What constitutes an Archive request?

[+GawrshImGoofy]

Bit of a backstory first...

 

I moved back to my home town and built a house on my families property. I don't have much time to cache (although I am finding more time <3) but I love getting creative and placing fun caches for people to find. Back in 2011 a cache was placed on my parents road. It was placed there as an interest point for a vintage road side depicting an angry bumblebee with the phrase "don't be a litter bug." I have never seen a sign like it anywhere else so I thought the fact that someone placed a cache there was really awesome!

 

Fast forward to today, I have been working on a cache and I really want to put it in front of my property away from tree limbs that could fall and destroy it. Problem is, the sign cache is still in place and the distance from it and my yard is too small. Renovations were done to the property and the sign is now gone (RIP awesome sign),  the cache hasn't been logged as found since 2017 and a DNF was logged in 2018. I contacted the owners and explained all of the above to them, they asked me to look for the cache and if it wasn't there they would archive it. Since I live less than a stones throw away I of course searched for it. It had been so long since I first found it that I forgot the location. The coordinates take you to the extreme right of the area but the cache is located mid-left (maybe 50ft away from posted). The cache was still in place however the log was a mushy mess. 

 

A couple wayward friends suggested I lie and say it was missing but I would hate for that to happen to me so I told the truth in hopes that they would decided to go ahead and archive it. They decided not to archive it and said they would come up and correct the coordinates and replace the log. They also have one down the road in the same situation except for it is missing. 

 

So my question is, how long do I give them to correct the issues before I suggest to the volunteers that the cache should be archived? I don't want to suggest it be archived at all because the thought makes me feel horrible, but I also don't want to not put out something I worked hard on for a cache that isn't cared for. Advice please...

[+Touchstone]

I would probably post a NM log after 30 days of inaction, and follow up an NA log after an additional 30 days if nothing is done to correct it.

[+cerberus1]

3 minutes ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

 

 

 ... Fast forward to today, I have been working on a cache and I really want to put it in front of my property away from tree limbs that could fall and destroy it. Problem is, the sign cache is still in place and the distance from it and my yard is too small. Renovations were done to the property and the sign is now gone (RIP awesome sign),  the cache hasn't been logged as found since 2017 and a DNF was logged in 2018.

I contacted the owners and explained all of the above to them, they asked me to look for the cache and if it wasn't there they would archive it. Since I live less than a stones throw away I of course searched for it. It had been so long since I first found it that I forgot the location. The coordinates take you to the extreme right of the area but the cache is located mid-left (maybe 50ft away from posted).

The cache was still in place however the log was a mushy mess. 

 

A couple wayward friends suggested I lie and say it was missing but I would hate for that to happen to me so I told the truth in hopes that they would decided to go ahead and archive it. They decided not to archive it and said they would come up and correct the coordinates and replace the log. They also have one down the road in the same situation except for it is missing. 

 

So my question is, how long do I give them to correct the issues before I suggest to the volunteers that the cache should be archived? I don't want to suggest it be archived at all because the thought makes me feel horrible, but I also don't want to not put out something I worked hard on for a cache that isn't cared for. Advice please...

 

So the main point is you want to archive a cache because it's in your way.      Correct ?

Did you log a Needs Maintenance that the "log was mushy" ?  The first step is a NM, not an NA.   

 

So you only told the truth because you thought the CO would archive it instead of fixing it ?   Wonder if your Reviewer's reading this now...

I have a friend with homes in PA and AZ.  They live in PA, but they travel often enough to AZ that they can do maintenance.

Apparently the Reviewer agreed.          That doesn't mean they'll be there in two days though, and it may be a couple weeks...

 

[+TriciaG]

15 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

I would probably post a NM log after 30 days of inaction, and follow up an NA log after an additional 30 days if nothing is done to correct it.

This sounds good to me.

 

If one doesn't communicate directly with the CO, but finds a cache in bad shape (mushy mess log), I'd log the find or a note along with a NM explaining what is wrong with the cache. If action isn't taken by the CO in, say, 30 days, then log the NA.

 

And it should have nothing to do with you wanting to place a new cache in the area. It should be about the state of the current cache. If you want to place a cache nearby, then you're fine to go look at the existing cache and see what condition it's in, and take appropriate action. But it does start to border on being predatory, especially if there's nothing wrong with the cache and its container.

