Need Your opinion

[+Gooniemanalpha]

So I have had a cache in place for a long while. Now the area is becoming a bike park. The person that wants the spot tried to have mine archived so they could have the spot. I informed them that was wrong. They apologized but still want my spot for the opening of the bike park to be the first cache while doing the bike trail. What do you think?

[+andyakashrek]

Tough. You have a cache in play at that location so stay there.

[jholly]

So I have had a cache in place for a long while. Now the area is becoming a bike park. The person that wants the spot tried to have mine archived so they could have the spot. I informed them that was wrong. They apologized but still want my spot for the opening of the bike park to be the first cache while doing the bike trail. What do you think?

It depends on how generous your feeling. Myself, probably not since the opening salvo was a NA. Suggest to them that they make the first cache a one step multi with a virtual waypoint where they want the cache and put the final farther down the trail.

[+elmdor7797]

So I have had a cache in place for a long while. Now the area is becoming a bike park. The person that wants the spot tried to have mine archived so they could have the spot. I informed them that was wrong. They apologized but still want my spot for the opening of the bike park to be the first cache while doing the bike trail. What do you think?

 

Well, it's generally first-come, first-serve and if you are still maintaining it, then leave it be.

[+T.D.M.22]

I have been asked-twice from the same person to archive caches so he could place new one. My caches have been found by the locals, it give me, and everyone else another cache to find.

 

But if I was you, and received a NA log just so the other person could place a cache there I wouldn't let them have it. Now something tells me there's more to the story.

[+Sealand Rovers]

I'd leave it be. If he wants it to be the first in a trail just offer to continue maintaining it while he puts the rest about. I'm sure there's some creative ways to get around this like others have said.

 

A NA is ridiculous though when it's still there

[+BCandMsKitty]

Just taking the story on the surface, I agree it's extremely rude to post a NA just because you want the space.

Looks like there has been some construction there, and so maybe they thought they'd try to jump in while you weren't watching

It's too bad if they want a cache there.

[+Harry Dolphin]

So I have had a cache in place for a long while. Now the area is becoming a bike park. The person that wants the spot tried to have mine archived so they could have the spot. I informed them that was wrong. They apologized but still want my spot for the opening of the bike park to be the first cache while doing the bike trail. What do you think?

It depends on how generous your feeling. Myself, probably not since the opening salvo was a NA. Suggest to them that they make the first cache a one step multi with a virtual waypoint where they want the cache and put the final farther down the trail.

 

I'd agree. After an NA to try to get the spot, I'd say: No way!

[+Manville Possum]

They posted a NA first and now want you to play nice? Keep your cache and don't worry about the user that posted a NA, they likely are a numbers hog anyway.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

You should have kept their NA log on the web page. Anyways, heck no I wouldn't pay any favors after that.

[+The_Incredibles_]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4ADFE_swanless-in-tacoma-3

 

My opinion is that you should update your cache coordinates. They are 14 meters off and have been for some time. If you don't know how to do it, we can step you through it.

[+lamoracke]

If someone had a much cooler idea for an area I was not utilizing as well as I could, I would listen to their ideas...but admit, I would probably have my defensive shields up if they expressed their interest by doing a NA first.

[jholly]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4ADFE_swanless-in-tacoma-3

 

My opinion is that you should update your cache coordinates. They are 14 meters off and have been for some time. If you don't know how to do it, we can step you through it.

Oh my yes, 50% of the logs are DNF, a clear indication the iPhone is not doing well. If you can't get better coordinates I would go with the Cow's coordinates. I can see now why the first log was a NA. But your comment about it being rude to ask I do not agree with. If some one was to send me a nice private email asking me to move or archive one of my caches I would not consider that rude, and I'm liable to give it a fair consideration if it is for a reasonable reason. I had a person hiding a cache near a bonus cache I have. The bumped into a proximity violation and asked for the coordinates of the bonus cache so they could get theirs placed. I saw no reason to deny the request.

[+lamoracke]

Well, 21 finds, 11 DNFs is not quite 50%! If I cached down in Burien more, maybe I could help bring up that percentage.

[+T.D.M.22]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4ADFE_swanless-in-tacoma-3

 

My opinion is that you should update your cache coordinates. They are 14 meters off and have been for some time. If you don't know how to do it, we can step you through it.

 

Ahhh-*in the voiced of Paul Harvey* And now you know....the rest of the story.

 

You can go to the cache page, and instead of DNF, Found it, or Write note, you as the cache owner can select update co-ords.

 

It happens to the best of us, my last cache was 65 feet off. Even with grabbing co-ords on two trips.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well good thing you don't live in NJ or they could contact the land manager to get it archived.

