Needs Archived

[jholly]

It's not used at all around here. Stacks of DNFs, leads to the cage just getting ignored. It gets several of those and then nobody bothers looking anymore. Which is fine, but those who couldn't find it after several other, I feel should get the attention of the reviewer...provided no owner maintence has happened in over a year etc.

That is why logging a NM log asking the owner to check the cache is important. Then, after an appropriate amount of time, an NA. Most reviewers will not chase DNF logs, some will chase a long standing NM and most will act on a NA that states no owner maintenance has occurred in response to a NM from and absent owner. Note that when checking for owner activity you can not rely on the last login date on the website, check logging activity since smartphone logging does not trip the website last logged date counter.

[+dprovan]

It would seem that you overlooked my next sentence that stated that I was over it and have grown a thicker skin.

Actually, the thicker skin comment was part of what caused me to reply. My point isn't that you just suck it up and take it. My point is that it's nothing bad to begin with.

 

Here is an example where I could have logged a NA but didn't. I noticed a new cache placed near some sensitive assets for a company that I am one of the board of directors. I loaded it up and went for a search, not with the intent to actually find it but to look for potential problems with seekers going places the company would rather they didn't. The cache was not on company property but after visiting with the manager and describing where it was he had some security concerns and asked if I could do anything to get it moved or archived. I fired off an email to the CO explaining the situation. She was a little disappointed but disabled the cache immediately after receiving the email, and was willing to change up her hide to the managers satisfaction. Everyone is happy now. I was ready to log a NA had the email gone ignored but didn't need to. I understand that this is much different than a neglected cache. I would much rather try to solve problems without getting a third party involved, and will continue to do so if at all possible.

Yeah, I agree with that approach, although I wouldn't have objected to the NA approach, either. But the reason I like the private e-mail here is that, unlike most NA cases, this isn't a public discussion: you're asking the CO privately to please remove the cache instead of demanding publicly that it be removed. That leaves the way open to some discussion and flexibility which is the friendly approach even if, in the end, you don't think you're going to be able to provide any leeway.

[+Coldnosed]

It would seem that you overlooked my next sentence that stated that I was over it and have grown a thicker skin.

Actually, the thicker skin comment was part of what caused me to reply. My point isn't that you just suck it up and take it. My point is that it's nothing bad to begin with.

 

Here is an example where I could have logged a NA but didn't. I noticed a new cache placed near some sensitive assets for a company that I am one of the board of directors. I loaded it up and went for a search, not with the intent to actually find it but to look for potential problems with seekers going places the company would rather they didn't. The cache was not on company property but after visiting with the manager and describing where it was he had some security concerns and asked if I could do anything to get it moved or archived. I fired off an email to the CO explaining the situation. She was a little disappointed but disabled the cache immediately after receiving the email, and was willing to change up her hide to the managers satisfaction. Everyone is happy now. I was ready to log a NA had the email gone ignored but didn't need to. I understand that this is much different than a neglected cache. I would much rather try to solve problems without getting a third party involved, and will continue to do so if at all possible.

Yeah, I agree with that approach, although I wouldn't have objected to the NA approach, either. But the reason I like the private e-mail here is that, unlike most NA cases, this isn't a public discussion: you're asking the CO privately to please remove the cache instead of demanding publicly that it be removed. That leaves the way open to some discussion and flexibility which is the friendly approach even if, in the end, you don't think you're going to be able to provide any leeway.

 

What I mean by getting a thicker skin is realizing that everyone isn't going to handle things the same way as me and vowing to not let it bother me. It would seem that even you agree that in some, maybe even isolated, cases there is a more "friendly" way to handle things than using a NA, even when it is appropriate. We agree.

 

Here is a needs maintenance log from a local cache. I would have used Needs Archived and gladly received one in this case. There was a change in property owners.

Property owner came along while I was signing log and he made me take the cache with me. I figured if I didn't take the container he would just throw it away. If you contact me we can arrange to meet and I'll give you the container. He was pretty insistent that it was on his property. In fact he indicated that the part of the road (that is marked on GPS as public street) that I was parked on was on his property and that I was trespassing. I didn't want to upset him any further.

 

Sorry

 

From a more distant cache. (not picking on anyone) A found it log.

 

Coords are off by about 50ft. There are also signs all over that have this as a wild life buffer zone. Not a good spot for one if you ask me.

 

Well, nobody did ask them. Honestly in my opinion there are thousands out there that fit that "are not in a good spot" description, but others enjoy them.They followed that up with a NA.

 

This cache is in a wildlife buffer zone. If it was on the edge it would be one thing but this cache is well within the boundary. There has got to be a better place for it then in this area.

 

If this were my cache I would roll my eyes, and post a note reminding the reviewer of my permissions and any thing that applies to a wildlife buffer zone. I might also ask the reviewer to update the coordinates. The CO did something similar in this case and it should have been a done deal.

 

In this case it didn't end there. There is no note from the reviewer, but it is clear that some private conversations went on, and the cache was disabled.

 

So, even though I love this location I am going to move it closer to the fence line.

Their has been complaint by" big numbers cacher " that wild life might be hurt.

I wish no wild life . I think this spot in no way harmed wild life or nature and geocachers would be a positive effect of keeping it clean I will move it to keep "big numbers cacher " happy.

The container size will have to be reduced so a new log will be in put in it. Any items in it will be moved to one of my large geocaches. I will mention who ever is the new ftf of the new location of cache

 

Personally I wouldn't have done that without the recommendation of the reviewer. That may or may not have happened. If there was no contact from the reviewer and this cacher continued to badger me I would get headquarters involved, or asked for reviewer intervention.

 

A found it log after it was disabled.

 

We found this one during the State Basketball tournament and didn't realize it had been archived. We had no problem with the placement, but I'll have to admit we didn't see any signs about it being a wildlife buffer zone. It looked like a good hide to me. Thanks for this hide and good luck on a relocation

 

the archive log.

 

I am in this to relax and have fun. I am not here to argue with fellow geocachers. They want this archived because of location. To calm everyone down I am archiving it and removing it.

