Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Hydroa

Archiving Someones Abandoned Cache

Recommended Posts

Recently I placed a geocache in a spot that I have been wanting to put one for a while.  When I put in the coordinates to try to publish the cache it was located just in the red circle.  That red circle is from a cache that has been abandoned for about 4 months.  I have messaged the owner multiple times but I have never gotten a response.  There even seems to be a log by a user who goes by, "jennylake16" that states, "Hah f***ers you'll never find it now".  after that there have been 5 continuous dnf's for those 4 months.  The cache number is GC3VT65.  What can I do about this?  And if Ishould send an archive request How can I do so.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Hydroa said:

Recently I placed a geocache in a spot that I have been wanting to put one for a while.  When I put in the coordinates to try to publish the cache it was located just in the red circle.  That red circle is from a cache that has been abandoned for about 4 months.  I have messaged the owner multiple times but I have never gotten a response.  There even seems to be a log by a user who goes by, "jennylake16" that states, "Hah f***ers you'll never find it now".  after that there have been 5 continuous dnf's for those 4 months.  The cache number is GC3VT65.  What can I do about this?  And if Ishould send an archive request How can I do so.

Needs Archived is a log option on every cache page.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Needs Archived is a log option on every cache page.

Im having trouble finding that.  When i got to log its just Notes DNF And found.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Hydroa said:

Im having trouble finding that.  When i got to log its just Notes DNF And found.

I would log a Needs Maintenance first.

 

I'm guessing you're using the app? Scroll to the very bottom where there's an option to report a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

On my computer I have the full options needed to log; including NM & NA.

 

After reading the sample log you supplied, I read through that person's logs. They don't seem the most mature of people.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I would have logged a NM first. 

I figured out how to post an archive.  Didn't seem like a NM was needed considering all the past DNF's.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Hydroa said:

I figured out how to post an archive.  Didn't seem like a NM was needed considering all the past DNF's.

Maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hydroa said:

"jennylake16" that states,...

Taken care of.  TOU violation and not tolerated in any territory.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hydroa said:

I figured out how to post an archive.  Didn't seem like a NM was needed considering all the past DNF's.

There are many geocaches that have lots of DNF logs. Not every cache is missing after a few DNF logs.

The standard procedure is to log a Needs Maintenance. This puts everyone on notice that there may be an issue with the cache. After 30 days, if the cache owner hasn't reacted, then log a Needs Archive.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

As of two months ago the CO was still active. I would call this cache neglected rather than abandoned. There have been previous NMs for wet logs with no CO response. I think the NA was premature even considering the now deleted log you mentioned. A NM would have been more appropriate then log NA after 30 days if the CO has not rectified the problem.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I just recently placed a cache that is just barely in the red area of this one. In order for this cache to be published this one must go.

 

I think this is not a good reason for archiving. :D

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion logging NA is okay for some reasons but - I agree to arisoft - the new cache isn't a good reason for sure.

 

In this case the owner should have done anything after many DNFs on a D1.5 cache (!) - looking for his own cache or writing a note that he will do - but he hasn't done anything. In any case the cache should be deactivated so that other cachers don't come in vain (not everyone takes a look at the recent logs).

 

After a NA log is posted the cache will surely not get archived immediately but a reviewer will deactivate and tell the owner to take care. And that's both a good idea and perhaps the owner will react to that; if not the cache gets archived and then that is good.

 

So perhaps I would have written NA myself but definitely for other reasons (*) withoug mentioning my own cache.... Your own cache shouldn't be the reason and in fact you should have logged something (NM, NA) even if it wasn't for your cache. Would you have done that or is it all about getting the old cache out of the way for the new one?

 

 

 

 

(*) What about:

 

"Unfortunately this cache seems to be missing and the owner isn't reacting at all. The cache should be deactivated to avoid more cachers to come in vain. As the owner does not want to do that perhaps a reviewer can do so? Perhaps a deactivation by a reviewer reminds the owner to do his job and he will hopefully do the necessary maintance."

