Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, dprovan said:

What's causing me to comment is that I don't see much point to improving it. I would have recommended that GS not show it to us. Let the reviewers have their secret tool, require them to take responsibility for how they use it, and that's the end of it.

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I honestly believe that communication is the key.   I don't think GS expects you to drop everything and run out to preform maintenance on a cache when it's most inconvenient for you to do so.    I really think they just want to know you're aware of the issue and you have a game plan to fix it.  The friendly e-mail is part of being aware of the issue.

The way the email is worded, this is precisely what they hope you'll do - go out there, fix it and log an OM, disable it until you can, or archive it. Yes, communication is the key.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Thanks Keystone for the comment.

Is there a way to bookmark comments in a personal list for back reference? ;) lol

You should consider amending your Christmas wish list to include a one-year subscription to Keystone's Enhanced Geocaching Services ("KEGS").  Members enjoy the following benefits:

  1. Instant access to the full library of memorable Keystone forum posts, indexed by subject matter, complete with hyperlinks and synopses
  2. Priority attention to cache reviews (feature available only to residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania)
  3. Puzzle solution service:  for $5.00 (real ones, not Canadollars) I will provide you with the solution coordinates for any puzzle cache you can't solve
  4. Puzzle insurance service:  for $10.00, I will NOT sell the solution coordinates to any puzzle cache that you own.

If interested, contact @cheech gang for my PayPal details, and for a testimonial from a satisfied paying customer.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Keystone said:

You should consider amending your Christmas wish list to include a one-year subscription to Keystone's Enhanced Geocaching Services ("KEGS").  Members enjoy the following benefits:

  1. Instant access to the full library of memorable Keystone forum posts, indexed by subject matter, complete with hyperlinks and synopses
  2. Priority attention to cache reviews (feature available only to residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania)
  3. Puzzle solution service:  for $5.00 (real ones, not Canadollars) I will provide you with the solution coordinates for any puzzle cache you can't solve
  4. Puzzle insurance service:  for $10.00, I will NOT sell the solution coordinates to any puzzle cache that you own.

If interested, contact @cheech gang for my PayPal details, and for a testimonial from a satisfied paying customer.

Do the puzzle solution/insurance services only apply to PA and OH? If available in CA then sign us up ;-)

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/10/2017 at 8:41 AM, TriciaG said:
On 12/10/2017 at 4:47 AM, arisoft said:

In this case, everything seems to be in order. Cache is disabled and no one is going after it until the maintenance is ready at some day in the future.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it'll take to do maintenance? I will bet "over 6 months without further updates from the CO". :drama:

It's been 2 months (Dec 9) since the OM posting saying they are planning a replacement. No further updates from the CO. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It's been 2 months (Dec 9) since the OM posting saying they are planning a replacement. No further updates from the CO. 

I have a cache which is about 100 meters from my home. It has been disabled over 2 monts now. Last week I visited the site first time after disabling and took the cache with me for repairing. Now the cache is ready. how fast should it be put in place?

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

I have a cache which is about 100 meters from my home. It has been disabled over 2 monts now. Last week I visited the site first time after disabling and took the cache with me for repairing. Now the cache is ready. how fast should it be put in place?

Here’s a quote from a Reviewer Disable note: “Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness.”

And here is a quote from an Archival note by the same reviewer on an owner-disabled Cache: “I noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess of the period of "a few weeks" as contemplated by the cache guidelines published on Geocaching.com.”

We are supposed to keep our caches available for finding. Granted there are exceptions (snow or flooding rivers or other seasonal issues) but if a cache simply needs maintenance (broken or missing container, full or damaged log) we are expected to remedy the situation within 30 days. Without some sort of cutoff, neglected caches would litter the landscape and prevent other cachers from placing findable caches in that location.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's been 2 months (Dec 9) since the OM posting saying they are planning a replacement. No further updates from the CO. 

