Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

4wheelin_fool: I'm curious. Are you seeing other, non-lonely caches being archived by OReviewer in your area? I'd like to know whether these lonely caches are truly being singled-out or if they're just being swept up, possibly as a mistake or false-positive, in a larger maintenance sweep. Hey, "stuff" happens.

 

I'm wondering if this apparent "get tough on questionable caches" approach by reviewers is widespread, or whether these are isolated incidents.

"Getting tough on questionable caches" is absolutely fine by me. For a long time, we had problem caches littering the countryside. Some of us finally decided that enough was enough and started posting NAs where justified, and the situation is much better now. There are now far fewer abandoned, unmaintained, or missing caches.

 

However, if by "get tough on questionable caches" you meant "disable lonely caches after one DNF", then at least in my area (southern Vancouver Island, BC, Canada), I haven't seen this happening. The four reviewers that cover this region will act on "questionable caches", but only when there's clear justification to do so. It may be that a single DNF provides enough justification (see earlier posts surrounding "it depends"), but I can't recall any such occurrences off the top of my head. I'll check my GSAK database when I get a chance and see if I can find some examples.

 

As for my local reviewers, I fully support their actions, believe they're doing a stellar job, and wouldn't change a thing.

Link to comment

For a long time, we had problem caches littering the countryside. Some of us finally decided that enough was enough and started posting NAs where justified, and the situation is much better now. There are now far fewer abandoned, unmaintained, or missing caches.

 

A bit off-topic: You really have less caches littering the countryside by these actions? In my experience, such actions just decrease the number of problematic caches which are viewable in the database and shown on the cache map, but they even increase the amount of geolitter noone will ever take care of.

Link to comment

For a long time, we had problem caches littering the countryside. Some of us finally decided that enough was enough and started posting NAs where justified, and the situation is much better now. There are now far fewer abandoned, unmaintained, or missing caches.

 

A bit off-topic: You really have less caches littering the countryside by these actions? In my experience, such actions just decrease the number of problematic caches which are viewable in the database and shown on the cache map, but they even increase the amount of geolitter noone will ever take care of.

 

Any cache not being maintained (in the long term) by the cache owner is litter, regardless of whether it is listed or not...Or do you think it is up to the finder to take care of these "lonely caches"?

Link to comment

If your caches are all above board and in good order, the guidelines are on your side for the cache to stay enabled and/or for an appeal to go your way. I'm floored that there's this much overzealous emotion and reactionary conspiracy theorizing going on about this subject.

 

In any case it requires extra energy and why invest that? Of course emotion is involved, but not any conspiracy theories.

For my personal taste the whole approach of Groundspeak has always been too authoritarian and it gets worse.

 

There is a trend that caches should appeal to a larger group and not only to minorities - for challenge caches this has been made an explicit requirement, but I somehow feel that this is something that many cachers would wish that it were the case also for non challenge caches and the group of reviewers just reflects what can be viewed in the group of all cachers.

Well...

If your caches are all in good shape, you perform regular maintenance, and you take care of checking when things go awry, then you've got nothing to worry about. All that hyperventilating and bloviating for nothing!

 

I hardly think a few keystrokes to your cache page or the Reviewer is that much a barrier to one's day. writing-is-hard-gif.gif

Link to comment

For a long time, we had problem caches littering the countryside. Some of us finally decided that enough was enough and started posting NAs where justified, and the situation is much better now. There are now far fewer abandoned, unmaintained, or missing caches.

 

A bit off-topic: You really have less caches littering the countryside by these actions? In my experience, such actions just decrease the number of problematic caches which are viewable in the database and shown on the cache map, but they even increase the amount of geolitter noone will ever take care of.

 

Any cache not being maintained (in the long term) by the cache owner is litter, regardless of whether it is listed or not...Or do you think it is up to the finder to take care of these "lonely caches"?

 

First, I did not say anything about lonely caches. Second, as long as the caches are listed, one can keep track of them and it also does not happen that someone hides a new cache a few m from an archived one which is still there and then causes lots of troubles.

 

Third, in my experience the willingness of cache owners to either fix a cache or pick up the remainings of their caches is much higher if they decide on their own to archive a cache than if they are forced into archival. I do not have an issue to wait 6 months or even a year until a nice and involved cache gets repaired.

 

Fourth, I'm aware that for some caches there is no real solution and they will always end up as geolitter. I was just surprised to read that posting more NA logs reduced the amount of geolitter which is in contrast to my experience.

Link to comment

There is a trend that caches should appeal to a larger group and not only to minorities - for challenge caches this has been made an explicit requirement, but I somehow feel that this is something that many cachers would wish that it were the case also for non challenge caches and the group of reviewers just reflects what can be viewed in the group of all cachers.

Well...

If your caches are all in good shape, you perform regular maintenance, and you take care of checking when things go awry, then you've got nothing to worry about. All that hyperventilating and bloviating for nothing!

 

I'm worrying that caches that I enjoy get lost. It would not hurt me that much to archive all my own caches. I could well continue to cache without owning caches.

 

I'm definitely not expecting the owners of my most favourite hiking caches to visit those regularly (only when there is a real issue which for some caches will not arise more than at most in 10 years - a single DNF is not a real issue in many cases).

 

I do not want that one of my DNF logs is the reason why someone needs to waste many hours of their precious time.

 

How should I trust that reviewers read DNF logs and treat a DNF log differently if someone did not reach GZ or left after 3 minutes

in view of reviewer logs such as that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC506DC_langlaufen-auf-der-hebalm

The cache did not get archived by now, but the reviewer note demonstrates that the reviewer was just applying a script and did not have a look at the

individual caches at all. Read the reply of the cache owner (if you manage to understand it), then you might realize that there are others who are even much more annoyed

about these kind of automatic cleaning steps than I'm.

Link to comment

There is a trend that caches should appeal to a larger group and not only to minorities - for challenge caches this has been made an explicit requirement, but I somehow feel that this is something that many cachers would wish that it were the case also for non challenge caches and the group of reviewers just reflects what can be viewed in the group of all cachers.

Well...

If your caches are all in good shape, you perform regular maintenance, and you take care of checking when things go awry, then you've got nothing to worry about. All that hyperventilating and bloviating for nothing!

 

I'm worrying that caches that I enjoy get lost. It would not hurt me that much to archive all my own caches. I could well continue to cache without owning caches.

