Jump to content

CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.


fizzymagic

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, its an abandoned cache with outstanding NMs, but the point is it's still quite servicable and didn't need to go. The area's not exactly saturated with caches:

 

 

That is obviously your opinion. The person who filed the NM log and the reviewer disagreed with you. Project-gc has some nice utilities in this specific area it shows tons of caches you have not found in this specific area and over 9365 in NSW (yes it is a big state) that you have not found. Complaining about a single cache in an area that is not devoid of caches seems to be a little much. The expectation is if a cache is showing signs of abandonment and needs maintenance of any kind out it goes. Think about a new cacher you want them to have a positive experience and keep on going with the hobby. If you feel that you disagree with this take it up with the reviewer and/or GS. Your other solution, one many don't like here, is to provide preventative maintenance on each cache you find so that it never gets a NM log specially when it is abandoned. You can sort your find list and find older caches that may have issues and start there. Making it sound like there is no caches within hours drive is not the case here.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

That is obviously your opinion. The person who filed the NM log and the reviewer disagreed with you. Project-gc has some nice utilities in this specific area it shows tons of caches you have not found in this specific area and over 9365 in NSW (yes it is a big state) that you have not found. Complaining about a single cache in an area that is not devoid of caches seems to be a little much. The expectation is if a cache is showing signs of abandonment and needs maintenance of any kind out it goes. Think about a new cacher you want them to have a positive experience and keep on going with the hobby. If you feel that you disagree with this take it up with the reviewer and/or GS. Your other solution, one many don't like here, is to provide preventative maintenance on each cache you find so that it never gets a NM log specially when it is abandoned. You can sort your find list and find older caches that may have issues and start there. Making it sound like there is no caches within hours drive is not the case here.

 

 

 

An NM is not an NA. If the cache was bad enough to need archiving, I would've logged an NA in August, but at that time the log was dry and signable and the cache was certainly no worse than a lot of other P&Gs I've encountered over the years. When it goes there'll be only be three caches left in its suburb (The Entrance), one of which is currently disabled by its owner.

 

Nowhere did I say that I have no caches left to find. There are 92 caches within 20km of home I haven't found yet - some of these are puzzles I haven't solved, some are tree-climbing caches I can't reach, some are front-yard hides I don't care for, some are on the other side of the Hawkesbury River so it's a long drive around to get to them, and some I just haven't got to yet. I'm just saying that in an area where the cache numbers are well below anything like saturation and where the number of new hides is rapidly diminishing, archiving caches that don't need archiving seems counter-productive.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, its an abandoned cache with outstanding NMs, but the point is it's still quite servicable and didn't need to go. The area's not exactly saturated with caches:

 

EntranceCaches.thumb.png.fed3b01865a105cfdac50f2d7646bd85.png

 

I

1

cafbaf6e-fe8b-40f8-b4c4-cdbd97eb4758_l.j

17 NMs on this cache. The cache owner hasn't logged in since 2015. All of their caches were archived by reviewers.

 

You are assuming that everyone likes this type of cache find. Many of us would not enjoy finding a rusty gum tin with a soggy moldy log. 

Where is the pride in a quality game? It sends the message that the 'cache' in geocaching doesn't matter. Responsible cache ownership doesn't matter. Geolitter is preferred to no cache (or the possibility of a better cache).

 

If what matters is taking people to that spot on the earth, and you prefer a pastime where the cache quality doesn't matter, then there's Waymarking. In fact, there's a waymark at that exact location (2 waymarks actually and another 2 just 300m away). http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=-33.3443&lon=151.5011&t=6 But the location isn't the point, is it? 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

You are assuming that everyone likes this type of cache find. Many of us would not enjoy finding a rusty gum tin with a soggy moldy log.

 

No, he is merely assuming that most people won't lose it completely if they find that kind of find and that an occasional find of that sort won't cause people to immediately take all their toys and quit the game.  Or spend years complaining about it in the forums.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

You are assuming that everyone likes this type of cache find. Many of us would not enjoy finding a rusty gum tin with a soggy moldy log.

