"Temporarily Disabled" for almost seven years

3.7k · January 27, 2014

So every now and then I go through Project GC to find older caches that have gone a long time unfound. There's one near where I work that pops up and was originally placed in an area that is part of the National Parks Service. I guess when it was originally placed it was fine, but at some point it was removed by the Park due to the NPS policy of no caches without express permission. The cache was disabled in March of 2007 and subsequent logs talk about "negotiations" with the Park and an intention to replace it. Somewhere along the line in 2007, a "Needs Archived" log was posted, but removed by the reviewer, extending its stay in cache Purgatory. Several other notes have been posted, but no real information has appeared as to the true status.

I tried emailing the CO to ask about it a week or two ago, but (not surprisingly) I got no response. It's a cache that apparently celebrates the one-year anniversary of the first geocache, so I get that there is some sentimental value in it...but seriously, I think it's time to just let it go. There are plenty of old caches from that period that have been archived and that's just how it goes. Why should this one get this sort of special treatment?

I don't really have any investment in this one staying or going, so I don't really care to be "that guy" that posts the NA log. I guess I just wonder if this sort of situation exists elsewhere and why bother keeping this one around?

The cache in question: GC877

7.3k · January 27, 2014

So every now and then I go through Project GC to find older caches that have gone a long time unfound. There's one near where I work that pops up and was originally placed in an area that is part of the National Parks Service. I guess when it was originally placed it was fine, but at some point it was removed by the Park due to the NPS policy of no caches without express permission. The cache was disabled in March of 2007 and subsequent logs talk about "negotiations" with the Park and an intention to replace it. Somewhere along the line in 2007, a "Needs Archived" log was posted, but removed by the reviewer, extending its stay in cache Purgatory. Several other notes have been posted, but no real information has appeared as to the true status.

I tried emailing the CO to ask about it a week or two ago, but (not surprisingly) I got no response. It's a cache that apparently celebrates the one-year anniversary of the first geocache, so I get that there is some sentimental value in it...but seriously, I think it's time to just let it go. There are plenty of old caches from that period that have been archived and that's just how it goes. Why should this one get this sort of special treatment?

I don't really have any investment in this one staying or going, so I don't really care to be "that guy" that posts the NA log. I guess I just wonder if this sort of situation exists elsewhere and why bother keeping this one around?

The cache in question: GC877

That particular cache is mentioned in this thread, starting at post #15:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=310179

B.

3.7k · January 27, 2014

Interesting...though nothing really informative. What I gather from this, though, is the owner somehow was also the reviewer at the time...is that correct? So any NA log would go right to him? That doesn't make sense. That thread seems to have two overlapping discussions going on, so I'm not sure if I read that correctly.

7.3k · January 27, 2014

Interesting...though nothing really informative. What I gather from this, though, is the owner somehow was also the reviewer at the time...is that correct? So any NA log would go right to him? That doesn't make sense. That thread seems to have two overlapping discussions going on, so I'm not sure if I read that correctly.

Click on the owner's name and you will see that it is indeed a Reviewer.

Yup, most threads here involve at least 2 different topics/themes. It's called thread drift, but at least that thread stuck to the same basic topic.

So any NA log would go right to him?

Take note of the Reviewer note posted in 2007:

gpsfun
Reviewer

Reviewer Note

12/07/2007

The archive request log was submitted by a person unaware of the status of negotiations with CRNRA and has therefore been deleted.

B.

3.7k · January 27, 2014

Interesting...though nothing really informative. What I gather from this, though, is the owner somehow was also the reviewer at the time...is that correct? So any NA log would go right to him? That doesn't make sense. That thread seems to have two overlapping discussions going on, so I'm not sure if I read that correctly.

Click on the owner's name and you will see that it is indeed a Reviewer.

Yup, most threads here involve at least 2 different topics/themes. It's called thread drift, but at least that thread stuck to the same basic topic.

So any NA log would go right to him?

Take note of the Reviewer note posted in 2007:

gpsfun
Reviewer

Reviewer Note

12/07/2007

The archive request log was submitted by a person unaware of the status of negotiations with CRNRA and has therefore been deleted.