 

I'm definitely not expecting the owners of my most favourite hiking caches to visit those regularly (only when there is a real issue which for some caches will not arise more than at most in 10 years - a single DNF is not a real issue in many cases).

 

I do not want that one of my DNF logs is the reason why someone needs to waste many hours of their precious time.

 

How should I trust that reviewers read DNF logs and treat a DNF log differently if someone did not reach GZ or left after 3 minutes

in view of reviewer logs such as that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC506DC_langlaufen-auf-der-hebalm

The cache did not get archived by now, but the reviewer note demonstrates that the reviewer was just applying a script and did not have a look at the

individual caches at all. Read the reply of the cache owner (if you manage to understand it), then you might realize that there are others who are even much more annoyed

about these kind of automatic cleaning steps than I'm.

Sounds like sour grapes from the cache owner. The Reviewer was carrying out a sweep of geoacaches that were disabled for a period of time and used a canned email. Perhaps that Reviewer could update their canned response, and also ptom could chill out and just move on without feeling targeted or as a "sufferer" by the hand of "the man".

 

If the owner has a maintenance plan, all they need to do is email to the Reviewer that the cache is pulled for spring-to-fall and will be back when the snow is there. Not a bad thing to add to the description of the cache as well that the cache is unavailable when the cross-country skiing is closed. It looks like the Reviewer has not taken any more action, and the cache is in the clear. It appears more that there is a rear-sore owner for little-to-no reason.

 

If you and your comrades are this quick to guns over this hobby, I think a large chill-pill prescription might be in order.

Link to comment

There is a trend that caches should appeal to a larger group and not only to minorities - for challenge caches this has been made an explicit requirement, but I somehow feel that this is something that many cachers would wish that it were the case also for non challenge caches and the group of reviewers just reflects what can be viewed in the group of all cachers.

Well...

If your caches are all in good shape, you perform regular maintenance, and you take care of checking when things go awry, then you've got nothing to worry about. All that hyperventilating and bloviating for nothing!

 

I'm worrying that caches that I enjoy get lost. It would not hurt me that much to archive all my own caches. I could well continue to cache without owning caches.

 

I'm definitely not expecting the owners of my most favourite hiking caches to visit those regularly (only when there is a real issue which for some caches will not arise more than at most in 10 years - a single DNF is not a real issue in many cases).

 

I do not want that one of my DNF logs is the reason why someone needs to waste many hours of their precious time.

 

How should I trust that reviewers read DNF logs and treat a DNF log differently if someone did not reach GZ or left after 3 minutes

in view of reviewer logs such as that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC506DC_langlaufen-auf-der-hebalm

The cache did not get archived by now, but the reviewer note demonstrates that the reviewer was just applying a script and did not have a look at the

individual caches at all. Read the reply of the cache owner (if you manage to understand it), then you might realize that there are others who are even much more annoyed

about these kind of automatic cleaning steps than I'm.

I feel u are over thinking things...

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

What concerns me is that Reviewers are initializing action on caches with unresponsive owners, thus giving them a death sentence. I learned elsewhere that once a Needs Archive is posted, it is the sole responsibility of the CO to respond, and that if no response is provided the cache is archived, regardless of whether it is there and can be found or not. My own experience was with a puzzle cache that I had found and was watching. The owner was no longer active but I kept tabs on it. It hadn't been found in over a year, I was the last finder. A new cacher came into town and posted a DNF and then NA on the cache, stating that they had found the location and it had washed away. That cacher also contacted me as the last finder of the cache, and I then told them they had made a mistake in their solution, and that I would check on it the next time I was out that way. I did check on it and the cache was indeed where it was supposed to be, in pristine condition. I contacted the Reviewer about this stating that it needn't be archived, but was told that it would be archived anyways since the owner was not responsive. There were some good reasons for this, but it still left me with a bad feeling. If the owner is unresponsive, the cache cannot be adopted out, nor can it be maintained, so a NA post will kill the cache. This is regardless of whether the locals know that it is there, or wish to keep it alive, or find that it was a great cache. I just feel like a system like this could be abused. Say I know a certain local cacher is no longer responsive. I could put NAs on all their caches and get them all taken out of the game, despite the fact that the caches are findable. This feels like malicious behavior to me which may be why some have taken issue with the actions of a few Reviewers. Alternatively, you can let the listings stay in place for years until there really is sufficient evidence that they are gone. I call this the natural death of a cache. It makes more sense to me, but then perhaps I am used to searching for and not finding old unmaintained caches. I just consider that part of the game now. But why would Reviewers be taking it upon themselves to do this? What goal does it serve?

 

One solution I've heard for this is that if the locals really wanted to, they could let the listing be archived and then get a brand new listing published for the same cache in the same spot. My first reaction to this is that it isn't quite the same, as it doesn't preserve the cache's history (Jasmer anhyone?). But I suppose it could. For all of the caches that the OP is bringing to attention why not create a new listing for each one. Assuming the listing gets published, the cache at that location continues to exist and will then have a responsive CO. You could even go so far as to provide a link to the archived cache as well. This might not work everywhere due to land management issues and grandfathered caches. But if you really feel strongly that these caches are being archived unnecessarily, and they are in you home area, I suppose it is some action you could take. Just thinking out loud here.

Link to comment

 

I do not want that one of my DNF logs is the reason why someone needs to waste many hours of their precious time.

 

 

Dear [insert Reviewer Name Here],

 

I am the owner of this cache. I will check on it later if there continue to be more DNF logs. I doubt it is truly missing and want to wait until the Spring before checking to make sure. I have a regular plan in place and will be checking this cache every [X] number of years/months or as needed when I can physically reach the cache. I plan on posting all owner checks as logs or owner maintenance so that you know that I have not abandoned this cache.

 

Thank you for your time on this matter!

 

Took me 5 minutes to write this, I can copy it and paste if another cache gets called out by a reviewer...

 

How does that equate to hours of their precious time??

Link to comment

But why would Reviewers be taking it upon themselves to do this? What goal does it serve?

 

It opens up (what could be prime) areas to people that are actually still caching and/or are responsible cache owners. The situation you described is also prominent in my area with a few puzzle caches. Even though I know that some of the owners are not really active anymore (some respond to emails from time to time). I only post NM (and rarely NA) when the container is truly gone or needs serious repair work. I have no mixed feelings for doing so. But, I do so, after researching as much as possible...including attempts to reach the CO as well. When CO's have not logged into GC.com for 6 plus years and their history is littered with evidence of abandoned caches, then I am even more so inclined to post a NM/NA log.

