Reviewer won't publish cache

[+L0ne.R]

The problem isn't a maintenance plan and a maintenance plan won't solve anything beyond ticking off a check box.

 

For a cache near ones home location, ticking off a check box indicating that one has read and understands the guidelines is an implicit maintenance plan.

 

When the cache is farther from home, a reviewer will required an explicit maintenance plan as the distance generally requires someone close to the cache to perform some maintenance when needed or an assurance that the CO will visit the area often enough to perform maintenance when needed.

 

I'm glad you also agree that a maintenance plan, explicit or implied, has no bearing on the performance of a cache owner maintaining their cache. It's just ticking check boxes in either case.

 

Edit: watch this clip -

 

Though I don't have the tools to provide quantitative numbers, the sheer volume of unmaintained caches placed by locals might indicate an explicit maintenance plan should be considered. That's of course if any maintenance plan was worth the paper it was written on vs checking a box.

 

I'm not challenging that a process needs to exist and I'm more intrigued of the regular posters that regurgitate the same blind faith - follow the process and you will see the light. And then, they wait for the next nuance of every cache placement that isn't a LPC or MKH to critique the cache owner rv their house, while in other threads claiming how they don't care how others play the game.

 

Are you saying that because many cache owners will be deliberately dishonest about their maintenance plans locally, and because the database is already full of unmaintained caches, the site should allow people to hide vacation caches? It's already very bad, so let's just throw in the towel when it comes to maintenance. They opened the PT flood gates, time to do the same with regards to cache maintenance.

[+Team DEMP]

Are you saying that because many cache owners will be deliberately dishonest about their maintenance plans locally, and because the database is already full of unmaintained caches, the site should allow people to hide vacation caches? It's already very bad, so let's just throw in the towel when it comes to maintenance. They opened the PT flood gates, time to do the same with regards to cache maintenance.

 

No - I said nothing of the kind. What I stated since the beginning is that asking someone to explicitly provide info would not result in a different outcome form someone who doesn't explicitly provide the info. It's a check box and the results we all see every day are proof that whatever is presented has no impact on the outcome.

 

I'm not saying to not do anything, but to expect a different result because someone is asked is beyond naive.

[+thebruce0]

The problem is the maintenance plan for remote caches is an additional maintenance concern, really. Considering the 'local' premise assumes your proximity is sufficient for 'the plan' in a general sense, then placing a remote cache needs an explicit confirmation.

Or another way to look at it, by placing a cache, whether it's near or far, everyone faces the same basic maintenance concerns - potential regular issues like wet logs, cracks, getting lost or muggled. That can happen at either proximity, and every owner implicitly agrees to attend to their cache's maintenance as necessary. Being distant is an extra work process. (included in the general maintenance agreement, but a new dynamic over placing a local cache)

 

Whether the remote cache needs checking once or twice a year or once a week is not related at all to its distance from the CO. You could live 2 miles from the cache on the edge of the forest and it be considered local, yet could make the case that it only needs a checkup once or twice a year. You could live 200 miles from an urban cache you place that needs checking up 5 times a week.

 

There are two distinct factors to consider:

* Likely maintenance period

* How easy it is for the CO to perform maintenance

 

The latter is the plan - doesn't matter if it's near or far, as long as it's relative to the cache and reasonable. For local placements, it's much much simpler to assume maintenance will be easy and quick. For remote placements, whether maintenance might be rare or often, the plan will most likely still be required.

Edited April 28, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Touchstone]

Are you saying that because many cache owners will be deliberately dishonest about their maintenance plans locally, and because the database is already full of unmaintained caches, the site should allow people to hide vacation caches? It's already very bad, so let's just throw in the towel when it comes to maintenance. They opened the PT flood gates, time to do the same with regards to cache maintenance.

 

No - I said nothing of the kind. What I stated since the beginning is that asking someone to explicitly provide info would not result in a different outcome form someone who doesn't explicitly provide the info. It's a check box and the results we all see every day are proof that whatever is presented has no impact on the outcome.

 

I'm not saying to not do anything, but to expect a different result because someone is asked is beyond naive.

Perhaps you're right. We really can't expect some online document to change behavior, but perhaps that is not the real purpose here. It might be that it merely opens up a discussion in order to gain some insight into the cache owner's attitude towards how they expect to maintain a cache. Case in point, is the following from the OP:

 

I spent a lot of time, effort, money, research and thought into this cache...

 

Right off, I get a sense of entitlement from a statement like this. That can be valuable information in this particular encounter as well as future issues unrelated to maintenance.

[+hzoi]

[...] I would not publish a cache at this location, regardless of whether the owner lived 3 miles away or 300 miles away.

