Keyword: Mold

[+Manville Possum]

I am both a lawyer AND a Groundspeak Volunteer.

 

There has to be a joke in there. Which position receives less love?

 

A lawyer and a Groundspeak Reviewer walk into a bar.

 

They see a dog lying in the corner licking himself. The reviewer turns to the lawyer and says, "Boy, I wish I could do that."

 

The lawyer replies, “You’d better try petting him first.”

 

I'm told that some reviewers are dogs

Edited April 29, 2017 by Manville Possum

[+redsox_mark]

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

 

But there wasn't any mold.

 

Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point.

 

How do you know there wasn't mold? Given that the cache was frequently wet for years, there's an excellent chance that there was mold.

 

Fair enough. I don't know if there was mold or not. Any cache can have mold. But there is no log saying there is mold, and there is a log saying there isn't mold.

 

All I know is:

 

1. The reviewer note says the cache was disabled because of the keyword mold being found in logs.

2. The word mold in the cache logs was not related to the cache.

3. The log from the cacher who was with the owner when they replaced the cache says there was no mold.

 

Maybe once this cache was flagged by the word "mold" the reviewer looked at the complete history and decided it was best to disable it for reasons other than the keyword=mold, but didn't say that in their log.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

 

But there wasn't any mold.

 

Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point.

 

How do you know there wasn't mold? Given that the cache was frequently wet for years, there's an excellent chance that there was mold.

 

Fair enough. I don't know if there was mold or not. Any cache can have mold. But there is no log saying there is mold, and there is a log saying there isn't mold.

 

All I know is:

 

1. The reviewer note says the cache was disabled because of the keyword mold being found in logs.

2. The word mold in the cache logs was not related to the cache.

3. The log from the cacher who was with the owner when they replaced the cache says there was no mold.

 

Maybe once this cache was flagged by the word "mold" the reviewer looked at the complete history and decided it was best to disable it for reasons other than the keyword=mold, but didn't say that in their log.

 

Agree... I know that they're unpaid volunteers so I don't criticize them.. but I'd hope that they would look into the log thread before taking any action. I'm sure that they do. Maybe there are a few cases where they didn't research past logs but I'm confident that's a minority of the cases...

[+WearyTraveler]

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

 

But there wasn't any mold.

 

Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point.

 

How do you know there wasn't mold? Given that the cache was frequently wet for years, there's an excellent chance that there was mold.

 

Mold doesn't disappear- it stays. At least in the caches I've found and the basement I sold...

 

If there _was_ mold, and I'm not saying there was in this case, then there will still be mold, unless someone replaced the log or did whatever maintenance was needed.

 

Now - if a log contained something like "I'd like to use a jelly mold to make a shape like that" I would hope that the reviewer would at least read it before zapping the cache. As I said in a prev log, I'm sure that most do.

[+The_Incredibles_]

My opinion is no action should have been taken, given that only 1 log reported mold. It's pretty common for people to get confused about which cache was which. I live in an area where a good portion of the caches are damp inside. But they do tend to dry out in the summer.

 

I wait for at least 2-3 logs for confirmation before I run out and check on a cache. I think, in most cases, when reviewers are going to get involved in a cache, they should wait for similar confirmation.

 

It's happened more than once that I've disabled a cache thinking it was missing and I go there and it's exactly where it should be. Waste of time for all involved.

Edited May 1, 2017 by The_Incredibles_

[+Dame Deco]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first. Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Dame Deco

[+Team DEMP]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

 

Maybe reread the thread as I recall, and I'm on my phone so it's not easy to reference, one of the archives was triggered by the word mold but not because there was mold in the cache but logs (wooden) were moldy. At least just before I stopped reading every thread update that is what was posted.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first. Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

 

I completely agree.

 

The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable:

"Very very wet!"

"Definitely soggy"

The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February:

"Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed"

The next and most current log in April:

"Found nothing but an old log book in a ziplock (see pic) under a log. It had many signatures in it so it is not from the new replacement. It was too soggy to even sign. Cannot find any sign of the new cache in the area. Checked all of the obvious places in the area and some not so obvious. Replaced the logbook back under the log."

I'm floored that anyone is arguing that this cache should not have been disabled, just because the word mold referred to a tree log and not the wet unsignable logsheet.

And it looks like the owner didn't actually replace their cache. If they did, where did they hide it? Why didn't they remove the old log in a baggie? Why would a seasoned cacher not find the D1.5 new cache but found a log in a baggie at ground zero? And why hasn't the owner responded to the last 2 logs after the OM.

 

Some have no problem with the lack of maintenance, but are all up in arms because I reviewer discovered and disabled this cache. Wow.

 

[+L0ne.R]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

 

Maybe reread the thread as I recall, and I'm on my phone so it's not easy to reference, one of the archives was triggered by the word mold but not because there was mold in the cache but logs (wooden) were moldy. At least just before I stopped reading every thread update that is what was posted.

 

That cache you refer to is still active. See my last post.

[+dprovan]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you?