Link to comment

 

One solution I've heard for this is that if the locals really wanted to, they could let the listing be archived and then get a brand new listing published for the same cache in the same spot. My first reaction to this is that it isn't quite the same, as it doesn't preserve the cache's history (Jasmer anhyone?). But I suppose it could. For all of the caches that the OP is bringing to attention why not create a new listing for each one. Assuming the listing gets published, the cache at that location continues to exist and will then have a responsive CO. You could even go so far as to provide a link to the archived cache as well. This might not work everywhere due to land management issues and grandfathered caches. But if you really feel strongly that these caches are being archived unnecessarily, and they are in you home area, I suppose it is some action you could take. Just thinking out loud here.

First, Jasmer grids don't trump the guidelines for the game. Second, you can replace the cache with a new listing, and can even back-date the "hidden on" date so long as NOTHING has changed for the cache location and container. (That much is debatable on the forums, but really isn't that controversial outside of this echo chamber)

 

Really all that matters is communication. People will need to respond to maintenance needs for their cache, and we are obliged to do better in responding with kindness and open mind when a Reviewer might post to our caches. All you need to do is be communicative, and check on your caches. Done deal.

Link to comment

My last post got me thinking some more, how far could this go? (and by "this" I mean posting NA or disabling caches form inactive users even though evidence may suggest that the cache is indeed still in place). Bear with me here... I once worked for a company with an ethics policy. It was pretty standard stuff, but every year they had a system in place to make sure every single employee acknowledged the ethics policy and read the whole thing. Not such a terrible idea, since policies get updated over time, but also it was a mechanism for making sure all employees acknowledge the policy every year. I suppose I could have chosen not to acknowledge the ethics policy and sign off the form, but it probably would have led to my termination with the company, or so I imagine.

 

What about cache ownership? If the powers that be are so keen on having caches with unresponsive COs be wiped off the map, they could implement a system that could do this. I imagine it much like the annual "Company Ethics Policy Review". Pick a day of the year and send out an email/note/ whatever to every CO stating that if they wish to continue to have their caches listed, they need to check some box stating that they agree to the terms and agreements of the site, etc... COs that are responsive check the box, and their caches continue to live. COs that are no longer active would quickly be identified, and their caches could be archived *poof* just like that. Seems a little harsh, why not build in some additional warnings and nag emails to give Cos that are unable to respond for a month, or two or three some respite. In the end though, if COs are not responding to this annual message, then their caches cease to be listed. The result is a geocaching map that only has caches from active COs. Is this higher quality game? Hard to say. Perhaps there are much fewer "bad listings" that have been dormant for years but that no one can find. But there will also be plenty of findable caches that get removed from the site simply because the COs have are not checking in anymore. In some areas, this could mean a lot less caches to hunt for.

 

I am not advocating for such a system, but it is interesting to think about. My own preference is for caches without active COs to die "natural" deaths when actual geocachers go out and cannot find them, and then decide to post NMs and NAs. But that's just me. As with the example of the company ethics policy, most of my co-workers cared on iota for reading the policy and having to sign it every year. A lot of them considered it a waste of time and an annoyance, and indeed if such a "CO review policy" came out, I imagine many would also feel that way about it. In the geocaching world, why create something that would annoy COs and result in many caches getting archived? Does it in fact alienate more of the users than create a better overall game?

Link to comment

 

One solution I've heard for this is that if the locals really wanted to, they could let the listing be archived and then get a brand new listing published for the same cache in the same spot. My first reaction to this is that it isn't quite the same, as it doesn't preserve the cache's history (Jasmer anhyone?). But I suppose it could. For all of the caches that the OP is bringing to attention why not create a new listing for each one. Assuming the listing gets published, the cache at that location continues to exist and will then have a responsive CO. You could even go so far as to provide a link to the archived cache as well. This might not work everywhere due to land management issues and grandfathered caches. But if you really feel strongly that these caches are being archived unnecessarily, and they are in you home area, I suppose it is some action you could take. Just thinking out loud here.

First, Jasmer grids don't trump the guidelines for the game. Second, you can replace the cache with a new listing, and can even back-date the "hidden on" date so long as NOTHING has changed for the cache location and container. (That much is debatable on the forums, but really isn't that controversial outside of this echo chamber)

 

Really all that matters is communication. People will need to respond to maintenance needs for their cache, and we are obliged to do better in responding with kindness and open mind when a Reviewer might post to our caches. All you need to do is be communicative, and check on your caches. Done deal.

AMEN...its really that simple!! Yes... my reviewer disable a cache of mine and I thank him for reminding me and got the cache replaced.

 

The biggest complains I hear from new comers in my area... alot of the caches need maintenance or they are missing or many CO arent playing anymore or all the good spots are taken. I know a few that gave up geocaching because they felt the listing was "junky". I have to agree with that to a point. Some newbies felt they have to do all the "dirty" work to clean up the listing. I think GS wants to get their listing a little more cleaner so the reviewers been busy in the last few months.

 

Its nice to see some caches getting archived so new caches can be placed there. Its new caches that keep the hobby going, not the old ones.

Link to comment

Well, if you want to take your toys and go home, you are welcome to do so. If your opinion of the process is so negative that you'd do that extreme a response, that's just fine.

 

Me, I'm not a reactionary.

 

I told you what about 90% of the old timers (not only those who started up to 2004) in my country would do that have not yet given up.

In addition, there is certainly a cultural issue involved.

 

What is the cultural issue?

Link to comment

Its nice to see some caches getting archived so new caches can be placed there. Its new caches that keep the hobby going, not the old ones.

 

I respectfully disagree with that statement. People put time and effort into making nice caches, it doesn't matter if that time and effort was this year or 10 years ago. I feel like this attitude is born from folks that have already found most of the caches around their home base, and need new ones to keep the game interesting for them. A myopic point of view, since you may have found all those oldies but goodies in your area already. Maybe new caches help keep the game going for some, but that doesn't mean that new caches are required to keep the hobby going.

Link to comment

Its nice to see some caches getting archived so new caches can be placed there. Its new caches that keep the hobby going, not the old ones.