[7rxc]

Well good thing you don't live in NJ or they could contact the land manager to get it archived.

Maybe the 'other' cache is the land manager/owner... someone is building a new bike park there.

 

An awful lot would depend on just what this cache contributes to the sport, I guess. I agree with first come, first served mostly. Starting a war over a simple cache, might not be the best idea. Anyway, it may boil down to a permission issue eventually, the new guy having it in writing and the OP may not, or may have outdated permission from the previous manager.

 

To many variables for us mere mortals to consider. I guess I should read the cache sometime.

IF the NA was posted, the reviewer knows it and might become involved eventually.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+K13]

What do you think?

 

I think you should go out and place another cache 800-900 feet from your current cache, down the proposed bike trail. Block him out some more.

[+dprovan]

First of all, forget the NA. Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean you should be a jerk, too. There are already enough jerks in the world.

 

If you think your cache is special, deny his request. If you want to take the opportunity to foist cache maintenance for a cache in that area onto someone else, by all means give it up. If both, see if he wants to adopt yours.

 

The one thing you definitely should not do is deny the request just to get even. For that matter, I suggest you force yourself to believe that the NA was posted in good faith no matter how clear it is that there was this ulterior motive. (Unfortunately you've already misstepped by deleting the NA instead of keeping the public record. Responding with threats wasn't too useful, either.)

[+WarNinjas]

For us it would be hard to do this request as we have a goal not to archive our caches. Never have...well one we did on accident but it is still there and active. It would have to be really creative and a great cache from cachers that we knew would maintain it. We have some ideas for kayak caches that would be really cool but are blocked by a cache on shore. We have thought to ask that CO to archive theirs so we could place one out on the water but would never do so. I think the NA log would make us less responsive to do so. Just do what you think is best but definitely don't let them bully you into archiving a cache you like just so they can place one.

[+fizzymagic]

For us it would be hard to do this request as we have a goal not to archive our caches.

 

Which makes no sense to me. Actually, it's worse than that. I think it's harmful.

 

I recently archived one of mine upon a request from another cacher who ad a neat cache that would fit in the park. I figured my cache (which was a puzzle) had a nice run and it was time to let somebody else put something in that park. Had I been obsessed with never archiving my caches, I would have denied her what turned out to be a great cache.

 

Having a goal to maintain all your caches? Great. More power to you. Having a goal of never archiving any? Not so much.

[+Isonzo Karst]

What do you think?

 

I think that when you delete someone's log, you ought to delete your commentary upon it as well. If they deleted their own logs, then you should delete yours.

 

I think that when you noticed the construction, instead of Post Note, "Still there not affected by the putting in of dirt bike trails", you should have temporarily disabled the listing.

 

I think that the cacher was fine with requesting archive for a listing that was NOT being maintained by the cache owner. You knew there was construction and that your cache was unavailable, but didn't disable the listing.

 

Here's a link to the Knowledge Books article on Managing Your Cache Listing, http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=234

[Mr.Yuck]

Well good thing you don't live in NJ or they could contact the land manager to get it archived.

 

Don't forget the part about the land manager being a numbers hound Geocacher. I'm trying to say this as nice and diplomatically as possible, but if you look at these forums too much like I do, you might note this OP has a history of getting themselves involved in local drama, and asking about it here. And if I'm not mistaken, it's all been drama directly related to their role as a CO.

[+briansnat]

I don't believe asking someone to remove their cache to place their own is necessarily rude, but starting off with a NA instead of a personal e-mail does cross the rudeness line. Publicly berating and threatening someone on your cache page is beyond rude.

 

I would consider removing my cache under certain circumstances if someone asked, but anybody who asks should also be prepared to hear no.

 

If my cache was nothing particularly special and it had a good run, or if it prevented someone from creating a cache far more interesting and ambitious than mine, then I'd probably do it. If the presence of my cache meant that someone would have to make their power trail 14 caches instead of 15, then no way in heck.

Edited March 26, 2014 by briansnat

[+Mudfrog]

What do you think?

 

I think that when you delete someone's log, you ought to delete your commentary upon it as well. If they deleted their own logs, then you should delete yours.

 

I think that when you noticed the construction, instead of Post Note, "Still there not affected by the putting in of dirt bike trails", you should have temporarily disabled the listing.

 

I think that the cacher was fine with requesting archive for a listing that was NOT being maintained by the cache owner. You knew there was construction and that your cache was unavailable, but didn't disable the listing.

