Jump to content

What happened to the Tarrytown Horsemen caches?


juliamark
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I can't be certain, but I seem to recall a notice (on one of TH's cache pages) stating to the effect that the owner's email address was invalid (or something to that effect) and therefore the cache was being archived. When I saw that notice I wonder whether TPTB periodically send emails to cache owners to see if the addresses are still active (and thus presumably the cache owner). Anyone know the skinny?

Link to comment

Gee, I wonder if it could be in any way related to a bounced "automatic renewal" notice?

 

I also notice, however, that many of the Horsemen's caches used to include a line in the cache description to contact "Auntie Nub" at such-and-such, and on the few of their pages I checked, that line no longer appears. [EDIT: Found it on another of their pages: AuntieNub@aol.com. Never mind; it's an inactive username.]

 

I accessed their pages through the list of my logged finds. Interestingly, all of their caches appeared with the archived line through the name, yet when I accessed the pages, none of them have the archive/disabled statement or log. It's a mystery! Too bad; the Tarrytown Horsemen had some nice caches.

 

(Note: If the deactiviation was the result of a bounced renewal notice, then I encourage the site administrators to send a similar "renewal notice" to all registered users, paying member or not; if it helps to weed out inactive cachers/abandoned caches, it's a step in the right direction!)

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 08, 2003 at 05:30 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Perfect Tommy:

I can't be certain, but I seem to recall a notice (on one of TH's cache pages) stating to the effect that the owner's email address was invalid (or something to that effect) and therefore the cache was being archived. When I saw that notice I wonder whether TPTB periodically send emails to cache owners to see if the addresses are still active (and thus presumably the cache owner). Anyone know the skinny?


 

Most people opt in for the weekly new cache listing. If that keeps bouncing, there is usually a notice on that person's profile page. When that person logs into GC.com they key a msg that says they need to revalidate their email. I don't believe that alone forces an archive of a cache. I have seen caches where the owner was long AWOL from the site, and the cache was still active, and the person who hid the cache still listed, but if you clicked on the profile link, you got Jeremy's profile, meaning any emails about the cache would go to him. My guess is someone had a problem or question about a cache, tried emailing them and the emails bounced, so they complained to the admins, and the caches were temp disabled until the hiders log into the site and fix the email problem and answer whatever questions there were about the cache.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

My guess is someone had a problem or question about a cache, tried emailing them and the emails bounced, so they complained to the admins, and the caches were temp disabled until the hiders log into the site and fix the email problem and answer whatever questions there were about the cache.


 

But if the caches were actually "Temporarily Disabled," (or archived,) why don't the cache pages reflect that?

 

I've never seen a similar situation, where the cache listing was crossed out on the various cache lists, but the cache page itself appeared "normal," before.

 

Here is a link to one of their pages; see for yourself: Honorable Circle. From there, you can view as many of their pages as interest you.

 

I'm also not sure the statement about bounced weekly notifications causing a verification notice to be sent/account deactivation is accurate, unless it has only recently been implemented ... for several months last year, the e-mail account I had those notices sent to was disabled, and my account here (and my then-active caches) clearly weren't deactivated.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 08, 2003 at 06:10 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

But if the caches were actually "Temporarily Disabled," (or archived,) why don't the cache pages reflect that?

 

I've never seen a similar situation, where the cache listing was crossed out on the various cache lists, but the cache page itself appeared "normal," before.

 

Here is a link to one of their pages; see for yourself: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=36923. From there, you can view as many of their pages as interest you.

 

I'm also not sure the statement about bounced weekly notifications causing a verification notice to be sent/account deactivation is accurate, unless it has only recently been implemented ... for several months last year, the e-mail account I had those notices sent to was disabled, and my account here (and my then-active caches) clearly weren't deactivated.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 08, 2003 at 06:10 AM.]


Ok, I see what you mean now, that is slightly odd. It may be an automated result of the User is not currently active. They may be in the process of modifying their account, or their email address is no longer valid and caused a bounced message. message.

I do not think the bounced emails automatically bring up that message, unless things have changed recently, or it also checks to see when the person was logged into the site. In your case, I'm sure even though those emails were bouncing, you were still logging into gc.com almost daily. In the case of TTH, they have not logged in since 11/02/02. I'm guessing either the bounced emails are still handled manually, or its a combination of bounced emails and inactivity that trips it. I have to go out in a few, or I would play around with changing my gc.com email myself to see if not having a valid email has the same effect on my placed caches.