 

I respectfully disagree with that statement. People put time and effort into making nice caches, it doesn't matter if that time and effort was this year or 10 years ago. I feel like this attitude is born from folks that have already found most of the caches around their home base, and need new ones to keep the game interesting for them. A myopic point of view, since you may have found all those oldies but goodies in your area already. Maybe new caches help keep the game going for some, but that doesn't mean that new caches are required to keep the hobby going.

I agree with you that people put time and effort in making nice cahces...BUT its THEIR job to keep it going and maintenance...if not...bye bye. Most people that place caches 10 years ago aren't geocaching anymore. Very few in my area... and yep...their caches are getting archived, one by one. Is that a good thing? Yes.... why... they are history and their caches should be history too.

Link to comment

Its nice to see some caches getting archived so new caches can be placed there. Its new caches that keep the hobby going, not the old ones.

 

I respectfully disagree with that statement. People put time and effort into making nice caches, it doesn't matter if that time and effort was this year or 10 years ago. I feel like this attitude is born from folks that have already found most of the caches around their home base, and need new ones to keep the game interesting for them. A myopic point of view, since you may have found all those oldies but goodies in your area already. Maybe new caches help keep the game going for some, but that doesn't mean that new caches are required to keep the hobby going.

 

I've seen my share of oldies but baddies. They get a lot of fav points because they are old. The owner may have put some effort into it 10 years ago, but now it's in rough shape. They may have been great 8 years ago, but the container is now cracked and the contents have collected at least 4 years of mold. And over the years someone has been so kind as to leave a piece of folded note paper with their signature on it because the other 4+ logs left by finders are now crumpled soggy black lumps. The cache owner either doesn't play anymore or doesn't care. It just seems to me that the older the game gets the more important those old GC numbers get - that the great cache is no longer great except for it's coveted GC code.

Link to comment

Its nice to see some caches getting archived so new caches can be placed there. Its new caches that keep the hobby going, not the old ones.

 

I respectfully disagree with that statement. People put time and effort into making nice caches, it doesn't matter if that time and effort was this year or 10 years ago. I feel like this attitude is born from folks that have already found most of the caches around their home base, and need new ones to keep the game interesting for them. A myopic point of view, since you may have found all those oldies but goodies in your area already. Maybe new caches help keep the game going for some, but that doesn't mean that new caches are required to keep the hobby going.

 

I've seen my share of oldies but baddies. They get a lot of fav points because they are old. The owner may have put some effort into it 10 years ago, but now it's in rough shape. They may have been great 8 years ago, but the container is now cracked and the contents have collected at least 4 years of mold. And over the years someone has been so kind as to leave a piece of folded note paper with their signature on it because the other 4+ logs left by finders are now crumpled soggy black lumps. The cache owner either doesn't play anymore or doesn't care. It just seems to me that the older the game gets the more important those old GC numbers get - that the great cache is no longer great except for it's coveted GC code.

 

I agree in general...but there is plenty of room out there for old and new caches, as long as they are properly maintained by their owners. I have two caches coming up on their 12th anniversary. I keep them in good shape and have a record of their upkeep in the logs. No reason for them not to last another 12 years. Proper upkeep is the key.

Link to comment

Its nice to see some caches getting archived so new caches can be placed there. Its new caches that keep the hobby going, not the old ones.

 

I respectfully disagree with that statement. People put time and effort into making nice caches, it doesn't matter if that time and effort was this year or 10 years ago. I feel like this attitude is born from folks that have already found most of the caches around their home base, and need new ones to keep the game interesting for them. A myopic point of view, since you may have found all those oldies but goodies in your area already. Maybe new caches help keep the game going for some, but that doesn't mean that new caches are required to keep the hobby going.

 

I've seen my share of oldies but baddies. They get a lot of fav points because they are old. The owner may have put some effort into it 10 years ago, but now it's in rough shape. They may have been great 8 years ago, but the container is now cracked and the contents have collected at least 4 years of mold. And over the years someone has been so kind as to leave a piece of folded note paper with their signature on it because the other 4+ logs left by finders are now crumpled soggy black lumps. The cache owner either doesn't play anymore or doesn't care. It just seems to me that the older the game gets the more important those old GC numbers get - that the great cache is no longer great except for it's coveted GC code.

 

I agree in general...but there is plenty of room out there for old and new caches, as long as they are properly maintained by their owners. I have two caches coming up on their 12th anniversary. I keep them in good shape and have a record of their upkeep in the logs. No reason for them not to last another 12 years. Proper upkeep is the key.

 

I get what your saying. Our oldest active cache is 10.5 years old. I still enjoy maintaining it. It's in a beautiful location. I make the 30 minute drive out a couple of times a year for routine visits and the occasional extra visit whenever there's a report that has me concerned. But we've archived quite a few oldies when it became a chore to look after them. Many of the old caches I have seen had active cache owners that appeared to have lost interest in maintaining them, but won't archive them. Just lets them sit there until they go missing or they deteriorate so badly that someone finally logs an NA and the reviewer archives the remains. Yes, I agree....proper upkeep is the key.

Link to comment

 

Could be the fact that it is on National Forest land, and some other factors we aren't aware of between the Reviewer's knowledge and the land manager?

 

 

Then state that it's because of an existing or changed policy regarding the inability to use National Forest land for geocaching, not state that it might be missing and that's the reason why it's disabled. There's NO argument on this particular cache if that's the reason. Instead we see a notice that implies it might be missing.

I have no idea if that's part of the issue or not. If you have a problem with it, you can email GeoCrater and ask.

 

See the "canned response" context from Ladybug Kids: If the Reviewer uses GSAK to mass-post reminder emails, TD logs, or whatever, the language won't always be as precise as it could be. But when you're reviewing hundreds or thousands of caches a couple times a year, I can understand "cutting some corners" to log those caches a little quicker.

 

The bottom line is that an owner can post a note or contact the Reviewer to re-enable or keep a cache from being archived in the first place. That's not so hard, is it?

 

 

Well, if you want to take your toys and go home, you are welcome to do so. If your opinion of the process is so negative that you'd do that extreme a response, that's just fine.

 

Me, I'm not a reactionary.

 

Hey...at least it's a response, which is all that is required to prevent the reviewer from archiving it. I say that only half-jokingly...