 

I don't know who "they" is. If "they" doesn't include a reviewer, this CO was bullied into archiving this cache. Provided permissions and everything else is in order.

[+dprovan]

I am in this to relax and have fun. I am not here to argue with fellow geocachers. They want this archived because of location. To calm everyone down I am archiving it and removing it.

I don't know who "they" is. If "they" doesn't include a reviewer, this CO was bullied into archiving this cache. Provided permissions and everything else is in order.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If it's true they were bullied to archive a cache inappropriately, that's bad, but whether they were or not has absolutely nothing to do with the Needs Archive log type.

[+noncentric]

I am in this to relax and have fun. I am not here to argue with fellow geocachers. They want this archived because of location. To calm everyone down I am archiving it and removing it.

 

I don't know who "they" is. If "they" doesn't include a reviewer, this CO was bullied into archiving this cache. Provided permissions and everything else is in order.

I would assume that "they" are the cachers that posted the "NA" log.

-- The "NA" log was dated March 1st.

-- The CO's 'disable' log was also dated March 1st.

-- The Found log you quoted was dated March 2nd.

-- The CO's 'archive' log (with the content you quoted above and the "they" reference) was dated March 4th.

 

It appears that the CO chose to archive the cache. I'm not sure it's obvious that the CO was required to archive the cache or even that a Reviewer took any action. The logs on this cache occurred over the course of a weekend (March 1st-3rd). I'm not sure that the Reviewer even had time to investigate and/or intervene in this cache.

[+noncentric]

I believe that the OP said that they were going to remove that cache with the bad coordinates Sunday to make room for someone who wants to hide one nearby, nonissue. They were just given a link on how to correct them today as far as anyone here knows.

What I'm seeing from this instance (where the CO is archiving their cache to make room for another cache) is that the CO should correct the coordinates first, then see how close the other cache would be. The corrected coords that other finders have posted are several hundred feet away. With that much difference, it's entirely possible that the CO doesn't need to archive their cache to make way for the cache that someone else wants to place.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I've heard of newbies posting NA logs when they should have posted DNF logs

 

This along with derogatory comments happened to me a bunch......making all mine PM solved this as well as looting of my TB hotel and other problems.

[+cleandrysurface]

 

...Provided permissions and everything else is in order.

 

Yes, exactly. Given the OP's attitude towards all of this, do you really think he would have buckled like that if he actually had landowner permission to place that cache? Sounds to me like he was just trying to save face by blaming someone else rather than admitting his own mistake.

[+Coldnosed]

I am in this to relax and have fun. I am not here to argue with fellow geocachers. They want this archived because of location. To calm everyone down I am archiving it and removing it.

I don't know who "they" is. If "they" doesn't include a reviewer, this CO was bullied into archiving this cache. Provided permissions and everything else is in order.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If it's true they were bullied to archive a cache inappropriately, that's bad, but whether they were or not has absolutely nothing to do with the Needs Archive log type.

 

The point I was trying to make was that it could be possible that a CO could have a sour taste in their mouth toward NA logs for legitimate reasons. Sure you are going to have COs come in here upset that the guy who would pull the trigger on the NA beat the guy with the throw-down to the cache. I believe there are some, maybe isolated, cases where a CO asking or wanting to discuss NA logs deserves a little more discussion than the standard "Cache ownership isn't for everyone" just ahead of the dog pile. That is why I offered how I would have handled this particular log, both for the CO and further discussion from the community. I understand that none of us have all the facts. I'm going out on a limb and giving the CO the benefit of the doubt, I don't think that happens around here quite enough. If it is true that the CO has been bullied (read that choosing to archive so they will be left alone) into archiving a cache it has everything to do with the tool that was used to do it.

 

It appears that the CO chose to archive the cache. I'm not sure it's obvious that the CO was required to archive the cache or even that a Reviewer took any action. The logs on this cache occurred over the course of a weekend (March 1st-3rd). I'm not sure that the Reviewer even had time to investigate and/or intervene in this cache.

 

I agree, I don't believe that there was any reviewer involvement either. I do believe from the logs that more conversations went on between the CO and the finders. I don't know what a wildlife buffer zone is but it is possible that the ones who logged the NA have a much broader definition of what it really is and want to force that definition on to others. I can see the CO choosing to archive just to be left alone because I have had similar dealings with those types of people else where. I also agree about correcting coordinates being the better option on the other cache.

 

 

...Provided permissions and everything else is in order.

 

Yes, exactly. Given the OP's attitude towards all of this, do you really think he would have buckled like that if he actually had landowner permission to place that cache? Sounds to me like he was just trying to save face by blaming someone else rather than admitting his own mistake.

That is certainly possible. The CO talks about volunteering and cleaning up in the area so permissions very well could be in place. Personally, from the logs I have read I think this CO really wants to do the right thing, and is just frustrated because they don't/didn't know how to do the things that the finders are demanding from them.

[+KatnissRue]

If I may, I'd like to ask a question regarding NAs. There is one nearby that hasn't been found in a year. Every time I go hiking in the area, I peek to see if it's there, but Have had no luck. I posted a NM, but since then, nothing has been done. Should I post a NA?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCWVWF_escape

[Keystone]

If I may, I'd like to ask a question regarding NAs. There is one nearby that hasn't been found in a year. Every time I go hiking in the area, I peek to see if it's there, but Have had no luck. I posted a NM, but since then, nothing has been done. Should I post a NA?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCWVWF_escape

If this cache were in my review territory, I'd respond to a "Needs Archived" from you by temporarily disabling the listing and asking the owner to perform a maintenance check. If there's no response in 3 or 4 weeks I would then archive the listing. Reasoning:

 

-- You have looked for the cache multiple times

-- You logged "Needs Maintenance" a few months ago but there was no response

-- The cache owner has not logged in recently and has only found two caches in recent years

-- There are consecutive DNF's from other geocachers ("it's not just you"), and some of the other DNF's are from cachers with decent find counts.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

KaRue: the DNFs start in May 2015, your NM was in November. The cache is apparently not there and it exists now in the form of abandoned listing. If it was in my area I would definitely post NA.