Yeah. This sounds similar to what made me start this thread. I can understand if it’s a complicated custom container or reaching the cache becomes an issue for the CO, but then communicate! Post a WN to let the community and the Reviewer know you still care about the cache. Just a quick “I haven’t forgotten, just haven’t made it out there yet,” would be enough for me. Eventually that won’t cut it with the reviewers, but I’d prefer regular excuses to total ignoring.

Share this post


Link to post

Incidentally, the “prime” cache (there were many) of the particular CO that inspired my initial rant was archived 1/8/18. For some reason (respect? Wussiness?) we still messaged the CO on 2/1/18 and asked what their intentions were now that it was archived. The response: “Yeah, I need to replace that container ...” umm, it’s been archived. The container is just a $4 off the shelf mag nano. Might wanna get on that ... 

This cacher is still active locally. Just gave us a fav point on one of our new caches within a mile or so of that cache.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

We are supposed to keep our caches available for finding. Granted there are exceptions (snow or flooding rivers or other seasonal issues) but if a cache simply needs maintenance (broken or missing container, full or damaged log) we are expected to remedy the situation within 30 days. Without some sort of cutoff, neglected caches would litter the landscape and prevent other cachers from placing findable caches in that location.

Meh. I'm perfectly happy with the times reviewers post as deadlines, and equally happy that my reviewer typically waits two or three times as long as he said before actually he implements his ultimate action. Having a bunch of disabled caches on the map would be bad, so I support the reviewers stepping in. But I'm in no hurry. I don't see enough disabled caches to consider them a problem, and I don't think I've ever seen a disabled cache that was preventing other worthy caches from being published in an area.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Meh. I'm perfectly happy with the times reviewers post as deadlines, and equally happy that my reviewer typically waits two or three times as long as he said before actually he implements his ultimate action. Having a bunch of disabled caches on the map would be bad, so I support the reviewers stepping in. But I'm in no hurry. I don't see enough disabled caches to consider them a problem, and I don't think I've ever seen a disabled cache that was preventing other worthy caches from being published in an area.

To an extent I agree. As in the two quotes I used, the reviewer said things like “well beyond.” But in our experience disabled and/or neglected caches DO take up valuable real estate. A CO temporarily ignoring one of their caches is one thing, but a CO that was very active and owns and even adopted a large number of caches in an area that then allows them to fall into disrepair is different. I didn’t wade into the CO score debate but sometimes we are looking at a pattern of failed ownership. If we are sticklers about accurate coordinates and correct cache type, shouldn’t we be applying that to all the guidelines? COs agree to maintain their caches. The guideline is to deal with issues within a “few weeks” not a “few months.”

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

And here is a quote from an Archival note by the same reviewer on an owner-disabled Cache: “I noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess of the period of "a few weeks" as contemplated by the cache guidelines published on Geocaching.com.”

With such of hurry I would place only cheap micros and archive them after few DNFs.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

With such of hurry I would place only cheap micros and archive them after few DNFs.

A quote from the updated guidelines on CO responsibility:

”With more than 3 million geocaches worldwide, cache owners must be extra careful to keep their geocaches in good shape. This prevents “geo-litter” and keeps the game fun for all involved. If a cache owner shows that they can’t keep up with the maintenance of their existing caches, they might lose their hiding privileges.”

”Extra careful” doesn’t include a time limit, but passing by your nearby, easily accessible cache for months doesn’t seem to fit that description. And frankly, if maintenance is such a hassle that it takes months to get around to maintaining such a cache, yeah, don’t bother placing them. I don’t care how clever a cache is if it’s not there! Or worse, the log is unsignable for some reason so I have to debate whether I can count a Find after all the work of reaching it.

I really don’t want to pick a fight with you, personally, but two months to check a cache 100m from your home? I just don’t get it. We are proud of our hides and respect other players’ time and effort. We want them to search for our hides! I understand if a cache is hard to reach, but it seems more like you are arguing that an “I can’t be bothered” attitude is just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I really don’t want to pick a fight with you, personally, but two months to check a cache 100m from your home? I just don’t get it.

