Reviewer is disabling my caches?

[+brendan714]

(Disclaimer: I am not a noob - I have 100+ hides and 5000+ finds)

 

The other day the reviewer disabled two geocaches I own. Both are in the deep backcountry of the Canadian Rockies, are found very infrequently and are challenging hides.

 

Cache #1 was found once in July 2008. It was DNFed in September 2009 by a cacher with 12 finds (at the time) complaining of signal bounce. No recent activity until it was disabled by the reviewer this week.

 

Cache #2 was last found in October 2010. It was DNFed by a cacher with 8 finds in October 2010, and again by a cacher with 19 finds in July 2015. Most recent activity was the disabling by the reviewer this week.

 

The reviewer said that since it's been so long without a find on both caches that I must check on their condition, hence the disabling. Let me remind you again that these are in the backcountry and are rarely visited geocaches. I did visit one of the caches, which was in good shape.

 

My question - since when are one or two DNFs cause for alarm bells, especially when the DNFs are from beginners? In my opinion, the extended time period without any activity or DNFs should not matter.

 

If there are any reviewers in the crowd, what's your opinion? I'm all for proper cache maintenance from owners, etc, but this seems a little ridiculous to me.

[+fizzymagic]

Cache #1 was found once in July 2008. It was DNFed in September 2009 by a cacher with 12 finds (at the time) complaining of signal bounce. No recent activity until it was disabled by the reviewer this week.

 

Cache #2 was last found in October 2010. It was DNFed by a cacher with 8 finds in October 2010, and again by a cacher with 19 finds in July 2015. Most recent activity was the disabling by the reviewer this week.

 

I don't know the specifics of your case, but assuming what you say is true, then this is good evidence to back my claim that the cache maintenance guidelines incentivize the hiding of easy (and lame) urban micro-caches.

[+brendan714]

I don't know the specifics of your case, but assuming what you say is true, then this is good evidence to back my claim that the cache maintenance guidelines incentivize the hiding of easy (and lame) urban micro-caches.

 

Feel free to creep my account and find the caches to confirm my case. Just remember that the number of finds users have now doesn't represent the number of finds they had then. I have to kind of agree by saying that this sort of action seems to disincentivize the hiding of lonely or rarely found caches.

 

It might also incentivize the practice of COs deleting DNFs. I've had more than a few of my DNFs deleted by various COs. Maybe this was the reason (I never asked / cared)?

Edited August 12, 2016 by brendan714

[+redsox_mark]

This has been happening for quite a while now. Here is one such thread.

[+kunarion]

The reviewer said that since it's been so long without a find on both caches that I must check on their condition, hence the disabling. Let me remind you again that these are in the backcountry and are rarely visited geocaches. I did visit one of the caches, which was in good shape.

 

My question - since when are one or two DNFs cause for alarm bells, especially when the DNFs are from beginners? In my opinion, the extended time period without any activity or DNFs should not matter.

It must be an automated thing, right? A script using some formula?

 

What happens if you next "Enable" your cache? Does that trigger more "reviewer" action?

 

My caches aren't far, and they aren't unfound for more than a few months at a time. I never get the reviewer disabled log. I also am very attentive, and check and log (not saying you also must do that, but I'd bet it makes a big difference in relation to the Topic). But a couple of my unpublished caches have gotten archived, and (as far as I know) not due to a new cache being placed there. It seems more like a computerized cleanup than personalized reviewer action, although the log is a form letter "from" the reviewer. Yeah, it gives the impression that the reviewer has personally vetted your terrible, terrible cache and is all up in your grill over it. The log should instead say "this is an automated disabling" if that's not being made clear in the log.

 

I'd like to someday place a cache that's hard to find, or not found often. Part of the mystique of my cache may be that you can't be certain of finding it. So it would annoy me if DNFs caused the cache to be disabled. The idea is it's supposed to be a cache of uncertainty, and if as a CO I'm required to log that it's in place just fine, that ruins the mystique.

 

But when I log a DNF on a cache, it is, more frequently than I would hope, the DNF that disables a cache (also it sometimes causes a cache to be archived). For some unfathomable reason, my DNFs have a lot of weight! If I leave a DNF (and boy howdy do I Not Find caches), the CO had better delete it pronto and hope the reviewer wasn't looking. Or else.

Edited August 12, 2016 by kunarion

[+redsox_mark]

I've looked at 2 of the caches. The CO tried to enable them, but the reviewer insists that the CO do a physical maintenance visit.

 

Link to one of the caches https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCH0T7_cardinal-divide-beauty

[cezanne]

It must be an automated thing, right?

 

The reviewer behind the action definitely seems to be convinced that in such cases a cache check is in order which I do not agree with at all (to formulate it politely and not in the way I would do at another place).

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'll buck the trend here. You adopted these in March 2016 (congratulations and thank you for making the effort!).

I think it's reasonable to expect you to physically visit caches you now own.

 

Particularly those with no recent finds and DNFs or NM logs.

You agreed to maintain both the listings and the physical caches when you adopted them. Do it.

 

Looking at the caches you adopted, 5 have NM logs. Some have been fixed by cachers, one by the reviewer who updated bad coords. You need to clear the NM logs.