(actually, if I were you I would post NA in November instead of NM so you were really nice to the CO which doesn't seem to care anyway)

Edited February 16, 2016 by Pontiac_CZ

[+MartyBartfast]

KaRue: the DNFs start in May 2015,

Actually is should be earlier than that, someone posted a find in March saying "I think it's gone" :lol: :lol: :lol: but that's another can-o-worms

[cezanne]

You can count on your Community Volunteer Reviewer to see past invalid NA logs.

 

I guess it might depend on the reviewer. There are reviewers who work through NA logs with automatic scripts and then it can easily happen that challenging caches that are not often visited and have a single DNF along with a NA log get disabled and soon afterwards archived even though the caches are in perfect condition. While it is true that the cache owner could react, why should they after a single DNF of a cache that never got lost and is not showing with an untypical DNF pattern or a suspicious decrease in visits in comparison to previous years?

 

I'm very glad for example that noone posted a NA for this cache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1VGHV_schrottcache?guid=abc65593-31ff-4b47-80c4-60fd4bfcedc6

It had been found in October 2012, then there was a DNF log from 2014 from someone who could not search due to too much snow and then the next finds have been about 3 years after the last find.

If a NA had been logged, the cache would certainly have got archived even though everything is perfectly fine with it.

 

There have been recently a number of caches in my country that got archived after a single DNF and a single NA.

 

If it were my cache, and a reviewer had disabled it after a single DNF and NA (not coming from a newcomer but someone who thinks that there is a right for a find and who has an issue with lonely caches), I would have reacted by visiting the cache, removing the container and archiving the cache myself out of frustration and the majority of the cache hiders from the old times in my area share this attitude.

Edited February 16, 2016 by cezanne

[Keystone]

You can count on your Community Volunteer Reviewer to see past invalid NA logs, unless you live in an area where the Reviewers are robots, not dogs.

I stand corrected.

[cezanne]

I have a related question. I'd appreciate if Keystone or any other reviewer reading this thread could let us know how they would react if the following happened

(1) a cache gets disabled by a reviewer after a NA log

(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Will the cache then be removed from the archive? I recently was made aware of a changed formulation of the guidelines that has been new to me, namely that caches that get archived to a lack

of maintenance (a term that seems quite subjective to me - some cachers e.g. think that it is the cache hiders duty to run out to check a cache after each DNF regardless of the circumstances) will not de-archived regardless of in which condition they are at the moment when the request is made. I'm aware of the fact that a new listing can be submitted but that's about the worst solution I can think of.

 

I more and more get worried about posting DNF logs for caches that are not visited often. My DNF logs hardly ever mean that I have searched at every possible location. Sometimes I leave after 2 minutes or even quicker. Most cachers with 100 finds will search more ambitiously as I do.

Edited February 16, 2016 by cezanne

[Pup Patrol]

I have a related question. I'd appreciate if Keystone or any other reviewer reading this thread could let us know how they would react if the following happened

(1) a cache gets disabled by a reviewer after a NA log

(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Will the cache then be removed from the archive? I recently was made aware of a changed formulation of the guidelines that has been new to me, namely that caches that get archived to a lack of maintenance (a term that seems quite subjective to me - some cachers e.g. think that it is the cache hiders duty to run out to check a cache after each DNF regardless of the circumstances) will not de-archived regardless of in which condition they are at the moment when the request is made. I'm aware of the fact that a new listing can be submitted but that's about the worst solution I can think of.

 

I more and more get worried about posting DNF logs for caches that are not visited often. My DNF logs hardly ever mean that I have searched at every possible location. Sometimes I leave after 2 minutes or even quicker. Most cachers with 100 finds will search more ambitiously as I do.

 

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334834

 

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

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.9. New Maintenance Emails from Geocaching HQ

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=70

 

4.23. Unarchiving a Geocache

 

The archiving of a geocache is intended to be a permanent status. That is why only community volunteer reviewers and Geocaching HQ staff have the capability to unarchive it. This is done only in rare circumstances and only if it meets the current Geocache Listing Guidelines.

 

If a geocache is archived by a reviewer or staff for lack of maintenance it will not be unarchived.

 

Using the "owner maintenance" log shows GS that you are maintaining your cache and the listing.

 

B.

[Nomex]

I have a related question. I'd appreciate if Keystone or any other reviewer reading this thread could let us know how they would react if the following happened

(1) a cache gets disabled by a reviewer after a NA log

(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Will the cache then be removed from the archive? I recently was made aware of a changed formulation of the guidelines that has been new to me, namely that caches that get archived to a lack

of maintenance (a term that seems quite subjective to me - some cachers e.g. think that it is the cache hiders duty to run out to check a cache after each DNF regardless of the circumstances) will not de-archived regardless of in which condition they are at the moment when the request is made. I'm aware of the fact that a new listing can be submitted but that's about the worst solution I can think of.

 

I more and more get worried about posting DNF logs for caches that are not visited often. My DNF logs hardly ever mean that I have searched at every possible location. Sometimes I leave after 2 minutes or even quicker. Most cachers with 100 finds will search more ambitiously as I do.

I can't speak for Keystone, but I imagine we probably do things kind of similarly.

 

Some of your assumptions, while may be based on local observations, aren't very relevant to my area:

 

(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner

 

I typically give 30 days before Archiving. On rare occasions, when the Disabled Listing is blocking a submission that is ready to be Published, and there's no apparent response from the cache owner, I'll shorten it to 2 weeks. That's pretty unusual though.

 

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

 

The answer depends on who confirmed the cache is still in play. Was it the cache owner? A friend? Some random User with time on their hands? If it's the cache owner, my tendency is to be more lenient with my decision. Some random person, even a friend, taking it upon themselves to speak for the cache owner? No. I must be contacted by the cache owner to verify that they are still active and are willing to maintain their cache.

 

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Reachable in what way? If, in that 30 day window that I give, they don't have the time to post even a simple acknowledgment on their Disabled Listing, that doesn't sound like *reachable* to me.