I want to give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt. They have a hard job and, as far as I've seen, they all, including this one, do it incredibly well. But in this case, there's not really any room for doubt. Look at the cache log. How could anyone reasonably conclude the cache should be archived if they read that cache's logs? This one log saying "Needs some TLC getting very moldy inside!" is this only complaint, and it's on a find log. Literally, the only complaint going back as far as I looked, which was the owner visit 4 years ago. That one complaint is not even enough to log an NM on, let alone archive the cache entirely. I have no doubt the reviewer's great at his job, but he seems to have goofed up this time.

 

I'm not complaining about the reviewer. I'm complaining about the automated process he used.

 

And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first.

Again, he archived the cache. The fact that he went through the standard step of disabling it first is irrelevant. But if you want to claim he didn't decide to archive the cache based on "mold", then let me point out that the disable isn't reasonable even when taken by itself. The person talking about mold found the cache and, apparently, signed the log without any trouble, so from all appearances, the cache is still functional. It makes no sense to disable it.

 

The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable:

"Very very wet!"

"Definitely soggy"

The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February:

"Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed"

...

This is a different cache. The cache the OP is talking about has no logs like that. It just has the one find log that suggests some TLC after 4 years (at least) without a single complaint. That's not enough to act on even before you consider The_Incredibles_'s point that this one log could easily have been posted by someone that got confused about which cache was which.

[+justintim1999]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you?

I want to give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt. They have a hard job and, as far as I've seen, they all, including this one, do it incredibly well. But in this case, there's not really any room for doubt. Look at the cache log. How could anyone reasonably conclude the cache should be archived if they read that cache's logs? This one log saying "Needs some TLC getting very moldy inside!" is this only complaint, and it's on a find log. Literally, the only complaint going back as far as I looked, which was the owner visit 4 years ago. That one complaint is not even enough to log an NM on, let alone archive the cache entirely. I have no doubt the reviewer's great at his job, but he seems to have goofed up this time.

 

I'm not complaining about the reviewer. I'm complaining about the automated process he used.

 

And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first.

Again, he archived the cache. The fact that he went through the standard step of disabling it first is irrelevant. But if you want to claim he didn't decide to archive the cache based on "mold", then let me point out that the disable isn't reasonable even when taken by itself. The person talking about mold found the cache and, apparently, signed the log without any trouble, so from all appearances, the cache is still functional. It makes no sense to disable it.

 

The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable:

"Very very wet!"

"Definitely soggy"

The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February:

"Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed"

...

This is a different cache. The cache the OP is talking about has no logs like that. It just has the one find log that suggests some TLC after 4 years (at least) without a single complaint. That's not enough to act on even before you consider The_Incredibles_'s point that this one log could easily have been posted by someone that got confused about which cache was which.

 

Can an automated process disable a cache or is that something only a reviewer can do manually?

 

Lets get past the fact that the cache was disabled for what ever reason. Why did the cache owner allow the cache to be disabled then subsequently archived?

 

What would you do if a reviewer disabled one of your caches?

[+narcissa]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first. Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

 

I completely agree.

 

The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable:

"Very very wet!"

"Definitely soggy"

The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February:

"Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed"

The next and most current log in April:

"Found nothing but an old log book in a ziplock (see pic) under a log. It had many signatures in it so it is not from the new replacement. It was too soggy to even sign. Cannot find any sign of the new cache in the area. Checked all of the obvious places in the area and some not so obvious. Replaced the logbook back under the log."

I'm floored that anyone is arguing that this cache should not have been disabled, just because the word mold referred to a tree log and not the wet unsignable logsheet.

And it looks like the owner didn't actually replace their cache. If they did, where did they hide it? Why didn't they remove the old log in a baggie? Why would a seasoned cacher not find the D1.5 new cache but found a log in a baggie at ground zero? And why hasn't the owner responded to the last 2 logs after the OM.

 

Some have no problem with the lack of maintenance, but are all up in arms because I reviewer discovered and disabled this cache. Wow.

 

Would you be okay with this if it was Keyword: Unicorns? As long as a cache somewhere gets archived, all is right with the world?

[+dprovan]

Can an automated process disable a cache or is that something only a reviewer can do manually?

Personally, my guess, based on the fact that the disable text seems so generic, I'm thinking this was entirely automated even though the generic text claims the reviewer looked at the logs. But it doesn't really matter whether the process was entirely automated or the reviewer just acted on autopilot.

 

Lets get past the fact that the cache was disabled for what ever reason. Why did the cache owner allow the cache to be disabled then subsequently archived?

No, let's not get past that. If the cache is still in good shape, there's no good reason to archive it even if the owner is dead.

 

If you want to argue that all dead COs' caches should all be deleted, there are other threads for that. In this case, I'd consider this a bonehead move even if the only impact was the CO having to post a response.

[+justintim1999]

Can an automated process disable a cache or is that something only a reviewer can do manually?

Personally, my guess, based on the fact that the disable text seems so generic, I'm thinking this was entirely automated even though the generic text claims the reviewer looked at the logs. But it doesn't really matter whether the process was entirely automated or the reviewer just acted on autopilot.

 

Lets get past the fact that the cache was disabled for what ever reason. Why did the cache owner allow the cache to be disabled then subsequently archived?