 

Do you see the shadows on the top left of the image? It' a bridge.

And the cache might be located at the basement of the bridge.

 

Hans

This would not make a difference if the cache is located within an active railroad right of way easement, which can extend both laterally and vertically from tracks. It's not an issue of safety, it's an issue of trespassing. The liability laws are different for railroads in the United States vice Europe, therefore their enforcement of their property rights is handled differently as well.

[+WearyTraveler]

It's not that hard...

When we place a cache we ack that we've read and will follow the rules for placing a cache.

Whether it says you need a maintenance plan, or that you need to stand on your head in the corner, if you don't comply, don't complain when they don't publish.

It's your choice - comply with the rules or accept the denial.

Edited April 28, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[+humboldt flier]

Ya know,

if I was a reviewer and you went public rather than settling this amicably I would be tempted to approve your cache when they played for the Stanley Cup on a natural ice rink in downtown Hades.

 

Just sayin

[+hzoi]

Ya know,

if I was a reviewer and you went public rather than settling this amicably I would be tempted to approve your cache when they played for the Stanley Cup on a natural ice rink in downtown Hades.

 

Just sayin

Which is why volunteer reviewers deserve all the thanks they get and more, as from my experience they work hard not to hold grudges or to take things as personally as cache hiders do.

 

I've yet to get to that point for the job I am paid to do, but I'm still working on it, and I'm a LOT closer than I used to be.

[+edexter]

For caches placed far from home it seems reasonable to provide a maintenance plan if requested. When I place caches far from home I make an arrangement with a local cacher to do cache maintenance and provide their name to the reviewer. For single stage caches placed in a waterproof container maintenance is pretty minimal anyway.

I can understand why the CO is resistant to doing this (why should I have to prove I have a plan when so many caches go unmaintained?) especially when most caches in need of repair are not maintained. I tracked Needs Maintenance logs for several years in my local area and found that fewer than 20% of caches that get a NM log are ever repaired and two thirds are Archived by the Reviewer, not the CO. Most have been abandoned. And the new logging system even removes both NM and NA logs for the logging options, reducing them to a "note"...we'll see how that helps the situation.

On the other hand, if the CO says they'll do the maintenance themselves and "that's the plan, Stan", I'd believe them and expect to hold them to it just like everyone else.

[+thebruce0]

Going back to the issues - it's not that there exist caches that are unmaintained; the reasons that happens can exist whether the owner's cache is local or remote. That's a universal maintenance problem, and in those cases the problem is with the COs who do not do appropriate maintenance (for whatever reason) as they agreed to (by implicitly saying that have a maintenance plan by being local).

 

The requirement of a remote maintenance plan is not affected in the slightest by the existence of many unmaintained local caches (also note that there are likely far more properly maintained locally owned caches). Everyone has to agree to the same maintenance responsibilities. The only difference being that there's no reasonable way to assume that an owner has 'localized' ease of maintenance for a remote cache, so it's more likely that the reviewer will request a remote maintenance plan. Regardless of how often the cache may/may not be found or may/may not need maintenance.

[+Manville Possum]

Ya know,

if I was a reviewer and you went public rather than settling this amicably I would be tempted to approve your cache when they played for the Stanley Cup on a natural ice rink in downtown Hades.

 

Just sayin

 

That is how the Waymarking site works now.

[+brekkcaching123]

Hi! I just saw this article. If you have someone in your family that you have talked to, and they have planned to maintain the cache, give the reviewer that person's name and email. They will ask them if they ACTUALLY will maintain it. If the answer is yes, your cache should be published. If the answer is no, your cache will be denied once again.

[+TriciaG]

1 hour ago, brekkcaching123 said:

Hi! I just saw this article. If you have someone in your family that you have talked to, and they have planned to maintain the cache, give the reviewer that person's name and email. They will ask them if they ACTUALLY will maintain it. If the answer is yes, your cache should be published. If the answer is no, your cache will be denied once again.

I think they've probably got something figured out in the 6 years since they posted this.

[+Jayeffel]

May I recommend following advice given?

[Keystone]

To close the loop on this bumped thread, the OP re-submitted the cache for review after moving to a new home less than 40 miles from the cache.  The Reviewer then noted the cache's proximity to a railroad track.  The OP never responded to the Reviewer, and the cache page was archived by the Reviewer months later in order to remove it from the active review queue.

 

I also note that the OP has not hidden or found a cache for more than two years.  I was tempted to close the thread for having been bumped improvidently, but I'm feeling extra providential today.

[+NanCycle]

25 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I think they've probably got something figured out in the 6 years since they posted this.

For the record, Four of the OP's Five caches have been archived, three of them by the reviewers for lack of response to maintenance needs.