This is a living example and the time period is the same two months as in your example. I am pretty sure that I will enable the cache soon. Maybe not today but during the weekend unless there is some FTF hunt etc. which takes the priority. I don't see what advance it makes if the cache is enabled sooner than later. There is no known deadline to get the find.

The point of my example is just to compare practices all over the world and also to discuss about reasons behind these practices. For example, could you give me some good reason why it is important to enable my cache today. I could do this right away if it's worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The point of my example is just to compare practices all over the world and also to discuss about reasons behind these practices. For example, could you give me some good reason why it is important to enable my cache today. I could do this right away if it's worth it.

I am curious about different areas.

It’s not so much that you should rush out today. I don’t have plane tickets for the flight from California to Finland yet so you have a bit of time before I’ll be personally disappointed, lol. 

But I think the guidelines do make a good point. There are a lot of caches out there. In some areas land managers and authorities may even question the value and impact of Geocaching. Some Park agencies here in the US view Geocaches as just more “trash” and forbid their placement. It isn’t too hard to see how a number of caches in disrepair, that aren’t even officially “in play” could support that viewpoint.

also, this thread and the one on CO score (as well as others) deal with the effect of neglected caches. Maybe you do eventually get around to maintaining your caches and your Reviewers and community know that. But there are other owners who never seem to get around to maintenance. Sometimes they aren’t even active and it just takes a while (years?!) for the community to realize it.

You said you would prioritize running for a new cache (same here!) For every neglected cache that is unfindable, that is one more potential 161 m spot that can’t have a new cache placed.

I’m in a semi-urban area. Public areas and other permitted spots are at a premium near town (to the east there’s plenty of mountainous forest, but that’s a different style of hide, isn’t it?)

When a CO ignores a troubled cache for months or longer, it makes us wonder how serious they are about that cache. Locals and visitors have one less cache on the board -and when a CO owns dozens such caches- it has a noticeable effect on the game.

 

 

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post

 Another example: the guidelines suggest archiving an unpublished Cache after three months to open up that location for another cache. It’s the same effect when existing caches are ignored for months on end. 

Share this post


Link to post

The underlying issue is why is the cache disabled for so long? If it's ultimately because "I couldn't be bothered" or "It's not that important", then that's a reflection of the cache owner and their opinion of cache ownership. Having a cache out there is having a cache that is available for geocachers to find. As a CO, sure, a few days here or there doesn't make a big difference. But for a geocacher passing through, or one on a schedule, a disabled cache is one less cache to find. If the intent to have published caches be findable, then it's right to ensure that cache owners avoid leaving caches disabled without good reason.  I don't think that's a regional thing, I'd say that ethic applies globally.

arisoft, you ask for a reason to enable now rather than later?

I ask why not enable that cache 100m from home if it's good to go, now, rather than just let it sit for no good reason other than you can?  There might be a geocacher who wants to find it today or tomorrow, and is just waiting for it to be enabled.

I say, do it now if you can.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

With such of hurry I would place only cheap micros and archive them after few DNFs.

That's the norm. I don't think it has anything to do with having to maintain them within a matter of weeks. Cheap is used because it's cheap or free. And most owners have no intention of going back, if  someone doesn't throwdown a cache, the COs maintenance plan is archival. How is this good for the pastime? And why would you emulate this poor behavior in retaliation?

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But there are other owners who never seem to get around to maintenance. Sometimes they aren’t even active and it just takes a while (years?!) for the community to realize it.

It is important that there is no discrimination. The process should be the same whatever the situation is. You suspect that some are using that process somehow opportunistic way. I have seen many times how CO disables the cache and promises to fix it soon but nothing ever happens. I see this more like a behaviour model than a negligence. That type of person propably does the same in other situations too. They will not even pay their debt even if they promise. The process should handle this situation without causing too much harm to reliable players.