 

As stated in the Help Center, Archival is meant to be a permanent situation. When I Disable a Listing, for whatever reason, it means it's pretty much on life support, and requires some attention or a response with a plan to address the issue. That being said, I understand that "life happens", and rushing out to fix a cache isn't always the first option for people. In cases like that, I need to have a conversation with the cache owner.

[+L0ne.R]

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

 

 

That doesn't always mean the cache owner put that cache there.

I know of 2 local caches that received NAs, where someone threw down a cache after the NA and Reviewer Note, but before the Reviewer Archive. One wanted the find for a challenge cache requiring old caches. The other wanted to turn his DNF into a find before the archive happened.

Edited February 16, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+J Grouchy]

I have a related question. I'd appreciate if Keystone or any other reviewer reading this thread could let us know how they would react if the following happened

(1) a cache gets disabled by a reviewer after a NA log

(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Will the cache then be removed from the archive? I recently was made aware of a changed formulation of the guidelines that has been new to me, namely that caches that get archived to a lack

of maintenance (a term that seems quite subjective to me - some cachers e.g. think that it is the cache hiders duty to run out to check a cache after each DNF regardless of the circumstances) will not de-archived regardless of in which condition they are at the moment when the request is made. I'm aware of the fact that a new listing can be submitted but that's about the worst solution I can think of.

 

I more and more get worried about posting DNF logs for caches that are not visited often. My DNF logs hardly ever mean that I have searched at every possible location. Sometimes I leave after 2 minutes or even quicker. Most cachers with 100 finds will search more ambitiously as I do.

I can't speak for Keystone, but I imagine we probably do things kind of similarly.

 

Some of your assumptions, while may be based on local observations, aren't very relevant to my area:

 

(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner

 

I typically give 30 days before Archiving. On rare occasions, when the Disabled Listing is blocking a submission that is ready to be Published, and there's no apparent response from the cache owner, I'll shorten it to 2 weeks. That's pretty unusual though.

 

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

 

The answer depends on who confirmed the cache is still in play. Was it the cache owner? A friend? Some random User with time on their hands? If it's the cache owner, my tendency is to be more lenient with my decision. Some random person, even a friend, taking it upon themselves to speak for the cache owner? No. I must be contacted by the cache owner to verify that they are still active and are willing to maintain their cache.

 

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Reachable in what way? If, in that 30 day window that I give, they don't have the time to post even a simple acknowledgment on their Disabled Listing, that doesn't sound like *reachable* to me.

 

As stated in the Help Center, Archival is meant to be a permanent situation. When I Disable a Listing, for whatever reason, it means it's pretty much on life support, and requires some attention or a response with a plan to address the issue. That being said, I understand that "life happens", and rushing out to fix a cache isn't always the first option for people. In cases like that, I need to have a conversation with the cache owner.

 

Our reviewer basically does a 'sweep' every couple of months and there is almost always that cache that is unmaintained yet popular because of age. People then inevitably grumble and complain and I just wonder why people aren't upset at the CO instead of the reviewer. I mean, it's the CO's fault it isn't maintained. If it weren't for the reviewer keeping up with these problem listings, we'd have a LOT more crappy, unmaintained caches just collecting water and falling apart.

[cezanne]

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

 

 

That doesn't always mean the cache owner put that cache there.

I know of 2 local caches that received NAs, where someone threw down a cache after the NA and Reviewer Note, but before the Reviewer Archive. One wanted the find for a challenge cache requiring old caches. The other wanted to turn his DNF into a find before the archive happened.

 

Yes, I know. I should have added the original cache is still there and in perfect order.

[+narcissa]

I have a related question. I'd appreciate if Keystone or any other reviewer reading this thread could let us know how they would react if the following happened

(1) a cache gets disabled by a reviewer after a NA log

(2) the cache is archived after 2 weeks without reaction by the cache owner

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Will the cache then be removed from the archive? I recently was made aware of a changed formulation of the guidelines that has been new to me, namely that caches that get archived to a lack

of maintenance (a term that seems quite subjective to me - some cachers e.g. think that it is the cache hiders duty to run out to check a cache after each DNF regardless of the circumstances) will not de-archived regardless of in which condition they are at the moment when the request is made. I'm aware of the fact that a new listing can be submitted but that's about the worst solution I can think of.

 

I more and more get worried about posting DNF logs for caches that are not visited often. My DNF logs hardly ever mean that I have searched at every possible location. Sometimes I leave after 2 minutes or even quicker. Most cachers with 100 finds will search more ambitiously as I do.

 

If the owner is reachable, why didn't the owner react to the reviewer's warning note? The cache isn't in perfect order if the cache owner is ignoring it.

[cezanne]

I typically give 30 days before Archiving. On rare occasions, when the Disabled Listing is blocking a submission that is ready to be Published, and there's no apparent response from the cache owner, I'll shorten it to 2 weeks. That's pretty unusual though.

 

First of all, thanks for your helpful reply. In all the situations I have in mind no other cache was waiting in the queue and typically if such caches get archived no other caches shows up there in the future.

 

(3) a few days after the archival it turns out that the cache is still there and everything is in perfect order

 

The answer depends on who confirmed the cache is still in play. Was it the cache owner? A friend? Some random User with time on their hands? If it's the cache owner, my tendency is to be more lenient with my decision. Some random person, even a friend, taking it upon themselves to speak for the cache owner? No. I must be contacted by the cache owner to verify that they are still active and are willing to maintain their cache.

 

(4) The owner is still reachable

 

Reachable in what way? If, in that 30 day window that I give, they don't have the time to post even a simple acknowledgment on their Disabled Listing, that doesn't sound like *reachable* to me.

 

A 30 day window certainly decreases the risk that an active cache owner will not be able to reply timely in comparison to the 2 weeks windows that have become popular in some countries.

 

If only caches get disabled by a reviewer where there is a stronger evidence that something needs to be fixed, I certainly agree with what you wrote above and it would not make me worried that a DNF written by me where I state the conditions under which my DNF happened would endager the life of a cache.

