Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Team Microdot

You have too many caches when...

Recommended Posts

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:00 PM, The Magna Defender said:

[Text removed by moderator] This particular series has only been out a year, it got a flurry of finders when it was new and now its been sat there without finds for about 8 months. Of course the caches will be inevitably wet. This one guy was the first to turn up in ages. I never said I wouldn't maintain it, I said I would archive them if the situation continues. How am I supposed to know what state a cache is in if it hasn't been visited for 8 months??

 

The problem I have is that most cachers nowadays are so fixated on the state of the cache, they never ever say anything about the walk they've done, the wildlife theyve seen or the gorgeous views. They are just so fixated on the scrawl of dingy paper they write nothing else on their online log. As a CO I want to hear about their experiences and frankly that's gone out the window in recent years. 

Before I proceed with this I would like to know what situation?   The situation of the caches getting wet or the situation of people commenting on the fact?

 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why is owning a cache so important?    So much so that the owner can't bring themselves to archive it and in turn will jump through all sorts of hoops to keep something they're unwilling or unable to take care of.  

Good question.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Try this on for size.   "Thanks for the info on the cache.  It's been a long wet winter here and I'm sure I've got some cleaning up to do.   Won't be long till I can get out and take care of this one."    

I think it was the "not my fault" comment and the threat to archive the caches which bothered me.  

You may have too many caches when........you post comments like this one.      

That's great and nice and all, but abusive, threatening, embarrassing, and rude?  Rude, yes, but not to the point of being offensive.  I have no problem with the weather comment (he can't control the weather) and there's no way to know if the container was compromised by the last hider by not being securely fastened or not, so it may not have been his fault.  I agree with the archive threat, but again, who cares.  Go ahead and archive them if comments about a wet log cause you angst and make you archive the caches.  His comments don't "bother" me that much, certainly not to point that they apparently bother the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

That's great and nice and all, but abusive, threatening, embarrassing, and rude?  Rude, yes, but not to the point of being offensive.  I have no problem with the weather comment (he can't control the weather) and there's no way to know if the container was compromised by the last hider by not being securely fastened or not, so it may not have been his fault.  I agree with the archive threat, but again, who cares.  Go ahead and archive them if comments about a wet log cause you angst and make you archive the caches.  His comments don't "bother" me that much, certainly not to point that they apparently bother the OP.

They bother me and I've been around a while.   I can only imagine how comments like that can effect someone who may be new to the game.

I don't see any reason to address a person or the situation in that manor.  

Edited by justintim1999
who
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

it may not have been his fault

It doesn't matter. By saying "it's not my fault", suggests that unless it is his fault he does not plan on checking and maintaining his caches. 

Whether it feels "rude" or not isn't really the point. It's about whether he's trying to put people off from posting NMs. I think he is.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't want to get into an argument here, but it seems to me that the CO has the responsibility of maintaining the cache and keeping it in good condition. That includes replacing the log when it gets wet. In my opinion, it's the CO's responsibility to repair or replace a cache if it's damaged or missing.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 321geocache said:

I don't want to get into an argument here, but it seems to me that the CO has the responsibility of maintaining the cache and keeping it in good condition. That includes replacing the log when it gets wet. In my opinion, it's the CO's responsibility to repair or replace a cache if it's damaged or missing.

Even more, it's written right in the guidelines that the CO agrees to when they submit their cache (current wording below, but the essence hasn't changed for many, many years).

Quote

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

  • Visit the geocache regularly.
  • Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
  • Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
  • Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter. By saying "it's not my fault", suggests that unless it is his fault he does not plan on checking and maintaining his caches. 

Whether it feels "rude" or not isn't really the point. It's about whether he's trying to put people off from posting NMs. I think he is.

I'm not arguing the maintenance responsibility aspect of this and am in full agreement that if that's the attitude the CO is going to take, then perhaps cache ownership shouldn't be something they aspire to.  I'm arguing that the abusive, embarrassing, threatening, and rude comments are an overreaction to the actual comment made.  If that's not the point, then why did the OP even bring those adjectives into play if the point was that this particular CO might have too many caches?  Abusive is the one that particularly gets to me.

"Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."

17 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't see any reason to address a person or the situation in that manor. 

The OP was just as bad, IMO, when the CO"s comments were called abusive, an embarrassment, and threatening (even though it was in regard to the cache rather than to a cacher).  Don't you think that might be crossing the line just a little bit as well?  Is there any reason to address a person or situation in that manner?  Is this particular log abusive? Is it worth reporting this CO to TPTB because some read that the CO is NOT going to maintain their caches, but another possible reading shows that a cache that's been out longer than the minimum suggested time might get archived by the CO rather than maintained?  Don't most of the cachers on here prefer that an unmaintained cache be removed from the field rather than limp along on life support provided by other cachers rather than the CO?  Isn't that the actual point of the entire post, that cachers who might have too many caches to maintain should probably reduce or eliminate the caches they own?  Yet here we are, three pages in and we're railing against a CO who has suggested that they'll do exactly what most of us want a CO to do if they're not going to maintain their caches.
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I'm not arguing the maintenance responsibility aspect of this and am in full agreement that if that's the attitude the CO is going to take, then perhaps cache ownership shouldn't be something they aspire to.  I'm arguing that the abusive, embarrassing, threatening, and rude comments are an overreaction to the actual comment made.  If that's not the point, then why did the OP even bring those adjectives into play if the point was that this particular CO might have too many caches?  Abusive is the one that particularly gets to me.

"Hi its been a long wet winter and these caches haven't been found for a long time. If the logbook is wet, it's not my fault and if the comments continue, I will archive the series."

The OP was just as bad, IMO, when the CO"s comments were called abusive, an embarrassment, and threatening (even though it was in regard to the cache rather than to a cacher).  Don't you think that might be crossing the line just a little bit as well?  Is there any reason to address a person or situation in that manner?  Is this particular log abusive? Is it worth reporting this CO to TPTB because some read that the CO is NOT going to maintain their caches, but another possible reading shows that a cache that's been out longer than the minimum suggested time might get archived by the CO rather than maintained?  Don't most of the cachers on here prefer that an unmaintained cache be removed from the field rather than limp along on life support provided by other cachers rather than the CO?  Isn't that the actual point of the entire post, that cachers who might have too many caches to maintain should probably reduce or eliminate the caches they own?  Yet here we are, three pages in and we're railing against a CO who has suggested that they'll do exactly what most of us want a CO to do if they're not going to maintain their caches.
 

Why?   I assume the OP quoted the cache owner's own words.   Now you can read those words and draw your own conclusions as I've already done.   I think the context is clear.   What I read was,  It's not my fault the cache is wet although I haven't taken the time to check up on it in 8 months.   If the "comments" continue,  meaning people complaining about the wet cache,  I'll archive the whole series.   Instead of thanking the finder for the information about the condition of their cache they choose to write this.  Why?     

When given an opportunity to address the situation when made public on this forum, the first thing they decided to do was attack the OP instead of defending their position. 

I have no idea what personal reasons the OP may have had for starting this thread but it's now there for comment.   If it were a simple lack of judgement on the CO's part than admit that,  learn from it and move on.  If not, there's a bigger issue here. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Why?   I assume the OP quoted the cache owner's own words.   Now you can read those words and draw your own conclusions as I've already done.   I think the context is clear.   What I read was,  It's not my fault the cache is wet although I haven't taken the time to check up on it in 8 months.   If the "comments" continue,  meaning people complaining about the wet cache,  I'll archive the whole series.   Instead of thanking the finder for the information about the condition of their cache they choose to write this.  Why?     

When given an opportunity to address the situation when made public on this forum, the first thing they decided to do was attack the OP instead of defending their position. 

I have no idea what personal reasons the OP may have had for starting this thread but it's now there for comment.   If it were a simple lack of judgement on the CO's part than admit that,  learn from it and move on.  If not, there's a bigger issue here. 

