, but now, doing maintenance is just enabling ownerless caches.

 

Re "(new local reviewer)" - the long time reviewer for Iowa, IowaAdmin, retired from reviewing recently. Iowa is being covered by a experienced reviewer, -Tiki-, with some additional help. -Tiki- may be new to Iowa, but is not a new reviewer.

[+jtbrady01]

I tend to agree with the others here. We have a cacher here in the area that has moved out of State and relies on others to maintain his caches. Some do for the sake of not seeing a "good" cache get archived. Issue is why maintain a cache when the true owner has no intention of ever doing their own maintenance and they are an absence owner. Let the cache "die" out and open the area up for someone else to hide a cache. Who knows that new cache might be something even better.

[+RoadRoach58]

Here's a novel idea.

 

Why not use automation to handle the disabling and archiving of caches? Easy to do.

[+SaidCache]

Well seems there are different opions about this issue. I for one do not agree to let them just sit there without the owner maintaining them or responding to problems. That is not how the Geocaching Policies read.....I will stop maintaining these caches and I will leave a "needs to be archive" note on each one (this will be the third time on this process!!) Hopefully other cachers will see the issues on these caches and they spend the time looking for it if it is not there or needs maintance. Policies are placed for a reason and need to be followed to support Geocaching in this area.

 

SaidCache

[+dprovan]

Well seems there are different opions about this issue. I for one do not agree to let them just sit there without the owner maintaining them or responding to problems.

We react to the cache's condition, not the owner's. If the cache has problems, we follow the procedures and it gets archived. If the cache is fine, people keep finding it and the cache remains, regardless of whether the CO is active. If people maintain the cache without the owner's participation, the latter course is followed. I think everyone that responded suggested such maintenance isn't a good idea, but if it's being done, the cache is viable and there's no reason to archive it.