 

Messaging the CO of a cache to nicely ask if they'd be willing to move it or archive it so you can place a really awesome cache in your back yard - people will have differing opinions on this. Once again, some will feel it's predatory. As long as you're willing to take "no" for an answer, I think it's OK if the request is worded graciously.

[+GawrshImGoofy]

 

 

1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

This sounds good to me.

 

If one doesn't communicate directly with the CO, but finds a cache in bad shape (mushy mess log), I'd log the find or a note along with a NM explaining what is wrong with the cache. If action isn't taken by the CO in, say, 30 days, then log the NA.

 

And it should have nothing to do with you wanting to place a new cache in the area. It should be about the state of the current cache. If you want to place a cache nearby, then you're fine to go look at the existing cache and see what condition it's in, and take appropriate action. But it does start to border on being predatory, especially if there's nothing wrong with the cache and its container.

 

Messaging the CO of a cache to nicely ask if they'd be willing to move it or archive it so you can place a really awesome cache in your back yard - people will have differing opinions on this. Once again, some will feel it's predatory. As long as you're willing to take "no" for an answer, I think it's OK if the request is worded graciously.

 

I think I worded my original post wrong. I didn't go find it to be ugly or force them out. I live across the street from it and have always liked their cache. That being the case I randomly check the log to see if anyone has found it. I live in the woods where nothing goes on so the fact that I have a cache on my road (that isn't mine) excites me. Since I check the logs I knew it hadn't been found in a long time. Maybe that's weird?

 

I did contact the owners and explain everything to them. I even offered to replace the log and get different coordinates if they chose to keep it there, but they said they would do it. The owners just don't seem very interested in either of their caches in the area and if they aren't going to fix it I would really like to use my land for mine. I didn't log an NM after personally speaking with them because I felt like that would be rude. I spoke to them personally because they hadn't checked on their cache in over 2 years and didn't think they would see the NM. Guess that was the wrong process, but it felt deceitful to log a NM and then wait 30 days for them to fix it and log a NA, when I knew they more than likely would never see the NM. 

[+TriciaG]

I'm sorry if I came off as lecturing or doubting you. I was typing more for the general public who may read this thread in the future - widening the application, so to speak. :)

 

Sounds like you did well. [we need a thumbs-up smiley - I'd put it here.] :)

[+L0ne.R]

39 minutes ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

The owners just don't seem very interested in either of their caches in the area and if they aren't going to fix it I would really like to use my land for mine...they hadn't checked on their cache in over 2 years .

 

I agree, if they are not maintaining their cache then the space should open up so you can have the opportunity to enjoy cache ownership near your property. 

 

The process that Groundspeak provides (logging DNFs, NMs, NAs, followed by reviewer judgement) is fair, equitable and transparent. When contacting COs, as you have learned, you may end up in a predictament.  

 

 

[+Touchstone]

57 minutes ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

Guess that was the wrong process...

Not wrong at all.  In fact, it's more effort than most people put into it.

 

What you describe is pretty typical in my area as well.  Rest assured, any NM or NA log you log is not the cause of the cache getting Archived, as much as it is usually a non responsive or absent owner.  After an NA log, a local Reviewer will typically check up on the Listing page and determine if Archival is warranted.  Typically, a cache owner has 30 days to respond to a Reviewer Disable Note.  If my original outline of a plan was followed, that's 90 days for the cache owner to respond.  I feel that's more than adequate time.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, GawrshImGoofy said:

 

 

 

I think I worded my original post wrong. I didn't go find it to be ugly or force them out. I live across the street from it and have always liked their cache. That being the case I randomly check the log to see if anyone has found it. I live in the woods where nothing goes on so the fact that I have a cache on my road (that isn't mine) excites me. Since I check the logs I knew it hadn't been found in a long time. Maybe that's weird?

 

I did contact the owners and explain everything to them. I even offered to replace the log and get different coordinates if they chose to keep it there, but they said they would do it. The owners just don't seem very interested in either of their caches in the area and if they aren't going to fix it I would really like to use my land for mine. I didn't log an NM after personally speaking with them because I felt like that would be rude. I spoke to them personally because they hadn't checked on their cache in over 2 years and didn't think they would see the NM. Guess that was the wrong process, but it felt deceitful to log a NM and then wait 30 days for them to fix it and log a NA, when I knew they more than likely would never see the NM. 