Perhaps a more general version of this question should be posted to the geocaching.com discussion forum, where it has a better chance of being seen and answered by TPTB.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

We tried sending them an email after visiting one of their virtuals. Our email was returned with the message that the user was not accepting email. icon_frown.gif We never did anything about it figuring if The Horsemen deleted our post because they hadn't received the answers, then they would realize their email wasn't working. My travel bug is at Evie's. If anyone stops by there would you mind grabbing it and dropping it off somewhere else? Thanks icon_smile.gif

 

[This message was edited by EscapeVa on March 12, 2003 at 12:19 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by EscapeVa on March 12, 2003 at 12:22 PM.]

Link to comment

My guess would be that they changed their email and haven't realized it's affecting their geocaching account. Hopefully come spring they will think about geocaching again and come a looking. I'll still go looking for their caches if I'm in the area of any. They have taken sebaticals from the game before, but in the past have popped back in with enthusiam again. EscapeVA... Juliamark hasn't logged that cache yet.. she should be there soon going by past history (they logged one in Tarrytown recently icon_smile.gif ...maybe drop them an email to let them know your concern for the bug and it can give them a plan for the weekend icon_smile.gif Good Luck!

Link to comment

I've been watching the caches for a while also and trying to contact the Tarrytown Horsemen.

 

I know some of the physical caches are still there because I've done them recently. The powers that be (Jeremy and company) have allowed my partner and I to adopt several of the physical caches so that we can make them available again.

 

If the TTH do re-surface we'd be glad to return the cache ownership to them.

 

If anybody wants to help out let us know and we'll try and get the virtuals and other physicals verified so that we can make them available again too.

Link to comment

I received the attached from the admin's when I inquired about adopting several of the virtual's left behind by the Tarrytown Horsemen.

 

I think a few are historically important enough to be re-enabled and I'm willing to submit them as new virtuals.

 

What does everyone else think? Are there any virutal's that come to mind that you'd like to see re-issued? Should I even bother doing it or let them lie dormant?

 

Here's the reply from the admins:

---------------------------

At this point I am not willing to unarchive and transfer virtual caches.

All new virtual are being examined closely to be sure they fit the new guidelines. So to reactivate a virtual that may have been

grandfathered in is something I not am willing to do. We allow the adoption of

physical caches to avoid Geo-trash being left behind by a cacher. A virtual does not leave the Geo-trash behind. If they are valid virtual, then you can submit them as a new cache.

 

Thanks for your understanding,

---------------------------------

 

Poppa Duck

Link to comment

Attempted to contact TH last week through the anon email of Mrs. TH (aka Mizz Lizz) on Where's George? but no answer so far.

 

As noted by others, TH did step away from the game last year until they reappeared in September but during that sabbatical they at least had a valid email addy. If they have in fact "retired", the Westchester caching contingent should discuss archiving or adopting (until or if they reappear) the physical caches. I have some ideas on what to do with some of these but I would be interested in hearing from Westchester's most prolific stasher first. Jonboy?

 

As for the virtuals, I tend to agree with the admins although I think this one may be a keeper provided there's a better verification mechanism. I'm a history junkie so I'm biased on that one. Just my opinion and, as often pointed out to me, I've been known to be wrong.

 

Thanks to Poppa Duck for addressing this and even adopting some of the orphaned caches.

Link to comment

Thanks for the tip, Floopy. I emailed them and will post if I hear anything.

 

As for the physical caches, in addition to the ones Poppa Duck has adopted, I think some of them can be adopted but, in some cases, the TH caches, if abandoned, should be archived in order to allow other cachers the opportunity to place new caches in those areas. This is all assuming of course that the TH have indeed "retired" - which would be a regrettable development for Westchester geocaching.

Link to comment

I don't know if I would write them off yet, just because they lost e-mail. I think they are now EMTs and may not have much spare time. Temporary adoption should only be a short term solution, if they truly are finished with geocaching, which is by no means certain, then the caches should be archived. Their favorite of mine was the Headless Horseman Cache. I would rather new caches were put out, so I have more to hunt nearby. I think people could come up with their own creative locations.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...