 

Somehow this threat to react within 14 days sometimes is sometimes formulated in a harsher way than I would like to be applied in work situation (and also in schools, universities etc) and geocaching is a leisure time activity.

 

So let me ask what would happen for a cache in your reviewing area which is like the cache I have linked to above - here is the link again for convenience

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1VGHV_schrottcache?guid=abc65593-31ff-4b47-80c4-60fd4bfcedc6 ? Last find October 2012, one DNF in Winter 2014 when there was lots of snow and

now suppose that someone wrote a NA in Autumn 2015 before the cache got found again. Would you have disabled the cache based on a single DNF and a NA? Or would you have waited for further evidence? A further DNF at least?

 

When a friend considered to visit the cache in 2014 (it did not work out as we had no time), I told her that I'm 99,99999% sure that the cache is still there but meanwhile there are cachers out there

who not only ignore lonely caches (that's perfectly ok) but feel they have the right to require a verification for each cache in their area that has not been found in a while (even if that's normal for that caches and there is not the smallest sign of an issue with that cache).

 

I'm fully aware that maintenance visits belong to the owner's responsability, but as soon as some cachers can force a cache owner to run out whenever they want, it's no fun any longer to own and maintain caches (and in particular not remote ones or caches that address themselves only to a small audience), and as a searcher one needs to think about every DNF one posts. That's taking away the fun.

 

I'm not expecting e.g. Isonzo Karst to visit all their caches that have not been found within the last year. That's wasted energy in my opinion without any reason.

[cezanne]

If the owner is reachable, why didn't the owner react to the reviewer's warning note? The cache isn't in perfect order if the cache owner is ignoring it.

 

In the hypothetical example I linked to, the next find was logged before someone posted NA.

 

Let me repeat again, if a cacher posted a NA on a rarely visited caches of mine based on a single DNF, I would not even wait for a reaction of a reviewer. I would react by visiting the cache site, taking home the container and archiving it myself. If a reviewer would be faster and disable my cache, my reaction would be the same.

 

I would regard both the NA and the disabling as inappropriate and would stop to provide and maintain a cache that I would otherwise have continued to maintain. If we start to give all the power to those who think they have the right to be assured before their visit that a cache is there, then it's time to show them that it's not the way they will end up with further caches for them to find.

 

I typically contact every DNF logger for one of my caches if I have the slightest doubt that there could be something wrong (I do the same for every other log type too). That does not mean that I will react in all cases on the cache page. That's still up to me to decide what seems appropriate to me for my own caches.

[Pup Patrol]

All it takes is an "owner maintenance" log.

 

Communication from the cache owner on the cache page is often enough.

 

If a cache has NM's, and then someone comes along and says "replaced the container"...if that is what the cache owner finds acceptable, then post an "owner maintenance" log.

 

GS seems to be trying to weed out the inactive cache owners and their rotting caches. I think it's a great idea.

 

Receiving one of those new "owner maintenance" emails from GS is not the death knell for your caches. All you need to do is confirm that the cache is there.

 

It's not too much to ask that cache owners actually get out there and physically check on their caches. If it's too difficult to do, then perhaps cache ownership is not something for them.

 

Even having an NA posted on the cache is not the end. Cache owner communication is vital. And simple to do.

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

That does not mean that I will react in all cases on the cache page. That's still up to me to decide what seems appropriate to me for my own caches.

 

Reacting on the cache page is the evidence of maintenance that GS can see easily.

 

They don't know if you've been emailing other cachers.

 

But a simple "owner maintenance" log on the cache page lets them, and other seekers, know that all is well with the cache.

 

I don't see how it's a problem to do that.

 

B.

[+RosiesDaddyBear]

I'm fully aware that maintenance visits belong to the owner's responsability, but as soon as some cachers can force a cache owner to run out whenever they want, it's no fun any longer to own and maintain caches (and in particular not remote ones or caches that address themselves only to a small audience), and as a searcher one needs to think about every DNF one posts. That's taking away the fun.

 

I've posted a number of DNFs in my short time caching and on each one I've tried to add a little context. On some I have suggested (possibly inappropriately in hindsight) that the cache is no longer there and if there have been a string of DNFs then I would follow up with a NM. On other caches that have just beaten me I have tried to make that clear too.

 

There is a responsibility on each cacher to post a DNF if they didn't find it but also to add context where needed.

[+bflentje]

If I may, I'd like to ask a question regarding NAs. There is one nearby that hasn't been found in a year. Every time I go hiking in the area, I peek to see if it's there, but Have had no luck. I posted a NM, but since then, nothing has been done. Should I post a NA?

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCWVWF_escape

If this cache were in my review territory, I'd respond to a "Needs Archived" from you by temporarily disabling the listing and asking the owner to perform a maintenance check. If there's no response in 3 or 4 weeks I would then archive the listing. Reasoning:

 

-- You have looked for the cache multiple times

-- You logged "Needs Maintenance" a few months ago but there was no response

-- The cache owner has not logged in recently and has only found two caches in recent years

-- There are consecutive DNF's from other geocachers ("it's not just you"), and some of the other DNF's are from cachers with decent find counts.

 

This is the same method our local reviewers use. I am happy with it and works for us that care. But in a way it almost gives the absent hider too much leeway.

[+narcissa]

If the owner is reachable, why didn't the owner react to the reviewer's warning note? The cache isn't in perfect order if the cache owner is ignoring it.

 

In the hypothetical example I linked to, the next find was logged before someone posted NA.

 

Let me repeat again, if a cacher posted a NA on a rarely visited caches of mine based on a single DNF, I would not even wait for a reaction of a reviewer. I would react by visiting the cache site, taking home the container and archiving it myself. If a reviewer would be faster and disable my cache, my reaction would be the same.

 

I would regard both the NA and the disabling as inappropriate and would stop to provide and maintain a cache that I would otherwise have continued to maintain. If we start to give all the power to those who think they have the right to be assured before their visit that a cache is there, then it's time to show them that it's not the way they will end up with further caches for them to find.