59 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Locals and visitors have one less cache on the board -and when a CO owns dozens such caches- it has a noticeable effect on the game.

There is no evidence that archiving caches more and faster will increase the number of caches even in long run and churning is not a goal. For me it is difficult to imagine what is the noticeable effect you are referring here.

43 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

 Another example: the guidelines suggest archiving an unpublished Cache after three months to open up that location for another cache. It’s the same effect when existing caches are ignored for months on end. 

I have kept one unpublished cache place reserved over two years. During that time couple of geocachers tried to use the same hide spot but I managed to keep the place and finally I got the cache published. Maybe the reviewer knew that I am not going to throw pill bottles to random places and I have a good reason to plan a cache just in that place as I had.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

a disabled cache is one less cache to find

This is not a logically valid claim until it is the last cache in your available space. And even then you will find it later.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

That's the norm. I don't think it has anything to do with having to maintain them within a matter of weeks. Cheap is used because it's cheap or free. And most owners have no intention of going back, if  someone doesn't throwdown their maintenance plan is archival. How is this good for the pastime? And why would you emulate this poor behavior in retaliation?

Right, currently there is no relation because I do not believe that there really are reviewers who expect caches to be repaired just in couple of weeks. In the opposite case, I wouldn't call it retaliation, but rather a practical one to place only disposable worthless containers just for few weeks until they get lost as usually.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, arisoft said:
49 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

a disabled cache is one less cache to find

This is not a logically valid claim until it is the last cache in your available space. And even then you will find it later.

uh, huh?  No, a disabled cache implies that it is not findable. Not "findable later". It's disabled. If I go for it, there is a good chance it is not findable (for whatever reason, disabled is meant to imply "do not find this cache" regardless of whether it's there not). So yes, it's "one less cache to find".  Obviously it might be enabled later, but that was the whole point of the rest of my comment above.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Right, currently there is no relation because I do not believe that there really are reviewers who expect caches to be repaired just in couple of weeks. In the opposite case, I wouldn't call it retaliation, but rather a practical one to place only disposable worthless containers just for few weeks until they get lost as usually.

A couple weeks? Even I hope that’s not the case. But months? Why? Forget whether it has an effect on other players or the status of the passtime. If you enjoy the game, and enjoy placing “pieces” for other players why don’t you enjoy maintaining them? That IS part of the game!

I love sailing. I’m too busy now but when I did own a boat, a large part of my joy came from spiffing her up, looking for new bits of equipment, etc. When my life changed and keeping her from sinking at her slip became a burden instead of a joy, I let her go.

I'm almost more curious about your motivation than challenging your attitude. Again, why?

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Stupid autocorrect
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

uh, huh?  No, a disabled cache implies that it is not findable. Not "findable later".

I must explain this better. When you count your daily finds, the disabled cache is not one find less or even one opportunity less, because you go to find an another cache instead. Missing but enabled cache equals one or many finds less as you certainly know. For me, one dnf sometimes means zero finds for that day.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I must explain this better. When you count your daily finds, the disabled cache is not one find less or even one opportunity less, because you go to find an another cache instead. Missing but enabled cache equals one or many finds less as you certainly know. For me, one dnf sometimes means zero finds for that day.

Example: someone is visiting our town. They are at a hotel. They have an hour to spare and want to grab some caches. In the neighborhood, within the distance they’d have time to walk, are 4 hide locations. Two contain disabled caches. They now only have two to find. If the caches that inhabit those locations are disabled for long stretches of time, it effects the game in that neighborhood. Visitors have a lower quality caching experience and local cachers are frustrated because they know this is an area where tourists might cache but the “real estate” is taken up by what are essentially abandoned caches. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

A couple weeks? Even I hope that’s not the case. But months? Why? Forget whether it has an effect on other players or the status of the last time. If you enjoy the game, and enjoy placing “pieces” for other players why don’t you enjoy maintaining them? That IS part of the game!

