How should I deal with a 4-month disabled cache?

[+ColwynMagpie]

There's a multi-cache near me which was disabled by the owner on the 5th of December 2014. At the time he gave a vague indication that he'd replace the missing cache but has since done nothing. According to Groundspeak, disabling a cache is meant to be temporary, "a few weeks or perhaps a couple of months". Call me pedantic but that greyed-out cache right near my home base has been bugging me. Should I flag it as 'needs archived'?

 

A bit more information. The owner is local and has been active as recently as the 14th April. He only owns 22 active caches so I'm sure he's not overwhelmed by overdue cache maintenance. I did message him about the cache, using both the old and new messaging feature, but although he's been using the site I've had no reply.

[+jellis]

CO seems to be still active. You might send a note on the cache logs or to them personally. Tell them you wish to find it and if they have fixed it. They may have just forgotten.

 

Sorry I didn't read all of your post. Then I would send a message to your local reviewer and let them know the details.

Edited April 16, 2015 by jellis

[+Seaglass Pirates]

There's a multi-cache near me which was disabled by the owner on the 5th of December 2014. At the time he gave a vague indication that he'd replace the missing cache but has since done nothing. According to Groundspeak, disabling a cache is meant to be temporary, "a few weeks or perhaps a couple of months". Call me pedantic but that greyed-out cache right near my home base has been bugging me. Should I flag it as 'needs archived'?

 

A bit more information. The owner is local and has been active as recently as the 14th April. He only owns 22 active caches so I'm sure he's not overwhelmed by overdue cache maintenance. I did message him about the cache, using both the old and new messaging feature, but although he's been using the site I've had no reply.

 

You have accidentally drifted from someone who goes caching and can highlight a potential problem to someone who is saying "Call me pedantic but that greyed-out cache right near my home base has been bugging me"

 

It should not really bug you at all. It comes across that because they do not seem to be following the rules, this is something you find wrong and so you have decided to do something about it. Hence you are here asking what you can do about it. You have even begun to invade the CO's territory of responsibility by emailing them about it. Expecting something to be done about it. But, and this is your answer, it is your reviewers job to do something about it not yours. Thats what they do.

 

If you log a needs archived it will bring it to you reviewers attention. And I am sure things will move forward from there as you wish. But you will also highlight that it was you that caused it. To the CO. And in my experience you may burn bridges. You dont want to impact on another cacher who you may have to face later at an event etc.

 

The friendly way to deal with it, is to leave it alone and enjoy the caches you can do. You will find that at some point the reviewer will notice it all on their own. Or despite your certainty that the CO is perfectly able to maintain the cache there may be factors you are not aware of. Maybe getting landowner permissions, a new container, may be a couple. One is caching and has some of the caches, the other is not and owns that cache. Whatever you decide to do, it may well be that it "bugging you", and you forcing the issue, will bring you unwanted attention.

[+6NoisyHikers]

There's a multi-cache near me which was disabled by the owner on the 5th of December 2014. At the time he gave a vague indication that he'd replace the missing cache but has since done nothing. According to Groundspeak, disabling a cache is meant to be temporary, "a few weeks or perhaps a couple of months". Call me pedantic but that greyed-out cache right near my home base has been bugging me. Should I flag it as 'needs archived'?

 

A bit more information. The owner is local and has been active as recently as the 14th April. He only owns 22 active caches so I'm sure he's not overwhelmed by overdue cache maintenance. I did message him about the cache, using both the old and new messaging feature, but although he's been using the site I've had no reply.

 

You've done about as much as you can by contacting the cache owner. The Seaglass Pirate is right that a reviewer will eventually notice the long-term disable and give the CO a nudge.

 

I've never used the ignore feature - does this remove the icon from the map? Is it possible to both ignore and watch a cache at the same time? I know this sounds odd, but it might help with the visual irritation while keeping the door open for a notification when something happens with the cache.

[+The_Incredibles_]

If you are interested in doing the cache, I would post a note saying just that. "I'd love to do this cache. I'm wondering if it will be back in action soon." If you don't get a reply, I'd just go onto finding other caches and eventually a reviewer is likely to step in.