No, let's not get past that. If the cache is still in good shape, there's no good reason to archive it even if the owner is dead.

 

If you want to argue that all dead COs' caches should all be deleted, there are other threads for that. In this case, I'd consider this a bonehead move even if the only impact was the CO having to post a response.

 

If the reviewer was aware of the situation than I have no problem with them being proactive and removing a cache that will eventually develop issues.

 

A cache has to have an active owner who is responsible for it. To me the condition of the cache is irrelevant. This is where you and I disagree.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first. Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

 

I completely agree.

 

The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable:

"Very very wet!"

"Definitely soggy"

The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February:

"Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed"

The next and most current log in April:

"Found nothing but an old log book in a ziplock (see pic) under a log. It had many signatures in it so it is not from the new replacement. It was too soggy to even sign. Cannot find any sign of the new cache in the area. Checked all of the obvious places in the area and some not so obvious. Replaced the logbook back under the log."

I'm floored that anyone is arguing that this cache should not have been disabled, just because the word mold referred to a tree log and not the wet unsignable logsheet.

And it looks like the owner didn't actually replace their cache. If they did, where did they hide it? Why didn't they remove the old log in a baggie? Why would a seasoned cacher not find the D1.5 new cache but found a log in a baggie at ground zero? And why hasn't the owner responded to the last 2 logs after the OM.

 

Some have no problem with the lack of maintenance, but are all up in arms because I reviewer discovered and disabled this cache. Wow.

 

Would you be okay with this if it was Keyword: Unicorns? As long as a cache somewhere gets archived, all is right with the world?

 

Don't get mad at the reviewer. Get mad at the cache owner that let their cache become junk then continued to act irresponsibly by not responding to a disable note, or picking up the junk and archiving it themselves.

[+WearyTraveler]

I'm sure that dead COs are not that numerous. To me,they're the same as non responsive COs or have given up the hobby, which I'll bet is a much higher number..

 

If their caches are still active and have no maintenance issues, leave them in place and active. However, if a NM goes unsnawered (or a continuous string of DNFs- see a different thread,..), someone has to either fix the issue, clear the NM flag, or archive the cache.

 

Someone has to take care... someone has to own the responsibility of caring for the cache.

[+narcissa]

I'm guessing that the reviewer read the logs AFTER the keyword search--they didn't just disable based on keyword search alone. Heck--give reviewers that much credit, can't you? And caches that aren't being maintained because the COs aren't active should be archived and room made for new caches. The reviewer didn't archive immediately based on a mold log--they disabled first. Looks like the reviewer is doing their job properly to me.

 

I completely agree.

 

The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable:

"Very very wet!"

"Definitely soggy"

The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February:

"Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed"

The next and most current log in April:

"Found nothing but an old log book in a ziplock (see pic) under a log. It had many signatures in it so it is not from the new replacement. It was too soggy to even sign. Cannot find any sign of the new cache in the area. Checked all of the obvious places in the area and some not so obvious. Replaced the logbook back under the log."

I'm floored that anyone is arguing that this cache should not have been disabled, just because the word mold referred to a tree log and not the wet unsignable logsheet.

And it looks like the owner didn't actually replace their cache. If they did, where did they hide it? Why didn't they remove the old log in a baggie? Why would a seasoned cacher not find the D1.5 new cache but found a log in a baggie at ground zero? And why hasn't the owner responded to the last 2 logs after the OM.

 

Some have no problem with the lack of maintenance, but are all up in arms because I reviewer discovered and disabled this cache. Wow.

 

Would you be okay with this if it was Keyword: Unicorns? As long as a cache somewhere gets archived, all is right with the world?

 

Don't get mad at the reviewer. Get mad at the cache owner that let their cache become junk then continued to act irresponsibly by not responding to a disable note, or picking up the junk and archiving it themselves.

 

Your cache has been archived due to Keyword: Pizza.

[+dprovan]

If the reviewer was aware of the situation than I have no problem with them being proactive and removing a cache that will eventually develop issues.

I cannot emphasize this enough: ALL CACHES WILL EVENTUALLY DEVELOP ISSUES. It makes zero sense to remove caches in anticipation of future problems.

 

I'm sure that dead COs are not that numerous.

Dead COs are just a way to simplify the example because we know for sure they won't take action (although in this case the OP told us that this CO was, in fact, dead). The problem with this reviewer's actions is actually somewhat worse if he didn't know the CO was dead since if the CO might be around, for all we know, he's paying attention and ready to react, yet the reviewer didn't give him a chance by filing an NM before disabling the cache.

 

If their caches are still active and have no maintenance issues, leave them in place and active. However, if a NM goes unsnawered (or a continuous string of DNFs- see a different thread,..), someone has to either fix the issue, clear the NM flag, or archive the cache.

Yep, that makes sense. The problem here is that no one filed an NM because no one thought there was a problem. It would still have been sad but at least understandable if this cache in good condition had been archived because the person reporting mold had done it in an NM.

[+justintim1999]

If the reviewer was aware of the situation than I have no problem with them being proactive and removing a cache that will eventually develop issues.

