Record for Finds After Disabled?

[+colleda]

Came across this cache today.

 

GC42C95

Disabled by CO in Aug 2016. Has has about 40 finds since then. I've never seen that before.

[+L0ne.R]

Disabled in 2016 because the log looks like this. No further response from the cache owner. No one will post an NA.

In my area the reviewer usually picks up on long disabled caches and sends out a reviewer note, usually followed up a month later with a reviewer archival because of the owner does not respond.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+J Grouchy]

19 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

In my area the reviewer usually picks up on long disabled caches and sends out a reviewer note, usually followed up a month later with a reviewer archival because of the owner does not respond.

 

This is exactly what SHOULD happen and does happen in my area.  Either this area is underserved by reviewers or the reviewer is not keeping up well with his or her 'jurisdiction'.

[garyo1954]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

Came across this cache today.

 

GC42C95

Disabled by CO in Aug 2016. Has has about 40 finds since then. I've never seen that before.

Since you mentioned it, I noticed a found cache after I searched (twice) with no luck, Then I noticed the person had logged a second cache with almost copy and paste description of his actions which made me curious. Figured I'd look them up.

Well, they aren't local. The flew in from another state, logged 305 caches in four days criscrossing East Texas. Google maps say by direct route, paying tolls, traveling point to point they traveled 760 odd miles, an average of 1 cache every 2.5 miles. Looking at the route, with the back tracking, turnarounds, crossovers and cutoffs, it appears closer to 1000 miles.

Checking random logs along the way each one starts, "Found while"...on my way to city. Each one says..."Parked in a convenient spot nearby and made the short walk over." Each one says, "Found it easily after a short search."

Then there is this entry. Two weeks after the owner has declared the cache missing, the tree trimmed and unsuitable, and has archived the location.

But that's not my monkey;not my circus......

[+arisoft]

The cache seems to be in good condition. On what basis does the cache need archiving?

[+AnnaMoritz]

22 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The cache seems to be in good condition. On what basis does the cache need archiving?

Maybe because some want every cache that isn't maintained by the owner of the cache to be archived. If it was a finder that brought a new logbook/logsheet or replaced a broken container and cleaned up the mess.

Here someone brought a poly bag and a paper when the logbook got lost. Next finder said "Bingo, there was the pretty container. It is really ok. No need to deactivate. "

Edited March 21, 2018 by AnnaMoritz

[+Bear and Ragged]

Also in the UK

 

Disabled 14 Aug 2015

Quote

 

Temporarily Disable Listing
14/Aug/2015

If you are certain you found GZ you are welome to log found. I'll procure the necessaries and replace imminently!

 

 

Disabled 10 May 2013

Quote

 

Temporarily Disable Listing
10/May/2013

I am disabling the cache whilst we look into permission issues on this, and other caches in the area.

 

Both still being 'Found'

 

 

[+dprovan]

I've seen this a few times, although perhaps not as much as this. Usually the cache is disabled for a good reason, but the reason isn't that the cache absolutely can't be found. One example is a disable for a temporary condition which clears, so people start finding the cache again before the CO gets around to enabling it (if he ever does). The other situation that's happened quite a lot lately are puzzle caches involving pictures on photobucket, so the pictures are no longer available because photobucket changed its policy about 3rd party links. Many of these have been quite rightly disabled -- even archived -- even though a lot of people have already solved the puzzle, so they don't need the pictures. In my area a lot of puzzle caches were disabled for this reason, and, while I wouldn't call it a rush, many people are picking up those caches in case the cache ends up being archived because the pictures are never restored.

I've seen caches disabled for good reasons, such as lack of permission, but people have continued finding it despite the reason. That's unfortunate, but happily I've only seen it happen once or twice.

[+colleda]

10 hours ago, colleda said:

Came across this cache today.

 

GC42C95

Disabled by CO in Aug 2016. Has has about 40 finds since then. I've never seen that before.

I happened upon this one because we will be in Llangollen in June and I was scouting the area for disabled caches to see what the situation was and if there was a possiblity of caches being enabled by the time we get there.