B.

Yes yes yes...I saw all that...including the part about a separate reviewer responding to the NA log (not the CO).

But I highlight the fact that that post was six and a half years ago...the last mention by the CO of negotiations being in May of 2008. Again, I'm not clear on who is who in all of it, but it just SEEMS like someone with connections and reviewer credentials got lazy and doesn't want to archive his cache. That's how it SEEMS...and it also seems like he owes all those people watching the cache (I'm not one of them) either an update or an archive.

4.4k · January 27, 2014

Seven years to decide on a little box in the woods?!?!?

It's not like it contains oil...

6.1k · January 27, 2014

Active for 6 years, but disabled for 7?

Why not unarchive it when he negotiations are over, or just submit a new listing?

7.3k · January 27, 2014

Do you never get the feeling that stuff is going on that isn't available for the public knowledge? No matter how much you ask, the answers won't be forthcoming.

Does it interfere with our geocaching experience? No, not usually.

As for this cache, meh. I've seen much weirder things going on than this. They're not any of my business, either.

B.

7.5k · January 27, 2014

I wouldn't want this to become common, but since I've never seen anything like it, I think it's cute. It's hard to believe even the owner/reviewer can take it seriously when, after 6 years of "negotiations", the superintendent still hasn't the slightest clue what geocaching is. As long as the reviewer's reasonable in his other dealings, I'm prepared to allow him this one quirk, and I'd view this fictitious cache as an amusing local institution.

7.5k · January 27, 2014

Active for 6 years, but disabled for 7?

Why not unarchive it when he negotiations are over, or just submit a new listing?

Probably because they might risk losing their low GC# (GC877)

10.2k · January 27, 2014

I wouldn't want this to become common, but since I've never seen anything like it, I think it's cute. It's hard to believe even the owner/reviewer can take it seriously when, after 6 years of "negotiations", the superintendent still hasn't the slightest clue what geocaching is. As long as the reviewer's reasonable in his other dealings, I'm prepared to allow him this one quirk, and I'd view this fictitious cache as an amusing local institution.

This guy is a moderator for this forum, you know. Used to be very active, but I haven't heard a peep from him in at least 2 years. He joined in early February 2001, and was the 3,512th person to join. I believe he may have been the very first volunteer reviewer, although it could have been Moun10Bike. So yeah, he can "get away with it". I too am prepared to allow him this one quirk. And that whole last sentence I'm quoting above is really funny, I might add.

January 27, 2014

There's a person around here who disables his caches if they get muggled and starts talking about awaiting permissions, and then if he gets a note stating it will be archived if not maintained soon, he changes the difficulty to a 5 and then republishes it.

3.7k · January 27, 2014

I wouldn't want this to become common, but since I've never seen anything like it, I think it's cute. It's hard to believe even the owner/reviewer can take it seriously when, after 6 years of "negotiations", the superintendent still hasn't the slightest clue what geocaching is. As long as the reviewer's reasonable in his other dealings, I'm prepared to allow him this one quirk, and I'd view this fictitious cache as an amusing local institution.

This guy is a moderator for this forum, you know. Used to be very active, but I haven't heard a peep from him in at least 2 years. He joined in early February 2001, and was the 3,512th person to join. I believe he may have been the very first volunteer reviewer, although it could have been Moun10Bike. So yeah, he can "get away with it". I too am prepared to allow him this one quirk. And that whole last sentence I'm quoting above is really funny, I might add.

Like I said, I wasn't going to be the one to push it. It was more about satisfying my curiosity about why it's like that and wondering how he can get away with it. I guess being a reviewer has its perks, one of which appears to be not having to maintain a cache and update it's status like the rest of us do.

Good to know.

4.5k · January 27, 2014

I wouldn't want this to become common, but since I've never seen anything like it, I think it's cute. It's hard to believe even the owner/reviewer can take it seriously when, after 6 years of "negotiations", the superintendent still hasn't the slightest clue what geocaching is. As long as the reviewer's reasonable in his other dealings, I'm prepared to allow him this one quirk, and I'd view this fictitious cache as an amusing local institution.