I cannot emphasize this enough: ALL CACHES WILL EVENTUALLY DEVELOP ISSUES. It makes zero sense to remove caches in anticipation of future problems.

 

I'm sure that dead COs are not that numerous.

Dead COs are just a way to simplify the example because we know for sure they won't take action (although in this case the OP told us that this CO was, in fact, dead). The problem with this reviewer's actions is actually somewhat worse if he didn't know the CO was dead since if the CO might be around, for all we know, he's paying attention and ready to react, yet the reviewer didn't give him a chance by filing an NM before disabling the cache.

 

If their caches are still active and have no maintenance issues, leave them in place and active. However, if a NM goes unsnawered (or a continuous string of DNFs- see a different thread,..), someone has to either fix the issue, clear the NM flag, or archive the cache.

Yep, that makes sense. The problem here is that no one filed an NM because no one thought there was a problem. It would still have been sad but at least understandable if this cache in good condition had been archived because the person reporting mold had done it in an NM.

 

Just for example. What if for whatever reason a cache becomes dangerous to attempt. The previous finder posts a NM to this effect. An active, responsible cache owner would disable the cache and look into fixing the problem. What happens if there is no owner and the next person attempting the cache gets hurt? before it gets archived?

 

What if the land ownership changes. An active owner can request new permission or remove the cache from the property. Instead people begin trespassing.

 

Every cache must have an active owner who's accountable.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm sure that dead COs are not that numerous. To me,they're the same as non responsive COs or have given up the hobby, which I'll bet is a much higher number..

 

 

I agree.

 

And who says dead COs want their caches to become junk, or become something it never was..... an ammo can with a handcrafted logbook, in a beautifully crafted hollowed log, becomes a leaky pill bottle with a moldy logscroll, in a rotten log.

[+dprovan]

Just for example. What if for whatever reason a cache becomes dangerous to attempt. The previous finder posts a NM to this effect. An active, responsible cache owner would disable the cache and look into fixing the problem. What happens if there is no owner and the next person attempting the cache gets hurt? before it gets archived?

Someone finding a dangerous cache should file an NA. Even with your draconian attempts to root out absent owners, we still don't want anyone to get hurt even if the CO just died that morning.

 

What if the land ownership changes. An active owner can request new permission or remove the cache from the property. Instead people begin trespassing.

A farfetched example that will only rarely be avoided by wiping out caches indiscriminately based on whether the owner responds to fictitious problem reports. Far more common will be deleting perfectly good caches with no problems that people could enjoy for years to come. That's what happened to the cache in the OP.

 

Every cache must have an active owner who's accountable.

Anyway, again, let's discuss the idea of finding and removing orphan caches in a thread related to it. For the purposes of this thread, all this means is that if the reviewer's intention was to discover whether the CO would react, he should have said so in his disable log instead of lying about the reason for the disable being the word "mold".

[+Dame Deco]

Hmmm...well, perhaps I have to think again. The Saffin Pond cache has picks of a perfectly dry log that aren't that old, and the CO has been gone for awhile, but again-not that long. If it was indeed automated, I agree that's a problem. But if it's an actual reviewer--maybe they know more about the disappearing CO than I do. I'm just not one who thinks archiving caches is a great tragedy--we need new caches, especially in nice places. But...this particular cache seems to be in a gray area.

[Keystone]

Once again, there is no automation involved in the log that disabled the caches in question. The reviewer used a search tool to identify listings that might have issues. But, it takes a conscious decision for a reviewer to then disable a listing (and then archive the listing a month later if there was no response).

 

There is no "keyword" feature built into the toolset made available by Geocaching HQ to Community Volunteer Reviewers. Many of us use our own methods to identify possible problems. That is why the discussion was moved out of the Geocaching.com Website Feature Suggestions and Bug Reporting forum section.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmmm...well, perhaps I have to think again. The Saffin Pond cache has picks of a perfectly dry log that aren't that old, and the CO has been gone for awhile, but again-not that long. If it was indeed automated, I agree that's a problem. But if it's an actual reviewer--maybe they know more about the disappearing CO than I do. I'm just not one who thinks archiving caches is a great tragedy--we need new caches, especially in nice places. But...this particular cache seems to be in a gray area.

 

I guess my concern was about a great old cache hidden by a great cacher being archived. One of my early finds. The cache had been there over fourteen years! We found it twelve years ago!

I checked it out yesterday. Umm... Quite skanky inside, though not sure if it is mold. So, I guess the other cachers did not log anything about the condition because of its age. One daughter did add a new log book four years ago. But they're not into geocaching.

It didn't help that the last finder had no idea how to close an ammo box. And perhaps others as well.

I removed the cache, since it was archived. And hope to clean it up, and rehide it as a memorial cache, if the county park service gives permission. It was about fifty feet from the trail.

Our reviewer is a great reviewer and easy to work with. I was just sad to see this old cache be archived. But it did have issues, and the reviewer dealt with them.

Of course, I've seen a lot of cachers that have worse problems...