Right? All you'd have to do is post a note or email the Reviewer. It's as if cezanne and others assume there's some kind of motive behind these archivals or a Reviewer temporarily disabling a cache listing.

 

If your caches are all above board and in good order, the guidelines are on your side for the cache to stay enabled and/or for an appeal to go your way. I'm floored that there's this much overzealous emotion and reactionary conspiracy theorizing going on about this subject.

 

Posting a note only delays another reviewer note for 30 days. Eventually you have to go out there and check on that 1 DNF. Most people don't do it, get aggravated and let it get archived. Not the way any cache should end.

Link to comment

 

I do not want that one of my DNF logs is the reason why someone needs to waste many hours of their precious time.

 

 

Dear [insert Reviewer Name Here],

 

I am the owner of this cache. I will check on it later if there continue to be more DNF logs. I doubt it is truly missing and want to wait until the Spring before checking to make sure. I have a regular plan in place and will be checking this cache every [X] number of years/months or as needed when I can physically reach the cache. I plan on posting all owner checks as logs or owner maintenance so that you know that I have not abandoned this cache.

 

Thank you for your time on this matter!

 

Took me 5 minutes to write this, I can copy it and paste if another cache gets called out by a reviewer...

 

How does that equate to hours of their precious time??

 

Writing such a note does of course not take many hours, however with the information we have obtained so far there is no indication for the assumption your post is based on, namely that reviewers will accept the decision not to check the cache based on a single DNF log and the belief that still is allright.

 

Moreover, I do not know a single cache in my country who write a statement like "I will be checking this cache every [x] number of years/months". Geocaching is not work and Groundspeak is not the boss of all geocachers. Without cache hiders Groundspeak would have nothing at all.

 

Do not get me wrong, I agree that owners are responsible for their caches, but there are limits for me in particular when the concerned caches are ok.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Our oldest active cache is 10.5 years old. I still enjoy maintaining it. It's in a beautiful location. I make the 30 minute drive out a couple of times a year for routine visits and the occasional extra visit whenever there's a report that has me concerned. But we've archived quite a few oldies when it became a chore to look after them. Many of the old caches I have seen had active cache owners that appeared to have lost interest in maintaining them, but won't archive them. Just lets them sit there until they go missing or they deteriorate so badly that someone finally logs an NA and the reviewer archives the remains. Yes, I agree....proper upkeep is the key.

 

At least 30 minutes drive is something I invest for almost all of my caching. The essential part is then the walking time.

Some of the wonderful geocaching pearls I have in mind require the cache owner to invest at least 8 hours for walking (in addition to twice at least an hour drive) and it could be much more. I see absolutely no reason to send the cache owner for a check of such caches on the basis of a single DNF (except in special circumstances) and the fact that of course such caches do not get many visits and never have got many visits. They never have been hidden for the majority of cachers. Such caches are not necessarily in remote locations.

 

We are talking here about a single DNF and not about caches in bad condition.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I agree with you that people put time and effort in making nice cahces...BUT its THEIR job to keep it going and maintenance...if not...bye bye. Most people that place caches 10 years ago aren't geocaching anymore. Very few in my area... and yep...their caches are getting archived, one by one. Is that a good thing? Yes.... why... they are history and their caches should be history too.

 

It's one thing to archive unmaintained caches that have issues and another to write that it is good to see if caches get archived to make space for new ones.

 

I rather visit a cache like that one http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCBE2A_old-stones?guid=517708a6-8187-49de-b4c9-9fbc84736bfdmore than once (I did anyway) then being encountered with 10 of the modern style caches.

 

Apart from my own preferences, I regard it as unfortunate when examples like the cache above or even more a cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCG5J2_golden-eye?guid=8b2d68b1-26b0-4aa8-8750-c8ceca27d4b8

get lost as shining examples of what geocaching could be about too of which most newer cachers are not even aware of.

 

While the Golden Eye cache (ammo can as final container) is still in perfect shape, it would even be a terrific cache if the container were leaking as this cache is about the magnificent hike and a route that is hardly known and much more lonesome than the typical routes in this area. This cache has motivated me back then to go for until to that point by far longest hike on my own. It's an experience against which I would not exchange the total experience of the lowmost 2000 caches among my 3500+ finds in my personal ranking. I do not care a bit about things like GC numbers or the age of a cache. It's the experience which plays the key role for me. I do not even care about the type and contents of the container. For me it's about the journey.

 

If a new cache at a boring urban location replaces an old cache at the same boring urban location, I have not won anything.

Link to comment

Assuming there is no NM log on the cache page, why should long unfound caches with a single DNF get disabled while caches found once a week get a DNF (or in many cases multiple DNFs) and nothing happens to them? THAT tells me that perhaps they've been told to focus on these types of caches. If that's not the case, then some reviewers are arbitrarily focusing on these caches. If that's not the case, then reviewers are choosing which DNF logs deserve to lead to a disabling. If that's not the case, then the guidelines aren't being applied the same to every cache. The "It depends" train of thought tells me that's the case, but now it's telling us that one type of DNF has more value than another. If that's the case, the logs should be read thoroughly to determine the inherent value and it's obvious to me that this wasn't the case for one of these caches in question.

 

The reviewers opened this door by doing this to the caches in question and further opened it up with the "It depends" mantra. I agree with it depends, but showing that lonely caches with a single DNF will get a reviewer's attention before frequently found caches with multiple DNFs appears to be targeting specific caches. I would be more likely to avoid a frequently found cache with a string of DNFs than a lonely cache with a solitary DNF.

 

I honestly don't mind these archivals since the CO could have, at any time, stopped them from happening just by posting a note to the cache page. They can even be un-archived if the CO provides information that it meets the criteria for doing so. The fact that they didn't shows that they're not investing the time to maintain their own caches.

 

The problem I have here is that the examples provided appear to be singled out because they haven't been found in quite some time. There are multiple other ones not found in quite some time that haven't been archived after a DNF log and CO unresponsiveness. The only difference I see is that they have lots more finds and are visited more frequently. The process to archiving these caches is different than the process for other caches to be archived. If all the caches in a certain area were disabled after a DNF because the reviewer thought the cache might not be there, I wouldn't have any problem with what has happened, but that's not going to happen because there is NO way the reviewers have time for that. They have enough on their plate as it is.