 

GCH0TA absolutely demands a visit. Logs call out the container as lidless and broken and the access to the cache as POSTED.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Isonzo Karst

[+narcissa]

The extended time and the DNFs can be cause for other geocachers to avoid the trip to find them. It is best practice to periodically check on a cache. How often depends on the location. I don't think it is asking too much for the cache owner to go have a look after several years. If the burden of cache maintenance is too much for you, perhaps there is another cache owner who can get out to them more easily.

[cezanne]

The extended time and the DNFs can be cause for other geocachers to avoid the trip to find them. It is best practice to periodically check on a cache. How often depends on the location. I don't think it is asking too much for the cache owner to go have a look after several years.

 

As a finder I find it much more rewarding to go for lonely caches that has not been found for some years (of course not with a long chain of DNFs) without knowing the present situation. Visiting a cache that has not been found for 2 years but with a recent note by the cache owner that the cache is there is like visiting a cache that has been found a week ago.

 

If cachers wish to avoid trips to caches that have not been found for a long time, they are free to do so. I do not care. By their choice they do not influence my caching experience.

 

My main concern is not related to cache maintenance duties. It's that I do not appreciate at all this tendency towards forcing cache owners to provide confirmation that a cache is there regularly. I see no need to encourage cachers to go for certain caches.

 

I also have days where I somehow prefer an almost guaranteed find but then I adapt my choice of caches for the day.

Edited August 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+JL_HSTRE]

A cache that has not been found in 5 years probably merits a check even without DNFs, especially if the current CO recently adopted them. Weather, wildlife, hunter theft, etc. can all effect remote caches.

[+wmpastor]

... For some unfathomable reason, my DNFs have a lot of weight! ...

It would be interesting (& good) if the algorithm took experience into account, as shown by the number of finds by the DNF poster. (Fame is not as easily quantified. ). I know that DNFs I posted while having less than 25 finds didn't mean very much.

[+redsox_mark]

It would be interesting (& good) if the algorithm took experience into account, as shown by the number of finds by the DNF poster. (Fame is not as easily quantified. ). I know that DNFs I posted while having less than 25 finds didn't mean very much.

 

Ideally yes, though that could be tricky in cases like this where the DNFs were years ago. It is one of the points the CO is disputing with the reviewer; the reviewer is saying the DNF logger has 700 finds (which they do, today), while the CO is saying they had 8 finds when they logged the DNF. I'm not sure how easy it is for a tool to determine how many finds a cacher had at the time of the DNF.

 

Regardless of algorithm, the review can make a judgement, and in these 2 cases, their judgement is it needs to be checked on. Given the number of years since the caches have been found, this does not seem unreasonable to me. I've seen other cases which were much more "harsh".

[+NYPaddleCacher]

... For some unfathomable reason, my DNFs have a lot of weight! ...

It would be interesting (& good) if the algorithm took experience into account, as shown by the number of finds by the DNF poster. (Fame is not as easily quantified. ). I know that DNFs I posted while having less than 25 finds didn't mean very much.

 

Number of finds does not necessarily translate into experience. One can spend a weekend in Nevada finding hundreds of easy hides all hidden in the same manner by the same CO and they're not going have as much experience as someone that has found 30 caches in different environments, placed by different cache owners, and a variety of difficulty levels.

 

 

[+narcissa]

The extended time and the DNFs can be cause for other geocachers to avoid the trip to find them. It is best practice to periodically check on a cache. How often depends on the location. I don't think it is asking too much for the cache owner to go have a look after several years.

 

As a finder I find it much more rewarding to go for lonely caches that has not been found for some years (of course not with a long chain of DNFs) without knowing the present situation. Visiting a cache that has not been found for 2 years but with a recent note by the cache owner that the cache is there is like visiting a cache that has been found a week ago.

 

If cachers wish to avoid trips to caches that have not been found for a long time, they are free to do so. I do not care. By their choice they do not influence my caching experience.

 

My main concern is not related to cache maintenance duties. It's that I do not appreciate at all this tendency towards forcing cache owners to provide confirmation that a cache is there regularly. I see no need to encourage cachers to go for certain caches.

 

I also have days where I somehow prefer an almost guaranteed find but then I adapt my choice of caches for the day.

 

Your personal preferences are valid, but not relevant in this context.

 

Cache owners are expected to maintain their caches physically and online. Asking a cache owner to verify the placement after several years with no activity is not unreasonable.

[+L0ne.R]

 

4.9. Maintenance Emails from Geocaching HQ

 

Geocaching HQ sends emails to geocache owners when it appears that a geocache needs maintenance. The emails may result from any combination of logs, including Did Not Find (DNF's), Needs Maintenance (NM), Needs Archived (NA) or caches that have not been found in a long time.

 

Geocaching is more fun when caches are available to find. When hiding a cache, a geocacher must agree to the guidelines including "Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location."

 

These are your options if you receive one of these emails:

 

• Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find. Consider updating the description, hint and/or the Difficulty/Terrain rating if it appears that geocachers are having trouble finding it. If your cache was fine, please indicate so with the "Owner Maintenance" as well. The "Owner Maintenance" log cancels out any existing "Needs Maintenance" attributes on the cache page.
• Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
• Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

[cezanne]

Your personal preferences are valid, but not relevant in this context.

 

That's your judgement. I think it is very relevant.

 

The comment that some cachers avoid caches that have not found for a longer time and where there are no recent owner logs available is based on a personal preference too.

 

In this situation two different sorts of personal preferences clash with each other.

 

 

Cache owners are expected to maintain their caches physically and online. Asking a cache owner to verify the placement after several years with no activity is not unreasonable.

 

If at all, it would suffice to have a hidden log type only visible to reviewers. If cachers want to lie about a maintenance visit they could do in both systems, with visible and with unvisible maintenance logs.

 

It's just no true that knowing with a very high probability that everything is ok (because it has been ok a short while ago) increases necessarily the fun of geocaching. It just as well can decrease it.

Edited August 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

Your personal preferences are valid, but not relevant in this context.

 

That's your judgement. I think it is very relevant.

 

The comment that some cachers avoid caches that have not found for a longer time and where there are no recent owner logs available is based on a personal preference too.

 

In this situation two different sorts of personal preferences clash with each other.

 

 

Cache owners are expected to maintain their caches physically and online. Asking a cache owner to verify the placement after several years with no activity is not unreasonable.

 

If at all, it would suffice to have a hidden log type only visible to reviewers. If cachers want to lie about a maintenance visit they could do in both systems, with visible and with unvisible maintenance logs.

 

It's just no true that knowing with a very high probability that everything is ok (because it has been ok a short while ago) increases necessarily the fun of geocaching. It just as well can decrease it.

 

Ensuring that caches are in decent condition and available to find is really the absolute minimum expectation one can possibly have of a cache owner.

 

I realize that a very tiny minority of cachers enjoy the mystery of trekking out to a cache that hasn't been found in 8 years. That is not excuse for poor cache maintenance. Cache owners are expected to maintain their caches, regardless of your personal preferences.

[cezanne]

Ensuring that caches are in decent condition and available to find is really the absolute minimum expectation one can possibly have of a cache owner.

 

I realize that a very tiny minority of cachers enjoy the mystery of trekking out to a cache that hasn't been found in 8 years. That is not excuse for poor cache maintenance. Cache owners are expected to maintain their caches, regardless of your personal preferences.

 

Both (ensuring and maintaining) can be done without making the result available to the public. How large a proportion is is always a guess and there are many caches out there that are targeted only to a minority of cachers anyway.

 

There are also many cachers who enjoy hunting first to finds for challenging caches exactly because they do not know in advance that everything is alright.

Edited August 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

Ensuring that caches are in decent condition and available to find is really the absolute minimum expectation one can possibly have of a cache owner.

 

I realize that a very tiny minority of cachers enjoy the mystery of trekking out to a cache that hasn't been found in 8 years. That is not excuse for poor cache maintenance. Cache owners are expected to maintain their caches, regardless of your personal preferences.

 

Both (ensuring and maintaining) can be done without making the result available to the public. How large a proportion is is always a guess and there are many caches out there that are targeted only to a minority of cachers anyway.

 

There are also many cachers who enjoy hunting first to finds for challenging caches exactly because they do not know in advance that everything is alright.

 

If your personal preference is to find caches without knowing the condition of the cache, then don't read the cache page.

[+ODragon]

My opinion, is that a person who hasn't found the cache really shouldn't adopt it. How can the adopter know where/how it was hidden? In this case, brendan714, adopted 11 caches from the old days, my guess because he wanted to own old caches, whether to keep them alive or for the "honor" of owning old caches, who knows. Based on his unwillingness to actually check on them, I would guess the latter.

 

I checked a couple and he has never found, I see he did actually check on one...; wonder how many of the 11 he found. He might go look for them and still not find them as he didn't know where/how they were hidden, with the original still being there. Based on this page, 5 of the 11 are listed as Needs Maintenance. He didn't update all the pages of the current standards (Parking AW, Attributes, etc).

 

The one he did visit (I didn't bother checking them all), basically, he put out a throwdown in a new location so other than the GCcode and the date, what's left of the original...

 

All this above says to me that I have no issue with the reviewer disabling and asking for proof that the cache is in place. I would also hope he honors the intent of the original listing and archive them when they go missing rather than throwing down (what appears to be) crap replacements. Not all caches are meant to or can live forever. Its okay to archive them.

[+narcissa]

The one he did visit (I didn't bother checking them all), basically, he put out a throwdown in a new location so other than the GCcode and the date, what's left of the original...

 

This is uncharitable. The log indicates that the original location was destroyed. The cache was moved, but given the description of the damage, it really wasn't moved that far. I have found caches placed with iPhones that were more off than that.

 

Describing a replacement cache, placed by someone who has adopted the cache with consent from the original owner, as a "throwdown" is needlessly inflammatory.

 

Let's get back to the actual issue here. The fact remains that cache owners, adopted or original, are required to perform basic maintenance. It is not at all unreasonable to expect a new cache adopter to make the rounds out to check on caches that have not been found in years.

[cezanne]

If your personal preference is to find caches without knowing the condition of the cache, then don't read the cache page.

 

First, I of course want to know if there is for example a string of 20 DNFs. Second, not reading the description can be very dangerous for remote caches.

Third, my only way to get the coordinates is via the cache page.

 

What I wrote about is much more than about a personal preference. One of the most essential motivations for going for lonely caches is what I have mentioned. A cache that recently got checked is not really a lonely cache (well it counts for a challenge cache but it's more a lame choice) except when the challenge is the puzzle or finding the cache (which is not what the type of caches I had in mind when writing my posts are about).

Edited August 12, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

If your personal preference is to find caches without knowing the condition of the cache, then don't read the cache page.

 

First, I of course want to know if there is for example a string of 20 DNFs. Second, not reading the description can be very dangerous for remote caches.

Third, my only way to get the coordinates is via the cache page.

 

I can run pocket queries and never see a cache page.

 

What if I like the thrill of not knowing if there's a perilous drop or an angry grizzly bear at a cache? What if I don't want to be discouraged by 20 DNFs?

 

Obviously, cache listings should be coordinates only, no details, no maintenance notes, no logs, and no information whatsoever because that's how I like it. I can't resist looking at information that's there even if I don't want to know it, so nobody else should be able to see that information either.

[+Touchstone]

Third, my only way to get the coordinates is via the cache page.

 

Up to twenty LOC files can be downloaded from a search results page, after entering in the required CAPTCHA. Check the box to the right of the listings you want, and then check the "Download Waypoints" button at the bottom of the search page.

 

Link for reference:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=532

 

Downloading from the Search Result page, relieves you of the burden of reading the cache page and saves you a mouse click.

[+L0ne.R]

The OP has adopted 11 Ginette caches. I suspect not so much to keep remote caches alive, but to keep old cache codes alive. These caches were hidden in 2002. 5 of those caches have NM wrenches. It seems that the OP adopted these without visiting the caches.

 

Looking at one of the adopted caches more closely.....

 

 

GCH0TA

 

06/14/2007 First NM- "About 2 inches of water in this one."

 

09/23/2007 Replaced by a finder not the CO

 

03/26/2010 Broken container

 

05/31/2010 2nd NM

 

09/04/2011 - "The container is very cracked and broken with pieces falling out"

 

08/26/2012 - "After checking a few likely places and coming up empty, I put away my iphone and depended on my geosenses. I probably searched for about 20 minutes before I finally seen that blue lid of the container. The lid was cracked, the container was cracked and had a hole in it,and there had been mice running in and out of the container and using it as a bathroom. It was a good thing I had brought a replacement with me....I had looked at the hint and after finding the cache, it does not really make sense to me. For what it's worth the coords I had were N53° 02.356 W115° 26.064."

 

07/18/2013 - "Cache must have moved as it wasn't anywhere hint stated. Had left Licwid's coords in geo-mobile."

 

07/31/2013 DNF - "I am now looking at the cache page and seeing that Licwid posted better coordinates. If you are planning on coming here, make sure you use those. The owner of this cache needs to find out where the cache is and change the posted coordinates."

09/05/2015 - "I am on the road right now but the warning sign is very... prohibited..."

09/10/2015 - "The hint made no sense as to the hiding place. The coords I took were: N53 02.355 W115 26.060."

09/30/2015 - "used "Crafty Nana's" co-ords to locate this cache, but we probably should not have even tried for it. There is now a cell tower at the top of the hill, and the sign at the locked gate that says "No Tresspassing"."

03/04/2016 - OP adopts the cache but there's no mention of ever visiting it.

 

The hint and coordinates are not accurate. The cache has had a couple of throwdowns. The tower may have been replaced since 2002. A no trespassing sign went up in 2015.

Edited August 12, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+kunarion]

since when are one or two DNFs cause for alarm bells, especially when the DNFs are from beginners? In my opinion, the extended time period without any activity or DNFs should not matter.

DNFs alone, on a nicely hidden quality container in a quiet spot, should not trigger cache disabling.

 

But if the caches have NM logs with specific issues noted, and an inattentive Cache Owner, it should be no surprise when DNFs cause the caches to become disabled. Is there a history of cache problems?

Edited August 12, 2016 by kunarion

[+Touchstone]

It never ceases to amaze me why people bring these sorts of problems to the Forum, which actually INCREASES the scrutiny on the problem. With all the time and energy complaining about the situation, the OP could probably have checked on the caches by now and taken care of any issues.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Why is it that a lame urban hide can collect a dozen DNFs before the reviewer kicks into action, but an adventure hide in the back of beyond with only a single DNF in an otherwise quiet period spanning a few years will trigger a mandatory visit by the CO or the death of the listing?

 

A single DNF can force the CO to climb a mountain?!?

 

Who the [*] wants to hide interesting caches now?

 

Or log DNFs?

 

~~~

 

<aside>

Re the other cache mentioned as POSTED above (that's US terminology BTW), I can tell from here that the sign shouldn't be on the gate, but on the facility at the top. It happens.

</aside>

[cezanne]

Downloading from the Search Result page, relieves you of the burden of reading the cache page and saves you a mouse click.

 

Not really because there are many caches where not all waypoints are entered. Moreover, I often have situations where I need to enter the coordinates manually anyway and to do so I need to see them.

 

Reading the cache description is meaningful anyway, regardless of the waypoints.

[+narcissa]

Why is it that a lame urban hide can collect a dozen DNFs before the reviewer kicks into action, but an adventure hide in the back of beyond with only a single DNF in an otherwise quiet period spanning a few years will trigger a mandatory visit by the CO or the death of the listing?

 

A single DNF can force the CO to climb a mountain?!?

 

Who the [*] wants to hide interesting caches now?

 

Or log DNFs?

 

~~~

 

<aside>

Re the other cache mentioned as POSTED above (that's US terminology BTW), I can tell from here that the sign shouldn't be on the gate, but on the facility at the top. It happens.

</aside>

 

One would assume that it's the extended period of time with no activity, more than the DNF, that is the cause for concern. Asking a cache owner to check on a cache once a decade really isn't a huge burden.

[+cerberus1]

My opinion, is that a person who hasn't found the cache really shouldn't adopt it. How can the adopter know where/how it was hidden? In this case, brendan714, adopted 11 caches from the old days, my guess because he wanted to own old caches, whether to keep them alive or for the "honor" of owning old caches, who knows. Based on his unwillingness to actually check on them, I would guess the latter.

Similar I guess...

If I was to adopt a cache, whether I did or didn't visit, my first move would be to visit and check conditions.

Probably replace a container with a better quality one too, if needed.

Some of the really old ones are quite a bit off by todays standards, and I'd want to be sure everything was up to my standards if I'm gonna put my name on/adopt it.

 

To adopt caches and not even know first hand what it's condition, or even location is, just doesn't make sense to me.

[+kunarion]

I'd want to be sure everything was up to my standards if I'm gonna put my name on/adopt it.

 

To adopt caches and not even know first hand what it's condition, or even location is, just doesn't make sense to me.

+1

[+Viajero Perdido]

I can think of caches with NO activity for 7 or 8 years* that have been left in peace by the reviewer.

 

It seems to be that first - and sometimes only - DNF that's the beginning of the end.

 

This is SO wrong.

 

* And were in good condition. I know because I found them.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Viajero Perdido

[cezanne]

Probably replace a container with a better quality one too, if needed.

Some of the really old ones are quite a bit off by todays standards, and I'd want to be sure everything was up to my standards if I'm gonna put my name on/adopt it.

 

My ambition would be to keep very classic caches as close to its original set-up and to change as few as possible - otherwise a new cache is the much better option. There is no need to adopt any cache under your name - you can create a separate account which is recommendable anyway in my opinion.

 

When one adopts a cache, it should be a service to the community and not to have another cache that is like your own caches.

[+kunarion]

I can think of caches with NO activity for 7 or 8 years that have been left in peace by the reviewer.

 

It seems to be that first - and sometimes only - DNF that's the beginning of the end.

 

This is SO wrong.

Is the CO deleting all the NMs? Did someone attempt to find it and directly notify TPTB or the reviewer? We know that DNFs often are used as NM logs to describe cache problems, and this thread already brought up some of the really great reasons that a Cache Owner might delete DNFs. I'd approve of it not being left in peace if there's funny business going on, if there's actually been much cache activity in that 7 or 8 years... and denial.

 

If the cache is in fact still in fine shape, and especially if it in fact has no NM or similar issue, then in that instance, disabling (prep for archiving) would be wrong. I'd bet that the reviewer (or his Bot) has additional info that we don't see.

Edited August 12, 2016 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

Probably replace a container with a better quality one too, if needed.

Some of the really old ones are quite a bit off by todays standards, and I'd want to be sure everything was up to my standards if I'm gonna put my name on/adopt it.

 

My ambition would be to keep very classic caches as close to its original set-up and to change as few as possible - otherwise a new cache is the much better option. There is no need to adopt any cache under your name - you can create a separate account which is recommendable anyway in my opinion.

 

When one adopts a cache, it should be a service to the community and not to have another cache that is like your own caches.

Umm, maybe.

Every older (not adopted) cache I've found had a rusted cookie tin, wrapped in a black plastic garbage bag as the container.

I'd be swappin' that out for an ammo can, thanks.

- And on one, the great hint that's eroded over time (and the only way folks could find it) will have to be replaced by better coordinates.

That's a service to the community...

[+narcissa]

I can think of caches with NO activity for 7 or 8 years* that have been left in peace by the reviewer.

 

It seems to be that first - and sometimes only - DNF that's the beginning of the end.

 

This is SO wrong.

 

* And were in good condition. I know because I found them.

 

It isn't wrong to expect cache maintenance at a frequency of at least once a decade. It isn't wrong to expect a new cacher owner to check on his/her adopted caches.

[+ODragon]

The one he did visit (I didn't bother checking them all), basically, he put out a throwdown in a new location so other than the GCcode and the date, what's left of the original...

 

This is uncharitable. The log indicates that the original location was destroyed. The cache was moved, but given the description of the damage, it really wasn't moved that far. I have found caches placed with iPhones that were more off than that.

 

Describing a replacement cache, placed by someone who has adopted the cache with consent from the original owner, as a "throwdown" is needlessly inflammatory.

It could be looked at as inflammatory and uncharitable but it doesn't make it inaccurate.

 

Keeping an old cache because of the age/GC number but changing it isn't really the right thing to do. The old location (and most likely the container) are gone, he did his due diligence confirming it best he can with the tool he has. In that case, you archive the old cache because its history is gone. If you really love the location, you submit a new listing as an homage to the original. This is exactly the case why old caches aren't unarchive and adopted over to new cachers and why things like the APE caches weren't just replaced.

 

The location isn't the cache, the container/log/location is the cache. The since all three of those are being changed, one should start from scratch.

[+narcissa]

The one he did visit (I didn't bother checking them all), basically, he put out a throwdown in a new location so other than the GCcode and the date, what's left of the original...

 

This is uncharitable. The log indicates that the original location was destroyed. The cache was moved, but given the description of the damage, it really wasn't moved that far. I have found caches placed with iPhones that were more off than that.

 

Describing a replacement cache, placed by someone who has adopted the cache with consent from the original owner, as a "throwdown" is needlessly inflammatory.

It could be looked at as inflammatory and uncharitable but it doesn't make it inaccurate.

 

Keeping an old cache because of the age/GC number but changing it isn't really the right thing to do. The old location (and most likely the container) are gone, he did his due diligence confirming it best he can with the tool he has. In that case, you archive the old cache because its history is gone. If you really love the location, you submit a new listing as an homage to the original. This is exactly the case why old caches aren't unarchive and adopted over to new cachers and why things like the APE caches weren't just replaced.

 

The location isn't the cache, the container/log/location is the cache. The since all three of those are being changed, one should start from scratch.

 

That may be your preferred course of action but there's nothing in the guidelines that requires a cache adopter to follow this process.

 

The original owner consented to the adoption of the listing and the new owner is permitted to treat it as his own cache now. With large coordinate changes, there is usually reviewer approval required. It's up to the owner to decide if the change in location meaningfully affects the experience of the cache.

Edited August 12, 2016 by narcissa

[cezanne]

The location isn't the cache, the container/log/location is the cache. The since all three of those are being changed, one should start from scratch.

 

If I move the final of one of my caches (all multi stage) by a bit (e.g. because the old hideout got overgrown) and exchange the container and log book, I certainly do not start from scratch.

The cache is the whole route and all stages I show with my caches and not just a container.

[+Ringrat]

Several caches have disappeared recently in the southern BC Rockies too for the same reasons. Haven't been found in 6 or 7 years, and 1 or 2 DNFs that generally just indicated that the person had been turned around due to weather or been too tired to search or something. I was sad to see them go.

 

I have a strange conflict going on regarding these caches. I am generally in favour of caches that aren't being maintained with an unresponsive owner being archived. However, I find that my first instinct is a double standard. Roadside micro in bad shape? Make it go away. Backcountry cache that rarely gets found? My first reaction to an archival is sadness. If the owner isn't responsive anymore they're basically the same thing, but I sure have to force my brain into submission to admit that.

[+narcissa]

Several caches have disappeared recently in the southern BC Rockies too for the same reasons. Haven't been found in 6 or 7 years, and 1 or 2 DNFs that generally just indicated that the person had been turned around due to weather or been too tired to search or something. I was sad to see them go.

 

I have a strange conflict going on regarding these caches. I am generally in favour of caches that aren't being maintained with an unresponsive owner being archived. However, I find that my first instinct is a double standard. Roadside micro in bad shape? Make it go away. Backcountry cache that rarely gets found? My first reaction to an archival is sadness. If the owner isn't responsive anymore they're basically the same thing, but I sure have to force my brain into submission to admit that.

 

I hate to see those sorts of caches disappear too.

 

I find it disappointing that people are using such vicious language against this cacher who took the initiative to search out an inactive cacher so he could adopt these caches and save them from simply disappearing. Now that these caches are in the hands of an active owner, I hope he follows through by maintaining them.

[+DanOCan]

I hate to see those sorts of caches disappear too.

 

I find it disappointing that people are using such vicious language against this cacher who took the initiative to search out an inactive cacher so he could adopt these caches and save them from simply disappearing. Now that these caches are in the hands of an active owner, I hope he follows through by maintaining them.

Agreed. Having met the OP a few times, I know his motivation was to preserve these caches and I have no doubt he'll maintain them as time permits. Some of the caches certainly appear to have issues that justify a disabling but Groundspeak's approach of disabling remote caches after 1 or 2 DNFs and stretches of inactivity is very troubling to me.

[+Ringrat]

I find it disappointing that people are using such vicious language against this cacher who took the initiative to search out an inactive cacher so he could adopt these caches and save them from simply disappearing. Now that these caches are in the hands of an active owner, I hope he follows through by maintaining them.

 

Agreed. It's only been a few months since they were adopted and many of them will have only been seasonally available for the past couple of months. Combine that with the logistics of getting into some of them and I think it will take some time to get into all of them to do maintenance. I'm close enough to the OP's caching area to occasionally see new caches of his pop up in my notifications (wrong side of the mountain range, but still...) and these caches seem very much like his "type". Hopefully he's able to visit in order to keep them going.

[+L0ne.R]

Agreed. Having met the OP a few times, I know his motivation was to preserve these caches.

 

I expect that the OP is a nice guy, and sees value in his true motivation to preserve the GC code.

 

He hasn't come back to the forums to give us his maintenance plan for the adopted caches, in particular the one in question. He argues that he shouldn't have to check it, since it might be there, but he's never found it himself.

 

He is not doing himself any favours by fighting with the reviewer and enabling caches that were reviewer disabled with recent questionable enable logs (note he isn't using the OM log) "Visited several weeks ago. The cache is not in need of maintenance." If he really visited for the first time, I would think he'd include a more detailed log that talked about the adventure of visiting the mountaintop location for the first time and include photos to back up that he had actually made the trek up the mountain, found the cache and checked it.He has over 2000 photos in his gallery, mostly mountaintop photos, but oddly nothing of the Mount Chester Summit cache or the Cardinal Divide cache.

Edited August 12, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+narcissa]

I find it disappointing that people are using such vicious language against this cacher who took the initiative to search out an inactive cacher so he could adopt these caches and save them from simply disappearing. Now that these caches are in the hands of an active owner, I hope he follows through by maintaining them.

 

Agreed. It's only been a few months since they were adopted and many of them will have only been seasonally available for the past couple of months. Combine that with the logistics of getting into some of them and I think it will take some time to get into all of them to do maintenance. I'm close enough to the OP's caching area to occasionally see new caches of his pop up in my notifications (wrong side of the mountain range, but still...) and these caches seem very much like his "type". Hopefully he's able to visit in order to keep them going.

 

It would be to his benefit to take a good hard look at all of these caches and perhaps disable the ones that have some red flags, like no trespassing signs, until he can visit and confirm that permission for those placements still exists. It may be that there are alternate means of getting to the cache, or it could be that the land use has changed and the cache is no longer appropriate there.

 

It may take a while for him to get around to all of them, and I assume the reviewer will have some degree of patience. Checking on a remote mountain cache is a different beast than popping by to look at a guardrail micro. Reviewers are reasonable people, the key is communication.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Give the guy a chance. He started the thread less than 24 hours ago, and may have been away from the internet a few hours.

 

And now he's found out he has to climb a mountain because of a single DNF. That may have been a surprise to the summer plans!

 

~~~

 

I'm getting fed up with this game. Clearly they want to turn it into a smartphone sensation with millions of T1.5 dots to show in their app. [unprintable words]

Edited August 12, 2016 by Viajero Perdido

[+narcissa]

Agreed. Having met the OP a few times, I know his motivation was to preserve these caches.

 

I expect that the OP is a nice guy, and sees value in his true motivation to preserve the GC code.

 

He hasn't come back to the forums to give us his maintenance plan for the adopted caches, in particular the one in question. He argues that he shouldn't have to check it, since it might be there, but he's never found it himself.

 

He is not doing himself any favours by fighting with the reviewer and enabling caches that were reviewer disabled with recent questionable enable logs (note he isn't using the OM log) "Visited several weeks ago. The cache is not in need of maintenance." If he really visited for the first time, I would think he'd include a more detailed log that talked about the adventure of visiting the mountaintop location for the first time and include photos to back up that he had actually made the trek up the mountain, found the cache and checked it.He has over 2000 photos in his gallery, mostly mountaintop photos, but oddly nothing of the Mount Chester Summit cache or the Cardinal Divide cache.

 

Is the forensic examination of his profile really necessary? He doesn't owe the forum a maintenance plan. He needs to communicate with reviewers about the state of his caches.

[+brendan714]

It must be an automated thing, right? A script using some formula?

I did get an email from Geocaching HQ a few weeks ago but ignored it. I'm sure the reviewer also got the email and figured it needed to be disabled ASAP. There's more than meets the eye... all of the DNFers had fewer than 20 finds.

 

The reviewer behind the action definitely seems to be convinced that in such cases a cache check is in order which I do not agree with at all (to formulate it politely and not in the way I would do at another place).

The reviewer seems to be DEMANDING a physical check.

 

Looking at the caches you adopted, 5 have NM logs. Some have been fixed by cachers, one by the reviewer who updated bad coords. You need to clear the NM logs.

 

GCH0TA absolutely demands a visit. Logs call out the container as lidless and broken and the access to the cache as POSTED.

This is irrelevant to the topic. I know these caches need maintenance, and if I can find the time this year after I hand in my thesis I will go. The areas are far from home with poor road access and difficult hikes. It isn't down the block. It might take me a few months, but I'll get there.

 

The real question is, why did the reviewer disable the other two caches with the sole basis being one or two DNFs from inexperienced cachers?

 

The extended time and the DNFs can be cause for other geocachers to avoid the trip to find them. It is best practice to periodically check on a cache. How often depends on the location. I don't think it is asking too much for the cache owner to go have a look after several years. If the burden of cache maintenance is too much for you, perhaps there is another cache owner who can get out to them more easily.

These caches are so remote that checking up on them regularly (unless there's a very valid reason to do so) is nearly impossible. I'm not prepared to scramble up a challenging mountain for 10 hours (plus a 2 hour drive each way) just to confirm that a cache I placed is right where I left it in good condition. I am prepared to do this if a few experienced cachers DNF or indicate that it needs a new container, etc. (But most experienced backcountry cachers in my area know to bring containers to help with the maintenance on such caches)

 

A cache that has not been found in 5 years probably merits a check even without DNFs, especially if the current CO recently adopted them. Weather, wildlife, hunter theft, etc. can all effect remote caches.

See above. If it ain't broke (or recently reported to be broke), why fix it (or even check)?

 

My opinion, is that a person who hasn't found the cache really shouldn't adopt it. How can the adopter know where/how it was hidden? In this case, brendan714, adopted 11 caches from the old days, my guess because he wanted to own old caches, whether to keep them alive or for the "honor" of owning old caches, who knows. Based on his unwillingness to actually check on them, I would guess the latter.

 

I checked a couple and he has never found, I see he did actually check on one...; wonder how many of the 11 he found. He might go look for them and still not find them as he didn't know where/how they were hidden, with the original still being there. Based on this page, 5 of the 11 are listed as Needs Maintenance. He didn't update all the pages of the current standards (Parking AW, Attributes, etc).

 

The one he did visit (I didn't bother checking them all), basically, he put out a throwdown in a new location so other than the GCcode and the date, what's left of the original...

 

All this above says to me that I have no issue with the reviewer disabling and asking for proof that the cache is in place. I would also hope he honors the intent of the original listing and archive them when they go missing rather than throwing down (what appears to be) crap replacements. Not all caches are meant to or can live forever. Its okay to archive them.

Wow, it's people like this that make me glad I don't visit these forums more often. Makes my blood boil.

 

First point - the land managers in many of these areas are not permitting new geocaches, hence if they aren't adopted they are archived and lost forever.

 

Many of the caches I adopted are missing, broken or in otherwise not great shape. How can I find them beforehand? Also, why would I waste my time going to find, then go ahead and adopt, then return and replace? Why not adopt then visit and replace if needed? I have time set aside to visit the caches that need maintenance. But that's not the topic we're discussing. Why were those two caches disabled by the reviewer based on DNFs by newbie cachers?

 

I had ONE opportunity to adopt several caches from two different COs. They were very difficult to find and communicate with. I'm not going to say "oh wait, I have to go out and find them all first". I will remind you that these are all in the deep backcountry.

 

The Glacier Trail cache was NOT a "crap replacement", thank you very much. There was a forest fire and the area was trashed. I replaced the container with a waterproof cache above the seasonal flooding area. A larger cache would not survive in that area given that there's a river beside the cache site that floods.

 

The OP has adopted 11 Ginette caches. I suspect not so much to keep remote caches alive, but to keep old cache codes alive. These caches were hidden in 2002. 5 of those caches have NM wrenches. It seems that the OP adopted these without visiting the caches.

 

Looking at one of the adopted caches more closely.....

 

GCH0TA

 

06/14/2007 First NM- "About 2 inches of water in this one."

 

09/23/2007 Replaced by a finder not the CO

 

03/26/2010 Broken container

 

05/31/2010 2nd NM

 

09/04/2011 - "The container is very cracked and broken with pieces falling out"

 

08/26/2012 - "After checking a few likely places and coming up empty, I put away my iphone and depended on my geosenses. I probably searched for about 20 minutes before I finally seen that blue lid of the container. The lid was cracked, the container was cracked and had a hole in it,and there had been mice running in and out of the container and using it as a bathroom. It was a good thing I had brought a replacement with me....I had looked at the hint and after finding the cache, it does not really make sense to me. For what it's worth the coords I had were N53° 02.356 W115° 26.064."

 

07/18/2013 - "Cache must have moved as it wasn't anywhere hint stated. Had left Licwid's coords in geo-mobile."

 

07/31/2013 DNF - "I am now looking at the cache page and seeing that Licwid posted better coordinates. If you are planning on coming here, make sure you use those. The owner of this cache needs to find out where the cache is and change the posted coordinates."

09/05/2015 - "I am on the road right now but the warning sign is very... prohibited..."

09/10/2015 - "The hint made no sense as to the hiding place. The coords I took were: N53 02.355 W115 26.060."

09/30/2015 - "used "Crafty Nana's" co-ords to locate this cache, but we probably should not have even tried for it. There is now a cell tower at the top of the hill, and the sign at the locked gate that says "No Tresspassing"."

03/04/2016 - OP adopts the cache but there's no mention of ever visiting it.

 

The hint and coordinates are not accurate. The cache has had a couple of throwdowns. The tower may have been replaced since 2002. A no trespassing sign went up in 2015.

Irrelevant to the topic. See above. I realize these caches are in bad shape and will hopefully be visiting soon. This isn't addressing the question I'm asking.

 

Why is it that a lame urban hide can collect a dozen DNFs before the reviewer kicks into action, but an adventure hide in the back of beyond with only a single DNF in an otherwise quiet period spanning a few years will trigger a mandatory visit by the CO or the death of the listing?

 

A single DNF can force the CO to climb a mountain?!?

 

Who the [*] wants to hide interesting caches now?

 

Or log DNFs?

I agree, thank you.

 

Agreed. Having met the OP a few times, I know his motivation was to preserve these caches and I have no doubt he'll maintain them as time permits. Some of the caches certainly appear to have issues that justify a disabling but Groundspeak's approach of disabling remote caches after 1 or 2 DNFs and stretches of inactivity is very troubling to me.

Thank you Dan, I agree. It's the one-DNF-disable thing that troubles me.

 

Agreed. It's only been a few months since they were adopted and many of them will have only been seasonally available for the past couple of months. Combine that with the logistics of getting into some of them and I think it will take some time to get into all of them to do maintenance. I'm close enough to the OP's caching area to occasionally see new caches of his pop up in my notifications (wrong side of the mountain range, but still...) and these caches seem very much like his "type". Hopefully he's able to visit in order to keep them going.

Thank you Ringrat.