Maintaining is just one part of the game. The part that is not urgent. Disabling the cache is urgent. If you need some indicator for negligence, I would suggest you to record the time, how fast the cache is disabled when it's time for that.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Maintaining is just one part of the game. The part that is not urgent. Disabling the cache is urgent. If you need some indicator for negligence, I would suggest you to record the time, how fast the cache is disabled when it's time for that.

Again from the guidelines: 

  • Disable a cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.

pretty clear. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I’d also add that the least “urgent”’part of the game is PLACING a cache. That’s the stage that takes some innovative thinking, perhaps some research, gaining permission and above all, mulling the question we are asked as we submit it: “can you maintain it?”

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Also, the conditions that lead to disabling a cache may be unclear. We pretty much argued that one out a few pages ago. DNF’s may or may not indicate a problem. In my area all the caches are “damp” inside but you can still sign a rite-in-the-rain log.

 But once a CO admits there’s an issue, or a reviewer disables the cache, there’s no doubt that attention is needed. So why not fix the problem at the first opportunity? What does a CO gain by NOT following through?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Example: someone is visiting our town. They are at a hotel. They have an hour to spare and want to grab some caches. In the neighborhood, within the distance they’d have time to walk, are 4 hide locations. Two contain disabled caches. They now only have two to find. If the caches that inhabit those locations are disabled for long stretches of time, it effects the game in that neighborhood. Visitors have a lower quality caching experience and local cachers are frustrated because they know this is an area where tourists might cache but the “real estate” is taken up by what are essentially abandoned caches. 

This is a good example. Most likely, the visitor would choose another city but maybe the visitor is here because someone else bring him to this bad located hotel. But I see a flaw in your calculations. If there are only 4 caches around the hotel it means that it takes at least 644 m (4/10 mile) to walk when one of them is in the reception. But it is not the only possible configuration because there can be six caches around the hotel at 161m (1/10 mile) range and many more if you are not forced to circulate your hotel only. Of course it will cost a little longer walk. At least you can collect 3 caches instead of 2 if two of the nearest caches are disabled. But you are right, if the time for finding the caches is very limited, you may actually find less caches.

Can you estimate how many finds the visitor could get if the two disabled caches were archived faster?

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This is a good example. Most likely, the visitor would choose another city but maybe the visitor is here because someone else bring him to this bad located hotel. But I see a flaw in your calculations. If there are only 4 caches around the hotel it means that it takes at least 644 m (4/10 mile) to walk when one of them is in the reception. But it is not the only possible configuration because there can be six caches around the hotel at 161m (1/10 mile) range and many more if you are not forced to circulate your hotel only. Of course it will cost a little longer walk. At least you can collect 3 caches instead of 2 if two of the nearest caches are disabled. But you are right, if the time for finding the caches is very limited, you may actually find less caches.

Can you estimate how many finds the visitor could get if the two disabled caches were archived faster?

Umm, besides the fact that I think you are missing the point, this isn’t hypothetical. This exists in my city. Perhaps the hotel is “badly located” since I doubt the owners took potential Geocache-hiding spots into account when they chose the location. Not every 528’ circle has an acceptable spot for a cache.

Now before we somehow fall into a lengthy discussion of how this example can be hypothetically modified, thats not the point.

The point is attitude. The guidelines request - indeed require - a cache owner to be ready and willing to maintain their physical cache. So it really doesn’t matter how well an example fits, or if any of us can prove it has an effect on the game. That’s just how the game is supposed to be played. Period. 

Again the question: if a CO has no reason not to maintain his cache, why don’t they? If the answer is they have something better to do with their time, then they shouldn’t be engaging in this part of the game. Go find some caches! 

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

 

49 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Maintaining is just one part of the game. The part that is not urgent. Disabling the cache is urgent. If you need some indicator for negligence, I would suggest you to record the time, how fast the cache is disabled when it's time for that.

Again from the guidelines: 

  • Disable a cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.

pretty clear. 

 

Unfortunately, it does not say anything about the time spent to disable the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Unfortunately, it does not say anything about the time spent to disable the cache.