This guy is a moderator for this forum, you know. Used to be very active, but I haven't heard a peep from him in at least 2 years. He joined in early February 2001, and was the 3,512th person to join. I believe he may have been the very first volunteer reviewer, although it could have been Moun10Bike. So yeah, he can "get away with it". I too am prepared to allow him this one quirk. And that whole last sentence I'm quoting above is really funny, I might add.

Our reviewer gives us plenty of time to get our caches off the disable list but he will take it upon himself to archive them if it takes too long. The good thing is that his archive note does give us instructions to contact him if we get things resolved and want the cache reinstated.

So why wouldn't the reviewer/owner here go ahead and archive his cache? Sounds like he would be able to reinstate it later if the cache was ever approved by park service. Hate to say it but it also sounds like he is using his powers to treat his cache differently than he might treat another member's cache.

3.7k · January 28, 2014

Considering the area is off-limits to geocaching, it should definitely be archived. Last thing you want is some newbs going out there with a shovel looking for it.

9.3k · January 28, 2014

If it hasn't been an issue in 7 years, I suspect it's fine as it is.

6.1k · January 28, 2014

Considering the area is off-limits to geocaching, it should definitely be archived. Last thing you want is some newbs going out there with a shovel looking for it.

That is highly unlikely being that it is disabled and has notes on the page indicating the Rangers removed it.

Actually what it does do, is to serve as a beacon to indicate that geocaches should not be placed there. Without it, a n00b or anyone could come along and hide several geocaches, put a great deal of time into them, only to find out later after submitting the pages that they wont be published.

1.6k · January 28, 2014

to ther OP;

RHIP

If you're a radius slave, there is this ignore feature.....

10.2k · January 28, 2014

Considering the area is off-limits to geocaching, it should definitely be archived. Last thing you want is some newbs going out there with a shovel looking for it.

That is highly unlikely being that it is disabled and has notes on the page indicating the Rangers removed it.

Actually what it does do, is to serve as a beacon to indicate that geocaches should not be placed there. Without it, a n00b or anyone could come along and hide several geocaches, put a great deal of time into them, only to find out later after submitting the pages that they wont be published.

Oh yes, that's it, it's a "beacon". And I have seen that before. OK, there's your answer, close the thread. :lol:

3.7k · January 28, 2014

Considering the area is off-limits to geocaching, it should definitely be archived. Last thing you want is some newbs going out there with a shovel looking for it.

That is highly unlikely being that it is disabled and has notes on the page indicating the Rangers removed it.

Actually what it does do, is to serve as a beacon to indicate that geocaches should not be placed there. Without it, a n00b or anyone could come along and hide several geocaches, put a great deal of time into them, only to find out later after submitting the pages that they wont be published.

Oh yes, that's it, it's a "beacon". And I have seen that before. OK, there's your answer, close the thread.

Somehow I doubt it would really have that effect.

to ther OP;

RHIP

If you're a radius slave, there is this ignore feature.....

Who said I was a "radius slave" (whatever the heck that is)? Like I already stated in my original post, it pops up whenever I do a search on long-unfound caches on Project GC and I was curious about why that one keeps getting a pass on archival. Keep it, archive it...it matters not one bit to me. Is it so hard to believe that I just wanted to see what it was about without having some obsession over it? Believe it or not, I actually CAN stand to see caches on the map that are not smilie faces.

4.5k · January 28, 2014

Considering the area is off-limits to geocaching, it should definitely be archived. Last thing you want is some newbs going out there with a shovel looking for it.

That is highly unlikely being that it is disabled and has notes on the page indicating the Rangers removed it.

Actually what it does do, is to serve as a beacon to indicate that geocaches should not be placed there. Without it, a n00b or anyone could come along and hide several geocaches, put a great deal of time into them, only to find out later after submitting the pages that they wont be published.

Oh yes, that's it, it's a "beacon". And I have seen that before. OK, there's your answer, close the thread.

Somehow I doubt it would really have that effect.

to ther OP;

RHIP

If you're a radius slave, there is this ignore feature.....