[+L0ne.R]

Hmmm...well, perhaps I have to think again. The Saffin Pond cache has picks of a perfectly dry log that aren't that old, and the CO has been gone for awhile, but again-not that long. If it was indeed automated, I agree that's a problem. But if it's an actual reviewer--maybe they know more about the disappearing CO than I do. I'm just not one who thinks archiving caches is a great tragedy--we need new caches, especially in nice places. But...this particular cache seems to be in a gray area.

 

I guess my concern was about a great old cache hidden by a great cacher being archived. One of my early finds. The cache had been there over fourteen years! We found it twelve years ago!

I checked it out yesterday. Umm... Quite skanky inside, though not sure if it is mold. So, I guess the other cachers did not log anything about the condition because of its age. One daughter did add a new log book four years ago. But they're not into geocaching.

It didn't help that the last finder had no idea how to close an ammo box. And perhaps others as well.

I removed the cache, since it was archived. And hope to clean it up, and rehide it as a memorial cache, if the county park service gives permission. It was about fifty feet from the trail.

Our reviewer is a great reviewer and easy to work with. I was just sad to see this old cache be archived. But it did have issues, and the reviewer dealt with them.

Of course, I've seen a lot of cachers that have worse problems...

 

Thanks for checking on it, retrieving it, and reporting on it honestly.

[+justintim1999]

Just for example. What if for whatever reason a cache becomes dangerous to attempt. The previous finder posts a NM to this effect. An active, responsible cache owner would disable the cache and look into fixing the problem. What happens if there is no owner and the next person attempting the cache gets hurt? before it gets archived?

Someone finding a dangerous cache should file an NA. Even with your draconian attempts to root out absent owners, we still don't want anyone to get hurt even if the CO just died that morning.

 

What if the land ownership changes. An active owner can request new permission or remove the cache from the property. Instead people begin trespassing.

A farfetched example that will only rarely be avoided by wiping out caches indiscriminately based on whether the owner responds to fictitious problem reports. Far more common will be deleting perfectly good caches with no problems that people could enjoy for years to come. That's what happened to the cache in the OP.

 

Every cache must have an active owner who's accountable.

Anyway, again, let's discuss the idea of finding and removing orphan caches in a thread related to it. For the purposes of this thread, all this means is that if the reviewer's intention was to discover whether the CO would react, he should have said so in his disable log instead of lying about the reason for the disable being the word "mold".

 

So now it's draconian to want to remove ownerless caches.

 

I would have stopped short of calling the reviewer a liar, at least until I had all the information.

 

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners and reviewers wouldn't have to manipulate the guidelines to get these caches archived.

 

This particular situation is unique. I would have hoped that the local geocaching community would have stepped up and tried to possibly adopt these caches or at least work with the local reviewer in getting them archived and removed.

 

In this case I envision a situation where the reviewer was aware of the ownership situation but because of the guidelines they were powerless to do anything except wait until the cache deteriorates and someone gets around to posting a NM. The reviewer jumped at the chance to disable the cache knowing that an owners maintenance log wouldn't be forthcoming thus speeding up the process.

 

Sorry but I don't see an issue with this.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Community Volunteers cannot be fired, and they cannot retire. They can only be sold.

 

Very nice. How much?

[+JL_HSTRE]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners

 

Would be a great way to needlessly create geo-trash.

[+justintim1999]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners

 

Would be a great way to needlessly create geo-trash.

 

Geo-trash already happens. How will this effect a cache owners that's already gone?

 

If you can't find the time to visit your caches once a year maybe you shouldn't own them.

[+L0ne.R]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners

 

Would be a great way to needlessly create geo-trash.

 

That's not Groundspeak's fault. It lies squarely on the shoulders of cache owners (and people who throw down caches).

Anyone who has a reviewer archive their cache should not be allowed to continue hiding new caches, unless they have a compelling reason regarding why their cache(s) and listing was abandoned.

[+Team Microdot]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners

 

Would be a great way to needlessly create geo-trash.

 

I love this argument

 

It's the sort of argument typically bandied about by the same sorts of people who think proper use of NM and NA logs makes a person caching police

 

If a cache ends up as geotrash an expectation of basic maintenance is not what caused it to end up that way.

[+barefootjeff]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners and reviewers wouldn't have to manipulate the guidelines to get these caches archived.

It would also be very good at ferreting out many T4+ caches that require a lot of effort to visit. I guess I'd better archive a couple of mine as it's been nearly a year since I visited them and I don't have any immediate plans to do so unless a problem is reported or I feel inclined to go for some very long and strenuous hikes. They're both in locations unlikely to be muggled and with hiding places protected from the weather, and as long as the occasional finders keep reporting them to be in good health, I don't see it serving much purpose.

 

There are other caches around here that are much harder to get to, for both seekers and the CO, than my two - that's part of the appeal - but no, everything's got to be P&Gs these days.

[+narcissa]

Ten lashes for a damp logbook. Fifty lashes if your cache is archived by a reviewer.

[+redsox_mark]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners and reviewers wouldn't have to manipulate the guidelines to get these caches archived.

