Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Geocaching HQ

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

47 posts in this topic

Read previous Release Notes

 

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

 

The latest updates to Geocaching.com include:

 


     
  • You can now load more conversations in the Message Center.
  • Updated the Recover Username/Password page to make it easier!
  • Geocaching HQ started sending occasional emails to geocache owners when it appears that a geocache needs maintenance. Visit the Help Center to learn more. Here's an example of what these emails look like:

 

5d2cae9a-2454-437b-9aec-05a300c6f500.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post

Um, wait a sec...

 

The emails may result from any combination of logs' date=' including Did Not Find (DNF's), Needs Maintenance (NM), Needs Archived (NA)

[b']or caches that have not been found in a long time.[/b]

What about truly remote caches? Are you sending those emails to owners of caches that simply have no logs for years on end? For remote caches, that's perfectly normal. Please don't encourage owners of remote and seldom-visited caches to disable or archive them! Some will, just to make the emails stop.

 

And why isn't "Do nothing" an option in your help centre's list of actions? For a remote cache with no DNFs, that's often the perfectly logical choice.

(Every once in a while a rogue reviewer sends out emails like this on their own initiative, and much angst ensues. I mean really - check up on a virtual? Please don't automate this.)

0

Share this post


Link to post

What about truly remote caches? Are you sending those emails to owners of caches that simply have no logs for years on end? For remote caches, that's perfectly normal. Please don't encourage owners of remote and seldom-visited caches to disable or archive them! Some will, just to make the emails stop.

 

And why isn't "Do nothing" an option in your help centre's list of actions? For a remote cache with no DNFs, that's often the perfectly logical choice.

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order…

 

Each of us agrees to that guideline when we list a cache on the website. That includes owners of remote caches. If those COs are making occasional checks, they should have no concerns about their listings.

 

There's a long list of expectations in the Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines. "Do nothing" is not one of them.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I am a huge fan of the emailing of the cache owner. There have been quite a few caches in my area recently that have multiple DNF's, but the CO never responses that he checked on the cache.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What about truly remote caches? Are you sending those emails to owners of caches that simply have no logs for years on end? For remote caches, that's perfectly normal. Please don't encourage owners of remote and seldom-visited caches to disable or archive them! Some will, just to make the emails stop.

 

And why isn't "Do nothing" an option in your help centre's list of actions? For a remote cache with no DNFs, that's often the perfectly logical choice.

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order…

 

Each of us agrees to that guideline when we list a cache on the website. That includes owners of remote caches. If those COs are making occasional checks, they should have no concerns about their listings.

 

There's a long list of expectations in the Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines. "Do nothing" is not one of them.

 

And BINGO was his name-o!!

0

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen "occasional" defined anywhere, but I'm afraid it's now been defined in code, value unknown.

 

What is it?

 

If there's a remote cache on a mountain top, and it's never been visited in, say, five years since it's been published*, I'd consider "occasional" to mean once every decade or two. Barring any DNF logs, of course.

 

(* I just found one like that. Applying city rules to such a wilderness cache would've killed the listing - leaving geotrash no less - without even waiting for time to sort things out.)

0

Share this post


Link to post

What about truly remote caches? Are you sending those emails to owners of caches that simply have no logs for years on end? For remote caches, that's perfectly normal. Please don't encourage owners of remote and seldom-visited caches to disable or archive them! Some will, just to make the emails stop.

 

And why isn't "Do nothing" an option in your help centre's list of actions? For a remote cache with no DNFs, that's often the perfectly logical choice.

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order…

 

Each of us agrees to that guideline when we list a cache on the website. That includes owners of remote caches. If those COs are making occasional checks, they should have no concerns about their listings.

 

There's a long list of expectations in the Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines. "Do nothing" is not one of them.

 

Do nothing is not an option? So what do I do when someone logs a find? Go check the logbook, check the cache? Thats all well and good if it's found once and year, but what if it's found 3 times a day? Nobody has the time to check on their cache that often.

 

What about the cache that's a 2 day hike on a mountain? I'm supposed to check it once a week? All Because nobody has even attempted to find it? Doing nothing is a good option. It's not like the CO is ignoring DNF logs saying they found the lid to an ammo can, and remnants of ammo logbook laying under a rock....

