Jump to content

NA, then new hide


AustinMN

Recommended Posts

Before anyone gets too upset, I don't have a specific situation in mind, but I could see this happening.

 

I have seen caches where there were suddenly several DNF's, and then I posed a NM, then someone else posts a NA (or someone else posts the NA and after several months I post the NA), and in time it gets archived.

 

But here's the problem I'm having. Now I'm tempted to go and do a hide at or near that location. I'm afraid that it looks like I got rid of that cache so I could hide my own. I don't want to alienate the local caching community by doing something that could be taken the wrong way.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Austin

Link to comment

Before anyone gets too upset, I don't have a specific situation in mind, but I could see this happening.

 

I have seen caches where there were suddenly several DNF's, and then I posed a NM, then someone else posts a NA (or someone else posts the NA and after several months I post the NA), and in time it gets archived.

 

But here's the problem I'm having. Now I'm tempted to go and do a hide at or near that location. I'm afraid that it looks like I got rid of that cache so I could hide my own. I don't want to alienate the local caching community by doing something that could be taken the wrong way.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Austin

 

You used the features on the site as they are intended. The cache owner didn't save their cache, they allowed it to go to archival. The spot is open. Hide your cache. I would make it a little different and not quite in the same spot so it's a little more fun for returning visitors.

Link to comment

Before anyone gets too upset, I don't have a specific situation in mind, but I could see this happening.

 

I have seen caches where there were suddenly several DNF's, and then I posed a NM, then someone else posts a NA (or someone else posts the NA and after several months I post the NA), and in time it gets archived.

 

But here's the problem I'm having. Now I'm tempted to go and do a hide at or near that location. I'm afraid that it looks like I got rid of that cache so I could hide my own. I don't want to alienate the local caching community by doing something that could be taken the wrong way.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Austin

 

If the CO was no longer interested in their cache, who is going to be upset? Even if you were the one that posted the NA, you're not the one who "got rid of the cache," unless you were the one who went out and removed it so there would suddenly be a bunch of DNFs. I don't see anything wrong with someone putting a new cache in the location of an archived one--I've done it myself with no repercussions. I think the local caching community will be glad to have an opportunity for another Smiley, but of course there are some people who just have to take everything the wrong way and they are best just ignored.

Link to comment

I posted a 'Needs Archived' log on a cache where the CO stated in a note on the cache page that they had no intention of maintaining it. The CO had posted a log that the cache was missing, so I posted a note asking for an update. The followup note was where they stated it "probably isn't there" and they would not be maintaining it....so I logged NA.

 

The reviewer disabled it...and the CO then archived it on her own. That was immediately met with an angry post by the COs husband telling me to mind my own business and accusing me of wanting the area for myself and then he tried deleting a 'found it' log I had posted on one of his other caches. Of course, I reposted my found log and emailed him saying I would report further abuses to Groundspeak, which basically shut him down and ended the discussion. Truth is, it was a stupid place for a cache and I would have just ignored it if she'd not stated she wouldn't maintain it.

 

You play by the rules and still the bullies do their thing. All you can do is just not let it get to you. If the area is worthy of a cache, there is no reason for you to hold off just to make people happy when they had every opportunity to perform the maintenance they are obligated as COs to do.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

I have actually seen NA logs from people trying to poach the spot. "Cache has been here for a while, time to let someone else have a chance to hide one." Grrr.

 

I could see where that goes...he NA'd mine, so I'll NA one of his...and down from there.

 

Nah, a quick email to Groundspeak puts a stop to this sort of silliness.

 

Instead of hiding a cache at a spot you think is about to become available, it might be less problematic to set up an alert for archived caches near you. We live in a really cache-dense area and I know several people who do this.

Link to comment

I have actually seen NA logs from people trying to poach the spot. "Cache has been here for a while, time to let someone else have a chance to hide one." Grrr.

 

Fortunately, we have reviewers. Even 100 NA logs does not archive a cache. (Obviously) only a reviewer or a cache owner can do that.

Link to comment

I have actually seen NA logs from people trying to poach the spot. "Cache has been here for a while, time to let someone else have a chance to hide one." Grrr.

If the NA log is justified, then I don't see a problem. Examples like the OP's are cases where I'd have no problem with someone hiding a new cache after NAing the old one, and I could see myself doing the same. In fact, I could probably point you to several dozen caches in my area that fall under that scenario, and I haven't heard of a dispute surrounding any of them.

 

Of course, if there's no justification for the NA, then there's definitely a problem and that NAer would get no support from me.

Link to comment

If you're worried about it, just wait a while. If you're afraid someone else will jump in and grab the spot, and that concerns you to the point where you don't want to let that happens by waiting, then you should be worried about whether you weren't, in fact, subconsciously rushing things along to get it for yourself.

 

As for how others see it, your NM should have shown to everyone that your impartial input was clearly justified. If it didn't, then people might be wondering about you regardless of whether you jump in and plant a new cache there. After all, taking over the spot is just the most visible of many possible agendas someone could imagine you having if the text of the NM doesn't convince them that the NM was posted because you really thought the cache needed maintenance.