 

I typically contact every DNF logger for one of my caches if I have the slightest doubt that there could be something wrong (I do the same for every other log type too). That does not mean that I will react in all cases on the cache page. That's still up to me to decide what seems appropriate to me for my own caches.

 

Unfortunately, as cache owners, sometimes we have to deal with logs that are wrong or inappropriate for some reason. If you're not responding to problematic logs, you're not taking care of your caches.

[cezanne]

Unfortunately, as cache owners, sometimes we have to deal with logs that are wrong or inappropriate for some reason. If you're not responding to problematic logs, you're not taking care of your caches.

 

You seem to overlook that there are different ways of responding. Going out and collecting one's cache and archiving it, is of course a legitimate way of taking care.

If an obviously inappropriate log leads to a reviewer action, then there is something which is unfortunate about the system.

 

While I agree that a cache owner could react if her/his cache is affected by a bot action, I still think that bot actions that are not supported by human decision making based on looking on all evidence are a bad thing. Bot actions create a lot of frustration and annoyance that would not have been caused by a manual approach taking the situation into account.

[cezanne]

That does not mean that I will react in all cases on the cache page. That's still up to me to decide what seems appropriate to me for my own caches.

 

Reacting on the cache page is the evidence of maintenance that GS can see easily.

 

They don't know if you've been emailing other cachers.

 

But a simple "owner maintenance" log on the cache page lets them, and other seekers, know that all is well with the cache.

 

I don't see how it's a problem to do that.

 

It's incorrect to post owner maintenance if for example the previous seeker searched a mile from the correct location. In that case my preferred solution is asking the DNf-Logger to add to their DNF log at the end that they searched at the wrong coordinates. If they do not want to do that, I write a note myself. I certainly would not write an OM log. For everyone who is willing to read logs, all information is still there. Of course those are in trouble who just look at log types.

 

There is absolutely no requirement to react to a single harmless DNF on the cache page. I can react by a log (and do it when it seems appropriate to me), but it's up to me to make

that decision.

 

I have a cache which I have passed three times since its last find but I certainly will not post a log before it seems appropriate to me. It's my job to maintain my caches, but not to assure those who

only wish to go for caches where the last feedback is just a few weeks ago. I'm not interested into those finders for my caches anyway and I'm happy if they stay away.

 

Part of the nice feeling when one finds a lonely cache is that a long time noone has logged a find and one does not know whether one will be successful. If the last visit by the cache owner has been 2 weeks ago and this visit has been logged, the thrill is gone.

Edited February 16, 2016 by cezanne

[Nomex]

So let me ask what would happen for a cache in your reviewing area which is like the cache I have linked to above - here is the link again for convenience

https://www.geocachi...c4-60fd4bfcedc6 ? Last find October 2012, one DNF in Winter 2014 when there was lots of snow and

now suppose that someone wrote a NA in Autumn 2015 before the cache got found again. Would you have disabled the cache based on a single DNF and a NA? Or would you have waited for further evidence? A further DNF at least?

 

At face value, there is not enough information on the cache page to justify me taking action on it. That's not to say that a Listing like that couldn't require some action. I've seen plenty of examples of caches in restricted areas or private property, where folks are unaware of the situation or ignore it, and cheerfully log Finds. There are many ways to contact a Reviewer and express concerns that may not be visible on the Listing page.

 

...but feel they have the right to require a verification for each cache in their area that has not been found in a while...

 

In that case, I would direct them to the following Help Center article:

 

I found a geocache that needs to be archived.

 

I can't help you on how people *feel* about their rights to verification without actually visiting the cache site. Not a Reviewer responsibility I'm afraid.

[cezanne]

So let me ask what would happen for a cache in your reviewing area which is like the cache I have linked to above - here is the link again for convenience

https://www.geocachi...c4-60fd4bfcedc6 ? Last find October 2012, one DNF in Winter 2014 when there was lots of snow and

now suppose that someone wrote a NA in Autumn 2015 before the cache got found again. Would you have disabled the cache based on a single DNF and a NA? Or would you have waited for further evidence? A further DNF at least?

 

At face value, there is not enough information on the cache page to justify me taking action on it. That's not to say that a Listing like that couldn't require some action. I've seen plenty of examples of caches in restricted areas or private property, where folks are unaware of the situation or ignore it, and cheerfully log Finds. There are many ways to contact a Reviewer and express concerns that may not be visible on the Listing page.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to reply. I agree that there are cases where action is required and this is not visible from the cache page.

 

My example was just one that should outline the general situation of lonely caches with a single DNF log. It was that sort of situation that let me come with my question and it is also behind my increasing concern to write DNF logs. If my DNF logs are read, I'm pretty sure that they should not be the reason for thinking that there is an issue with a cache. I always try to make the context very clear and sometimes I even send mails to newer cache hiders and let them know that I have no reason to think that the cache is not there - I noticed that a number of newer cache hiders seem to think that a DNF from someone who is into caching for more than 10 years and has my find score is significant while I typically search for shorter times before calling it a day than I'd say at least 90% of the cachers in the area. If my logs are not read however and the criteria are just automatic ones, it starts to become an issue and I start wondering whether in such cases I rather should use another log type or refrain from logging on the cache page at all.

[+narcissa]

Unfortunately, as cache owners, sometimes we have to deal with logs that are wrong or inappropriate for some reason. If you're not responding to problematic logs, you're not taking care of your caches.

 

You seem to overlook that there are different ways of responding. Going out and collecting one's cache and archiving it, is of course a legitimate way of taking care.

If an obviously inappropriate log leads to a reviewer action, then there is something which is unfortunate about the system.

 

While I agree that a cache owner could react if her/his cache is affected by a bot action, I still think that bot actions that are not supported by human decision making based on looking on all evidence are a bad thing. Bot actions create a lot of frustration and annoyance that would not have been caused by a manual approach taking the situation into account.

 

Yes, there are sometimes flaws in the system. That's why good cache owners watch their owner logs and react when something is amiss.

[+dprovan]

The point I was trying to make was that it could be possible that a CO could have a sour taste in their mouth toward NA logs for legitimate reasons.