0

Share this post


Link to post

[

Do nothing is not an option? So what do I do when someone logs a find? Go check the logbook, check the cache? Thats all well and good if it's found once and year, but what if it's found 3 times a day? Nobody has the time to check on their cache that often.

 

What about the cache that's a 2 day hike on a mountain? I'm supposed to check it once a week? All Because nobody has even attempted to find it? Doing nothing is a good option. It's not like the CO is ignoring DNF logs saying they found the lid to an ammo can, and remnants of ammo logbook laying under a rock....

 

Again...

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order…

 

If you define "occasional visits" as once a week, then I suppose you'll have to make that 2-day hike once a week if you're going to meet the expectations that are detailed in the guidelines you agreed to when you placed the cache. But I don't think any reasonable person would define "occasional" as weekly. They also wouldn't define occasional as "never," which is what you seem to be trying to do with your example.

 

What I would suggest is that if a person doesn't want to occasionally check on the cache, then they shouldn't hide it. Whether it's located down the street from their house, or a 2-day hike on a mountain.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order…

 

Each of us agrees to that guideline when we list a cache on the website. That includes owners of remote caches. If those COs are making occasional checks, they should have no concerns about their listings.

Yes? So? And what about a long time from the last find makes you think the CO isn't making occasional visits?

 

There's more to this than you making a silly mistake, assuming no one finding a cache automatically means the CO isn't checking on it. What's really bad about it is that you are essentially assuming remote caches aren't possible because anything that far away can't be checked on regularly enough to satisfy the guidelines. If lackey's don't believe remote caches are possible, then they surely won't be possible.

 

I have to say I am a huge fan of the emailing of the cache owner. There have been quite a few caches in my area recently that have multiple DNF's, but the CO never responses that he checked on the cache.

What makes you think a CO that's been ignoring all that other stuff is going to suddenly do something when they get yet another e-mail pointing out a problem? In fact, it's much more likely that a conscientious CO with a geocache in good working order is going to kill it when they start getting regular messages mistakenly suggesting that there's a problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It's not really specified what 'occasional' means, but I'd assume that the definition could depend on the type of hide. An urban cache that is visited daily may need more frequent CO visits than a remote cache that is usually found once/twice a year and doesn't have any DNF logs. I have no idea how the emails are generated, but perhaps T-ratings and find frequency are factored in. I also hope this doesn't result in the premature disabling or archiving of lonely caches. Some cachers really enjoy finding those types (lonely), and some of them are in great places that we wouldn't discover if not for the cache placed there.

 

From the Help Center article, it sounds like these emails will just be alerts to the CO and won't result in automatic archivals - which I'm inferring because the article says a reviewer may get involved if action is necessary on the cache. I'd hope that the reviewer would understand that a remote cache that doesn't have any DNF's and just hasn't been found/attempted in a while may not require archival. Having found a few very lonely (2+ years unfound/unattempated) caches, I can understand a cache sitting out there for years and still being in great shape.

0

Share this post


Link to post

[*]Geocaching HQ started sending occasional emails to geocache owners when it appears that a geocache needs maintenance.

What about cache owners that have no validated email? Or is this situation possible?
0

Share this post


Link to post

The vague wording of this implementation and inconsistency of the guideline regarding how often (and why) the notices are sent is bound to cause confusion, frustration, and dissension among the ranks.

Edited by Team Monkeyboy
0

Share this post


Link to post

Wait? This is ridiculous! My cache is in a wooded area and has around 1-5 finds a month. So that means if a cache is in a heavy wooded area or a 5/5 multi that could take months or year to complete then GS will send an email to the CO! DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!!

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have three remote hides that go for years without any logs, so this all prompted me to go and visit them and post Owner Maintaince logs.

 

Hopefully this new idea will take care of all the ownerless and community maintained caches and open up areas to new users willing to maintain the caches that they hide. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully this new idea will take care of all the ownerless and community maintained caches

 

What is wrong with community maintenance? Completing the Jasmer would likely be impossible by now, if it weren't for community maintenance. I have found lots of great hides where the original owner "disappeared" without adopting the cache over. If the local community takes over and properly looks after the hide, what's wrong with that? I'm also familiar with a case where the community looks after the hides of a deceased cacher. Her estate never claimed the GC account, but her original mountaintop hides remain, and are painstakingly maintained by her friends. I'm pretty sure she would have loved that tribute more than anything else.