No, it doesn’t here. There are places where the guidelines explain the need to Disable a cache when it needs attention. I totally agree that a good CO should be attentive to their caches and disable them as soon as it appears they are in distress. But it’s obviously more important to TPTB that COs actually DO something about the issue once it’s clear there’s a problem.

again, it can be hard to know when to Disable, and it could happen for a lot of reasons so how can you put a time limit on that? But from the second a cache is disabled, the expectancy is the CO will fix the issue (otherwise they would have archived it). If that maintenance can’t (Or doesn’t) happen for months, it’s fair to wonder why.

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Added thought

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

The point is attitude. The guidelines request - indeed require - a cache owner to be ready and willing to maintain their physical cache. So it really doesn’t matter how well an example fits, or if any of us can prove it has an effect on the game. That’s just how the game is supposed to be played. Period. 

For me, it is enough it the CO maintain the cache. The speed of the process is not important to me because we do not have deadline of geocaching yet. When Groudspeak annouces the deadline then it will be important that every cache is immediatelly fixed and findable. I feel my time wasted only when the cache is not in place but still enabled by a negligent CO but I do not play this for numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

For me, it is enough it the CO maintain the cache. The speed of the process is not important to me because we do not have deadline of geocaching yet. When Groudspeak annouces the deadline then it will be important that every cache is immediatelly fixed and findable. I feel my time wasted only when the cache is not in place but still enabled by a negligent CO but I do not play this for numbers.

How do you define “maintain?” If my car breaks down and I stick it in my back yard for five years before repairing it, can I claim I properly maintain my vehicle?

if your local utility company experiences frequent power outages and claim that in the past they always eventually get around to fixing the problem does that mean they “maintain” the power grid properly?

obviously we are talking about a game not vital infrastructure. But, again, what attitude is shown in those examples? 

And while there aren’t any strict deadlines, the guidelines are, as I already stated in quoting them, pretty clear. No one said immediately, the guidelines do state “generally up to four weeks.” 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

again, it can be hard to know when to Disable, and it could happen for a lot of reasons so how can you put a time limit on that? But from the second a cache is disabled, the expectancy is the CO will fix the issue (otherwise they would have archived it). If that maintenance can’t (Or doesn’t) happen for months, it’s fair to wonder why.

Earlier, if the CO suspected that there may be a problem, he could use Need Maintenance to warn players and to remember him about the situation. Now there is no such tool. Due to these unrealistic expectations for express service the CO most likely does nothing and plays time waiting for the rewiever to disable the cache and everyone suffers.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Earlier, if the CO suspected that there may be a problem, he could use Need Maintenance to warn players and to remember him about the situation. Now there is no such tool. Due to these unrealistic expectations for express service the CO most likely does nothing and plays time waiting for the rewiever to disable the cache and everyone suffers.

Others have mentioned they just create a list with whatever caches need attention. Plus, if they are that bad, as you pointed out, they should be disabled until back up and running. It would be hard to miss your disabled caches. 

And again, I don’t know how a month is “express service.” And realistically a Reviewer isn’t usually  going to make an issue if it goes a little longer, unless there are other reasons to think the CO really just isn’t going to fix the problem. Usually, in our area, if a CO disabled their own cache and it stays disabled 6 weeks or so a Reviewer posts a note asking about status and mentioning the possibility of Archival. The CO can respond to that note  in any number of ways. It’s only after THAT goes ignored that the cache may be archived.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

For me, it is enough it the CO maintain the cache. The speed of the process is not important to me because we do not have deadline of geocaching yet. When Groudspeak annouces the deadline then it will be important that every cache is immediatelly fixed and findable. I feel my time wasted only when the cache is not in place but still enabled by a negligent CO but I do not play this for numbers.

Suppose everyone adopted your attitude and left their caches "temporary" disabled for months or years for no good reason other than "I can't be bothered yet". The map would be full of grey circles, each blocking some 81,000 square metres of territory where someone else might otherwise be able to put a cache that people can actually find.