As it happened, we moored our rental narrowboat about 100m from the above cache back in September last year and could have found it except for the fact that it wasn't in our GPSrs due to being disabled and I never thought to double check on my smartphone. Win some, lose some.

[+J Grouchy]

18 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said:

Maybe because some want every cache that isn't maintained by the owner of the cache to be archived. If it was a finder that brought a new logbook/logsheet or replaced a broken container and cleaned up the mess.

Here someone brought a poly bag and a paper when the logbook got lost. Next finder said "Bingo, there was the pretty container. It is really ok. No need to deactivate. "

And yet it's still disabled, which says to me that the CO is not even doing the bare minimum by keeping the cache page in good order.  

[+L0ne.R]

On 3/21/2018 at 3:37 PM, AnnaMoritz said:

Maybe because some want every cache that isn't maintained by the owner of the cache to be archived. If it was a finder that brought a new logbook/logsheet or replaced a broken container and cleaned up the mess.

Here someone brought a poly bag and a paper when the logbook got lost. Next finder said "Bingo, there was the pretty container. It is really ok. No need to deactivate. "

Sounds like the container is substandard. Adding another log will mean it too will get soaked. And what's the point anyway? The log is a lesson in futility since no one actually cares about the cache and paper log.  I think most geocache owners would prefer a virtual waypoint, or a QR code on a tag (aka munzee) as long as it gets a GC smiley because GC smileys attract more people. 

Integrity of the game doesn't matter. A geolitter game is A-OK with most. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by L0ne.R
grammar and typo fix as noted by barefootjeff in post below

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Sounds like the container is substandard. Adding another log will mean it too will get soaked. And what's the point anyway? The log is a lesson in futility since no one actually cares about the cache and paper log.  I think most geocacher owners would prefer a virtual waypoint, or a QR code on a tag (aka munzee) as long as it gets a GC smiley because GC smileys attract more people. 

Integrity of the game doesn't matter. A geolitter game is A-OK with most. 

I don't own any geocachers (slavery tends to be frowned upon these days), but no, this geocache owner definitely prefers physical logbooks over any of those alternatives. From what I've seen of virtuals, getting people to perform even the simplest of tasks is like herding cats, and anything else like a QR code is too easily photographed and distributed for armchair logging. Logbooks are the least of my worries as either a CO or a seeker.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't own any geocachers (slavery tends to be frowned upon these days), but no, this geocache owner definitely prefers physical logbooks over any of those alternatives. From what I've seen of virtuals, getting people to perform even the simplest of tasks is like herding cats, and anything else like a QR code is too easily photographed and distributed for armchair logging. Logbooks are the least of my worries as either a CO or a seeker.

Thanks for pointing out my typo. I do tend to do that a lot and they are quite embareassing. 

[+barefootjeff]

40 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Thanks for pointing out my typo. I do tend to do that a lot and they are quite embareassing. 

Sorry, I just couldn't resist . Sometimes I think having a nimble slave geocacher would be handy for getting to those troublesome high-terrain caches.

Looking back over my maintenance history, floods, rockfalls and muggles seem to be my main adversaries, with occasional TDs when GZ is inaccessible due to maintenance work or hazard reduction burns, and a multi with a semi-submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime wiped off it every few months. I've replaced two logbooks that were a little worse for wear after the serious floods we had a year or two back, but they were still servicable, just a bit tatty with bleed-through from someone's water-based pen. None of my logbooks have ever become full and there's only one of my caches where that's likely to happen in my lifetime (after 4 years it's about two-thirds full). So no, eliminating logbooks isn't something I desire.

[+colleda]

Sooooo, can anyone better 40 finds after TD?

[+justintim1999]

20 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

And yet it's still disabled, which says to me that the CO is not even doing the bare minimum by keeping the cache page in good order.  

Bingo

[+J Grouchy]

14 hours ago, colleda said:

Sooooo, can anyone better 40 finds after TD?

How about a list of caches that have been TEMPORARILY disabled the longest?