Link to comment

I'm really in the minority here, but I am of the opinion that whatever "algorithm" is being used for this current push, the utility of the action will clean-up (on the system) more dead caches than it will archive well maintained remote caches. Locally, there are some caches that were absolutely fantastic in the day, but some COs have moved-on and the containers/logs/stages are really bad. Whatever the algorithm to post the initial disablement, the CO has the opportunity to address the situation. It seems logical to me that an efficient way to determine if the CO has a desire for the cache to live is to provide him/her with two options...1)respond to the disablement or 2)request unarchival.

Link to comment

I'm really in the minority here, but I am of the opinion that whatever "algorithm" is being used for this current push, the utility of the action will clean-up (on the system) more dead caches than it will archive well maintained remote caches.

 

But it's not. Therein lies the problem. Quick search of NJ caches that haven't been found recently.

 

GCFE7B - unfound since 9/2010 and two DNFs

GC10JTJ - unfound since 7/2011 and a single DNF

GC1D5D5 - unfound since 9/2011 and a single DNF log

GC2X5M3 - unfound since 9/2011 and a single DNF log

GC1A7XP - unfound since 11/2011, a single DNF log AND a NM log

GCEAF0 - unfound since 11/2011and a single DNF log

GCMRGY - unfound since 1/2012 and two DNF logs

GCZ30P - unfound since 1/2012, a CO note on 10/2013 and 3 consecutive DNFs

 

Here's an example that's even more glaring, given the D/T rating and the fact that it has a NM log posted over a year ago. 6 pages into the list.

 

GC2PMQ2 - 1/1.5 cache, not found since 8/2012, 3 consecutive DNF logs (and one note saying it wasn't found by a previous finder), and a NM log.

 

Where is the reviewer action on these? Took me 5 minutes to go through the list. If they were truly concerned about cleaning up dead caches, these would all have been disabled and archived. Perhaps they haven't just been gotten to yet? If that's the road they're heading down, that's fine with me, just tell us, don't leave it to guesswork.

 

"Groundspeak has decided it's time to clear up some possibly deficient caches due to possible inactivity on the CO's part. If you, the owner, don't post a log to this page within 30 days, we'll be required to disable it. If another 30 days goes by without any action on your part, it will be archived."

 

Yes, it's similar to what they're already doing, at least based on the examples here, but at least it won't be left to conjecture on our part. Be a bit more transparent and I think more people wouldn't have as many issues as are being expressed in this thread. Right now it's just some big mystery as to why it's happening and it seems arbitrary at best.

Link to comment

I'm really in the minority here, but I am of the opinion that whatever "algorithm" is being used for this current push, the utility of the action will clean-up (on the system) more dead caches than it will archive well maintained remote caches.

 

But it's not. Therein lies the problem. Quick search of NJ caches that haven't been found recently.

 

GCFE7B - unfound since 9/2010 and two DNFs

GC10JTJ - unfound since 7/2011 and a single DNF

GC1D5D5 - unfound since 9/2011 and a single DNF log

GC2X5M3 - unfound since 9/2011 and a single DNF log

GC1A7XP - unfound since 11/2011, a single DNF log AND a NM log

GCEAF0 - unfound since 11/2011and a single DNF log

GCMRGY - unfound since 1/2012 and two DNF logs

GCZ30P - unfound since 1/2012, a CO note on 10/2013 and 3 consecutive DNFs

 

Here's an example that's even more glaring, given the D/T rating and the fact that it has a NM log posted over a year ago. 6 pages into the list.

 

GC2PMQ2 - 1/1.5 cache, not found since 8/2012, 3 consecutive DNF logs (and one note saying it wasn't found by a previous finder), and a NM log.

 

Where is the reviewer action on these? Took me 5 minutes to go through the list. If they were truly concerned about cleaning up dead caches, these would all have been disabled and archived. Perhaps they haven't just been gotten to yet? If that's the road they're heading down, that's fine with me, just tell us, don't leave it to guesswork.

 

"Groundspeak has decided it's time to clear up some possibly deficient caches due to possible inactivity on the CO's part. If you, the owner, don't post a log to this page within 30 days, we'll be required to disable it. If another 30 days goes by without any action on your part, it will be archived."

 

Yes, it's similar to what they're already doing, at least based on the examples here, but at least it won't be left to conjecture on our part. Be a bit more transparent and I think more people wouldn't have as many issues as are being expressed in this thread. Right now it's just some big mystery as to why it's happening and it seems arbitrary at best.

 

That's really odd, and I suppose that perhaps the goal is just to do a half dozen at a time so nobody notices?

 

The initial cache in the first post was a paddle to. So it hasn't been found in a while, why disable it now?

Link to comment
Assuming there is no NM log on the cache page, why should long unfound caches with a single DNF get disabled while caches found once a week get a DNF (or in many cases multiple DNFs) and nothing happens to them? THAT tells me that perhaps they've been told to focus on these types of caches.

 

The ones that started this thread are more of the outliers, below are more of the average of what was dealt with that day.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2A1B4_tst4-i-am-a-log-kinda-sorta?guid=14183826-f536-45d2-8144-00049fa9a05c

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1ZDWF_welcome-to-atlantic-city?guid=41ae84fe-01d1-4bee-90cf-63d361563f4d

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2NVD8_tippy-my-loyal-companion?guid=27e22484-f03c-475a-ab72-9e9c8ed8e7cc

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2HPGK_the-green-butterfly?guid=4af70d67-4ab1-4503-9071-fa3843aaae2a

 

I can honestly say we were given no instruction related to lonely caches or anything of the sort. In addition to dealing with e-mail complaints about caches, NA notes, when I have time to pull PQs for the state (or when less time, part of the state), and pour through them looking for things that have problems, that's what I do. Every cache could be someone's first and their experience should be a positive one. Finding a broken lidded container with a moldy log book or spending an hour not finding a cache with 3+ DNFs are not going entice people to continue to play the game.

 

I am enjoying this thread a lot, I am learning where lines are for the community, seeing things outside of how I see them, etc. Please, keep going.

 

GCZ30P - unfound since 1/2012, a CO note on 10/2013 and 3 consecutive DNFs

This is a great example of reading the logs. There is really only one DNF. Only once did the person who dnfed make it to the final location. There are mentions of it being a hard hide. There is nothing from that one DNF that makes be think that it is missing.