I understand what you are saying, so maybe instead of logging a NM now, give them a month and if they haven't fixed their log, then log a NM. Did you explain fully to them about wanting to place a cache in your own yard that you have worked on? Maybe if they know that they might archive their cache and let you have the space. I certainly would, if my cache were ordinary, as their one sounds like. I wouldn't want to stop someone using their own yard for a special cache, if the one I had there was ordinary. I would either archive it or move it if I could.

I had a cache I wanted to place in my front yard that also took work. A carpenter was making a LFL and adding a space to the structure for a cache. Then I wallpapered and carpeted it and furnished it; added artworks, a working clock, furniture, beds for TBs etc. So I wanted that space and would have been VERY upset if someone plonked an ordinary cache (say a nano on a light post) nearby and blocked my cache after all that work. Before that work started I checked with the local reviewer that space was available and then they held that spot for me, to stop that boring, uninteresting, could be placed anywhere nano being placed.

[+JL_HSTRE]

For a cache with a mushy log and the coords are off 30 feet I would log a NM and move on.

 

For wanting to place a cache in proximity to an existing cache, I would usually just wait. However, in this case I would message the CO politely explaining my desire to place a new cache and noting the two important factors: the raison d'detre (the artful sign) being gone and the cache being nearly a decade old. In this I regard the maintenance issue is irrelevant, unless it were a more severe issue (ex: missing/broken container). Many COs, given those two factors, would be willing to archive. Some wont. Either way, accept the CO decision. 

[+edexter]

     The actual process for getting a damaged non-maintained cache archived is often drawn out to ridiculous lengths..  As described in the guidelines, the process is simple, direct and straightforward.  Caches are expected to be regularly maintained and if one finds one damaged, you post an NM log.  If there is no response to it, the reviewer temporarily disables it and when there is no response to that, archives it.  The process should take about 6 weeks and the CO can stop the process at any time by simply repairing the cache or asking for more time.  

That's the theory.  In reality the process goes like this (this is an real example):  The CO drops out of the game an abandons the cache and no longer does maintenance.  After a while folks start reporting problems with the cache (wet, moldy, disgusting).  Finally someone logs an NM which gets ignored.  Six months later a conscientious cacher (not me) finds the totally disgusting cache and removes it writing a detailed log explaining why they removed the cache.  Six months after that I check on the location (which I have previously known as it is along the route of one of my caches) see that it is gone and log an NA.  The reviewer then says "No, it may need some attention but it was recently found" (by the cacher who removed it!)" so it's ok".  That was six months ago.  

   The cache is gone for 11 months now.  There is an open NM log, and open NA log, the cache has been abandoned, removed and the CO has been out of the game  since August 2008 and yet on the cache is still on the website, not disabled, no warning to repair it.  I filled another NA log today laying out the evident once again.  We'll see what happens.  But the point is, unless you push the process (simply follow the steps in the guideline) nothing will change.  And sometimes, even if you do, nothing will change for quite sometime.

[Keystone]

I would not regard the muddled example above as typical.

[+L0ne.R]

14 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I would not regard the muddled example above as typical.

 

Can a reviewer make up his own rules? Can s/he decide that a cache that has been removed is still in play. Shouldn't it be reviewer disabled?

[+TeamRabbitRun]

49 minutes ago, edexter said:

     The actual process for getting a damaged non-maintained cache archived is often drawn out to ridiculous lengths..  As described in the guidelines, the process is simple, direct and straightforward.  Caches are expected to be regularly maintained and if one finds one damaged, you post an NM log.  If there is no response to it, the reviewer temporarily disables it and when there is no response to that, archives it.  The process should take about 6 weeks and the CO can stop the process at any time by simply repairing the cache or asking for more time.  

That's the theory.  In reality the process goes like this (this is an real example):  The CO drops out of the game an abandons the cache and no longer does maintenance.  After a while folks start reporting problems with the cache (wet, moldy, disgusting).  Finally someone logs an NM which gets ignored.  Six months later a conscientious cacher (not me) finds the totally disgusting cache and removes it writing a detailed log explaining why they removed the cache.  Six months after that I check on the location (which I have previously known as it is along the route of one of my caches) see that it is gone and log an NA.  The reviewer then says "No, it may need some attention but it was recently found" (by the cacher who removed it!)" so it's ok".  That was six months ago.  