I'll start with 12 years

But like I've said, reviewers get some sort of special pass to flout the rules.  Instead of doing what they tell everyone else they have to do and archiving it then republishing it when permission is granted, they just make it inactive for years on end because hey, they are reviewers. Tough noogies.

[Keystone]

17 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

How about a list of caches that have been TEMPORARILY disabled the longest?

I'll start with 12 years

But like I've said, reviewers get some sort of special pass to flout the rules.  Instead of doing what they tell everyone else they have to do and archiving it then republishing it when permission is granted, they just make it inactive for years on end because hey, they are reviewers. Tough noogies.

1.  There is no special pass given to all reviewers to let their caches stay disabled for a long time.  To the contrary, we're told to serve as an example.  I leave reviewer reminders on my own player account's caches, just like anyone else's.

2.  The owner of the linked cache retired with honor after more than a decade as a reviewer.  The reasons for leaving that cache as-is have not changed.

3.  Further unsubstantiated allegations of this nature will be subject to appropriate forum guideline discipline.

[+J Grouchy]

47 minutes ago, Keystone said:

2.  The owner of the linked cache retired with honor after more than a decade as a reviewer.  The reasons for leaving that cache as-is have not changed.

Sorry...but I just don't recognize the reasons given as being valid.  But I'll let it go and say no more about it.

[+justintim1999]

Can someone tell me what CRNRA stand for?

[+Touchstone]

28 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Can someone tell me what CRNRA stand for?

Link for reference:

 

https://www.nps.gov/chat/index.htm

[+justintim1999]

16 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Link for reference:

 

https://www.nps.gov/chat/index.htm

Thank you

[+justintim1999]

I have no problem with giving a retired reviewer some sort of perk as reward for their service.  I'm sure there's a valad reason but I just can't figure out why they'd want to leave the cache permanently disabled?   

Edited March 23, 2018 by justintim1999
spelling "for"

[+L0ne.R]

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I have no problem with giving a retired reviewer some sort of perk as reward fro their service.  I'm sure there's a valad reason but I just can't figure out why they'd want to leave the cache permanently disabled?   

Same here. I'm not seeing a benefit to anyone.

[+justintim1999]

20 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Same here. I'm not seeing a benefit to anyone.

It may somehow be a benefit to the owner.   After 10 years of service and this is what you ask for, there must be a very personal reason why.   It's none of my business and I don't feel I'm entitled to an answer.   I'm just curious is all.   

Edited March 23, 2018 by justintim1999

[+Isonzo Karst]

I can't add to the record for finds after disabled, but I sure am seeing a lot of Owner Maintenance logs, "cache is disabled", or equivalent,  (cache is active) with finds after that.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Sorry...but I just don't recognize the reasons given as being valid.  But I'll let it go and say no more about it.

I could understand why that reviewer was given some preferences. He reviewed caches all over the world for areas which didn't have a dedicated reviewer.  I've found caches reviewed by erik on two different continents. 

[+justintim1999]

16 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I could understand why that reviewer was given some preferences. He reviewed caches all over the world for areas which didn't have a dedicated reviewer.  I've found caches reviewed by erik on two different continents. 

That's cool.

[+J Grouchy]

56 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I could understand why that reviewer was given some preferences. He reviewed caches all over the world for areas which didn't have a dedicated reviewer.  I've found caches reviewed by erik on two different continents. 

 

I stated I'll say "no more" about it...so I'll just repeat what I already said:  "I just don't recognize the reasons given as being valid."

[+bflentje]

5 hours ago, Keystone said:

1.  There is no special pass given to all reviewers to let their caches stay disabled for a long time.  To the contrary, we're told to serve as an example.  I leave reviewer reminders on my own player account's caches, just like anyone else's.

2.  The owner of the linked cache retired with honor after more than a decade as a reviewer.  The reasons for leaving that cache as-is have not changed.

3.  Further unsubstantiated allegations of this nature will be subject to appropriate forum guideline discipline.

Interesting cache history.