 

Well the log wasn't mouldy or soggy when I found it in August, it was dry and easily signed, and none of the finders since then have said anything about it other than to mention the missing lid. In time, yes, it'd likely deteriorate further and reach end of life, but given the current state it's in, I can't see the pressing need to archive it immediately. And if you want to archive every cache that has a bit of rust on it, you'd better get rid of most of the ammo cans along the coast.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Take a look at GC18F90. Okay, it hasn't been archived yet but soon will be, as the reviewer proactively disabled it a few weeks back, presumably because of some outstanding NMs, and the owner is no longer active. But I found that cache in August and it was still quite servicable, okay maybe the log was a bit tattered and the container had lost its lid, but it was tucked up inside a guard rail where it was partly protected from the weather and I had no trouble signing the log. Sure, it's not a great cache in its present state and eventually would have decayed to the point where it had to go, but in the condition it was when I found it, it could easily have limped along for a few more years yet and still been a fun hide. But no, it had to go, so that's one less cache for people to find in an area with increasingly fewer caches.

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, its an abandoned cache with outstanding NMs, but the point is it's still quite servicable and didn't need to go. The area's not exactly saturated with caches:

 

Well yes, yes it did. It's an abandoned cache. Blame the CO. They agreed to maintain their cache. Once there's a NM on the listing, if the CO does not respond, it is the owner's fault if it gets archived by the reviewer. Especially if the NM is legitimate. It has to get maintained - not only physically, but the listing itself is also the CO's responsibility. If the CO can't be bothered to even come to the website, recognize it's possibly been proxy-maintained, and remove the maintenance flag, then it absolutely is the owner's fault. And absolutely the cache container and location could be repurposed by another more reponsible geocacher once the listing is archived. No one is to blame in the case you cite except the negligent cache owner who gave up on their responsibilities when given the right to list their container on geocaching.com.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

 

Well yes, yes it did. It's an abandoned cache. Blame the CO. They agreed to maintain their cache. Once there's a NM on the listing, if the CO does not respond, it is the owner's fault if it gets archived by the reviewer. Especially if the NM is legitimate. It has to get maintained - not only physically, but the listing itself is also the CO's responsibility. If the CO can't be bothered to even come to the website, recognize it's possibly been proxy-maintained, and remove the maintenance flag, then it absolutely is the owner's fault. And absolutely the cache container and location could be repurposed by another more reponsible geocacher once the listing is archived. No one is to blame in the case you cite except the negligent cache owner who gave up on their responsibilities when given the right to list their container on geocaching.com.

 

I'm not trying to blame anyone. It surprised me when I saw the reviewer disable on it, having found it in quite servicable condition just weeks before, and when it does get archived, it will be archived because of an unresponsive CO rather than the state of the cache. There's another cache near here (GC1AXPD) that has an NM on it (the only NM) dated October 2010, which the owner has never cleared, and the CO hasn't been active for some years, but the cache is still fine and was most recently found just a few weeks ago. The NM was about roadworks that were taking place at the time that might have disturbed the cache, but it turned out they didn't, so there was never anything wrong with the cache, and still isn't.

 

As I said before, there are few active cachers around here now, so a high percentage of the older caches have owners who are no longer in the game, but as long as their caches are still servicable, I don't see why they need to be archived. When they do reach end of life or go missing, someone can log an NA and then it can be removed.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

As I said before, there are few active cachers around here now, so a high percentage of the older caches have owners who are no longer in the game, but as long as their caches are still servicable, I don't see why they need to be archived

 

Sure, then better hope there's never a problem with it that causes it to be reported by someone.  As soon as it is, the ball is in the CO's court because the cache is on its way to archival if they don't respond. There's no way around that. The reviewer can't know whether a cache is in good condition or not in good condition - all they know is there's an outstanding NM flag. The owner has to be the one to verify. If they don't, then yep, a "good cache" will get archived solely because of a negligent cache owner. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Again, it's no real loss if another owner steps up and publishes a replacement cache.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Caching from Smartphones by app dates from around 2008-09. Geocaching.com's own app release was a tad later than others. But I'd guess 2009?  

One of the early apps I used was first created in 2009. But there were other apps out there already.

 

And Groundspeak's own app came later. I'm not sure how much later, but IIRC the iPhone app came first, and the earliest Android app release notes still available is for version 1.1 in 2010:

 

 

The free intro app for Android was release in 2014:

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, niraD said:

One of the early apps I used was first created in 2009. But there were other apps out there already.

OT, but Yep.   :)

The other 2/3rds was using some (IIRC) beta Trimble thing for her blackberry  in late '05,  and used Trimble regularly  from '06 until the iphone apps came out.   I believe it was a monthly/yearly app, not like the once n done of many today.

She's been with iphone since.

 

I didn't care for it ( dyslexic old farts and too much "lernin"   ;-) and went back to GPSr only, but have used windows phone, iphone, and android later on.

Windows phone was easiest (for me).  Shame it didn't take off here...

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...