 

I have noticed that logging NA is all about how you do it...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I sincerely apologize for my actions.  I’m new to the community and not quite sure how everything works.  My reason for referencing the cache I placed was to show that if it were taken down, another one would replace it.  I thought maybe that people would be more understanding with the NA.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I think this is not a good reason for archiving. :D

 

That isn’t my reason for archiving.  I’m just trying to convey that when that cache is removed another one will fill the void.  The cache has been abandoned for months with no response from the owner.  I have messaged them multiple times but with no answer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Hydroa said:

That isn’t my reason for archiving.  I’m just trying to convey that when that cache is removed another one will fill the void.  The cache has been abandoned for months with no response from the owner.  I have messaged them multiple times but with no answer.

 

The primary goal is to get the existing cache back into business. The wording of "Needs archived" is badly chosen. It is actually "Needs the reviewer's attention". Now the reviewer is alerted to inspect the situation. It is possible that the CO will be asked to check the cache and if CO fails then it will be archived.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Although I agree that initial NM log would be more appropriate, based on your experience with unresponsive owner - NA log is also right action to do. There is no reason for apology from your side. There's string of 5 DNF logs from May, June, July and August on D1.5 cache - with no reaction from cache owner. 

 

I suppose cache need attention of reviewer. Now it is posted, ok. Wait for further actions.

Edited by Rikitan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Hydroa said:

I sincerely apologize for my actions.  I’m new to the community and not quite sure how everything works.  My reason for referencing the cache I placed was to show that if it were taken down, another one would replace it.  I thought maybe that people would be more understanding with the NA.

All part of the learning process.

Share this post


Link to post

Agree with others, that a NM is in order, all those before you just placing a DNF.

I wouldn't have written pretty-much what you've said here in your NA though... 

" I just recently placed a cache that is just barely in the red area of this one. In order for this cache to be published this one must go." as your NA log looks (to me)  like something one who feels entitled would say. 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, looking at that log history, I think a NM would have been the better log - and the CO shouldn't log an Owner Maintenance saying they will check it - it should only be used when maintenance has been performed.  That outstanding NM flag (the big red/white plus) is an indicator and reminder both to the cache owner and the public.

 

There's nothing in the log history that indicates there's been some malicious activity with the cache (eg, admission that it was stolen), so going straight to the NA seems harsh or rushed - rather it appears like a standard case of a cache-has-gone-missing--maybe--string-of-dnfs.

 

The issue with the CO posting that OM log is now that the CO may well forget to check on the cache because there's no reminder to them that it may need maintenance (and I find it hard to believe this person is keeping their own to-do list of caches needing maintenance :P)

 

And, that OM log has bumped the cache health score back to normal negating the (automated) concern over that string of DNFs plus the NA log.  I suppose all we can hope is that it's on a local reviewer's personal watch list now :laughing:

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Hydroa said:

I sincerely apologize for my actions.

 

No need for apologies. Don't worry: NA logs don't lead to direct archiving but a reviewer will look at the cache and usually the owner gets some time to maintain the cache. So in the end it is the owner's fault if the cache is finally archived some weeks later. :-)

 

By the way: I said before that publishing a new cache can't be the reason for a NA log. But in fact I also disagree with

 

4 hours ago, arisoft said:

The primary goal is to get the existing cache back into business.

 

The primary goal should be to get rid of the old cache if (and only if) it is not maintained properly.

 

If the owner takes care - perfect. If he doesn't and the cache goes to the archive (without leaving the box behing as garbage) - perfect, too. What comes afterwards is completely independent of the archival.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah, looking at that log history, I think a NM would have been the better log - and the CO shouldn't log an Owner Maintenance saying they will check it - it should only be used when maintenance has been performed.  That outstanding NM flag (the big red/white plus) is an indicator and reminder both to the cache owner and the public.

 

If there is a "Needs Maintenance" log the indicator is visible, but does "NA" raise the flag?

I think that the OM log was reaction to the NA log. The owner is active and the cache is not abandoned.