Who said I was a "radius slave" (whatever the heck that is)? Like I already stated in my original post, it pops up whenever I do a search on long-unfound caches on Project GC and I was curious about why that one keeps getting a pass on archival. Keep it, archive it...it matters not one bit to me. Is it so hard to believe that I just wanted to see what it was about without having some obsession over it? Believe it or not, I actually CAN stand to see caches on the map that are not smilie faces.

For me, it's the principle of the thing. There may be some reason, that i can't think of, for keeping it disabled this long. Or, the cache may have simply slipped through the cracks. If neither of these, then it's not appropriate since no one else's cache would ever stay disabled this long. The guidelines administered by a reviewer should apply to all caches that he reviews.

As far as being a "beacon"? I don't see it that way. At first glance, some cachers might simply see a cache that was disabled for some reason (they didn't read the logs) and might even think that it looks like a good area that could use another cache or two.

6.1k · January 28, 2014

As far as being a "beacon"? I don't see it that way. At first glance, some cachers might simply see a cache that was disabled for some reason (they didn't read the logs) and might even think that it looks like a good area that could use another cache or two.

Or they could head out with a shovel and dig for it, even though the logs clearly indicate its not there? :rolleyes:

Did I say beacon? I meant bacon. It serves as simmering bacon for those who have OCD and see it as a permanent scar on the map, and will now causeth those to lie awake night after night dreaming about it since it now has it's own dedicated thread. Tasty bacon which can trigger a craving to post an armchair NA for someone's express wishes to have it devoured. Nudecacher's twin brother has bacon he is tempting us with.

3.7k · January 28, 2014

As far as being a "beacon"? I don't see it that way. At first glance, some cachers might simply see a cache that was disabled for some reason (they didn't read the logs) and might even think that it looks like a good area that could use another cache or two.

Or they could head out with a shovel and dig for it, even though the logs clearly indicate its not there?

Did I say beacon? I meant bacon. It serves as simmering bacon for those who have OCD and see it as a permanent scar on the map, and will now causeth those to lie awake night after night dreaming about it since it now has it's own dedicated thread. Tasty bacon which can trigger a craving to post an armchair NA for someone's express wishes to have it devoured. Nudecacher's twin brother has bacon he is tempting us with.

Bacon makes anything better...even a 7-year disabled illegal NPS land cache.

3.7k · January 29, 2014

As far as being a "beacon"? I don't see it that way. At first glance, some cachers might simply see a cache that was disabled for some reason (they didn't read the logs) and might even think that it looks like a good area that could use another cache or two.

Or they could head out with a shovel and dig for it, even though the logs clearly indicate its not there?

Not everybody reads logs before they go out. Are you new here? :unsure:

3.3k · January 29, 2014

As far as being a "beacon"? I don't see it that way. At first glance, some cachers might simply see a cache that was disabled for some reason (they didn't read the logs) and might even think that it looks like a good area that could use another cache or two.

Or they could head out with a shovel and dig for it, even though the logs clearly indicate its not there?

Did I say beacon? I meant bacon. It serves as simmering bacon for those who have OCD and see it as a permanent scar on the map, and will now causeth those to lie awake night after night dreaming about it since it now has it's own dedicated thread. Tasty bacon which can trigger a craving to post an armchair NA for someone's express wishes to have it devoured. Nudecacher's twin brother has bacon he is tempting us with.

Bacon makes anything better...even a 7-year disabled illegal NPS land cache.

The note in the cache logs of I think 3-12-13 shows that the land managers are clueless about geocaching. There's hope that after the stubborn bigwig who thinks caching involves digging with shovels retires, a new manager will allow the cache.

As stated, allowing this cache to stay in limbo is the reviewer's one quirky action. SO WHAT?

This cache is not a "beacon" & is not a "scar." It's also not "bacon," simmering or otherwise. It's a unique, quirky, historical novelty. So what? Why lose sleep over the "principle of the thing"?

What say we all go do something productive?!

