Inactive Owners

[+Paintballvet18]

So, I may be wrong in a few things I'm about to write, but bear with me. This is directed mostly to the upper echelon of Groundspeak and more experienced cachers, but anyone can chime in if they'd like.

 

Hi. Paintballvet18 here. 3500 caches found mostly in the DFW (Dallas Fort Worth) and France areas. I have recently seen that a number of caches under the username TEXASGRILLCHEF are in need of maintenance, but the Cache Owner hasn't been active in close to 3 years (since 2013 to be exact). Now I am under the impression that for the love of the game, geocaches must be maintained by relatively active owners that can perform maintenance on their caches. So, my question is, why has the Texas reviewers not archived all the caches from the said owner because of the lack of owner activity and ability to maintain??

 

Thanks

 

PBV18

[Keystone]

As this user's caches get tagged with valid NM and NA logs, the Texas reviewers are disabling them and archiving them. That is borne out by the record.

 

A "valid" NM or NA log comes from someone who searched for the cache or is otherwise personally familiar with it, like a prior finder, for example. It's likely that your armchair logs are not receiving the same attention as similar logs made from seekers in the field.

 

Also, you will not reach the "upper echelon" at Geocaching HQ by posting in a regional forum that's meant for local discussions. If you feel that the Texas reviewers are not enforcing the listing guidelines, write directly to Geocaching HQ via the Help Center. Address your inquiry to the Appeals team.

[+Paintballvet18]

Thanks keystone for clearing that up. It's good info to know. I'm just trying to help out the community by making room for new cachers to experiment and old cachers to place good product. But thanks for the advice!

[+cerberus1]

So, I may be wrong in a few things I'm about to write, but bear with me. This is directed mostly to the upper echelon of Groundspeak and more experienced cachers, but anyone can chime in if they'd like.

 

Hi. Paintballvet18 here. 3500 caches found mostly in the DFW (Dallas Fort Worth) and France areas. I have recently seen that a number of caches under the username TEXASGRILLCHEF are in need of maintenance, but the Cache Owner hasn't been active in close to 3 years (since 2013 to be exact).Now I am under the impression that for the love of the game, geocaches must be maintained by relatively active owners that can perform maintenance on their caches. So, my question is, why has the Texas reviewers not archived all the caches from the said owner because of the lack of owner activity and ability to maintain??

That's odd, their profile shows a find in April of last year.

 

Curious what your find count has to do with this issue...

 

Have cachers who've attempted those caches placed Needs Maintenance, or Needs Archive logs on them?

If a cache is still in great shape, there's no reason to archive it ...at least until issues arise.

If not, then the first move is on the cachers who attempt the cache, not the Reviewers, to get the cache cleaned up/removed, through DNF, NM, or NA logs.

- Something we're not seeing many doing anymore...

 

If caches were archived simply because of an inactive (at the moment...) CO, close to half the Virtuals in the World would go bye-bye.

[+Paintballvet18]

Cerebrus. You're completely correct. Although I'm suggesting an overhaul on PHYSICAL caches only, not virtuals. Owners stay and owners go, but virtual locations live on.

 

Finds were to exemplify that although I wasn't a veteran, I wasn't a person that had 10-15 finds and was just complaining. You did however say the same stuff as keystone and I will take it into mind.

[+Touchstone]

Owners stay and owners go, but virtual locations live on.

 

Just for the record, Virtuals have and do get Archived for lack of maintenance, just like any other cache type.

[+Manville Possum]

I posted a NA on an ownerless cache tonight, hopefully the local reviewer will take a look. The cache has another DNF posted, and I'm aware that the area has changed and brush cleared out and a fence removed.

 

I'm all for if you don't sign in to your account in a year, and a DNF is posted on your listing, then a reviewer should be alerted.

 

It's about time to clean up this site of stale data. If more volunteers are needed, I don't see any problem with finding them.

[+WearyTraveler]

I see several in my area that haven't been found in a while. No DNFs or any other logs. Just no entries. And a look at the CO profile may show no visits in a couple of years and no recent caches found.

 

Basically - probably an abandoned cache...

 

A possible data point / fix (?) to situations like this is that cachers won't log their DNFs - so no one knows that he cache may be missing. So _if_ the CO is still reading his notifications, he may not actually have a clue. I guess what I'm saying is that in a portion of these abandoned caches, we may be partially at fault for not raising yellow flags.

 

Personally, I'll log DNFs. No shame there. I'll also send mail to COs and former finders. I've had former finders tell me that I looked in the right spot so a good chance of a gone cache.

 

I've asked for NAs in a couple of local ones where these cinditions exist and gotten them archived.

 

It is a shame when COs move or stop maintaining without archiving.

[+TOW Vehicle]

On 7/21/2016 at 12:33 AM, Manville Possum said:

I posted a NA on an ownerless cache tonight, hopefully the local reviewer will take a look. The cache has another DNF posted, and I'm aware that the area has changed and brush cleared out and a fence removed.

 

I'm all for if you don't sign in to your account in a year, and a DNF is posted on your listing, then a reviewer should be alerted.

 

It's about time to clean up this site of stale data. If more volunteers are needed, I don't see any problem with finding them.