It would also be very good at ferreting out many T4+ caches that require a lot of effort to visit. I guess I'd better archive a couple of mine as it's been nearly a year since I visited them and I don't have any immediate plans to do so unless a problem is reported or I feel inclined to go for some very long and strenuous hikes. They're both in locations unlikely to be muggled and with hiding places protected from the weather, and as long as the occasional finders keep reporting them to be in good health, I don't see it serving much purpose.

 

There are other caches around here that are much harder to get to, for both seekers and the CO, than my two - that's part of the appeal - but no, everything's got to be P&Gs these days.

 

I agree, and this also touches on the point in a recent thread by Fizzymagic, about the adventure and uncertainty. And if you force owners to visit caches on some arbitrary schedule, it will discourage caches which are hard to reach. Clearly a cache like 4.5lb Walleye would not get checked on every year and so would go.

[+justintim1999]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners and reviewers wouldn't have to manipulate the guidelines to get these caches archived.

It would also be very good at ferreting out many T4+ caches that require a lot of effort to visit. I guess I'd better archive a couple of mine as it's been nearly a year since I visited them and I don't have any immediate plans to do so unless a problem is reported or I feel inclined to go for some very long and strenuous hikes. They're both in locations unlikely to be muggled and with hiding places protected from the weather, and as long as the occasional finders keep reporting them to be in good health, I don't see it serving much purpose.

 

There are other caches around here that are much harder to get to, for both seekers and the CO, than my two - that's part of the appeal - but no, everything's got to be P&Gs these days.

 

It's always the ones that have caches that require three days travel and a couple of Sherpa's to get to who have a problem with this. The other 2,998,000 caches would benefit. I'm not against these particular caches and I'm not trying to find a way to discourage them. Caching has changed and the guidelines need to change to address that.

 

A good place to start would be developing some requirements to actually be able to hide a cache. Everyone should be able to give finding a cache a try. Hiding one should be a different story.

[+WearyTraveler]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners

 

I try to go by mine periodically. If a Problem is reported, or I get a couple of DNFs I'll swing by for a look see. But I purposely plant caches where they're easy for me to maintain.

 

2 comments:

• 
   
  
• Not all COs do. I talked to one at an event who has hundreds out there, across the country. He gladly depends on finders to maintain them for him as the distance precludes him from swinging by...
  
• I've done a couple of portions of power trails. Both were poorly maintained. I found numerous logs / containers / baggies in shoddy condition. Some were just baggies w logs that were tied to a sign with string.
   
  

 

If you're not going to maintain your caches, don't plant them.

 

If requiring a yearly or periodic visit, I'm pretty sure that we'd lose numbers of caches, both GRC types and high terrain caches... good thing or bad thing , who knows...

Edited May 2, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[+Team Microdot]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners

 

I try to go by mine periodically. If a Problem is reported, or I get a couple of DNFs I'll swing by for a look see. But I purposely plant caches where they're easy for me to maintain.

 

2 comments:

• 
   
  
• Not all COs do. I talked to one at an event who has hundreds out there, across the country. He gladly depends on finders to maintain them for him as the distance precludes him from swinging by...
  
• I've done a couple of portions of power trails. Both were poorly maintained. I found numerous logs / containers / baggies in shoddy condition. Some were just baggies w logs that were tied to a sign with string.
   
  

 

If you're not going to maintain your caches, don't plant them.

 

If requiring a yearly or periodic visit, I'm pretty sure that we'd lose numbers of caches, both GRC types and high terrain caches... good thing or bad thing , who knows...

 

Seen this in my area too - and it's blatant.

 

CO threatens to archive caches unless someone helps out and happily accepts throwdowns, clearly reached the point where the only thing that matters is spewing them out as far and wide as possible.

[+justintim1999]

Maybe it should be mandatory for a cache owner to visit their listings at least once a year regardless of condition. Would be an easy way to ferret out absent owners

 

I try to go by mine periodically. If a Problem is reported, or I get a couple of DNFs I'll swing by for a look see. But I purposely plant caches where they're easy for me to maintain.

 

2 comments:

• 
   
  
• Not all COs do. I talked to one at an event who has hundreds out there, across the country. He gladly depends on finders to maintain them for him as the distance precludes him from swinging by...
  
• I've done a couple of portions of power trails. Both were poorly maintained. I found numerous logs / containers / baggies in shoddy condition. Some were just baggies w logs that were tied to a sign with string.
   
  

 

If you're not going to maintain your caches, don't plant them.

 

If requiring a yearly or periodic visit, I'm pretty sure that we'd lose numbers of caches, both GRC types and high terrain caches... good thing or bad thing , who knows...

 

Maybe 3,000,000 isn't a number we should be celebrating? It's impressive but would we all be proud to own each and every one of those caches?

 

No one want's to penalize good cache owners. and I'm sure reviewers go out of their way to support them.

 

How to you deal with a situation where anyone can initially hide a cache but the penalty for not maintaining it is virtually -0-?

[+Team Microdot]

How to you deal with a situation where anyone can initially hide a cache but the penalty for not maintaining it is virtually -0-?

 

Just accept it for fear of being branded draconian / caching police and instead chant the mantra everyone plays the game their own way... everyone plays the game their own way... throwdowns are good... must get more smileys...