You completely missed the point I was raising.  I understand (and agree) about the maintenance comment (or lack thereof, technically).  I'm not sure how many times I need to say that.  I'm also in agreement with all of you that say this log shouldn't have been posted as it was written.  My point is that I'm just as concerned about the OP's comments about the tone of the log.  Rather than continuing to focus on the lack of maintenance implied by the log, the OP commented on the tone of the log, calling it abusive, rude, threatening, and embarrassing, and that was before the supposed CO got involved with the thread.  I get the rude part, although I don't really find it offensive enough to call it abusive in any way, shape, or form.  If you are "bothered" by the CO's log, you also should be bothered by the OP's comments about the tone of the log, as he was, in essence attacking the CO and calling him out for his abusive, rude, threatening, and embarrassing log, rather than focusing on the maintenance aspect of the log.  The OP verbally castigated the alleged CO before the CO even got on here, 6 posts into the thread, and the CO took offense.  He replied and was once again chastised for "...this sort of CO abuse."  

The CO did eventually defend their position, but only after addressing (admittedly in a manner that was confrontational) the posts that called them abusive, threatening, rude, and embarrassing, multiple times.  They even raise a valid point about log content.  I'm not giving the alleged CO a free pass on their behavior (in the original log that started this, the comments within this thread, or their thoughts about maintenance), but I'm not willing to give the OP a free pass on their behavior either, yet it appears I'm the only one that feels this way, or at least has stepped in to comment about it.

Text removed by moderator] This particular series has only been out a year, it got a flurry of finders when it was new and now its been sat there without finds for about 8 months. Of course the caches will be inevitably wet. This one guy was the first to turn up in ages. I never said I wouldn't maintain it, I said I would archive them if the situation continues. How am I supposed to know what state a cache is in if it hasn't been visited for 8 months??

 

The problem I have is that most cachers nowadays are so fixated on the state of the cache, they never ever say anything about the walk they've done, the wildlife theyve seen or the gorgeous views. They are just so fixated on the scrawl of dingy paper they write nothing else on their online log. As a CO I want to hear about their experiences and frankly that's gone out the window in recent years. 

While the first paragraph certainly shows a lack of propensity for maintenance, they also go on to state that they wouldn't not maintain, but that they would archive them if the situation continues.  Am I the only one who gets the irony of many of you lambasting the CO for not doing maintenance and instead "threatening" to archive the series if the wet logs (and the subsequent wet log comments) continue?  Isn't that EXACTLY what we as cachers want COs to do if they're not going to maintain their caches?

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

You completely missed the point I was raising.  I understand (and agree) about the maintenance comment (or lack thereof, technically).  I'm not sure how many times I need to say that.  I'm also in agreement with all of you that say this log shouldn't have been posted as it was written.  My point is that I'm just as concerned about the OP's comments about the tone of the log.  Rather than continuing to focus on the lack of maintenance implied by the log, the OP commented on the tone of the log, calling it abusive, rude, threatening, and embarrassing, and that was before the supposed CO got involved with the thread.  I get the rude part, although I don't really find it offensive enough to call it abusive in any way, shape, or form.  If you are "bothered" by the CO's log, you also should be bothered by the OP's comments about the tone of the log, as he was, in essence attacking the CO and calling him out for his abusive, rude, threatening, and embarrassing log, rather than focusing on the maintenance aspect of the log.  The OP verbally castigated the alleged CO before the CO even got on here, 6 posts into the thread, and the CO took offense.  He replied and was once again chastised for "...this sort of CO abuse."  

The CO did eventually defend their position, but only after addressing (admittedly in a manner that was confrontational) the posts that called them abusive, threatening, rude, and embarrassing, multiple times.  They even raise a valid point about log content.  I'm not giving the alleged CO a free pass on their behavior (in the original log that started this, the comments within this thread, or their thoughts about maintenance), but I'm not willing to give the OP a free pass on their behavior either, yet it appears I'm the only one that feels this way, or at least has stepped in to comment about it.