 

Here's an example that's even more glaring, given the D/T rating and the fact that it has a NM log posted over a year ago. 6 pages into the list.

 

GC2PMQ2 - 1/1.5 cache, not found since 8/2012, 3 consecutive DNF logs (and one note saying it wasn't found by a previous finder), and a NM log.

That GC code is for the wrong cache. Post the correct one, I'll be happy to look.

 

Where is the reviewer action on these? Took me 5 minutes to go through the list. If they were truly concerned about cleaning up dead caches, these would all have been disabled and archived. Perhaps they haven't just been gotten to yet? If that's the road they're heading down, that's fine with me, just tell us, don't leave it to guesswork.

I have not pulled a full PQ set for all of NJ since last December. I usually do it once a year during my winter holiday break from real work. During the regular year, it is smaller PQs and directed actions from caches pointed out as problems.

Link to comment
I am enjoying this thread a lot, I am learning where lines are for the community, seeing things outside of how I see them, etc. Please, keep going.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

Agreed, thanks for stopping by. Originally, I did think you were acting on your own without higher guidance, but then the report came in about a cache in Oregon that also was involuntarily disabled after only one DNF, and it was obvious if you read that DNF, the so-called DNF'er didn't even make it to Ground Zero. :huh:

 

Of course there are many people, especially early in the thread, who fully support the involuntary disabling of lonely caches after one DNF. I am not one of them though, I just think this is a bit harsh. It gives the appearance you're "going after" lonely caches. To me, in my opinion, that is. But I'm certainly not alone.

 

I think we all agree that non responsiveness after having your cache involuntarily disabled by a reviewer is grounds for archival. I just don't believe in most of the cases posted by 4WF (or ESPECIALLY the cache in Oregon), that they should have ever been disabled in the first place.

Link to comment

 

Thanks for taking the time to communicate with us B)

 

My personal opinion is that the above examples are a better representation of the types of caches where the direct reviewer action as a matter of routine is both merited and very welcome - wet boxes, boxes left out in the open, numerous DNF's and no CO attention whatsoever.

 

Singling out lonely caches where one DNF or less is the only issue - I really can't vote for.

Link to comment

Well, although now I can understand how kayaking and swimming caches are disabled in the middle of winter, I still don't think it makes much sense at all. Last winter this excellent cache: http://coord.info/GC2XN1R was disabled for 3 DNFs. Yes that's more than 1 DNF, but it's a difficult cache underwater and DNFs are to be expected. Of course it was there, the owner responded once which only delayed the next note in April, which went unanswered and was archived due to a communication problem. I don't think tasking people to check on difficult hides, especially in the winter, is going to inspire too much maintenance. And you can see that 3 DNFs doesn't indicate that it was missing, let alone 1.

 

http://coord.info/GC48GFG was disabled and archived due to a team of 2 people not finding it, and apparently they thought their DNFs were not enough. Its a tricky hide. The coords take you to the center of a patch of woods, while the cache is reachable from outside around the back. Yes, the owner did not answer or check on it, but should they after only 2 DNFs from the same group? This only encourages more inappropriate NA notes. I'm sure it is there also, and bothering the cache owner to check on it is unnecessary.

 

http://coord.info/GC216D7 was disabled, but its a mystery why. No Needs Maintenance notes or any DNFs at all. Just a note from the last finder 2 months ago that the log was a little damp and moldy. Does every cache like this need reviewer intervention?

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I been thinking more about this topic and I feel this style of archived cache is bugging me more. If someone what a cache archived, they can armchair log a DNF. :ph34r: I just hope all those DNF logs on those archived caches arent armchair log.

I've seen both happen, and to be honest, I don't see it as a big problem. In my area, and it sounds like in the area of the OP's example, it merely takes a quick Note from the cache owner to either assure that the container is still in play, or that the CO intends on checking on it in the near future (or as conditions allow). I'm a firm believer that an inactive/absent owner is pretty much the death of any cache, OR it merely provokes people to put out throwdowns. In either case, it's not particularly healthy for the sport as a whole.

Link to comment

 

http://coord.info/GC48GFG was disabled and archived due to a team of 2 people not finding it, and apparently they thought their DNFs were not enough. Its a tricky hide. The coords take you to the center of a patch of woods, while the cache is reachable from outside around the back. Yes, the owner did not answer or check on it, but should they after only 2 DNFs from the same group? This only encourages more inappropriate NA notes. I'm sure it is there also, and bothering the cache owner to check on it is unnecessary.

 

This one and one other by the same CO (gathered in the same sweep, initiated by the same two person team) looks like it was victim of logging errors by the finders. I see a NA log in this situation as equal to sending a registered letter with a cc to a lawyer the first time my dog sets foot in a neighbors yard. I feel it should have been logged as a NM with mention of a second visit. Without a second visit no log should have been made after the DNF. Of course I have the luxury of sitting here without a list of caches to review and publish, other NA logs to address, and fielding questions on possible new hides. The CO did log in shortly after the caches were disabled though.

 

It has been an interesting read. I have a lot of finds that I never logged online. I hope that my failure to do so didn't lead to a situation like we are discussing.

Link to comment

I been thinking more about this topic and I feel this style of archived cache is bugging me more. If someone what a cache archived, they can armchair log a DNF. :ph34r: I just hope all those DNF logs on those archived caches arent armchair log.

I've seen both happen, and to be honest, I don't see it as a big problem. In my area, and it sounds like in the area of the OP's example, it merely takes a quick Note from the cache owner to either assure that the container is still in play, or that the CO intends on checking on it in the near future (or as conditions allow). I'm a firm believer that an inactive/absent owner is pretty much the death of any cache, OR it merely provokes people to put out throwdowns. In either case, it's not particularly healthy for the sport as a whole.

 

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

Link to comment

I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond.

This is optimistic. Fewer than 10% of cachers who receive instruction on how to remove the "Needs Maintenance" attribute from their cache page bother to remove the attribute if all is well with their cache and fewer than 1% of cachers whose caches are archived request unarchival.
Link to comment

This thread was recently bought to my attention at a local event this weekend and became the topic of discussion, as OReviewer is one of the two reviewers who publishes, disables and archives caches within our community. Mostly, I don't disagree with a lot of his actions however after reading through this thread, one particular situation came to mind. 4WF actually covered it more recently before I could respond.