 

Reading the GC.com announcement, it sounds to me like they primarily aim at "unmaintained", rather than "ownerless". I certainly agree to the former.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully this new idea will take care of all the ownerless and community maintained caches

 

What is wrong with community maintenance? Completing the Jasmer would likely be impossible by now, if it weren't for community maintenance. I have found lots of great hides where the original owner "disappeared" without adopting the cache over. If the local community takes over and properly looks after the hide, what's wrong with that? I'm also familiar with a case where the community looks after the hides of a deceased cacher. Her estate never claimed the GC account, but her original mountaintop hides remain, and are painstakingly maintained by her friends. I'm pretty sure she would have loved that tribute more than anything else.

 

Reading the GC.com announcement, it sounds to me like they primarily aim at "unmaintained", rather than "ownerless". I certainly agree to the former.

 

Your answer is the part that you failed to quote me with, "open up areas to new users willing to maintain the caches that they hide". B)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hopefully this new idea will take care of all the ownerless and community maintained caches

 

What is wrong with community maintenance? Completing the Jasmer would likely be impossible by now, if it weren't for community maintenance. I have found lots of great hides where the original owner "disappeared" without adopting the cache over. If the local community takes over and properly looks after the hide, what's wrong with that? I'm also familiar with a case where the community looks after the hides of a deceased cacher. Her estate never claimed the GC account, but her original mountaintop hides remain, and are painstakingly maintained by her friends. I'm pretty sure she would have loved that tribute more than anything else.

 

Reading the GC.com announcement, it sounds to me like they primarily aim at "unmaintained", rather than "ownerless". I certainly agree to the former.

 

Your answer is the part that you failed to quote me with, "open up areas to new users willing to maintain the caches that they hide". B)

I agree.

Wish folks were truthful and say it's all about maintaining old carp for challenges too...

- The community isn't gonna be able to remove that red wrench when a responsible cacher places a NM on obvious throwdowns.

"In honor of so-and-so, I left this rather large pill bottle as a temporary replacement for their ammo can that's now missing. Cache on !". :laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Reading the GC.com announcement, it sounds to me like they primarily aim at "unmaintained", rather than "ownerless". I certainly agree to the former.

I also agree if 'unmaintained' is defined as caches where NM's have been posted and the CO hasn't addressed those issues. However, I wouldn't agree with caches being treated as 'unmaintained' just because they haven't been found (or attempted) in years. There are plenty of lonely caches that have no DNF's posted, and so I wouldn't expect to see maintenance from CO's. If nobody says that maintenance is needed (NM), then why do maintenance (OM)? Most lonely caches are non-urban and in places that require extra effort to get to, which is likely why cachers rarely go search for them.

 

As a soon-to-be CO, I'm very curious how this will all play out.

0

Share this post


Link to post

You hide an ammo can deep in the woods. It is logged infrequently. How long should you let it go between logs (no Finds but also no DNFs) before you check on it to reassure others it is still present and in good condition? After a year? Two years? Five years?

 

I don't believe "I will check it only after a DNF" is the correct answer.

0

Share this post


Link to post

You hide an ammo can deep in the woods. It is logged infrequently. How long should you let it go between logs (no Finds but also no DNFs) before you check on it to reassure others it is still present and in good condition? After a year? Two years? Five years?

 

I don't believe "I will check it only after a DNF" is the correct answer.

One fellow who found one of my remote ammo can hides made this comment to me: "Given the sturdiness of an ammocan, the size of the logbook, and the remote location, I expect your cache might not need maintenance for the next hundred years or so."

 

I think I'll check on it in 25 or so, just to be safe if no one logs it. :laughing:

 

People who hunt lonely caches understand the gamble they are taking and they accept they may be disappointed to find the cache they seek is no longer in place. I don't think the owner has any obligation to make the trek just to check on a cache because it hasn't been logged recently.

 

I believe "I will check it only after a DNF" is the correct answer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
One fellow who found one of my remote ammo can hides made this comment to me: "Given the sturdiness of an ammocan, the size of the logbook, and the remote location, I expect your cache might not need maintenance for the next hundred years or so."

 

Even the best container in a remote location sometimes falls victim to muggles (including hunters) or mother nature.

0

Share this post


Link to post
One fellow who found one of my remote ammo can hides made this comment to me: "Given the sturdiness of an ammocan, the size of the logbook, and the remote location, I expect your cache might not need maintenance for the next hundred years or so."