While the first paragraph certainly shows a lack of propensity for maintenance, they also go on to state that they wouldn't not maintain, but that they would archive them if the situation continues.  Am I the only one who gets the irony of many of you lambasting the CO for not doing maintenance and instead "threatening" to archive the series if the wet logs (and the subsequent wet log comments) continue?  Isn't that EXACTLY what we as cachers want COs to do if they're not going to maintain their caches?

 

Threating to archive the series will stop others from posting perfectly legitimate logs in fear of being responsible for the caches being ultimately removed.   Not only this cache but others this individual may own.   What else can you call that but a threat?  The tone of the actual words is enough for me to understand what's going one here.  I didn't need the OP's interpretation of them to come to that conclusion.  

To me:

It's abusive in it's intent.

It's rude in it's lack of consideration for others and the activity.

It's embarrassing to think that anyone in our sport could think they're so important they feel justified in taking such an approach. 

I'm also willing to give most CO's a pass with things like this.  Life can cause people to do and say all sorts of uncharacteristic things.  This particular individual had a chance to explain their position when they decided to respond to this thread.   They choose to continue to lash out rather than enlighten us.  They questioned the OP's motive rather than addressing the issue.  

Seems like they were more upset that it was brought to light than the fact that the accusations were untrue.

First I'd never write something like this to another cacher but If someone had an issue with something I did or said the first thing I'd want to do is clear the air.  Make it right, regardless of whether or not I felt justified in my actions. 

If there's foot prints in the snow and mail in the mailbox you can assume the mailman has been there.   From what I've read I have a hard time believing that this is a one off situation.

I'm not suggesting that this forum be a platform to air out every personal issue we may or may not have with another cacher but situations like this do exist.

As usual I may be apologizing for my comments but I just can't let behavior like this go un challenged.  I care too much for the game not to speak up.      

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

 

46 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

If you are "bothered" by the CO's log, you also should be bothered by the OP's comments about the tone of the log, as he was, in essence attacking the CO and calling him out for his abusive, rude, threatening, and embarrassing log, rather than focusing on the maintenance aspect of the log.  The OP verbally castigated the alleged CO before the CO even got on here...

 

As far as I can see the OP didn't attack anyone.  There was an example of a recent log, a suggestion that this kind of CO response was something becoming more regular and that it was embarrassing.

There was nothing in the OP to identify anyone or any cache in particular and had the CO not identified himself, the discussion would have been more general.. and I'm sure we would all agree that this kind of response to a NM log is something which needs to be nipped in the bud before it spoils the hobby.

 

On 4/8/2018 at 9:53 PM, PlantAKiss said:

You have too many caches when...you can’t maintain them. Strings of comments on wet logbooks, water in caches, logbooks full, NM logs, broken containers...  I see that a lot. I use the NM logs but people seem reluctant to do that. 


The reference to abusive, rude and threatening logs came in response to PlantAKiss's comment about folk being reluctant to use the NM log..

Again, no finger pointing at anyone.. and judging by some of the comments I have read recently on these forums and on social media.. abuse / rudeness and threats are rife..

Comments about caching police for example. 

Why should someone be labelled in a derogatory way for playing the game in the manner it was intended.  The NM button is there so that CO's can be alerted to issues, including a wet log book, to their caches.  It is clear that some CO are offended by NM logs and they publicly ridicule / criticise those who dare post them.  That IS abuse.

The threat to archive one's caches if negative comments continue is intended to make cachers reluctant to use the NM button.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 3:43 PM, garyo1954 said:

Okay along those lines, I'll go wayyyyyyyy out on the edge of the limb and let everybody with chain saw start cutting the tree down.

IMHO, there should be some, "When a NM is logged, CO visit is required (within this time frame) or it will be deleted/disabled/removed cutoff time frame. Any CO who can't make a visit should make contact with a reviewer to disable cache until maintenance is performed. There will be no exceptions."

That would clean up a lot of the abandoned waterlogged geo-garbage, with saturated logs, and rusting metal.

(I already hear the hum of the chainsaws.)

Funny but that's exactly how it should work and usually dose.