 

Here's a link to the Knowledge Books article on Managing Your Cache Listing, http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=234

 

You just quoted the CO's statement that he left on the cache page. Doesn't sound at all that disablement of the cache was needed.

 

"Still there", means that the cache is in place. "Not affected by the putting in of bike trails", means that it isn't affected by the construction. At this point, i see no grounds for disabling, archiving, or calling the CO a non-maintainer.

[+The Jester]

Well, 21 finds, 11 DNFs is not quite 50%! If I cached down in Burien more, maybe I could help bring up that percentage.

Um, the cache is in Tacoma not Burien.

 

On a side note, I just saw a announcement about the new bike trails this morning just before coming here and seeing this thread - interesting. They already have a GPX track so that'll save a trip down there to map the trails.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well good thing you don't live in NJ or they could contact the land manager to get it archived.

 

Don't forget the part about the land manager being a numbers hound Geocacher. I'm trying to say this as nice and diplomatically as possible, but if you look at these forums too much like I do, you might note this OP has a history of getting themselves involved in local drama, and asking about it here. And if I'm not mistaken, it's all been drama directly related to their role as a CO.

 

It still does not excuse anyone from trying to bully him into archiving their cache. People that drive slowly annoy me, but I don't tailgate and flash my lights at them. Since his cache has disappeared a few times it could be compared to someone ramming his car because he was driving too slow.

Edited March 28, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+WarNinjas]

For us it would be hard to do this request as we have a goal not to archive our caches.

 

Which makes no sense to me. Actually, it's worse than that. I think it's harmful.

 

I recently archived one of mine upon a request from another cacher who ad a neat cache that would fit in the park. I figured my cache (which was a puzzle) had a nice run and it was time to let somebody else put something in that park. Had I been obsessed with never archiving my caches, I would have denied her what turned out to be a great cache.

 

Having a goal to maintain all your caches? Great. More power to you. Having a goal of never archiving any? Not so much.

I didn't say we wouldn't do it just that it would have to be a great cache for us to do so.

[+Don_J]

For us it would be hard to do this request as we have a goal not to archive our caches.

 

Which makes no sense to me. Actually, it's worse than that. I think it's harmful.

 

I recently archived one of mine upon a request from another cacher who ad a neat cache that would fit in the park. I figured my cache (which was a puzzle) had a nice run and it was time to let somebody else put something in that park. Had I been obsessed with never archiving my caches, I would have denied her what turned out to be a great cache.

 

Having a goal to maintain all your caches? Great. More power to you. Having a goal of never archiving any? Not so much.

I didn't say we wouldn't do it just that it would have to be a great cache for us to do so.

 

I have to agree with Fizzy here. Caches do have a life cycle and in most cases, they do not have to last forever. I have a friend that will not give up on a cache and has replaced it nine times. A muggle is on to it and steals it before it can even be found. It's a lesson on futility that he can't seem to learn.

[+WarNinjas]

OK, I understand and It could actually take some work off of me to try and maintain some. So what is the rule after 3 months it is OK. I just hate to look at someones page and see a bunch of there caches archived. Looks to me like they didn't have a plan in place to take care of them. I actually have one right now that the conditions of the area have changed and the replacement would be a much harder D/T so I was thinking of archiving that one and replacing it with the harder one for everyone I know to go find. Thanks for letting me know how others feel about it and I won't feel bad now archiving one or more even.

-WarNinjas

[+jellis]

Well good thing you don't live in NJ or they could contact the land manager to get it archived.

Wouldn't if they did that, then they couldn't put one there either for the same reason?

[+jellis]

OK, I understand and It could actually take some work off of me to try and maintain some. So what is the rule after 3 months it is OK. I just hate to look at someones page and see a bunch of there caches archived. Looks to me like they didn't have a plan in place to take care of them. I actually have one right now that the conditions of the area have changed and the replacement would be a much harder D/T so I was thinking of archiving that one and replacing it with the harder one for everyone I know to go find. Thanks for letting me know how others feel about it and I won't feel bad now archiving one or more even.

-WarNinjas

Be prepared. I know one reviewer who is not crazy about cachers archiving their caches just to place another one of the same kind it's place. There is a cacher I know who placed one and didn't like it so he archived it and tried to place the same thing there and the reviewer said no. The CO then unarchived the cache. If it was a different type like a puzzle it would have passed.

No, I am not saying all reviewers do this but I know one who did. I know another reviewer who allows constant archive and replacing in the same place so cachers would have new caches to go after.