Even the best container in a remote location sometimes falls victim to muggles (including hunters) or mother nature.

Of course, you're right, a cache can disappear at any time. But what's your point? It's one thing to insist the owner go check on a cache if someone reports a problem, but it's quite another thing to insist they regularly visit the cache and post an OM just on the off chance it has an unreported problem. That makes it sounds as if it's the end of the world for someone to walk 5 miles only to find their target cache is missing. Unfortunately this idea is becoming quite common for people to think finding the cache is the only possible positive outcome of a caching expedition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
One fellow who found one of my remote ammo can hides made this comment to me: "Given the sturdiness of an ammocan, the size of the logbook, and the remote location, I expect your cache might not need maintenance for the next hundred years or so."

Even the best container in a remote location sometimes falls victim to muggles (including hunters) or mother nature.

Of course, you're right, a cache can disappear at any time. But what's your point? It's one thing to insist the owner go check on a cache if someone reports a problem, but it's quite another thing to insist they regularly visit the cache and post an OM just on the off chance it has an unreported problem. That makes it sounds as if it's the end of the world for someone to walk 5 miles only to find their target cache is missing. Unfortunately this idea is becoming quite common for people to think finding the cache is the only possible positive outcome of a caching expedition.

+1

0

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately this idea is becoming quite common for people to think finding the cache is the only possible positive outcome of a caching expedition.

 

Very true. It seems as if these days, for some, all caches are Wherigo's, where you just have to "walk into" the approximate bubble of the coordinates, so that your phone can automatically increment the smiley count, and robo-log a "TFTCB" (thanks for the coordinate bubble). Kudos to Dave Ulmer for inventing the game before smartphones were ubiquitous. It would be a VERY different game otherwise, and one that I likely wouldn't play.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I am still fairly new to caching. But i have place over a dozen caches out... However i choose their location with the thought in mind "i am responsible for this cache, therefore it HAS to be somewhere i can get to. And not somewhere where oh i go there once a year."

So why do people sould like it's a hastle to check on their cache? If they didn't want to take care of it and maintain it then why place it? Am i missing something here?

0

Share this post


Link to post

This type of action by Groundspeak may have led the cache owner of GCDFB to archive the cache, instead of Groundspeak celebrating the FTF after 12 years in their Geocaching Blog! http://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/06/worlds-oldest-unfound-geocache-is-found-getting-the-ftf-after-12-years/

 

Has the Cache Owner of GC1BE91 been notified that he must return to the Space Station to confirm the cache is still there and in good condition? It's been more than a year and a half since the cache has been logged as found.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I am still fairly new to caching. But i have place over a dozen caches out... However i choose their location with the thought in mind "i am responsible for this cache, therefore it HAS to be somewhere i can get to. And not somewhere where oh i go there once a year."

So why do people sould like it's a hastle to check on their cache? If they didn't want to take care of it and maintain it then why place it? Am i missing something here?

Because we want people to hide caches in all kinds of places, including places so remote that the COs themselves won't visit regularly even though they are prepared to visit as needed.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't check an urban cache after every DNF. Sometimes a DNF is from a newer cacher, or the hide is devious. I usually wait for a couple of consecutive DNFs before checking on a cache. And I do the same for my rural/long hike caches.

 

These "maintenance"emails piss me off.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't check an urban cache after every DNF. Sometimes a DNF is from a newer cacher, or the hide is devious. I usually wait for a couple of consecutive DNFs before checking on a cache. And I do the same for my rural/long hike caches.

 

These "maintenance"emails piss me off.

 

I am curious, how many emails have you received?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't check an urban cache after every DNF. Sometimes a DNF is from a newer cacher, or the hide is devious. I usually wait for a couple of consecutive DNFs before checking on a cache. And I do the same for my rural/long hike caches.

 

These "maintenance"emails piss me off.

 

I am curious, how many emails have you received?

 

+ 1

 

We're seeing a lot of gnashing of teeth, but I don't believe anyone has said how many they actually got and about what caches. The new protocol is in its infancy, and we have to wait and see how it plays out.

0

Share this post


Link to post

We're seeing a lot of gnashing of teeth, but I don't believe anyone has said how many they actually got and about what caches. The new protocol is in its infancy, and we have to wait and see how it plays out.