 

2 minutes ago, frostengel said:

The primary goal should be to get rid of the old cache if (and only if) it is not maintained properly.

 

This is the secondary goal if the primary goal fails. Only one goal can be primary, especially when they are mutually exclusive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, arisoft said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah, looking at that log history, I think a NM would have been the better log - and the CO shouldn't log an Owner Maintenance saying they will check it - it should only be used when maintenance has been performed.  That outstanding NM flag (the big red/white plus) is an indicator and reminder both to the cache owner and the public.

 

If there is a "Needs Maintenance" log the indicator is visible, but does "NA" raise the flag?

I think that the OM log was reaction to the NA log. The owner is active and the cache is not abandoned.

 

Reviewers absolutely see which caches have NA.  But it doesn't set the "Needs Maintenance" public facing attribute.

 

The OM log was a reaction to the NA log. That doesn't mean it's the correct reaction, especially if it admits to checking at some time in the future, not that maintenance has been performed. That log was purely a reactionary "I think everything is okay" non-verified issue-clearing log.

 

8 minutes ago, arisoft said:
16 minutes ago, frostengel said:

The primary goal should be to get rid of the old cache if (and only if) it is not maintained properly.

 

This is the secondary goal if the primary goal fails. Only one goal can be primary, especially when they are mutually exclusive.

 

The primary goal is to make sure the listing is indicative of the cache status - whether it's enabled or archived.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There's nothing in the log history that indicates there's been some malicious activity with the cache (eg, admission that it was stolen)

There was when this discussion began. It has since been removed.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There's nothing in the log history now that indicates there's been some malicious activity with the cache (eg, admission that it was stolen)

There was when this discussion began. It has since been removed.

 

Yes, I caught that in this thread. Inserted clarifying word above. Context being anyone who looks at the listing will have no indication that there's been some malicious activity with the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

I think that the OM log was reaction to the NA log. The owner is active and the cache is not abandoned.

 

The OM log doesn't really mean it's not going to be abandoned,  but I agree, it does show that the CO may not be as inattentive as the OP implied.  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

A string of DNFs going back 4 months constitutes "continually checked"?????? On a 1.5/1.5?

Edited by colleda
typo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/12/2019 at 8:01 PM, Max and 99 said:

I suspect you won't have to wait much longer.

I take it back. :wacko:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/12/2019 at 8:58 PM, Hydroa said:

Recently I placed a geocache in a spot that I have been wanting to put one for a while.  When I put in the coordinates to try to publish the cache it was located just in the red circle.

 

Hey, Hydroa - welcome to the hobby - I'm about 30 miles north of you in Plattekill!

 

Several tough lessons learned here with your first cache, but don't let it stop you. Maybe just find a bunch more caches for perspective regarding what works and what doesn't. Maybe a lot more.

 

So, since no one has mentioned it yet, here's a hint based on the first sentence in this thread.  I know I'm taking your wording literally and it might not have been all that precise, but if you truly went out and planted a cache, THEN went online to publish it, then next time DON'T! That's backwards.

 

The PLANNING for a cache's placement is just as important as actually putting something out there. Make sure in advance that there's a legit reason to bring someone to a spot, and that it's actually available!

 

Start with a location that works, get VERY accurate coordinates for it, then start designing your cache page. Before you save it, check the Planning Map. If you're in a red circle, find another place. Period.

 

Even if you're not in a red circle, there are ways in which could still be stepping on existing caches (hidden physical waypoints) that will invalidate your selected location, so submit your early, bare-bones, no fancy-write-up cache page with a REVIEWER NOTE requesting a "Coordinate Check". Your Reviewer will respond, telling you whether or not your location's good. ONLY AFTER YOU PASS THIS POINT should you finish your Cache Page, physically place the container in the field and attempt a real submission to be reviewed and accepted/published/rejected/corrected/resubmitted, etc.

 

(Sounds obvious, but make sure it's placed before final submission; you could get surprised by a quick Reviewer response and end up with cachers at your coords within minutes!)

 

Drift north a bit and find mine...Bill

TeamRabbitRun

 

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...