[+Ambrosia]

OK, I understand and It could actually take some work off of me to try and maintain some. So what is the rule after 3 months it is OK. I just hate to look at someones page and see a bunch of there caches archived. Looks to me like they didn't have a plan in place to take care of them. I actually have one right now that the conditions of the area have changed and the replacement would be a much harder D/T so I was thinking of archiving that one and replacing it with the harder one for everyone I know to go find. Thanks for letting me know how others feel about it and I won't feel bad now archiving one or more even.

-WarNinjas

Be prepared. I know one reviewer who is not crazy about cachers archiving their caches just to place another one of the same kind it's place. There is a cacher I know who placed one and didn't like it so he archived it and tried to place the same thing there and the reviewer said no. The CO then unarchived the cache. If it was a different type like a puzzle it would have passed.

No, I am not saying all reviewers do this but I know one who did. I know another reviewer who allows constant archive and replacing in the same place so cachers would have new caches to go after.

Hm. As long as it's after the suggested 3 month permanence guideline, it should technically be fine. If someone did that very soon after getting their cache published, I could see a reviewer not wanting to contribute.

[+DonB]

So I have had a cache in place for a long while. Now the area is becoming a bike park. The person that wants the spot tried to have mine archived so they could have the spot. I informed them that was wrong. They apologized but still want my spot for the opening of the bike park to be the first cache while doing the bike trail. What do you think?

If you are telling the whole story I'd just tell the guy he was a jerk for trying to get yours archived and you're not about to give up the spot. End of conversation.

[+Shop99er]

So I have had a cache in place for a long while. Now the area is becoming a bike park. The person that wants the spot tried to have mine archived so they could have the spot. I informed them that was wrong. They apologized but still want my spot for the opening of the bike park to be the first cache while doing the bike trail. What do you think?

 

Given the way they started, I think you should tell them they'll just have to live with disappointment.

 

From your response note on the page:

 

"To ask for archiving because you can not find it is not with in geocaching rules. To ask for archiving because you want to have a cache thee is against the rules. To post needs archived with out first posting a "Needs Maintenance log" and waiting 2- 3 weeks is against the rules. Any more action of this type will be reported to Geocaching.com and you face account suspension. "

 

As far as I know, there are no rules that mandate whether or not an NA log can be posted. There are also no rules that say a NM must be posted with a wait time before the NA. While I think there should be, that's just my opinion.

 

Also, it is certainly not your place to threaten another cacher with suspension. Last I heard, that took at least action by a Reviewer, if not further up the GC Food Chain.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Shop99er

[+SirDonB]

To the OP, I do not fully agree with the comment you made in one of your notes... I myself have logged a "needs archived" on only one cache without posting a "needs maintenance" log first. I should not be subject to being reported and suspended because of it. The cache was on private commercial property that I work at. The property owner, my boss, changed placing permission. I contacted the CO and let them know that permission was revoked for the property, after a month, I simply logged a "NA" on it stating that as of that log, the container would be removed by myself and that permission had been revoked. It eventually was archived by the reviewer. Now that opened up areas around that location off the property that I can now hide a cache in if I choose. According to your view in that note, I should be reported because I logged a "NA" before a "NM."

 

I personally will not log a "NM" log unless I have found it and it does need attention, or I have searched for it at least 3 times without finding it. Typically, the "NM" log will only come after I have tried to contact the CO directly with no response after 2 weeks. I will log a DNF after the 2nd or 3rd attempt to find without victory.

[+WarNinjas]

OK, I understand and It could actually take some work off of me to try and maintain some. So what is the rule after 3 months it is OK. I just hate to look at someones page and see a bunch of there caches archived. Looks to me like they didn't have a plan in place to take care of them. I actually have one right now that the conditions of the area have changed and the replacement would be a much harder D/T so I was thinking of archiving that one and replacing it with the harder one for everyone I know to go find. Thanks for letting me know how others feel about it and I won't feel bad now archiving one or more even.

-WarNinjas

Be prepared. I know one reviewer who is not crazy about cachers archiving their caches just to place another one of the same kind it's place. There is a cacher I know who placed one and didn't like it so he archived it and tried to place the same thing there and the reviewer said no. The CO then unarchived the cache. If it was a different type like a puzzle it would have passed.

No, I am not saying all reviewers do this but I know one who did. I know another reviewer who allows constant archive and replacing in the same place so cachers would have new caches to go after.

Well in this case it would be the same style cache a traditional but the Difficulty and terrain would be much higher. I could just move it and change the D/T as I might do but then many would get credit for doing a higher terrain then they actually did. That was the only reason for the archiving and replacing idea. I think I came of wrong in my typing saying we are trying to never archive a cache. I meant more like we are trying to keep ours active for as long as we can. If one needs archiving and I am sure some will at some point we will obviously do so.