Before I stopped counting, the first 3 posts I read from people that got these e-mails (a total of 5 caches), all described the caches as having no actual problems. I still haven't see anyone post and tell us that, oh, yeah, they were an absentee CO but this e-mail suddenly made them responsible.

 

But at any rate, I'm not as worried about the individual messages as much as I'm worried about GS's attitude that they're responsible for cleaning up caches with problems. I don't like that they think they should be responsible, I don't like them telling reviewers that they are responsible, and I don't want anything to encourage the trend of the local cachers not understanding their central role in monitoring cache quality. That isn't caused by anyone getting an e-mail. That happens because GS announces in the release notes and guidelines that they've implemented a new protocol to police caches.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't check an urban cache after every DNF. Sometimes a DNF is from a newer cacher, or the hide is devious. I usually wait for a couple of consecutive DNFs before checking on a cache. And I do the same for my rural/long hike caches.

 

These "maintenance"emails piss me off.

 

I am curious, how many emails have you received?

 

I have received 4-5. All were for remote caches miles out in the forest. Unlogged for years with at least one DNF. No NM logged on any of them yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post

You hide an ammo can deep in the woods. It is logged infrequently. How long should you let it go between logs (no Finds but also no DNFs) before you check on it to reassure others it is still present and in good condition? After a year? Two years? Five years?

 

I don't believe "I will check it only after a DNF" is the correct answer.

 

Went to check on a cache that we hid nine years ago. It had not been found in three years. About a mile in with 400' of climb. And it requires a hiking permit. Beautiful area. (Yes. We have beautiful semi-remote areas in New Jersey.) It was still where we hid it. Though a tree had fallen and changed the hiding spot, so I changed the hide. But still an easy find. And, yes. That was the first time I'd checked on it in nine years. En route, I found three other caches than had not been found in a year. They had been there for seven years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
One fellow who found one of my remote ammo can hides made this comment to me: "Given the sturdiness of an ammocan, the size of the logbook, and the remote location, I expect your cache might not need maintenance for the next hundred years or so."

Even the best container in a remote location sometimes falls victim to muggles (including hunters) or mother nature.

Of course, you're right, a cache can disappear at any time. But what's your point? It's one thing to insist the owner go check on a cache if someone reports a problem, but it's quite another thing to insist they regularly visit the cache and post an OM just on the off chance it has an unreported problem. That makes it sounds as if it's the end of the world for someone to walk 5 miles only to find their target cache is missing. Unfortunately this idea is becoming quite common for people to think finding the cache is the only possible positive outcome of a caching expedition.

 

I'm guessing that GS is more concerned about the remote cache with a cache owner that hasn't logged in in a couple of years or more. Cache owners who monitor their cache listings probably have nothing to worry about. I'm sure a note will suffice and their remote caches will not be archived.

Edited by L0ne.R
0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing that GS is more concerned about the remote cache with a cache owner that hasn't logged in in a couple of years or more.

One of my pet peeves is people decided a cache is bad based on nothing more than the fact that the owner is inactive, so I truly hope this is not part of the procedure.

 

Cache owners who monitor their cache listings probably have nothing to worry about. I'm sure a note will suffice and their remote caches will not be archived.

Although this is "just e-mail", and all the GS information makes it sound the intention is only to inform and remind, I see that, like me, you also think the ultimate goal is archival.

0

Share this post


Link to post
I see that, like me, you also think the ultimate goal is archival.

 

I would venture to say that is incorrect. The ultimate goal is to ensure viable geocaches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
I see that, like me, you also think the ultimate goal is archival.

 

I would venture to say that is incorrect. The ultimate goal is to ensure viable geocaches.

 

This ^^

0

Share this post


Link to post

I get the distinct impress there is a segment of the geocaching community that is convinced they cannot trust Groundspeak to be honest.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order…

 

Each of us agrees to that guideline when we list a cache on the website. That includes owners of remote caches. If those COs are making occasional checks, they should have no concerns about their listings.

Yes? So? And what about a long time from the last find makes you think the CO isn't making occasional visits?

 

There's more to this than you making a silly mistake, assuming no one finding a cache automatically means the CO isn't checking on it. What's really bad about it is that you are essentially assuming remote caches aren't possible because anything that far away can't be checked on regularly enough to satisfy the guidelines. If lackey's don't believe remote caches are possible, then they surely won't be possible.