And my point is that the NA is the appropriate way to start the discussion. COs need to recognize that the contents of the strong arm discussion were the problem, not the delivery mechanism.

[cezanne]

The point I was trying to make was that it could be possible that a CO could have a sour taste in their mouth toward NA logs for legitimate reasons.

And my point is that the NA is the appropriate way to start the discussion. COs need to recognize that the contents of the strong arm discussion were the problem, not the delivery mechanism.

 

My comment below does not refer to a specific example. It's just a general comment.

 

I'm not sure if the name "needs archived" is a good way to start a discussion that does not involve emotions.

 

It makes a huge difference for me whether a cache potentially has issues that need to be fixed and the message "needs archived".

If someone logs "needs archived" for a cache, why should the cache owner feel motivated to fix the issue? If the logger has already decided they want the cache to end up in the archive, why invest time to maintain the cache when it is so much easier to just comply with the logged wish to archive it?

 

The term "needs archived" of course is appropriate (apart from the grammar issue) in cases where there are legal issues with a cache or enviromental concerns. In most cases, the term "needs archived" is however certainly a suboptimal way if the hope of the logger is that the existing or conjectured issues get fixed.

Edited February 16, 2016 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

All it takes is an "owner maintenance" log.

 

Communication from the cache owner on the cache page is often enough.

 

If a cache has NM's, and then someone comes along and says "replaced the container"...if that is what the cache owner finds acceptable, then post an "owner maintenance" log.

 

GS seems to be trying to weed out the inactive cache owners and their rotting caches. I think it's a great idea.

 

Receiving one of those new "owner maintenance" emails from GS is not the death knell for your caches. All you need to do is confirm that the cache is there.

 

It's not too much to ask that cache owners actually get out there and physically check on their caches. If it's too difficult to do, then perhaps cache ownership is not something for them.

 

Even having an NA posted on the cache is not the end. Cache owner communication is vital. And simple to do.

 

B.

 

If a Reviewer disables, even just a Note log on the cache page...and perhaps an additional note to the Reviewer if more detail is necessary. Nobody is saying one must immediately run out, fix it and post a OM log. If I think it might be several weeks before I can do proper maintenance, I just post a Note saying so. THAT is communication. It's when there isn't even a simple and considerate note from the CO that I lose sympathy for COs. If they cannot be bothered to write even just a sentence or two in the course of 30 days to keep their cache alive, then it probably needs to be archived.

[+The A-Team]

There are reviewers who work through NA logs with automatic scripts and then it can easily happen that challenging caches that are not often visited and have a single DNF along with a NA log get disabled and soon afterwards archived even though the caches are in perfect condition.

I'm skeptical that this is actually occurring. However, if it is, the reviewers doing this need to be stripped of their titles. The whole point of their existence is to use their experience and judgement to decide if a cache should be disabled/archived, if a cache should be published, etc. Using automated methods and bypassing this judgement step could easily be scripted into the site itself and isn't what a reviewer is supposed to be doing.

 

The term "needs archived" of course is appropriate (apart from the grammar issue) in cases where there are legal issues with a cache or enviromental concerns. In most cases, the term "needs archived" is however certainly a suboptimal way if the hope of the logger is that the existing or conjectured issues get fixed.

There have been a number of proposals to rename that log over the years, with the leading candidate being "Needs reviewer attention". This would better reflect the log's intention not to pass judgement by asking that it be archived, but rather that it needs some kind of additional attention (presumably detailed within the log's content). When I submit NA logs, I write them as if the log's type is already "Needs reviewer attention".

[+The A-Team]

Guidelines state that posting a NA log requires a visit to the cache, so will probably just contact the reviewer directly.

Like the others, this was news to me. The relevant Help Center article doesn't have a last-edited date, so I'm not sure when exactly this was changed, but the Wayback Machine tells me it was sometime between April and September 2015.

3.8. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

•You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.

•You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.

•You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.

It would seem pointless to visit the cache location in the last scenario, but what are you gonna do...

[jholly]

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

•You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.

It would seem pointless to visit the cache location in the last scenario, but what are you gonna do...

 

Well I thought that one was obvious to the casual observer ... all those other seekers were blind as a bat and you find the cache sitting out in plain sight under as nice pile sticks

 

It does seem pointless to waste your time and gas seeking what is apparently not there. I would file a NA pointing out the many DNF's, NM'a and the apparent absence of the CO. If the reviewer wishes to contact me and ask me if visited the site I would say no and the reviewer is free to let the listing stand unmolested.

[+narcissa]

The point I was trying to make was that it could be possible that a CO could have a sour taste in their mouth toward NA logs for legitimate reasons.

And my point is that the NA is the appropriate way to start the discussion. COs need to recognize that the contents of the strong arm discussion were the problem, not the delivery mechanism.

 

My comment below does not refer to a specific example. It's just a general comment.

 

I'm not sure if the name "needs archived" is a good way to start a discussion that does not involve emotions.

 

It makes a huge difference for me whether a cache potentially has issues that need to be fixed and the message "needs archived".

If someone logs "needs archived" for a cache, why should the cache owner feel motivated to fix the issue? If the logger has already decided they want the cache to end up in the archive, why invest time to maintain the cache when it is so much easier to just comply with the logged wish to archive it?

 

The term "needs archived" of course is appropriate (apart from the grammar issue) in cases where there are legal issues with a cache or enviromental concerns. In most cases, the term "needs archived" is however certainly a suboptimal way if the hope of the logger is that the existing or conjectured issues get fixed.

 

Why would a good cache owner be so derailed by a needs archived log by one cacher?

[cezanne]

Why would a good cache owner be so derailed by a needs archived log by one cacher?

 

I do not think that this is an issue of whether being a good or bad cache owner.

 

I know that many cachers do not care at all how log types are named and whether the terminology used is correct. I belong to the group of people who are different in this regard.

If someone states that a cache needs to be archived, it is very tempting to comply. It could be the last drop necessary to demotivate cache owners from the old times which are often already close to giving up anyway.