Sure, if there are good reasons for having a cache disabled for an extended period, like roadworks or park maintenance, that's fine and the guidelines allow it provided the CO keeps posting regular updates, but procrastination isn't a good reason and I'm glad the reviewers here are fairly strict on that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

How do you define “maintain?

I would use this definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/maintain

26 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

And while there aren’t any strict deadlines, the guidelines are, as I already stated in quoting them, pretty clear. No one said immediately, the guidelines do state “generally up to four weeks.” 

I am very surprised that you are more interested about the time used to fix the cache after it is disabled than time used to disable the cache when it is needed. The latter one should be more important factor when you identify negligent COs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am very surprised that you are more interested about the time used to fix the cache after it is disabled than time used to disable the cache when it is needed. The latter one should be more important factor when you identify negligent COs.

Both are important, for it's the sum of the two times that's how long the cache is unfindable for. The Help Centre page on the CHS begins with Geocaching is more fun when caches are available to find. A disabled cache isn't any more able to be found than one that's missing but hasn't been disabled yet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I don’t know how a month is “express service.”

I can imagine that some geocachers does geocaching occasionally. For example during weekends or areas where they have other business. It may take months until there is real opportunity to visit the cache. The local pactice, you explained, sounds realistic. As you told, no one expect the cache to be fixed in 4 weeks or even 6 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I would use this definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/maintain

I am very surprised that you are more interested about the time used to fix the cache after it is disabled than time used to disable the cache when it is needed. The latter one should be more important factor when you identify negligent COs.

I’m not the cache police. I don’t need a way to identify negligent cache ownership. “I know it when I see it.” There is no way for me to gauge “how long” it took a CO to Disable a Cache. 

Lets say my cache, the furthest from home, gets a DNF today. Most of us would argue that isn’t enough for me to drive down and check. A month from now it gets a second DNF. Should I Disable it from home? Drop everything and check it? A month later it gets a third and this time the cacher messages me with clear evidence that it’s missing and I instantly Disable it. How long did that take me? Instantly or three months?

Now lets say I don’t go down there and fix it for six months. How long did it take me to complete needed maintenance? Six months. Six months during which I KNEW there was an issue but did nothing to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

A disabled cache isn't any more able to be found than one that's missing but hasn't been disabled yet.

An archived cache isn't (theoretically) any more able to be found. Disabling is temporary and you can find the cache later as you do with most unfound caches anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I can imagine that some geocachers does geocaching occasionally. For example during weekends or areas where they have other business. It may take months until there is real opportunity to visit the cache. The local pactice, you explained, sounds realistic. As you told, no one expect the cache to be fixed in 4 weeks or even 6 weeks.

And four weeks is what is listed in the guidelines.  That’s all anyone is saying. What’s concerning is the effort being put into excusing intentional disregard. I haven’t seen a single “but what if ...” argument. It’s just “why should I have to?” to which the simple response is “that’s what he Guidelines say.”

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

An archived cache isn't (theoretically) any more able to be found. Disabling is temporary and you can find the cache later as you do with most unfound caches anyway.

If you're a local you can, if you don't die of old age in the meantime, but visitors to the area aren't likely to be able to just wait around for a few months or years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

An archived cache isn't (theoretically) any more able to be found.

A archived cache at least frees up the area for someone else who might be a bit more willing to keep their cache available to find.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

There is no way for me to gauge “how long” it took a CO to Disable a Cache. 

I suggest to calculate the time span between disable log and the last visitor's log before it, if there is no better information available from TFTCs.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe it’s my own vanity, but I’d like to think that the effort we put into our hides and learning this game will eventually lead to a player saying “wow, that Doc Musketeers hide was a blast! I wonder if they have more caches around here?” My daydream of Geocaching stardom does not include their search returning a page of struck-through cache names. I don’t understand players who wouldn’t take that same healthy pride.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×