Link to comment

I have actually seen NA logs from people trying to poach the spot. "Cache has been here for a while, time to let someone else have a chance to hide one." Grrr.

If the NA log is justified, then I don't see a problem. Examples like the OP's are cases where I'd have no problem with someone hiding a new cache after NAing the old one, and I could see myself doing the same. In fact, I could probably point you to several dozen caches in my area that fall under that scenario, and I haven't heard of a dispute surrounding any of them.

 

Of course, if there's no justification for the NA, then there's definitely a problem and that NAer would get no support from me.

 

Exactly. Well put. And I'm sure every reviewer out there would be verifying that there is justification for it.

Link to comment

Before anyone gets too upset, I don't have a specific situation in mind, but I could see this happening.

 

I have seen caches where there were suddenly several DNF's, and then I posed a NM, then someone else posts a NA (or someone else posts the NA and after several months I post the NA), and in time it gets archived.

 

But here's the problem I'm having. Now I'm tempted to go and do a hide at or near that location. I'm afraid that it looks like I got rid of that cache so I could hide my own. I don't want to alienate the local caching community by doing something that could be taken the wrong way.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Austin

 

I've done it. CO was no longer maintaining a hide. It was a good spot for a hide. It got archived by a reviewer, and I placed a new cache in the location.

Link to comment

If the cache went missing in the first place maybe it's not such a good place for a cache.

 

I have actually seen NA logs from people trying to poach the spot. "Cache has been here for a while, time to let someone else have a chance to hide one."

 

Some COs do that voluntarily; once a cache has been around for a year or two and most of the locals have found it they archive it.

 

Caching, at least in some (many?) areas, seems to be moving away from the "permanence" concept in the interest of More Finds. Annual events are probably a big part of that - there is an expectation of fresh caches near the event every year.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want to keep revisiting the same place over and over to get more smileys; take me somewhere I haven't been, at least not for a long while.

Link to comment

Honestly, most folks don't really even notice when a cache goes up in the same spot unless it's some beloved and old cache. Occasionally you'll get the log that says "I remember this spot when I found the previous cache here", or something like that...but if we're talking about a pill bottle by a tree or a nano on a park bench, it's not likely anyone will give a flip.

Link to comment

I have seen some put a cache on a watch list when it gets an NA placed on the log.

They watch for the archive then jump on it. Just watch out that NA may be for a very good reason.

A replacement may not be allowed. Possible trespass or some other issue with that spot.

I know of a few that will get archived that the spot will be dead.

Link to comment

Before anyone gets too upset, I don't have a specific situation in mind, but I could see this happening.

 

I have seen caches where there were suddenly several DNF's, and then I posed a NM, then someone else posts a NA (or someone else posts the NA and after several months I post the NA), and in time it gets archived.

 

But here's the problem I'm having. Now I'm tempted to go and do a hide at or near that location. I'm afraid that it looks like I got rid of that cache so I could hide my own. I don't want to alienate the local caching community by doing something that could be taken the wrong way.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Austin

 

I've done it. CO was no longer maintaining a hide. It was a good spot for a hide. It got archived by a reviewer, and I placed a new cache in the location.

Same here. I would never intentionally take a cache to get a spot but if I am looking at a spot where a cache had a NM, I put a watchlist on it and let nature takes it's course. Some I waited years for but if it doesn't happen then I remove it from my watchlist.

Link to comment

Before anyone gets too upset, I don't have a specific situation in mind, but I could see this happening.

 

I have seen caches where there were suddenly several DNF's, and then I posed a NM, then someone else posts a NA (or someone else posts the NA and after several months I post the NA), and in time it gets archived.

 

But here's the problem I'm having. Now I'm tempted to go and do a hide at or near that location. I'm afraid that it looks like I got rid of that cache so I could hide my own. I don't want to alienate the local caching community by doing something that could be taken the wrong way.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Austin

 

You used the features on the site as they are intended. The cache owner didn't save their cache, they allowed it to go to archival. The spot is open. Hide your cache. I would make it a little different and not quite in the same spot so it's a little more fun for returning visitors.

 

This. I have several unpublished caches in place as potential blocks. Some for many months now. So far I've seen every possible situation.. 1. original cache gets archived and the spot becomes mine (I've never made a cache "go away"), 2. original cache gets archived, I sit too long then reviewer makes me get my crap together, 3. Reviewer believes unpublished caches sitting too long and they get archived. Either way, so long as you aren't making the cache go away, I am not seeing a problem.

Link to comment

Either way, so long as you aren't making the cache go away, I am not seeing a problem.

Just to be clear: the problem is the appearance of impropriety, but that's a very minor issue as long as the OP doesn't getting into a habit of it.

 

Yep, I understood the post. What someone else "thinks" is reality isn't going to play into MY game when I know with 100% certainty that I'd be innocent.

Link to comment

Yep, I understood the post. What someone else "thinks" is reality isn't going to play into MY game when I know with 100% certainty that I'd be innocent.

Well, I hope that's not entirely true, since in that case you might be tempted to just say "needs archived" in the NA instead of presenting a clear case so everyone else can know with 99% certainty that you're innocent.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...