Surely if the email prompts the CO to post an owner maintenance log to say I checked it two months ago and it was fine would be more than sufficient for a very remote cache where the "occasional" in the rules any reasonable person would interpret as perhaps annually or every other year. You say that a long time from the last find doesn't mean the CO isn't doing checks. I'd agree but surely for these long time between log caches it would be sensible for the CO to log an owner maintenance when they did check it. Thus solving both issues.

 

Note too that the intent is probably that the email gets sent when the cache owner hasn't even logged into geocaching com for ages and there has been no activity at all on the cache. It is therefore legitimate to wonder if the cache is indeed active. A nudge to ask the CO if all is ok is therefore surely not that intrusive?

0

Share this post


Link to post
I see that, like me, you also think the ultimate goal is archival.

I would venture to say that is incorrect. The ultimate goal is to ensure viable geocaches.

I'm not sure why you think that's different, but the point is that everyone is assuming that the COs behind most of these unviable caches are out of the picture, so an e-mail alone is not going to get rid of them. Only GS or a reviewer archiving them is going to get rid of them.

 

I get the distinct impress there is a segment of the geocaching community that is convinced they cannot trust Groundspeak to be honest.

It's a universal truth that the more control an entity has, the less honest it will become over time. It is because I trust GS that I don't like steps that centralize quality control.

0

Share this post


Link to post

...all the GS information makes it sound the intention is only to inform and remind...

This post by Keystone seems to imply that reviewers have access to which owners have been sent the new email, and may be using it to identify "targets":

 

<snip>

The new emails help me in identifying these caches for possible follow up, lowering my search time and helping ensure I don't miss anything.

<snip>

At least, that's how I read it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This post by Keystone seems to imply that reviewers have access to which owners have been sent the new email, and may be using it to identify "targets":

Yet he doesn't actually come out and say these e-mails are the first step in a process that ends at archival. But of course we all recognize they make very little sense otherwise.

0

Share this post


Link to post

so this all prompted me to go and visit them and post Owner Maintaince logs.

 

or, just post Owner Maintenance. Which is what this will come to.

 

Either that, or master the art of writing rules in my email client.

 

:ph34r: :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Even the best container in a remote location sometimes falls victim to muggles (including hunters) or mother nature.

Yep, and if someone goes to look for it and reports an issue I will rectify the situation as needed. Until such time, a special return visit is not needed.

I am still fairly new to caching. But i have place over a dozen caches out... However i choose their location with the thought in mind "i am responsible for this cache, therefore it HAS to be somewhere i can get to. And not somewhere where oh i go there once a year."

So why do people sould like it's a hastle to check on their cache? If they didn't want to take care of it and maintain it then why place it? Am i missing something here?

There are a number of factors.

 

Using my remote cache as an example: If someone were to report an issue with it, it could be several months before conditions allow me to access the area. The hike involves fording a river so if the water is running high I might wait until things are safer.

 

If the expectation is that someone can run out at the drop of a hat and check on their caches, then all we'll have is caches in parking lots before long.

 

Of course, this is a bit off from the main topic. Again using my remote cache as an example, if someone reports an issue and I disable the cache until I can get out there, I don't think this automatic email system will automatically result in my cache being archived at some arbitrary date in the future. I expect I will have lots of opportunities to interact with my reviewer and explain the situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I get the distinct impress there is a segment of the geocaching community that is convinced they cannot trust Groundspeak to be honest.

 

I'm not sure that the issue is "honesty" as much as "transparency". This announcement has raised questions ("how many DNFs / unfound months trigger a message?", "what are the consequences of receiving such a message?", etc.) that Groundspeak has not answered ... which, this being the Internet, leads to wild speculation regarding what Groundspeak's intentions really are.

 

It's the same issue some of us have with the Groundspeak moratorium on challenge caches. We know that Groundspeak thinks there's a "problem" with challenge caches, but Groundspeak hasn't told us what the problem is (other than vague statements about "taking too much reviewer/appeal time").

 

It'd be much nicer if Groundspeak would be much clearer about how it's deciding to send out these emails. I suppose we'll just have to figure it out for ourselves.

0

Share this post


Link to post

One thing has just come to my mind: I've heard about users that don't like DNF or NM log entries on their cache pages and delete them. A geocacher may ask a reviewer to unarchive a valid "Found it" log if deleted, but not other types. And the question is: does this algorithm for sending out notifying emails take archived log entries into account as well?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7