I don't know what the story is. It's none of my business and I don't have a horse in the race. Even if I lived in the area it wouldn't affect me because of the way I play the game. But what irks people is the inconsistency, or even the appearance of inconsistency even if there is a valid story. So I get both sides. But there must be a way to archive it and then unarchive it if whatever obstacle is eventually overcome. Problem solved for the CO. Problem solved for Groundspeak. And problem solved for those that are sensitive to such issues. But to let us all sit here and speculate doesn't do any of us any good.

[+L0ne.R]

19 minutes ago, bflentje said:

But what irks people is the inconsistency, or even the appearance of inconsistency even if there is a valid story. So I get both sides. But there must be a way to archive it and then unarchive it if whatever obstacle is eventually overcome. Problem solved for the CO. Problem solved for Groundspeak. And problem solved for those that are sensitive to such issues. But to let us all sit here and speculate doesn't do any of us any good.

^^Yes, this.^^

[+justintim1999]

I

32 minutes ago, bflentje said:

Interesting cache history.

I don't know what the story is. It's none of my business and I don't have a horse in the race. Even if I lived in the area it wouldn't affect me because of the way I play the game. But what irks people is the inconsistency, or even the appearance of inconsistency even if there is a valid story. So I get both sides. But there must be a way to archive it and then unarchive it if whatever obstacle is eventually overcome. Problem solved for the CO. Problem solved for Groundspeak. And problem solved for those that are sensitive to such issues. But to let us all sit here and speculate doesn't do any of us any good.

I wouldn't call one or two exceptions (especially in this case) inconsistent.    Are we really going to denigrate the entire system because GS decided to allow, at the request of a long time volunteer,  one cache to remain disabled indefinitely?

By people do you mean a select few who can't see past their own pettiness? 

All I can say to them is,  volunteer your time (free of charge) for the next then years and you may get to have one too.   

[+MartyBartfast]

21 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Are we really going to denigrate the entire system because GS decided to allow, at the request of a long time volunteer,  one cache to remain disabled indefinitely?

Not one cache, but three, in the same park.

One of them did get an archive warning from a reviewer, which elicited this response from the CO:
 

Quote

Please don't archive this cache. I am sentimentally attached to it.

Which doesn't seem to me good enough reason to keep three disabled caches on the books for 12 years.
 

Other posts on this particular subject have suggested that someone is hoping the park authority will come around and eventually allow caches at which point these will be re-enabled. Is it really the best course of action to respond to the park authority's refusal with "well we're gonna leave these caches on the map until you come around to our way of thinking" ?

I wonder what the park authority's response would be if a group of cachers somehow got these temp disabled caches on their GPS and turned up at the 3 GZs and spent hours looking for something which isn't there, and consequently trashed the area?

I'm pretty sure Joe Cacher wouldn't be allowed to keep these three caches, and I don't think an ex reviewer should be allowed either.

 

If the CO is so attached to these three GZs and wants to make sure they're the ones who's caches are there when/if the park comes round then the right way to do it would be:

Archive the disabled caches.

Prepare new cache listings in the same area.

Have Groundspeak keep the new listings on the "pending" list in perpetuity, which wouldn't affect/offend anyone.

Everyone's a winner.

 

Just my HO but we're in danger of veering off topic and getting a ban .

[+bflentje]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I

I wouldn't call one or two exceptions (especially in this case) inconsistent.    Are we really going to denigrate the entire system because GS decided to allow, at the request of a long time volunteer,  one cache to remain disabled indefinitely?

By people do you mean a select few who can't see past their own pettiness? 

All I can say to them is,  volunteer your time (free of charge) for the next then years and you may get to have one too.   

My statement about consistency was stated in such a way that suggested I wasn't referring strictly about this particular issue, but any inconsistencies across the board about anything.

And then everything you said starting in paragraph two and beyond is just as petty as what you claim to be petty.

[Keystone]

A nice, normal discussion about finding caches that are disabled has now been irretrievably derailed, as many posters could not take the hint from my prior note to stay on-topic.  So, I am closing this thread, with apologies to colleda and others who were sharing their experiences prior to the derailment.