   The cache is gone for 11 months now.  There is an open NM log, and open NA log, the cache has been abandoned, removed and the CO has been out of the game  since August 2008 and yet on the cache is still on the website, not disabled, no warning to repair it.  I filled another NA log today laying out the evident once again.  We'll see what happens.  But the point is, unless you push the process (simply follow the steps in the guideline) nothing will change.  And sometimes, even if you do, nothing will change for quite sometime.

 

So, who removed it? A cache finder, because he or she didn't like its looks?

 

[+L0ne.R]

51 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

So, who removed it? A cache finder, because he or she didn't like its looks?

 

 

Perhaps you missed this part:

 

After a while folks start reporting problems with the cache (wet, moldy, disgusting).  Finally someone logs an NM which gets ignored.  Six months later a conscientious cacher (not me) finds the totally disgusting cache and removes it writing a detailed log explaining why they removed the cache. 

Edited March 23, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+TeamRabbitRun]

22 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Perhaps you missed this part:

 

After a while folks start reporting problems with the cache (wet, moldy, disgusting).  Finally someone logs an NM which gets ignored.  Six months later a conscientious cacher (not me) finds the totally disgusting cache and removes it writing a detailed log explaining why they removed the cache. 

 

No, I read it. I would log all sorts of warnings about how bad it is, but it just wouldn't occur to me to physically remove someone else's cache unless the circumstances were extreme.

[+edexter]

     As Keystone pointed out this is "not typical", but I have seen a similar process play out a half dozen times.   The process described in the guidelines should take six weeks.  It mostly takes longer than that.  There is a simple way to speed up the process which is to follow it.  In this particular case the CO has not been active for over 11 years which you can tell by simply looking at their profile page with shows:  3 caches found, one placed, last find in 2004, this cache placed in 2004 and last maintained in 2006.  It was an ammo box and lasted more than a decade without being visited by the CO.  

     The game has been around long enough for some things to become apparent.   One is that many caches are abandoned without notice.  "Newbie placements" such as this one are even more frequently abandoned.  This is expectable, so the process should take this into account.  Groundspeak functions as a "listing service" while all cache placements and maintenance is done by Cache Owners.  When they fail to act, responsible "members of the community" will step up and do the right thing, which in this case was to remove the "geo litter".  Deciding to "informally" maintain the cache is another possible option (there are many pro and con arguments for this option).  As the game matures the number of unmaintained abandoned caches is only going to increase and the need for an accurate "list" will become more obvious.  If a cache I own needs maintenance I want to know about it and would rather have The Reviewer temporarily disable the cache than ignore it.  It takes little effort to respond to the situation online and in my experience The Reviewers are very responsive to any CO who responds and explains what they will do to rectify the situation.  If the CO doesn't take the time to respond online, they are very unlikely to actually repair the cache...

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, edexter said:

That's the theory.  In reality the process goes like this (this is an real example):  The CO drops out of the game an abandons the cache and no longer does maintenance.  After a while folks start reporting problems with the cache (wet, moldy, disgusting).  Finally someone logs an NM which gets ignored.  Six months later a conscientious cacher (not me) finds the totally disgusting cache and removes it writing a detailed log explaining why they removed the cache.  Six months after that I check on the location (which I have previously known as it is along the route of one of my caches) see that it is gone and log an NA.  The reviewer then says "No, it may need some attention but it was recently found" (by the cacher who removed it!)" so it's ok".  That was six months ago.  

I've never seen anything like that. Most of the problems in this example come from seekers not posting NMs and NAs when they obviously should, but that's probably because they've listened to people here in the forums who say things about how "needs archived" is terribly insulting and no one should use it until it's renamed "needs reviewer attention."

 

But I've never seen my local reviewers ignore an NA. A few years ago, they'd wait a couple weeks before disabling after an NA, then a couple more weeks before archiving it. Nowadays, they immediately disable and sometimes wait a few days before archiving. Personally, I would say that's too quick, but it's certainly better than them never archiving a cache whose time has come.

[+edexter]

     Oh, it's even weirder than that.  My NA request was not ignored, it was rejected.   When I questioned The Reviewer's response I was told "NA and NM logs are ony for people who have tried to locate the cache and have first hand knowledge.  This is to prevent Armchair Cachers from causing unecessary maintenace runs"...

