Jump to content

Unarchive a Cache


ADayinPA

Recommended Posts

I am not sure if this is possibly a new rule from GS but I created a couple of powertrails. One of my caches GC7W64B was archived by the reviewer. 

 

The reviewer did nothing wrong with the archive but I forgot about it and he archived it 2 months after I disabled it.

 

The only issue I have is that he put a note on the bottom of it stating that if caches are archived by the reviewer for lack of maintenance they can no longer be unarchived? I know of many caches which were archived because the CO did not respond back in time and they unarchived it. Or many caches where the archived by the reviewer because of an issue but the note he (the same reviewer) put on the archive was that it can be unarchived later if it is maintained.

 

I am just curious if this is a new GHQ rule as I cannot find anything about it.

Link to post
44 minutes ago, ADayinPA said:

I know of many caches which were archived because the CO did not respond back in time and they unarchived it. Or many caches where the archived by the reviewer because of an issue but the note he (the same reviewer) put on the archive was that it can be unarchived later if it is maintained.

That sounds like caches that were temporarily disabled, maintained, and then enabled. Disabling a cache is different from archiving a cache.

 

In my experience, few caches are unarchived. When a cache is unarchived, it's because the cache was archived by mistake, or they found the original container, or something like that.

Link to post

I would talk to the reviewer. Although his note talks about "for lack of maintenance", this is obviously boilerplate, and, I would assume, the phrase is not meant to apply specifically to this cache. In a sense, you disabled the cache because you were doing maintenance: you found a problem and were working on fixing it. Whether that was the reviewer's intent of not, it still seems excessively strict to penalize you for disabling the cache instead of archiving it.

 

I'm pretty sure I've been seeing caches unarchived in cases like this regularly, although not frequently. So I have reason to suspect that at least my local reviewer is open to discussion about reviving a cache even though the strict letter of the law says he shouldn't. In my opinion, the rule about not unarchiving a cache is meant to avoid a CO that doesn't maintain his caches from continually letting his caches slip into archival and then pulling them back out at his convenience. I would hope that a CO with a good track record would get a break when the log seems to make a good case for the CO being forgetful rather than irresponsible.

Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I would talk to the reviewer. Although his note talks about "for lack of maintenance", this is obviously boilerplate, and, I would assume, the phrase is not meant to apply specifically to this cache. In a sense, you disabled the cache because you were doing maintenance: you found a problem and were working on fixing it. Whether that was the reviewer's intent of not, it still seems excessively strict to penalize you for disabling the cache instead of archiving it.

 

I'm pretty sure I've been seeing caches unarchived in cases like this regularly, although not frequently. So I have reason to suspect that at least my local reviewer is open to discussion about reviving a cache even though the strict letter of the law says he shouldn't. In my opinion, the rule about not unarchiving a cache is meant to avoid a CO that doesn't maintain his caches from continually letting his caches slip into archival and then pulling them back out at his convenience. I would hope that a CO with a good track record would get a break when the log seems to make a good case for the CO being forgetful rather than irresponsible.

 

I've seen this sort of scenario play out a number of times, usually when the cache is disabled for an extended period due to GZ being inaccessible (construction works, floods, fires, etc.), but the reviewers here are quite strict about not unarchiving a cache once they've archived it, regardless of the circumstances. Instead they recommend creating a new listing when the issue is eventually resolved.

 

I currently have 31 of my caches disabled, many since early December, due to bushland parks and reserves being closed because of the fire situation here. With this only likely to get worse through January, I might have some first hand experience to report if the reviewers grow impatient.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

We temp-disable caches every year for a couple weeks of deer season (rifled).

It's active again after it's over.  Sometimes it's extended, or matches with an organized hunt for another species that's a few days more.

If we were to temp-disable for maintenance (and have...), we'd mention what's going on every coupla weeks on the cache page.

 - That keeps Reviewers and other cachers aware of our intentions.   :)

 

You TD a cache for maintenance, saying you'd " fix it soon".

A month later, a Reviewer left their "I noticed that this cache..." log,  basically asking what you planned to do with it.

You didn't respond for another month, and the Reviewer archived it.

Your current problem could have been a non-issue if you'd only left a Write Note on the cache page saying something.

 - "If you plan on repairing this cache, please log a note to the cache (not email) within the next 30 days so I don't archive the listing for non-communication." by the Reviewer supports that.

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, ADayinPA said:

The only issue I have is that he put a note on the bottom of it stating that if caches are archived by the reviewer for lack of maintenance they can no longer be unarchived?

I know of many caches which were archived because the CO did not respond back in time and they unarchived it.

Or many caches where the archived by the reviewer because of an issue but the note he (the same reviewer) put on the archive was that it can be unarchived later if it is maintained.

I am just curious if this is a new GHQ rule as I cannot find anything about it.

 

I don't believe so.    

The way we understood is, if archived by a Reviewer due to not communicating about their maintenance, it stays archived.

We've heard where maintenance ("I'm waiting for a part..." ) is going way too long, and the Reviewer archived it, opening it again when the CO got things repaired a good while later.

We have heard of archived caches unarchived, if the CO was in the hospital, called into military duty, or similar, where the CO was unable to respond, and fixed it when back.

 

Link to post

Wow, your reviewer is pretty strict about the "temporarily" part of the disabling.

Quote

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.

 

It was exactly one month. I know it's boilerplate so the "well in excess" doesn't really apply, but still, jumping on a disabled cache after only one month? Long-disabled caches must be an ongoing issue in that area.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

It was exactly one month. I know it's boilerplate so the "well in excess" doesn't really apply, but still, jumping on a disabled cache after only one month? Long-disabled caches must be an ongoing issue in that area.

 

I saw one here recently that got the Reviewer Note warning after being disabled for just six weeks and then was archived two months later when there was no CO response. They only seem to do a sweep for disabled caches every few months so it's luck of the draw I guess as to how long you get before the warning. Archival seems to be anything from one to three months after that if the CO doesn't post a note every 28 days.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...