For example I have a multi cache that's been disabled (voluntarily)  since January.   I've posted two reviewers notes letting MadMin (my reviewer) know that I haven't forgot about the cache.   substantial snow fall can effect this cache and being from New England we get our share of snow.  In this case I'm sure Madmin understands the challenges of winter maintenance and because I've kept her informed of my intentions she's allowed me the time I need to get it fixed. 

The time frame for maintenance all depends on the particular situation and the level of communication with your reviewer.   

You give me hope.   For a new cacher you seem to understand the nuances of the game beautifully.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Threating to archive the series will stop others from posting perfectly legitimate logs in fear of being responsible for the caches being ultimately removed.   Not only this cache but others this individual may own.   What else can you call that but a threat?  The tone of the actual words is enough for me to understand what's going one here.  I didn't need the OP's interpretation of them to come to that conclusion.  

Really?  As you and I have both stated, if the CO can't handle it, archive it.  It will possibly stop newer cachers from posting legitimate logs, but there's no way it will stop established cachers from doing so.  A few logs from established cachers should provide all the means to either get the cache archived or to show newer cachers that you can post, within reason, things about the cache that the CO might not want mentioned.

If this is your argument, then that means they need to be concerned about posting NA logs when it's apparent it's on private property and permission has not been granted.  They need to be concerned about filing a NM or NA log when the only thing that might have supported a cache has been removed so that the CO can archive it or move it.  The cacher is NEVER responsible for archiving the cache, the CO is.  While the actions of a logger can start the process to get a cache archived, the actions (or inaction) of the CO are responsible for a cache being archived and to say that a cacher is responsible for getting a cache archived flies in the face of how things are done here.  Anyone who tells that cacher they were responsible for that cache being archived are doing a disservice to them and their community.  The CO either did it themselves or the reviewer did it, end of story.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Funny but that's exactly how it should work and usually dose.

You do realize they're advocating for a mandatory time period for cache maintenance, right?  If maintenance isn't done within that time frame, the cache is disabled or archived by a reviewer.  Who sets that time frame?  What is that timeframe?  Does it apply to all caches of all types equally?  There's NO way a set mandatory time can meet the needs of every type of cache.  You say so yourself, "The time frame for maintenance all depends on the particular situation and the level of communication with your reviewer. " and that second part only applies to caches that are currently disabled, not to caches that are active but have red wrenches.  Those would automatically get disabled and/or archived under this suggestion.  Does more automation and less human (reviewer, although it appears they might be dogs) interaction with regard to situations like this make the game better or worse?  Are we to the point that we want mandated lengths of time to have maintenance performed?  Won't that lead to more armchair OM logs and less NM logs so that cachers don't feel "...in fear of being responsible for the caches being ultimately removed..." under this suggestion? 

It may seem like I'm anti-maintenance, but that's far from the truth.  I maintain my caches to the best of my ability but I don't want mandated time periods and automatic disables or archives due solely to some arbitrary 14 day time limit that someone determined is long enough for any cache to be serviced.  30 days can still be an issue for some COs, based on health or other life events that get in the way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Really?  As you and I have both stated, if the CO can't handle it, archive it.  It will possibly stop newer cachers from posting legitimate logs, but there's no way it will stop established cachers from doing so.  A few logs from established cachers should provide all the means to either get the cache archived or to show newer cachers that you can post, within reason, things about the cache that the CO might not want mentioned.

If this is your argument, then that means they need to be concerned about posting NA logs when it's apparent it's on private property and permission has not been granted.  They need to be concerned about filing a NM or NA log when the only thing that might have supported a cache has been removed so that the CO can archive it or move it.  The cacher is NEVER responsible for archiving the cache, the CO is.  While the actions of a logger can start the process to get a cache archived, the actions (or inaction) of the CO are responsible for a cache being archived and to say that a cacher is responsible for getting a cache archived flies in the face of how things are done here.  Anyone who tells that cacher they were responsible for that cache being archived are doing a disservice to them and their community.  The CO either did it themselves or the reviewer did it, end of story.

Really?   You don't think that it was implied that the next person to complain about a wet cache could be responsible for having the entire series archived?  If the next person posted a NM and the cache owner archived everything who's to blame?   The right answer is the cache owner but don't you think that the last person that posted that NM would feel guilty?  Especially if the were new to the game.   And for what?   Doing the right thing.      