[+ColwynMagpie]

There's a multi-cache near me which was disabled by the owner on the 5th of December 2014. At the time he gave a vague indication that he'd replace the missing cache but has since done nothing. According to Groundspeak, disabling a cache is meant to be temporary, "a few weeks or perhaps a couple of months". Call me pedantic but that greyed-out cache right near my home base has been bugging me. Should I flag it as 'needs archived'?

 

A bit more information. The owner is local and has been active as recently as the 14th April. He only owns 22 active caches so I'm sure he's not overwhelmed by overdue cache maintenance. I did message him about the cache, using both the old and new messaging feature, but although he's been using the site I've had no reply.

 

You've done about as much as you can by contacting the cache owner. The Seaglass Pirate is right that a reviewer will eventually notice the long-term disable and give the CO a nudge.

 

I've never used the ignore feature - does this remove the icon from the map? Is it possible to both ignore and watch a cache at the same time? I know this sounds odd, but it might help with the visual irritation while keeping the door open for a notification when something happens with the cache.

Great, thanks very much. I wanted to bring the cache to a reviewer's attention but I wasn't aware they monitor long-term disabled caches anyway. I'll leave it at that then.

 

As for the ignore feature I'm not sure how that works, but if a reviewer's likely to deal with it in due course it's no big deal having the icon on the map.

[+ColwynMagpie]

CO seems to be still active. You might send a note on the cache logs or to them personally. Tell them you wish to find it and if they have fixed it. They may have just forgotten.

If you are interested in doing the cache, I would post a note saying just that. "I'd love to do this cache. I'm wondering if it will be back in action soon." If you don't get a reply, I'd just go onto finding other caches and eventually a reviewer is likely to step in.

Good idea! If he sees there's interest in his cache he'll probably get round to fixing it.

Edited April 16, 2015 by La Pie Bavarde

[+dprovan]

Call me pedantic but that greyed-out cache right near my home base has been bugging me.

First of all, one thing I want to make clear: you should never, ever take action against a cache because it bugs you.

 

Should I flag it as 'needs archived'?

Since it bugs you, then, no, you absolutely shouldn't post a needs archived. But I applaud that you're taking your responsibility for providing input on the state of the cache, so let's assume you can stop letting it bug you and examine the cache's state dispassionately. So first, I think this warrants a needs maintenance to ask whether maintenance is still pending. (I'd use NM rather than the note someone else suggested, but it's just a matter of taste and local custom.)

 

On the other hand, from your description, I'd say 4 months isn't really long enough to post an NA. It is true that a reviewer might come along and question the lengthy disable, but that's not something you should try to hurry along with a NA. Personally, I'd forget about it, but if there's still no action after a couple more months of silence, and you just can't help yourself, then I'd be OK with an NA, but I rather it was posted by someone else. Someone else posting an NA is a second opinion, but you posting an NA could be seen as a vendetta.

[+ColwynMagpie]

Call me pedantic but that greyed-out cache right near my home base has been bugging me.

First of all, one thing I want to make clear: you should never, ever take action against a cache because it bugs you.

 

Should I flag it as 'needs archived'?

Since it bugs you, then, no, you absolutely shouldn't post a needs archived. But I applaud that you're taking your responsibility for providing input on the state of the cache, so let's assume you can stop letting it bug you and examine the cache's state dispassionately. So first, I think this warrants a needs maintenance to ask whether maintenance is still pending. (I'd use NM rather than the note someone else suggested, but it's just a matter of taste and local custom.)

 

On the other hand, from your description, I'd say 4 months isn't really long enough to post an NA. It is true that a reviewer might come along and question the lengthy disable, but that's not something you should try to hurry along with a NA. Personally, I'd forget about it, but if there's still no action after a couple more months of silence, and you just can't help yourself, then I'd be OK with an NA, but I rather it was posted by someone else. Someone else posting an NA is a second opinion, but you posting an NA could be seen as a vendetta.

 

Haha fair enough, I don't want to make any enemies! To be honest the only reason it bugs me is that I'm trying to tick off all the caches within a mile radius of my home base. And being new to this I didn't realise how liberal people are about the 'disabling should be for a couple of months at most' rule. But I'm still capable of looking at it "dispassionately", so I'll just see what happens and maybe post an NM further down the line.