 

Well, although now I can understand how kayaking and swimming caches are disabled in the middle of winter, I still don't think it makes much sense at all. Last winter this excellent cache: http://coord.info/GC2XN1R was disabled for 3 DNFs. Yes that's more than 1 DNF, but it's a difficult cache underwater and DNFs are to be expected. Of course it was there, the owner responded once which only delayed the next note in April, which went unanswered and was archived due to a communication problem. I don't think tasking people to check on difficult hides, especially in the winter, is going to inspire too much maintenance. And you can see that 3 DNFs doesn't indicate that it was missing, let alone 1.

 

I understand disabling a notably easy cache with a low difficulty rating that has accumulated multiple DNFs from well respected finders. This cache, however, had absolutely no reason to be disabled. It was 3 DNF logs on a 5/5 cache. Of course a very difficult cache such as this one will accumulate DNF logs from time to time.

 

I find that often with DNF logs on difficult caches, folks will see a DNF and not try as hard to find the cache because of the possibility that it might be missing. That's mainly due to the fact that the visitor before them couldn't find it. This is exactly the case with this cache. The CO had some unfortunate issues and was unable to communicate properly, but the important thing here is that he tried.

 

Now obviously, the cache was there as you can see from my group's find logs post archival (picture included for proof). Now the cache is sitting there, ready to be found and in good shape but can't be searched for because it's no longer listed.

 

So the point I'm making is that had this difficult cache not been disabled from the start, there wouldn't have been any headaches for the CO to deal with from the start.

 

It's a shame that at the end of some conversations I had at this recent event, folks were discouraging DNF logs. I regularly post my DNFs and feel that it's pertinent to my caching history. I also regularly post needs maintenance and needs archive logs as I feel necessary. I don't think that anybody should be discouraged from doing so. I especially feel that cachers shouldn't feel discouraged about posting DNFs in fear that a difficult cache may be disabled and ultimately archived. Unfortunately, that's the general consensus among our community as of late.

 

I encourage OReviewer to continue doing the work that he's doing as I have seen him clean up some abandoned listings that really needed to be archived. On another note, I also encourage him to use better judgement at times based on the difficulty, terrain, log history and remote locations of some of these hides that are not oft found.

 

Edited for typos

Edited by Traditional Bill
Link to comment
GCZ30P - unfound since 1/2012, a CO note on 10/2013 and 3 consecutive DNFs

This is a great example of reading the logs. There is really only one DNF. Only once did the person who dnfed make it to the final location. There are mentions of it being a hard hide. There is nothing from that one DNF that makes be think that it is missing.

 

Here's an example that's even more glaring, given the D/T rating and the fact that it has a NM log posted over a year ago. 6 pages into the list.

2PM2

GC2PMQ2 - 1/1.5 cache, not found since 8/2012, 3 consecutive DNF logs (and one note saying it wasn't found by a previous finder), and a NM log.

That GC code is for the wrong cache. Post the correct one, I'll be happy to look.

 

Been at a family wedding and just now getting back. As to the first quote selected, it's obviously NOT the reviewer of the OR cache that's responded, but I think if OReviewer is correct that reviewers should be reading logs, it must also be correct that it appears the reviewer of that particular Oregon cache didn't read the logs accurately enough to make that determination.

 

As to the second one, I got the last couple letters/numbers transposed. GC2PM2Q

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

 

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. On one foot, we'd end up losing lots of caches. On the other foot, there'd be lots of new spots opened up for new caches to be placed. The area I live in is pretty saturated right now and good spots are hard to come by unless you opt for private property (I have a couple) or you venture farther from home to place a cache.

Link to comment

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

 

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. On one foot, we'd end up losing lots of caches. On the other foot, there'd be lots of new spots opened up for new caches to be placed. The area I live in is pretty saturated right now and good spots are hard to come by unless you opt for private property (I have a couple) or you venture farther from home to place a cache.

 

The question then would be if there should be a consistent policy or a stricter policy in heavily saturated areas than in areas which are cache sparse.

Link to comment

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

 

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. On one foot, we'd end up losing lots of caches. On the other foot, there'd be lots of new spots opened up for new caches to be placed. The area I live in is pretty saturated right now and good spots are hard to come by unless you opt for private property (I have a couple) or you venture farther from home to place a cache.

 

Must be a regional thing...but isn't it usually "on one hand...on the other hand..." ?

Link to comment

Funny timing, I just received this e-mail.

 

Here is a cache that I'd like to have you check out: Cache Page

 

It has not been found since 2010. Also, the way the description reads it takes snorkeling gear and yet the ratings are 2 and 2.

 

The main issue is the length of time since it was found and the fact it was placed by a "troop"....and they have not been online in over a year. I have sent messages about whether this UNDERWATER cache has ever had maintenance and such. There has been no response.

 

I know it is winter, but I was going to attempt earlier this fall but wanted reassurance that the cache was still there....and my request was ignored.

 

Thanks for checking it,

 

If you see me disable it, with only one DNF on the page, this thread happens. You may not know the full story.

Link to comment

Ugh...the whole 'non-responsive' CO issue actually really bothers me. I understand that life happens and all that, but it seems to me that taking part in an activity like this that requires a certain amount of year-round attention on the part of the cache owners means being able to respond on occasion to emails.

 

I'm almost of the mind to say that perhaps there ought to be a system in place to require periodic verifications by COs that, if ignored, would lead to automatic disabling of their caches. It's not about DNFs or anything like that...it's about whether the CO is even in the game and paying attention.

Link to comment

Funny timing, I just received this e-mail.

 

Here is a cache that I'd like to have you check out: Cache Page

 

It has not been found since 2010. Also, the way the description reads it takes snorkeling gear and yet the ratings are 2 and 2.

 

The main issue is the length of time since it was found and the fact it was placed by a "troop"....and they have not been online in over a year. I have sent messages about whether this UNDERWATER cache has ever had maintenance and such. There has been no response.

 

I know it is winter, but I was going to attempt earlier this fall but wanted reassurance that the cache was still there....and my request was ignored.

 

Thanks for checking it,

 

If you see me disable it, with only one DNF on the page, this thread happens. You may not know the full story.

 

So if the CO is sick, in the hospital, on vacation, etc, and didn't respond as quick as the cacher liked, you are going to disable a cache just because a finder wants to know for sure a cache is still there?! That makes no sense. He didn't even go out and try to find it!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...