Edited January 29, 2014 by wmpastor

3.7k · January 29, 2014

This cache is not a "beacon" & is not a "scar." It's also not "bacon," simmering or otherwise. It's a unique, quirky, historical novelty. So what? Why lose sleep over the "principle of the thing"?

What say we all go do something productive?!

Who said anything about losing sleep? Don't turn it into something bigger than I intended. I stated at least three times that I don't worry about it...so don't overstate it.

6.1k · January 29, 2014

As far as being a "beacon"? I don't see it that way. At first glance, some cachers might simply see a cache that was disabled for some reason (they didn't read the logs) and might even think that it looks like a good area that could use another cache or two.

Or they could head out with a shovel and dig for it, even though the logs clearly indicate its not there?

Not everybody reads logs before they go out. Are you new here?

I've been around for quite a while, but I've never heard of anyone taking the time to bring a shovel and go out to a location and dig for a cache unless it was in the description. Of course it could always happen, but that would mean that any cache at all on the entire planet presents that risk. Perhaps we should shut down the entire site due to the risk of digging? :unsure:

I think you are reaching quite far to find a reason that this disabled cache could present a problem. Are you a Georgia forest ranger, by chance?

Edited January 29, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

4.5k · January 29, 2014

This cache is not a "beacon" & is not a "scar." It's also not "bacon," simmering or otherwise. It's a unique, quirky, historical novelty. So what? Why lose sleep over the "principle of the thing"?

What say we all go do something productive?!

Who said anything about losing sleep? Don't turn it into something bigger than I intended. I stated at least three times that I don't worry about it...so don't overstate it.

I'm certainly not losing any sleep over anything geocaching related. :rolleyes:

Principles have been going by the wayside for years. In this case, it's something very minor but nonetheless, it's still about principle. Believe me, i would never get any sleep if i started worrying about all the people in the world who took advantage of their positions.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Mudfrog

January 29, 2014

On the surface, I don't see anyone taking advantage of their position.

As a reviewer, I allow people to have their caches disabled for long periods of time if there are construction issues or land manager issues.

The only thing that I can see as an issue here is that I also ask that the cache owner posts regular updates to the cache page so that not only I, but the caching community know what's happening with the cache.

4.1k · January 29, 2014

Several years ago in my area, National Park officials removed (almost) every cache on their land that had a grandfathered listing. I have to give the CO credit for not simply replacing the cache in spite of park policy, but I have to wonder if our reviewers would have let one of the removed caches be disabled for seven years in the hope that the situation might someday improve.

At least in my area, the current park superintendent remains firm in his position that containers will never be allowed to be left in the park on his watch. Given the length of negotiations I assume that the CRNRA continues to hold to this position. It has been five years since the last update. I cannot imagine what more there is to negotiate.

Should this position ever change, it seems to me that whatever container used to be there will be long since gone, the area undoubtedly will have changed to some degree, and at that time it might be better described as a new hide.

Still, even if the CO is given a certain leeway because of his position (or deserved reputation), it is not something I worry about. It is not taking up space that could otherwise be used for a new cache. Maybe it will inspire some ongoing conversations with park officials. I think I will put it on my watchlist. If permission is ever granted by the CRNRA, I might ask our local people to reconsider since it would show that there is something to be said for hope and tenacity.

Edited January 29, 2014 by geodarts

2k · January 30, 2014

We have one in my local area going on 3 1/2 years now. No one can hide a cache there so apart from being the nearest unfound cache to a few folks who refuse to put it on their ignore list, probably not doing too much harm.

3.3k · January 30, 2014

This cache is not a "beacon" & is not a "scar." It's also not "bacon," simmering or otherwise. It's a unique, quirky, historical novelty. So what? Why lose sleep over the "principle of the thing"?

What say we all go do something productive?!

Who said anything about losing sleep? Don't turn it into something bigger than I intended. I stated at least three times that I don't worry about it...so don't overstate it.

Okay, okay, you don't worry about it, so we won't worry about it! Some posters seemed a bit angsty, though.

January 30, 2014

There is a reason....leave it at that. This is not the only one as such.

"Temporarily Disabled" for almost seven years

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation