Jump to content

Reviewer is disabling my caches?


brendan714

Recommended Posts

assume that everyone who goes for such a cache checks the cache page anyway and does not need to be saved from going for a trip to such a cache

 

If we make this assumption, then perhaps we should also make the assumption that such a cache should not be listed as an active cache.

 

Why shouldn't such a cache which is there with a high probability (the cache mentioned here was perfectly fine anyway as it turned out at the occasion of the maintenance visit) not be listed as active cache?

 

I do not regard the activity status as indication of has been found or visited by the cache owner within the last months.

 

I agree that it makes sense that someone who owns a cache gets to know where the container is hidden, but that's a different matter and not related to the activity status.

 

What you are writing might point towards what Lone.R and others wants to see and which I strictly object to - a compulsory status report every year (or every x months) and an automatic disablement otherwise.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

And if someone adopts such a cache but has not yet visited it, then they should be happy to go check on it and experience the area for themselves.

 

When the OP eventually visited the location, spurred on by the reviewer's disable, the OM log had some valuable information and a lot of photos that will help the next finders. Including some interesting friction information with regards to the scree slope that needs to be climbed.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

assume that everyone who goes for such a cache checks the cache page anyway and does not need to be saved from going for a trip to such a cache

 

If we make this assumption, then perhaps we should also make the assumption that such a cache should not be listed as an active cache.

 

Why shouldn't such a cache which is there with a high probability (the cache mentioned here was perfectly fine anyway as it turned out at the occasion of the maintenance visit) not be listed as active cache?

 

I do not regard the activity status as indication of has been found or visited by the cache owner within the last months.

 

I agree that it makes sense that someone who owns a cache gets to know where the container is hidden, but that's a different matter and not related to the activity status.

 

What you are writing might point towards what Lone.R and others wants to see and which I strictly object to - a compulsory status report every year (or every x months) and an automatic disablement otherwise.

 

The cache went eight years before a reviewer asked for an update.

Link to comment

The cache went eight years before a reviewer asked for an update.

 

The question is just was it the eight years that played the essential role or rather a more and more tight approach (also as a result of the changed expectations of many cachers)? I rather suspect the latter but of course we both can only speculate.

 

Moreover, it's one thing to ask for an update and another to disable the cache. I have stressed that point before.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Moreover, it's one thing to ask for an update and another to disable the cache. I have stressed that point before.

 

This.

The only problem I see is that it may have been a mistake to ignore the automated email; and to provide reviewer pushback, which may have played into more stringent response on the bystander caches.

 

But, as the caches themselves stood, I certainly do not thing they warranted disabling to force a checkup run, even after 8 years.

Link to comment

The cache went eight years before a reviewer asked for an update.

 

The question is just was it the eight years that played the essential role or rather a more and more tight approach (also as a result of the changed expectations of many cachers)? I rather suspect the latter but of course we both can only speculate.

 

Moreover, it's one thing to ask for an update and another to disable the cache. I have stressed that point before.

 

I don't see why everyone is in such tears about it being disabled. It still appears in searches. If these remote mountain cachers are so keen on venturing to the unknown regardless of the condition of a cache, I don't think the disabling is going to stop them.

Link to comment

Disabled + 1 month = Archived.

 

Disabled + 1 month without communication with the reviewer = Archived.

 

Much of this fuss could have been averted if the cache owner had simply communicated with the reviewer instead of deleting the reviewer's notes and coming to the forum for sympathy.

Link to comment

I don't see why everyone is in such tears about it being disabled. It still appears in searches. If these remote mountain cachers are so keen on venturing to the unknown regardless of the condition of a cache, I don't think the disabling is going to stop them.

 

Based on that argument it could easily lead to having most of the caches I regard as interesting temporarily disabled (because they often do not get visited for more than a year). That's neither what I wish to arrive at from the cache owner's point of view nor from the cache searcher's point of view.

 

I think temporarily disabled should be reserved as a status for the cases where there is enough evidence, not just if there has not been a find log or owner maintenance log for a long time. That's matter of principle.

 

Furthermore, it's not only about reviewers and communicating with them because disabled caches are also a source for many cachers who never plan to visit remote caches and just create queries when they are bored and then send out N/A logs. They do not even look into the caches and treat all sorts of caches the same way, whether a urban 1/1 cache or a remote difficult to reach cache.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Your exactly right. A cache that gets 3 visits a year and is a day or two hike dosn't need to be maintained as often or as quickly. One that gets 50 or 100 visits a year needs more attention.

My point is you need to be willing and able to make that two day hike if the need arises.

 

I think you should visit your caches at least once a year regardless. Right off the bat the "long distance hiking" cachers and the "set it and forget it" cachers are ready to burn me at the stake for even hinting at such an idea.

Sort of, but only do to your hardline "once a year regardless" perspective. They don't disagree with maintenance or the sentiment, they disagree with the schedule. The inherent purpose of a "needs maintenance" log is well, to say the cache needs maintenance. Yes, it is a reactive system but that is what Groundspeak created because anything else would not work.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

Emphasis Mine. Occasional in many definitions means "occurring, appearing, or done infrequently and irregularly" and that's what many here advocate for...like when there is a potential problem identified through a found it, a DNF, or NM log... as you say "the need arises".

 

So back to the OP,

Again if there are no issues reported on the cache page what are the immediate maintenance requirements? Why is the reviewer arbitrarily imposing a maintenance visit?

 

I would think that the majority of caches are somewhat accessable to the cache owners so in my mind there is no reason not to visit your cache at least once a year.

 

I don't know about you but if I did adopt a cache (which I have) I would want to visit the site, know exactly where is was and what shape it was in. In my case I also re-applied for premission and let the land owner/manager know who I was and how to contact me if need be. This last part may seem excessive but I have great respect for other people's property.

 

Adopting a cache sight unseen to me is like buying a car based on a verbal discription.

Link to comment

I don't see why everyone is in such tears about it being disabled. It still appears in searches. If these remote mountain cachers are so keen on venturing to the unknown regardless of the condition of a cache, I don't think the disabling is going to stop them.

 

Based on that argument it could easily lead to having most of the caches I regard as interesting temporarily disabled (because they often do not get visited for more than a year). That's neither what I wish to arrive at from the cache owner's point of view nor from the cache searcher's point of view.

 

I think temporarily disabled should be reserved as a status for the cases where there is enough evidence, not just if there has not been a find log or owner maintenance log for a long time. That's matter of principle.

 

Furthermore, it's not only about reviewers and communicating with them because disabled caches are also a source for many cachers who never plan to visit remote caches and just create queries when they are bored and then send out N/A logs. They do not even look into the caches and treat all sorts of caches the same way, whether a urban 1/1 cache or a remote difficult to reach cache.

 

I didn't say anything about a one-year expectation for maintenance. I realize that this topic is upsetting to you, but falsely attributing arguments to people is not helpful.

Link to comment
instead of disabling the cache, a note or warning could have been posted. If disabled, anyone looking at it may believe there is a problem with the cache, not merely that it's time for a periodic checkup. Disabling in this case (no reported problem) is a little much. The CO has demonstrated (at least IMO from what I read in this thread) that they are willing to, and do, reasonable and responsible maintenance.

 

They are complaining that two caches which have no reported issues are being disabled (implying problems) requiring (ie, forcing) a maintenance run for it to continue to be listed in good order.

It's an unusual scenario. Most caches do not go eight years without a visit before being adopted by a cacher who has never visited them.

...which doesn't address the issue with disabling a non-problematic cache, which implyies there is a problem with the cache. Yes, it still shows on searches, but as being disabled; as in, not available to be found. Not "due for arbitrarily periodic owner verification".

 

The problem isn't that caches should be occasionally checked by the owner, the problem is about the disabling of a non-problematic cache.

Link to comment
instead of disabling the cache, a note or warning could have been posted. If disabled, anyone looking at it may believe there is a problem with the cache, not merely that it's time for a periodic checkup. Disabling in this case (no reported problem) is a little much. The CO has demonstrated (at least IMO from what I read in this thread) that they are willing to, and do, reasonable and responsible maintenance.

 

They are complaining that two caches which have no reported issues are being disabled (implying problems) requiring (ie, forcing) a maintenance run for it to continue to be listed in good order.

It's an unusual scenario. Most caches do not go eight years without a visit before being adopted by a cacher who has never visited them.

...which doesn't address the issue with disabling a non-problematic cache, which implyies there is a problem with the cache. Yes, it still shows on searches, but as being disabled; as in, not available to be found. Not "due for arbitrarily periodic owner verification".

 

The problem isn't that caches should be occasionally checked by the owner, the problem is about the disabling of a non-problematic cache.

 

After eight years in a remote place with no visitors, an original owner with a history of cache neglect, and a new owner who has never laid eyes on the cache (who freely admits that his own expectation is that the cache is merely a set of coordinates to which "finders" bring a container), it's a little far-fetched to say the cache is non-problematic. It's a complete unknown.

Link to comment

I didn't say anything about a one-year expectation for maintenance. I realize that this topic is upsetting to you, but falsely attributing arguments to people is not helpful.

 

I know that *you* did not say such things, however there are many cachers out there who argue along those or similar lines and if disabling of caches that are not problematic becomes something common and established (and that's my concern having experienced so many changes over the years) it will be a move towards what these people think and would like to have.

Link to comment

After eight years in a remote place with no visitors, an original owner with a history of cache neglect, and a new owner who has never laid eyes on the cache (who freely admits that his own expectation is that the cache is merely a set of coordinates to which "finders" bring a container), it's a little far-fetched to say the cache is non-problematic. It's a complete unknown.

 

Problem: There is a problem with the cache.

Unknown: There is no indication there is a problem with the cache.

Previous owner history is irrelevant. Irresponsible owner doesn't mean that every one of their caches are therefore problematic.

The disabled caches in question have no indication of problems, thus, not problematic.

Complete unknown? Post a note requesting current owner checkup in a timely manner. Disabling? Too much. Implies the cache is problematic.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

The cache went eight years before a reviewer asked for an update.

 

The question is just was it the eight years that played the essential role or rather a more and more tight approach (also as a result of the changed expectations of many cachers)? I rather suspect the latter but of course we both can only speculate.

 

Moreover, it's one thing to ask for an update and another to disable the cache. I have stressed that point before.

 

I don't see why everyone is in such tears about it being disabled. It still appears in searches. If these remote mountain cachers are so keen on venturing to the unknown regardless of the condition of a cache, I don't think the disabling is going to stop them.

 

I don't understand why you frequently throw out emotionally laden phrases such as "everyone is in such tears". What I see are a bunch of people discussing a cache or how caches are handled. The fact that some may be expressing opinions which differ from yours does not mean they are emotionally impacted at all by the outcome of the cache. Suggesting that people are emotionally attached to some aspect of how caches are managed dismisses their opinions as based on emotion rather than subjective

opinion or even fact.

Link to comment

Reviewer Note:

It's come to my attention that this geocache has been adopted by a new owner, and has no indication of any recent activity in the past 8 years. It would be beneficial for the current owner at some point in the near future to take a trip to the geocache to verify it is still in good working order, and verify that the trip experience and requirements are still reasonably represented by the cache listing description, ratings, and attributes.

Thank you!

~Your friendly neighbourhood volunteer reviewer

 

Public recognition of the lonely state of the cache, without implying that there is a problem with the cache.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I didn't say anything about a one-year expectation for maintenance. I realize that this topic is upsetting to you, but falsely attributing arguments to people is not helpful.

 

I know that *you* did not say such things, however there are many cachers out there who argue along those or similar lines and if disabling of caches that are not problematic becomes something common and established (and that's my concern having experienced so many changes over the years) it will be a move towards what these people think and would like to have.

 

I have argued all along, actually, that remote caches should be treated with more leniency than less remote caches.

 

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

Link to comment

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

Why is 8 years significant? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 1? Your 8 years is arbitrary. Fundamentally, there is no indicated problem with the cache. If GS wishes to enstate a maximum period of inactivity before a standard owner checkup, that's fine. As it stands, there is no such clause. The cache should not have been disabled.

Link to comment

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

Why is 8 years significant? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 1? Your 8 years is arbitrary. Fundamentally, there is no indicated problem with the cache. If GS wishes to enstate a maximum period of inactivity before a standard owner checkup, that's fine. As it stands, there is no such clause. The cache should not have been disabled.

 

The fact in this case is that it was eight years without activity. I suppose we could have a tedious conversation where we change the variables and discuss the hypothetical reasonability of every permutation, but I'd prefer to discuss the real geocache that is under discussion here.

Link to comment

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

Why is 8 years significant? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 1? Your 8 years is arbitrary. Fundamentally, there is no indicated problem with the cache. If GS wishes to enstate a maximum period of inactivity before a standard owner checkup, that's fine. As it stands, there is no such clause. The cache should not have been disabled.

 

The fact in this case is that it was eight years without activity. I suppose we could have a tedious conversation where we change the variables and discuss the hypothetical reasonability of every permutation, but I'd prefer to discuss the real geocache that is under discussion here.

Exactly.

So...

No indication of a problem in this case. No need to disable in this case. Per my prior quote, a different step would have been more appropriate in this case, as a way of encouraging an owner checkup without implying there was a problem with the cache.

Link to comment

I would think that the majority of caches are somewhat accessable to the cache owners so in my mind there is no reason not to visit your cache at least once a year.

 

I don't know about you but if I did adopt a cache (which I have) I would want to visit the site, know exactly where is was and what shape it was in. In my case I also re-applied for premission and let the land owner/manager know who I was and how to contact me if need be. This last part may seem excessive but I have great respect for other people's property.

 

Adopting a cache sight unseen to me is like buying a car based on a verbal discription.

We get it, your a good conscientious cache owner, but your approach to adopting a cache is not at issue.

 

At issue is the arbitrary disabling of a cache...

 

Fundamentally, there is no indicated problem with the cache. If GS wishes to enstate a maximum period of inactivity before a standard owner checkup, that's fine. As it stands, there is no such clause. The cache should not have been disabled.
Link to comment

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

Why is 8 years significant? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 1? Your 8 years is arbitrary. Fundamentally, there is no indicated problem with the cache. If GS wishes to enstate a maximum period of inactivity before a standard owner checkup, that's fine. As it stands, there is no such clause. The cache should not have been disabled.

 

The fact in this case is that it was eight years without activity. I suppose we could have a tedious conversation where we change the variables and discuss the hypothetical reasonability of every permutation, but I'd prefer to discuss the real geocache that is under discussion here.

Exactly.

So...

No indication of a problem in this case. No need to disable in this case. Per my prior quote, a different step would have been more appropriate in this case, as a way of encouraging an owner checkup without implying there was a problem with the cache.

 

Disabling the cache serves as a useful warning to potential finders that the cache is questionable.

 

Those intrepid mountaineers who don't care about frivolous details like whether or not the cache is there would not be deterred by it.

 

Since the cache had been long abandoned by its previous owner, requiring the new owner to show good faith by actually visiting it is not unreasonable. There have been some malicious suggestions that the new owner was merely adopting them for the GC code, and I have long objected to such a harsh characterization of the situation. After reading the absurd complaints about the very reasonable reviewer action that occurred here, I am led to wonder if perhaps that is the case after all.

Link to comment
Disabling the cache serves as a useful warning to potential finders that the cache is questionable.

No, it serves as an indication that the cache is unavailable to be found.

 

Those intrepid mountaineers who don't care about frivolous details like whether or not the cache is there would not be deterred by it.

Arbitrary, irrelevant. Disabling has a purpose and a meaning. Anyone can ignore anything if they so choose, that doesn't mean nothing is important.

 

Since the cache had been long abandoned by its previous owner,

No indication of that, let alone implying the cache is problematic.

 

requiring the new owner to show good faith by actually visiting it is not unreasonable.

Of course, and I don't believe anyone is disagreeing (apart from the arbitrary maximum time before the visit), thus my previous suggested reviewer action.

 

There have been some malicious suggestions that the new owner was merely adopting them for the GC code, and I have long objected to such a harsh characterization of the situation. After reading the absurd complaints about the very reasonable reviewer action that occurred here, I am led to wonder if perhaps that is the case after all.

How do opinions about controversial reviewer action have any bearing on the motivation for a user in adopting a cache?

Nothing has changed regarding the owner's actions. Nothing has indicated anything new regarding the caches in question that implied a problem with it leading to disabling.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I didn't say anything about a one-year expectation for maintenance. I realize that this topic is upsetting to you, but falsely attributing arguments to people is not helpful.

 

I know that *you* did not say such things, however there are many cachers out there who argue along those or similar lines and if disabling of caches that are not problematic becomes something common and established (and that's my concern having experienced so many changes over the years) it will be a move towards what these people think and would like to have.

 

I have argued all along, actually, that remote caches should be treated with more leniency than less remote caches.

 

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

 

Exactly.

 

And a new owner who never found the cache himself.

Which points out a flaw in the adoption system. The new owner should have at least found the cache himself and live within a reasonable distance.

Maybe there should be reviewer intervention during the adoption process.

 

Link to comment

And a new owner who never found the cache himself.

Which points out a flaw in the adoption system. The new owner should have at least found the cache himself and live within a reasonable distance.

Maybe there should be reviewer intervention during the adoption process.

That I could get behind as a way of working towards this not happening again. I did think it odd that a non-finder was able to adopt the cache, and a very difficult/weighty cache at that. (doesn't change my opinion about disabling though, as that's a different problem)

Link to comment

I didn't say anything about a one-year expectation for maintenance. I realize that this topic is upsetting to you, but falsely attributing arguments to people is not helpful.

 

I know that *you* did not say such things, however there are many cachers out there who argue along those or similar lines and if disabling of caches that are not problematic becomes something common and established (and that's my concern having experienced so many changes over the years) it will be a move towards what these people think and would like to have.

 

I have argued all along, actually, that remote caches should be treated with more leniency than less remote caches.

 

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

 

Exactly.

 

And a new owner who never found the cache himself.

Which points out a flaw in the adoption system. The new owner should have at least found the cache himself and live within a reasonable distance.

Maybe there should be reviewer intervention during the adoption process.

 

I don't think every last little thing needs to be enshrined in the guidelines. There needs to be some room for reviewer discretion. It's not surprising to me that the reviewer was watching closely enough to notice that something was going on with these long-neglected caches, and I'm glad that the reviewer stepped in and took charge of the situation. It's such a unique scenario that it really underscores exactly why the reviewers have that room to make judgment calls based on specific situations.

 

Really, the fact that they were left alone until the adoption tells me that reviewers are, more or less, not bothering with totally unknown caches and only take notice when there is some kind of activity on the cache page. That seems more than reasonable.

 

With a remote cache like this, it's pretty hard to set a standard for "reasonable distance." The cache owner does seem to be an accomplishment mountain hiker, so I don't think that's really the issue at all.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Which points out a flaw in the adoption system. The new owner should have at least found the cache himself and live within a reasonable distance.

 

I do not agree. There are many situations where someone or a group want(s) to adopt a cache under a different account. It's not the reviewers' business who adopts a cache as long the cache is treated properly. The person who adopts out a cache should make a reasonable choice.

 

I never ever would want to adopt a cache under my account and own a cache for which at the same time I have logged a find and I would not want to take over the FPs of caches which are not my own. There are many cases however where adoption makes sense. It does not make sense to archive say a 20km hiking cache which shows a 20km trail and then establish another new cache with exactly the same goal. (That's just one example.)

 

Asking that someone lives within reasonable distance could mean that in the nicest areas for caches there are no caches at all which is not what I would want. In my experience those who love to go for such caches are willing to accept that remote caches cannot be judged with the same principles than easy to reach caches and those who will never ever go for such caches should not care - it's not their business.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
It's not surprising to me that the reviewer was watching closely enough to notice that something was going on with these long-neglected caches, and I'm glad that the reviewer stepped in and took charge of the situation.

 

Could you explain exactly what you think was "going on?" If "lack of being found" == "something going on," then you have effectively turned a lack of action into an action.

 

While I agree that the CO should have responded in a much better way to the reviewer, I also believe that the reviewer went too far in concluding that something was "going on" that needed to be addressed. As we have seen from the recent log, nothing was "going on" with that cache, which was still in fine shape where it had been hidden.

 

I'd much prefer that if reviewers are going to intervene, they concentrate more on NA logs and less on proactively looking for things "going on."

Link to comment

I don't see why everyone is in such tears about it being disabled. It still appears in searches.

And I don't see why everyone is in such tears about the possibility of someone looking for the cache and it not being there, since that's the only reason to disable it.

 

If these remote mountain cachers are so keen on venturing to the unknown regardless of the condition of a cache, I don't think the disabling is going to stop them.

What?! Of course being disabled is going to stop them. Unlike the problems you're concocting in your imagination out of whole cloth based on it being an adopted cache not found for 8 years, a disable signifies a real problem that a seeker would be crazy to ignore.

 

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

How do you know it went unfound? Just because no one logged it? How do you know it wasn't checked twice a year for all that time. I know lots of COs that don't file logs announcing health checks unless there's a reported problem.

Link to comment
It's not surprising to me that the reviewer was watching closely enough to notice that something was going on with these long-neglected caches, and I'm glad that the reviewer stepped in and took charge of the situation.

 

Could you explain exactly what you think was "going on?" If "lack of being found" == "something going on," then you have effectively turned a lack of action into an action.

 

While I agree that the CO should have responded in a much better way to the reviewer, I also believe that the reviewer went too far in concluding that something was "going on" that needed to be addressed. As we have seen from the recent log, nothing was "going on" with that cache, which was still in fine shape where it had been hidden.

 

I'd much prefer that if reviewers are going to intervene, they concentrate more on NA logs and less on proactively looking for things "going on."

Except the biggest problem is people not logging NA logs. It is even hard to get them to log NM.

Link to comment

I would think that the majority of caches are somewhat accessable to the cache owners so in my mind there is no reason not to visit your cache at least once a year.

 

I don't know about you but if I did adopt a cache (which I have) I would want to visit the site, know exactly where is was and what shape it was in. In my case I also re-applied for premission and let the land owner/manager know who I was and how to contact me if need be. This last part may seem excessive but I have great respect for other people's property.

 

Adopting a cache sight unseen to me is like buying a car based on a verbal discription.

We get it, your a good conscientious cache owner, but your approach to adopting a cache is not at issue.

 

At issue is the arbitrary disabling of a cache...

 

Fundamentally, there is no indicated problem with the cache. If GS wishes to enstate a maximum period of inactivity before a standard owner checkup, that's fine. As it stands, there is no such clause. The cache should not have been disabled.

 

Your right, I am a good conscientious cache owner as I'm sure you are.

 

Any time you adopt a cache I would think you would want to preform your own on it, or at least visit the site and know what the cache looks like and whats actuly inside, right?

 

Maybe the reviewer wants to make sure this new cache owner is serious about owning this cache. They are refusing to preform a reviewers request for maintanance. How are they going to react to a lowley cacher who posts a N/M? Again why would you adopt a cache then drag your feet on maintanance? Maybe because you can't be bothered?

 

Preform the requested maintanance and move on. archive the cache or let someone else who's serious about owning it adopt it.

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

Preform the requested maintanance and move on. archive the cache or let someone else who's serious about owning it adopt it.

There is no "requested maintenance". The reviewer is demanding that the CO visit the cache to see if, just possibly, it might need maintenance.

 

Maybe the reviewer wants to make sure this new cache owner is serious about owning this cache. They are refusing to preform a reviewers request for maintanance. How are they going to react to a lowley cacher who posts a N/M? Again why would you adopt a cache then drag your feet on maintanance? Maybe because you can't be bothered?

Sheesh. Your entirely unsupportable accusations are outrageous.

Link to comment
Maybe the reviewer wants to make sure this new cache owner is serious about owning this cache.

 

You're kidding, right? The reviewers regularly approve caches for owners who have hundreds of poorly-maintained caches. There is no requirement that your caches need to be up-to-date to hide a new one. Why would this case be any different?

Link to comment

I don't see why everyone is in such tears about it being disabled. It still appears in searches.

And I don't see why everyone is in such tears about the possibility of someone looking for the cache and it not being there, since that's the only reason to disable it.

 

If these remote mountain cachers are so keen on venturing to the unknown regardless of the condition of a cache, I don't think the disabling is going to stop them.

What?! Of course being disabled is going to stop them. Unlike the problems you're concocting in your imagination out of whole cloth based on it being an adopted cache not found for 8 years, a disable signifies a real problem that a seeker would be crazy to ignore.

 

The cache we are discussing went unfound for eight years. Let's stop acting like this is some sort of unreasonable travesty. Eight years.

How do you know it went unfound? Just because no one logged it? How do you know it wasn't checked twice a year for all that time. I know lots of COs that don't file logs announcing health checks unless there's a reported problem.

 

One of the avid mountaineers in this thread had a great big tangent about how the condition of a cache doesn't deter them from visiting it. Another one very explicitly stated that mountain cache visitors are expected to bring the cache with them when they go. Can the people arguing against this alleged injustice please try to get on the same page with these diatribes or at least point them in a direction that makes sense?

Link to comment
It's not surprising to me that the reviewer was watching closely enough to notice that something was going on with these long-neglected caches, and I'm glad that the reviewer stepped in and took charge of the situation.

 

Could you explain exactly what you think was "going on?" If "lack of being found" == "something going on," then you have effectively turned a lack of action into an action.

 

While I agree that the CO should have responded in a much better way to the reviewer, I also believe that the reviewer went too far in concluding that something was "going on" that needed to be addressed. As we have seen from the recent log, nothing was "going on" with that cache, which was still in fine shape where it had been hidden.

 

I'd much prefer that if reviewers are going to intervene, they concentrate more on NA logs and less on proactively looking for things "going on."

 

I'd prefer it if reviewers weren't asked to make nonsensical binary choices when their role actually encompasses a broad variety of tasks that they can do virtually simultaneously.

Link to comment
I'd prefer it if reviewers weren't asked to make nonsensical binary choices when their role actually encompasses a broad variety of tasks that they can do virtually simultaneously.

 

The reviewers are not tasked to do anything but approve caches. Anything further cannot be done at the behest of Groundspeak, and is their own choice. If it were otherwise, it would be illegal.

Link to comment
I'd prefer it if reviewers weren't asked to make nonsensical binary choices when their role actually encompasses a broad variety of tasks that they can do virtually simultaneously.

 

The reviewers are not tasked to do anything but approve caches. Anything further cannot be done at the behest of Groundspeak, and is their own choice. If it were otherwise, it would be illegal.

 

Okay.

Link to comment
Another one very explicitly stated that mountain cache visitors are expected to bring the cache with them when they go.

There is an informal custom, a courtesy, of carrying spare cache containers in these parts when visiting remote caches. I don't remember the poster ever saying it was "expected". Customary, maybe. Courteous, yes.

 

Really beside the point given the original context but thank you for underscoring that these apparently aren't actual geocaches so much as they are bring-your-own-container waypoints on mountaintops. I suppose that explains the earlier claim that mountain caches need no maintenance. If it was closer to sea level everyone would be up in arms about throwdowns and absentee owners.

 

It's been an eye-opening thread for me. I used to have some fancy notion that these remote caches were a better version of the game, but apparently it's all the same garbage no matter how far off the beaten path you go.

Link to comment

Really beside the point given the original context but thank you for underscoring that these apparently aren't actual geocaches so much as they are bring-your-own-container waypoints on mountaintops. I suppose that explains the earlier claim that mountain caches need no maintenance. If it was closer to sea level everyone would be up in arms about throwdowns and absentee owners.

 

It's been an eye-opening thread for me. I used to have some fancy notion that these remote caches were a better version of the game, but apparently it's all the same garbage no matter how far off the beaten path you go.

 

I wonder why you automatically deduce that bringing spare containers must mean leaving throwdowns. What about changing a container in case something unexpected happened?

 

I have never ever left a throwdown and none of my caches has been affected by a throwdown. I had sometimes help by someone who exchanged the container or log book (after prior consultation with me and I did the same for others and I think that this is perfectly ok for all kinds of caches, also for mountain caches (not all of them by the way are remote).

 

There is of course no cache that never could come in the need of maintenance. It's just that an ammo can in a suitably chosen remote location will on average need much less maintenance than say an urban stealth nano/micro. Morever the traffic to such caches cannot be measured by the numbers applied to more busy caches. It does not mean anything if a difficult to reach cache does not receive logs for 3 years.

Link to comment

I have seen many get disabled even with few finds and dnfs by inexperienced cachers. But think of nature. Weather, fires, animals and natural changes can make a cache disappear or be more hidden.

 

Of course that can happen but I still see no reason why a cache owner should regularly visit a cache without any evidence that there might be an issue. In what I wrote above I stressed the part where I talked about the non-exceptional cases.

 

In the case you describe below

 

I went for a cache once in Washington. It was suppose to be near a waterfall with a nice path taking you there. But when I got there, there had been a super storm the year before. Which caused a very large amount trees to have been weakened and fell like matchsticks over miles of wilderness. The road I was suppose to take was no longer there and I had to take another road for another 9 miles to get close enough. Some loggers were blasting trees in the area. I had to climb over big fallen trees. No path left to go on, and I could hear the falls but couldn't see it through the avalanche of trees. I got to what might be a drop off into emptiness but I was still about 50ft to go. If the cache was there still, it would be impossible to get to it let alone find it through that many trees.

 

It would suffice to temporarily disable the cache and go have a look when it fits. What you experienced can always happen and I do not see it as an issue that needs to be avoided upfront.

What some people here seem to suggest is that they wish that cache owners regularly check their caches just to reduce the risk that someone will fail as much as possible. In my opinion, failures are part of geocaching.

I am not suggesting regular visits but if it had a dnf it shouldn't matter if it was a beginner or not. I would suggest maybe too contact the cacher who dnf'd it and ask if there is a problem with the location. I don't always run after every dnf, but there are times when I may want to see why my cache is having a problem.

Link to comment
Maybe the reviewer wants to make sure this new cache owner is serious about owning this cache.

 

You're kidding, right? The reviewers regularly approve caches for owners who have hundreds of poorly-maintained caches. There is no requirement that your caches need to be up-to-date to hide a new one. Why would this case be any different?

 

Maybe reviewers should look at past history of cache maintenance before approving new requests. If that's what's happening here than it's a good thing and a step in the right direction.

Link to comment

Really beside the point given the original context but thank you for underscoring that these apparently aren't actual geocaches so much as they are bring-your-own-container waypoints on mountaintops. I suppose that explains the earlier claim that mountain caches need no maintenance. If it was closer to sea level everyone would be up in arms about throwdowns and absentee owners.

 

It's been an eye-opening thread for me. I used to have some fancy notion that these remote caches were a better version of the game, but apparently it's all the same garbage no matter how far off the beaten path you go.

 

I wonder why you automatically deduce that bringing spare containers must mean leaving throwdowns. What about changing a container in case something unexpected happened?

 

I have never ever left a throwdown and none of my caches has been affected by a throwdown. I had sometimes help by someone who exchanged the container or log book (after prior consultation with me and I did the same for others and I think that this is perfectly ok for all kinds of caches, also for mountain caches (not all of them by the way are remote).

 

There is of course no cache that never could come in the need of maintenance. It's just that an ammo can in a suitably chosen remote location will on average need much less maintenance than say an urban stealth nano/micro. Morever the traffic to such caches cannot be measured by the numbers applied to more busy caches. It does not mean anything if a difficult to reach cache does not receive logs for 3 years.

 

It does not appear that reviewers are holding these caches to a standard that is anywhere close to a busier cache.

Link to comment

Which points out a flaw in the adoption system. The new owner should have at least found the cache himself and live within a reasonable distance.

 

I do not agree. There are many situations where someone or a group want(s) to adopt a cache under a different account. It's not the reviewers' business who adopts a cache as long the cache is treated properly. The person who adopts out a cache should make a reasonable choice.

 

I agree with Lone.R. If someone wants to place a new cache a long way from home a reviewer may ask for a viable maintenance plan. If someone adopts a cache a long way from home, they don't have to provide a maintenance plan.

Link to comment

Preform the requested maintanance and move on. archive the cache or let someone else who's serious about owning it adopt it.

There is no "requested maintenance". The reviewer is demanding that the CO visit the cache to see if, just possibly, it might need maintenance.

 

Maybe the reviewer wants to make sure this new cache owner is serious about owning this cache. They are refusing to preform a reviewers request for maintanance. How are they going to react to a lowley cacher who posts a N/M? Again why would you adopt a cache then drag your feet on maintanance? Maybe because you can't be bothered?

Sheesh. Your entirely unsupportable accusations are outrageous.

 

That's why I used the word "maybe". On there own the circumstances would dictate a visit to the cache by the new owner. This is a speculation not an accusation. Based on the previous post by Isonzo Karst it seems like there is an issue with adopted caches being maintained by this owner. A reviewer should take this into consideration before approving.

 

Why do you think the reviewer is taking this action?

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

Which points out a flaw in the adoption system. The new owner should have at least found the cache himself and live within a reasonable distance.

 

I do not agree. There are many situations where someone or a group want(s) to adopt a cache under a different account. It's not the reviewers' business who adopts a cache as long the cache is treated properly. The person who adopts out a cache should make a reasonable choice.

 

I agree with Lone.R. If someone wants to place a new cache a long way from home a reviewer may ask for a viable maintenance plan. If someone adopts a cache a long way from home, they don't have to provide a maintenance plan.

 

Typically no cachers live close (of course that's a matter of definition) to remote caches - so it's a long way to go also for the original hiders. To clarify, it does not make sense to me if someone living 300km away adopts a cache when much more suitable adopters would exist.

I'm just against this trend to urge for very quick maintenance and a restriction to easily reachable caches.

 

Moreover, if you agree with Lone.R then you also agree to the first part of her statement and with what it implies namely that it would not suffice to provide home coordinates for the adoption account but one would need full disclosure of who's behind or force people to use their main account neither of which I regard as acceptable. I'd say that the price we have to pay for more flexibility is not that high - if really issues arise with the maintenance of adopted caches, one handle those in the same way as any maintenance issues.

 

I simply think that it is wrong if people who never go out for long hikes, determine which caches the people who like such hikes can find on their hikes (or in the worst case determine whether they can find any caches at all).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

One of the avid mountaineers in this thread had a great big tangent about how the condition of a cache doesn't deter them from visiting it. Another one very explicitly stated that mountain cache visitors are expected to bring the cache with them when they go. Can the people arguing against this alleged injustice please try to get on the same page with these diatribes or at least point them in a direction that makes sense?

I don't understand. Everything you're saying about "avid mountaineers" is entirely consistent with the position that the cache shouldn't be disabled.

Link to comment

One of the avid mountaineers in this thread had a great big tangent about how the condition of a cache doesn't deter them from visiting it. Another one very explicitly stated that mountain cache visitors are expected to bring the cache with them when they go. Can the people arguing against this alleged injustice please try to get on the same page with these diatribes or at least point them in a direction that makes sense?

I don't understand. Everything you're saying about "avid mountaineers" is entirely consistent with the position that the cache shouldn't be disabled.

 

Your earlier point (which is that geocachers see a disabled cache, assume that it's had something terrible happen to it, and look no further) seems to contradict other claims that mountain geocachers do not care about the condition or even the presence of the geocache in the first place, since they intend to bring a cache with them anyway.

 

I don't see any reason, beyond sentimentality, why these geocaches actually should be treated much differently than others. It is clear that these cache owners are already granted a considerable amount of leeway for behaviour that wouldn't fly anywhere else, but that's just not good enough, apparently.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...