[+redsox_mark]

 

It's always the ones that have caches that require three days travel and a couple of Sherpa's to get to who have a problem with this. The other 2,998,000 caches would benefit. I'm not against these particular caches and I'm not trying to find a way to discourage them. Caching has changed and the guidelines need to change to address that.

 

 

Then how would you address them?

 

It's not just the real extreme caches I'm worried about. A cache like 4.5 lb Walleye can't be easily checked on once a year, that is clear. For other caches it may be feasible (e.g. a 4 hour hike), but a CO may not want to do that 4 hour hike every year if there isn't a need.

[+justintim1999]

How to you deal with a situation where anyone can initially hide a cache but the penalty for not maintaining it is virtually -0-?

 

Just accept it for fear of being branded draconian / caching police and instead chant the mantra everyone plays the game their own way... everyone plays the game their own way... throwdowns are good... must get more smileys...

 

I hear ya. I'm sure I'm already on the Citizens for free Geocaching & the Save the Mountain cache collation's top 10 list. Both of which I support.

[+justintim1999]

 

It's always the ones that have caches that require three days travel and a couple of Sherpa's to get to who have a problem with this. The other 2,998,000 caches would benefit. I'm not against these particular caches and I'm not trying to find a way to discourage them. Caching has changed and the guidelines need to change to address that.

 

 

Then how would you address them?

 

It's not just the real extreme caches I'm worried about. A cache like 4.5 lb Walleye can't be easily checked on once a year, that is clear. For other caches it may be feasible (e.g. a 4 hour hike), but a CO may not want to do that 4 hour hike every year if there isn't a need.

 

I don't have the numbers but I'd have to guess that 90% of all the caches out there are within 1 mile of a parking area. If that's the case than this shouldn't be an issue for 2,700,000 cache owners. Work with reviewers on how to handle the other 300,000.

 

It's not about what the CO want's to do. It's about doing what's required. If you're not willing to make that commitment than don't hide the cache.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I don't have the numbers but I'd have to guess that 90% of all the caches out there are within 1 mile of a parking area. If that's the case than this shouldn't be an issue for 2,700,000 cache owners. Work with reviewers on how to handle the other 300,000.

 

It's not about what the CO want's to do. It's about doing what's required. If you're not willing to make that commitment than don't hide the cache.

 

I see your point, but I don't agree. I don't want rules which encourage caches near parking, and discourages hard to reach caches. And I don't see the need for it.

[+dprovan]

It's always the ones that have caches that require three days travel and a couple of Sherpa's to get to who have a problem with this. The other 2,998,000 caches would benefit. I'm not against these particular caches and I'm not trying to find a way to discourage them. Caching has changed and the guidelines need to change to address that.

You've unwittingly made my argument for me, but you'll never be able to see it. This is precisely the problem: since you don't care about those other caches -- you say you're not against them, but at the same time you're accepting that your plans would eliminate them -- so you don't think you even have to consider whether you're justified in adding a rule that would make them impractical.

 

But you're wrong: you do have to consider it. Now that you're considering it, what do you actually gain by making this annual visit rule? How many caches that are perfectly fine, contributing to the geocaching flora, ready to find would be eliminated? Does this really target people who don't maintain their caches? It strikes me that the COs it would hit the hardest are the most prolific hiders even though those are the COs, at least in my area, that have learned from experience and are the best at planting caches that require little maintenance to begin with, and, consequently, those are the COs that are the quickest to respond to problem reports. It's bad enough that the additional burden would generally discourage anyone from planting any cache, good or bad, but it's worse that it pointlessly discourages the best COs from hiding any more caches.

 

And, on the other hand, would you really eliminate that many bad caches? Sure, the fire-and-forget CO's caches would disappear after he didn't visit, but in most case, those caches would have disappeared through natural causes long before the annual visit was missed. In general, the problem is that this approach penalizes everyone everywhere for the actions of a few COs, and the COs you're targeting are exactly the ones that likely won't even notice the penalty.

 

It turns out to be just a fluke that it's easiest to see the impact of a few special caches that don't really matter to you: the underlaying problem turns out to have a slower yet equal impact on caches that do matter to you.

 

No one want's to penalize good cache owners. and I'm sure reviewers go out of their way to support them.

The proposal is a rule that will prevent reviewers from supporting COs doing a good job. It's good to hear you don't want to penalize good COs, but what you seem to be missing is that this plan does exactly that.

 

How to you deal with a situation where anyone can initially hide a cache but the penalty for not maintaining it is virtually -0-?

What?! You want to punish someone? This is really the problem. Yeah, OK, I get that you're mad at some CO, but the goal should be cache quality, not retribution. When I think through what would actually happen if a visit requirement were added, I fail to see it improving cache quality at all, but I do see it reducing the number of available caches of all types.

[+L0ne.R]

It's always the ones that have caches that require three days travel and a couple of Sherpa's to get to who have a problem with this. The other 2,998,000 caches would benefit. I'm not against these particular caches and I'm not trying to find a way to discourage them. Caching has changed and the guidelines need to change to address that.

 

 

Then how would you address them?