 

In the same way as I feel that "needs archived" is in most cases improper terminology, I think that cachers should not write "einen Cache mitnehmen" when they log in German as this means to take along a cache which of course is wrong except in the case that indeed the container is removed and not rehidden which I sincerely hope that it will not be the case in >99.9% of the cases where this unfortunate phrase is used.

[+dprovan]

I'm not sure if the name "needs archived" is a good way to start a discussion that does not involve emotions.

I think we've discussed this before, but just to repeat my position on it: the only thing a reviewer can do, officially, is archive the cache, so I think the harsh terminology is appropriate even if one is hopeful that the problem can be resolved. And one should always be hopeful the problem is resolved even when that seems unlikely. The fact is, when you post an NA, you are threatening the cache, whether you're thinking of it that way or not, and trying to soften the log type name will do nothing to sooth the problems implied by that, but may well fool the person posting the NA into not fully appreciating how serious a step they're taking.

 

Of course it's true that reviewers might be able to wield their considerable experience and authority to achieve a satisfactory result without the threat of archival, but I see no advantage into taking that rare case into account when deciding what to call the log type filed by the third party that gets the reviewer involved. In the end, if the NA posted has correctly identified a problem, and the problem is not resolved, the reviewer will have to archive the cache no matter what sweet term you come up with for this log type.

[cezanne]

 

In the end, if the NA posted has correctly identified a problem, and the problem is not resolved, the reviewer will have to archive the cache no matter what sweet term you come up with for this log type.

 

A NA log is not only a message to the reviewers - at first it is a message to the cache owner. YOu seem to assume that a NA is only posted after other measures have been taken that did not send the message "archive cache" right away to the cache owner.

 

In cases where a NA log is filed after a single DNF log, the risk that a cache owner will end up being frustrated and archives an affected cache (which is in good condition and without such a log would have been maintained for a few further years) even before a reviewer could do anything at all, is relatively high and I see immediate archival by the owner as a natural reaction to the message "needs archived".

[cezanne]

Statements like this one from the recent blog post

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/

Challenge your mind — Try out a Mystery Cache or higher difficulty geocache. (Hint: If you’re stumped, message the cache owner for hints.)

make me wonder how long it will take until we will also see NA logs of the type

"Messaged owner for a hint and got no reply. Cache has not been found for 6 months." The blog creates expectations in cachers which do not match the reality.

 

If someone sends me a message and asks for a hint for my difficult mystery caches, they will not receive a reply at all. if they send an e-mail, they will get the reply

that I provide some help for those who have already obtained a reasonable progress but that I do not give out hints. None of my more difficult caches is intended for beginners or for

those who want a quick success.

[+justintim1999]

All it takes is an "owner maintenance" log.

 

Communication from the cache owner on the cache page is often enough.

 

If a cache has NM's, and then someone comes along and says "replaced the container"...if that is what the cache owner finds acceptable, then post an "owner maintenance" log.

 

GS seems to be trying to weed out the inactive cache owners and their rotting caches. I think it's a great idea.

 

Receiving one of those new "owner maintenance" emails from GS is not the death knell for your caches. All you need to do is confirm that the cache is there.

 

It's not too much to ask that cache owners actually get out there and physically check on their caches. If it's too difficult to do, then perhaps cache ownership is not something for them.

 

Even having an NA posted on the cache is not the end. Cache owner communication is vital. And simple to do.

 

B.

 

If a Reviewer disables, even just a Note log on the cache page...and perhaps an additional note to the Reviewer if more detail is necessary. Nobody is saying one must immediately run out, fix it and post a OM log. If I think it might be several weeks before I can do proper maintenance, I just post a Note saying so. THAT is communication. It's when there isn't even a simple and considerate note from the CO that I lose sympathy for COs. If they cannot be bothered to write even just a sentence or two in the course of 30 days to keep their cache alive, then it probably needs to be archived.

 

Great points by both. If your are an active, responsible cache owner theirs little chance your cache will ever be involuntarily archived. Problem solved.

[cezanne]

Great points by both. If your are an active, responsible cache owner theirs little chance your cache will ever be involuntarily archived. Problem solved.

 

No, problem unresolved. My point is that active, responsible cache owners might decide to voluntarily archive caches in perfect condition as reaction to annoying and

inappropriate NA logs and expectations by some cachers. Groundspeak seems to do a lot recently to encourage wrong expectations.

[Keystone]

Great points by both. If your are an active, responsible cache owner theirs little chance your cache will ever be involuntarily archived. Problem solved.

 

No, problem unresolved. My point is that active, responsible cache owners might decide to voluntarily archive caches in perfect condition as reaction to annoying and

inappropriate NA logs and expectations by some cachers. Groundspeak seems to do a lot recently to encourage wrong expectations.

Could you point to a large number of examples where this has happened? Because I've watched every "Needs Archived" log in my review territory for more than ten years, and I don't recall seeing this. Nor do I recall this being an issue during previous forum discussions about misuse of the "Needs Archived" log.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Any CO who is so sensitive that they archive and remove their cache in a huff due to one inappropriate NA log are probably better off not hiding caches. Instead they should probably stick to something like Solitaire where they don't have to deal with other people.

[+J Grouchy]

Great points by both. If your are an active, responsible cache owner theirs little chance your cache will ever be involuntarily archived. Problem solved.

 

No, problem unresolved. My point is that active, responsible cache owners might decide to voluntarily archive caches in perfect condition as reaction to annoying and

inappropriate NA logs and expectations by some cachers. Groundspeak seems to do a lot recently to encourage wrong expectations.

Could you point to a large number of examples where this has happened? Because I've watched every "Needs Archived" log in my review territory for more than ten years, and I don't recall seeing this. Nor do I recall this being an issue during previous forum discussions about misuse of the "Needs Archived" log.

 

I've observed a "rage quit" or two before. One that immediately comes to mind: http://coord.info/GCY9BQ . That one doesn't involve a NA log, but it does demonstrate the type of tantrums that occur when the reviewers step in to deal with potential problem caches.