Established cachers can take care of them selves with a little grit and any semblance of a spine.  New cachers are a different story.  If I encountered a message like that when I first started I'd probably never log a NM again.    

Unfortunately some cache owners don't realize when their in over there head and others loose sight of what this activity is all about.    I wish more people would come to the realization that they've bitten off more than they can chew and voluntarily archive their own caches before letting things get out of hand.   If they can't bring themselves to archive a couple of hundred caches for the sake of the game at least they can interact with other cachers in a civil manor.  

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You do realize they're advocating for a mandatory time period for cache maintenance, right?  If maintenance isn't done within that time frame, the cache is disabled or archived by a reviewer.  Who sets that time frame?  What is that timeframe?  Does it apply to all caches of all types equally?  There's NO way a set mandatory time can meet the needs of every type of cache.  You say so yourself, "The time frame for maintenance all depends on the particular situation and the level of communication with your reviewer. " and that second part only applies to caches that are currently disabled, not to caches that are active but have red wrenches.  Those would automatically get disabled and/or archived under this suggestion.  Does more automation and less human (reviewer, although it appears they might be dogs) interaction with regard to situations like this make the game better or worse?  Are we to the point that we want mandated lengths of time to have maintenance performed?  Won't that lead to more armchair OM logs and less NM logs so that cachers don't feel "...in fear of being responsible for the caches being ultimately removed..." under this suggestion? 

It may seem like I'm anti-maintenance, but that's far from the truth.  I maintain my caches to the best of my ability but I don't want mandated time periods and automatic disables or archives due solely to some arbitrary 14 day time limit that someone determined is long enough for any cache to be serviced.  30 days can still be an issue for some COs, based on health or other life events that get in the way.

Did you even read what I wrote or are you just on a rolling boil? 

You obviously didn't read what they wrote.    I read,  CO's should respond to NM's and if they can't they should stay in contact with their reviewer until they can.  Sound advice I wouldn't hesitate giving anyone.

Although there is obviously  a time frame for preforming maintenance it's not strictly defined and is pretty much at the discretion of your reviewer.  Reason # 112 for establishing a good/honest  relationship with your reviewer right out of the gate.  

Now all I did was echo their sentiments and added an example of how communicating with your reviewer can help in extending the time for getting maintenance completed.

Now I did throw on a little shine there at the end but who doesn't like a good complement from time to time?  

What is there to argue about?

 

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Back to a previous point about using larger more watertight containers, I have a new series that has been out what only a month. 2 ammo boxes on the route. 1 already gone missing which was clearly marked as a geocache and full of swag, unfortunately with three tbs in it too. You guys may be able to get away with it in america with all your space and freedom, we can't do anything quality in the UK. 

 

Here in the UK I'll stick to my micros and test tubes. They may not be watertight but I get them for free. 

As long as you are willing to replace them when needed than there's issue at all.   Free is good but usually means more work.   If I had ammo cans going missing left and right I too would be looking for a cheaper option.

Still with all my space and freedom (which I've earned buy the way)  I still choose to hide micros in the woods.   Go figure.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Won't that lead to more armchair OM logs and less NM logs so that cachers don't feel "...in fear of being responsible for the caches being ultimately removed..." under this suggestion? 

The armchair OM logs would just be a waste of time when the next person shows up and posts a NM log and a reviewer sees it pop up again. I think a mix of automated and hand looked at would be nice, but that would be up to Groundspeak's discretion of reasonable work for their volunteers. Though for a time period, I honestly cannot say. Like @justintim1999 stated, being open and honest with your reviewer could easily help with the situation. There are a few caches here that are disabled for a significant period of time during the year because of rifle hunting season and the safety of cachers in mind, despite the time frame sometimes going beyond the usual allowed date due to weather and other circumstances. It's never been any trouble for the CO or reviewer so long as there's an attempt by the CO to explain their circumstances. I feel the same would be done in these instances.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×