[cezanne]

And being new to this I didn't realise how liberal people are about the 'disabling should be for a couple of months at most' rule.

 

Actually, I do not think that 4 months is that long in case of a multi cache that will need a new hideout (the cache owner mentioned so). Finding a suitable new hideout (which also takes care of the saturation rule with respect to existing caches and cache stages) is not always trivial.

 

What I really find annoying are NA logs from cachers who have no real interest into a disabled cache and in fact are even more happy if a cache gets archived and thus removed from their personal cache map without the need to go for that cache.

 

Cezanne

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Can I add what a wonderful response by you to our suggestions.

 

So many come here to ask "for help", "for an opinion" and when they get it, if it does not concur with whatever action they had already intended to take, it ends in aggressive posts by them angrily defending their right to "take action", instead of what it should be ... an informed situation which leads to a resolution.

 

So thank you. It does not happen anywhere near as much as you would hope but when it does it really sticks out.

[+J Grouchy]

If your reviewer is anything like ours, he/she does a "sweep" every few months, looking for potential issues (long disabled caches, caches with NM logs or calls for action, etc.). It often causes an uproar on social media, but it's helpful in that it does seem to clear out many of the unmaintained/abandoned caches.

[+narcissa]

I don't know what the weather/climate is like where you are, but in my area, many people are really just coming out of geocaching hibernation and it takes some cache owners time to get out to do all their spring maintenance.

 

Instead of fussing about it, just put it on your watch list and you'll be notified when it is enabled again.

[+NanCycle]

Can I add what a wonderful response by you to our suggestions.

 

So many come here to ask "for help", "for an opinion" and when they get it, if it does not concur with whatever action they had already intended to take, it ends in aggressive posts by them angrily defending their right to "take action", instead of what it should be ... an informed situation which leads to a resolution.

 

So thank you. It does not happen anywhere near as much as you would hope but when it does it really sticks out.

 

I wholeheartedly second this accolade.

 

Just adding, I have a cache that I had to disable back in December because a construction project had closed access to the area. Work on the project has finished for now (until next winter) but my schedule has not allowed me time to get to checking on (and probably replacing) it. I have sworn that I will get to it before the end of April and unless the weather prohibits I'll do it sometime between the 23rd & 30th, but if anyone had contacted me about it, I would have replied or posted a note on the cache page.

[+dprovan]

Haha fair enough, I don't want to make any enemies! To be honest the only reason it bugs me is that I'm trying to tick off all the caches within a mile radius of my home base. And being new to this I didn't realise how liberal people are about the 'disabling should be for a couple of months at most' rule. But I'm still capable of looking at it "dispassionately", so I'll just see what happens and maybe post an NM further down the line.

Excellent! Yeah, clearing the circle is one of the primary reasons caches in trouble bug people, so that makes it a good example of when you should step back and leave the archival request to someone that doesn't have that kind of personal relation to the cache.

[TahoeJoe]

Forget about it and move on to the next cache. I wouldn't flag it to be archived, their might be some compailing reason that he has not taken care of the issue. No harm in giving him more time.

[+ColwynMagpie]

Can I add what a wonderful response by you to our suggestions.

 

So many come here to ask "for help", "for an opinion" and when they get it, if it does not concur with whatever action they had already intended to take, it ends in aggressive posts by them angrily defending their right to "take action", instead of what it should be ... an informed situation which leads to a resolution.

 

So thank you. It does not happen anywhere near as much as you would hope but when it does it really sticks out.

 

Thanks man. Not to take a holier-than-thou attitude but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to admit it. No shame in that I think.

[+Blue_Ranger]

In my part of the US, 5 or even 6 months isn't unusual for a temporary disable-- "pulled for the winter, it'll be back in spring!" This year especially, winter lasted forever. We're still waiting for a lot of seasonal pulls to be put back out.

[+Sagefox]

Instead of fussing about it, just put it on your watch list and you'll be notified when it is enabled again.

 

Yes. Give it some time. If the CO was not active and the cache appeared to be abandoned than that would be a different story.