 

It's not just the real extreme caches I'm worried about. A cache like 4.5 lb Walleye can't be easily checked on once a year, that is clear. For other caches it may be feasible (e.g. a 4 hour hike), but a CO may not want to do that 4 hour hike every year if there isn't a need.

 

He just needs to login and leave a note. Just let everyone know that s/he's monitoring the listing and logs.

[+L0ne.R]

It's always the ones that have caches that require three days travel and a couple of Sherpa's to get to who have a problem with this. The other 2,998,000 caches would benefit. I'm not against these particular caches and I'm not trying to find a way to discourage them. Caching has changed and the guidelines need to change to address that.

 

 

Then how would you address them?

 

It's not just the real extreme caches I'm worried about. A cache like 4.5 lb Walleye can't be easily checked on once a year, that is clear. For other caches it may be feasible (e.g. a 4 hour hike), but a CO may not want to do that 4 hour hike every year if there isn't a need.

 

I don't have the numbers but I'd have to guess that 90% of all the caches out there are within 1 mile of a parking area. If that's the case than this shouldn't be an issue for 2,700,000 cache owners. Work with reviewers on how to handle the other 300,000.

 

It's not about what the CO want's to do. It's about doing what's required. If you're not willing to make that commitment than don't hide the cache.

 

edexter posts stats for his area from time to time. For his area (which IMO opinion reflects the majority of areas in north america), it's probably more like 98% that are within 1 mile of a parking area.

[+narcissa]

He just needs to login and leave a note. Just let everyone know that s/he's monitoring the listing and logs.

 

Who decides which cache owners have to physically visit or face punishment, and which cache owners just have to write a note?

[+justintim1999]

It's always the ones that have caches that require three days travel and a couple of Sherpa's to get to who have a problem with this. The other 2,998,000 caches would benefit. I'm not against these particular caches and I'm not trying to find a way to discourage them. Caching has changed and the guidelines need to change to address that.

You've unwittingly made my argument for me, but you'll never be able to see it. This is precisely the problem: since you don't care about those other caches -- you say you're not against them, but at the same time you're accepting that your plans would eliminate them -- so you don't think you even have to consider whether you're justified in adding a rule that would make them impractical.

 

But you're wrong: you do have to consider it. Now that you're considering it, what do you actually gain by making this annual visit rule? How many caches that are perfectly fine, contributing to the geocaching flora, ready to find would be eliminated? Does this really target people who don't maintain their caches? It strikes me that the COs it would hit the hardest are the most prolific hiders even though those are the COs, at least in my area, that have learned from experience and are the best at planting caches that require little maintenance to begin with, and, consequently, those are the COs that are the quickest to respond to problem reports. It's bad enough that the additional burden would generally discourage anyone from planting any cache, good or bad, but it's worse that it pointlessly discourages the best COs from hiding any more caches.

 

And, on the other hand, would you really eliminate that many bad caches? Sure, the fire-and-forget CO's caches would disappear after he didn't visit, but in most case, those caches would have disappeared through natural causes long before the annual visit was missed. In general, the problem is that this approach penalizes everyone everywhere for the actions of a few COs, and the COs you're targeting are exactly the ones that likely won't even notice the penalty.

 

It turns out to be just a fluke that it's easiest to see the impact of a few special caches that don't really matter to you: the underlaying problem turns out to have a slower yet equal impact on caches that do matter to you.

 

No one want's to penalize good cache owners. and I'm sure reviewers go out of their way to support them.

The proposal is a rule that will prevent reviewers from supporting COs doing a good job. It's good to hear you don't want to penalize good COs, but what you seem to be missing is that this plan does exactly that.

 

How to you deal with a situation where anyone can initially hide a cache but the penalty for not maintaining it is virtually -0-?

What?! You want to punish someone? This is really the problem. Yeah, OK, I get that you're mad at some CO, but the goal should be cache quality, not retribution. When I think through what would actually happen if a visit requirement were added, I fail to see it improving cache quality at all, but I do see it reducing the number of available caches of all types.

 

Your right I don't see it. Tell me again how my evil plan would eliminate these caches and what my reasons would be for doing this?

 

Isn't a visit required in the guidelines? It's a guideline and not a rule which explains why people choose to ignore it. But your right, how could having a cache owner periodically checking up on their hides have any value what-so-ever?

 

The requirement to hide a cache needs to be addressed. Then we can start to discuss how to handle the ownerless caches the current system has produced.

 

Look, if visiting your cache once a year is too much for you then archive your caches and let someone who is willing to do it use the spot.

[+justintim1999]

He just needs to login and leave a note. Just let everyone know that s/he's monitoring the listing and logs.

 

Who decides which cache owners have to physically visit or face punishment, and which cache owners just have to write a note?

 

Me! Me! Pick Me!

 

Just kidding. I'd have to go with your local reviewer.

[+L0ne.R]

He just needs to login and leave a note. Just let everyone know that s/he's monitoring the listing and logs.

 

Who decides which cache owners have to physically visit or face punishment, and which cache owners just have to write a note?

 

Me! Me! Pick Me!

 

Just kidding. I'd have to go with your local reviewer.

 

Yeah, local reviewer(s) makes a lot of sense. Go figure.