     Leaving aside the implication that my report was an Armchair Log, and granting the reality that 99% of The Reviewer's activity is sitting at a computer, how do you convince someone that a cache is actually gone when they don't go see for themselves or believe folks who have?  This is such a bizarre example (no maintenace logs in the prior 10 years and two previous NM logs by different cachers with no response) I suspect some unknown factor is at play.  I pointed out the cache is along the route of one of my multis that I regularly maintain, that I posted the NA the same day as my OM notes (this was October 2019:  5 months ago) and that I previously found the cache, knew where it was and had checked on it over the years...At this point (March 2020)  the reviewer said he wasn't going to disable the cache or follow up on any NM or NA logs going forward until the Coronavirus "stay at home orders" are dropped so he "wouldn't be forcing people" to go fix their caches...As if that were possible...

    All in all very odd and the end result is what I think of as a Ghost Cache:  the cache is gone but the listing lives on. 

    At any rate, I sympathize with GG and their desire to replace a neglected cache with one they will maintain.  I still suggest following the proceedure of posting an NM log, waiting, posting an NA log when nothing happens, and then waiting for The Reviewer to act.  In my experience, they generally do, though I've seen the process take several years.  In this case the first NM log was posted in July of 2018, so one year, eight months and counting since then and 11 months since the cache was removed.  Chances they'll get a response sooner than that. You never know.

edexter

   

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, edexter said:

Oh, it's even weirder than that.  My NA request was not ignored, it was rejected.   When I questioned The Reviewer's response I was told "NA and NM logs are ony for people who have tried to locate the cache and have first hand knowledge.  This is to prevent Armchair Cachers from causing unecessary maintenace runs"...

I've heard a few reports like that. I'm not sure how reviewers like that keep their jobs when the NAs they're rejecting clearly explain why the NA log is appropriate even without a visit to GZ. After all, an NA doesn't cause a maintenance run: it announces that a required maintenance run hasn't happened.

 

But maybe there are bizarre areas where COs are regularly sent out on bogus maintenance runs so often GS feels they have to prevent that. I've never heard of them, though. The only complaints I've heard are in the opposite direction: calls for definitely required maintenance runs being ignored by COs. Hence the more common practice of reviewers archiving caches before anyone's posted an NM or NA.

[+edexter]

Six months later, here's an update:

7/16/20:  dnf

7/19/20:  dnf

7/19/20  I post another NA log  

8/8/20:  dnf

8/19/20:  The Reviewer disables the cache and notifies the CO that the cache "may" need maintenance and they will check back in "30 days"   (48 days and counting...so far)

The CO, who placed 1 cache (this one) found three, and hasn't been active since 8/3/08 did not respond. 

The cache was reported as having been physically removed 17 months ago.  It's hard to get good help these days...

 

 

[+NanCycle]

On 2/15/2020 at 12:15 PM, TriciaG said:

Messaging the CO of a cache to nicely ask if they'd be willing to move it or archive it so you can place a really awesome cache in your back yard - people will have differing opinions on this. Once again, some will feel it's predatory. As long as you're willing to take "no" for an answer, I think it's OK if the request is worded graciously.

 I have many caches in my local area.  If someone were to ask me to make room for them to place a special cache, I probably would agree to do it. (Another cache for me to find!)

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, NanCycle said:

 I have many caches in my local area.  If someone were to ask me to make room for them to place a special cache, I probably would agree to do it. (Another cache for me to find!)

 

Most of my caches have been found by all the locals who are interested in finding them and now rarely see any activity, including my more recent hides in May and June, so if someone else wanted the location for something new I'd be happy enough to oblige.

[+cerberus1]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of my caches have been found by all the locals who are interested in finding them and now rarely see any activity, including my more recent hides in May and June, so if someone else wanted the location for something new I'd be happy enough to oblige.

 

You don't feel your caches are good enough to make someone out of the area interested in including them when there ? 

I have some of yours included already JIC I ever get the chance (12 hours w/o a smoke is gonna hurt     ).

I'd hate to think your quality containers might be replaced by someone leaving pill bottles...  I can do that here.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

You don't feel your caches are good enough to make someone out of the area interested in including them when there ? 

I have some of yours included already JIC I ever get the chance (12 hours w/o a smoke is gonna hurt     ).

I'd hate to think your quality containers might be replaced by someone leaving pill bottles...  I can do that here.

Many of them could be moved a few hundred feet without really changing the experience.  The puzzles I would be less likely to move, because I'd have to redo the puzzle.  Many of my containers are nothing special--many of the ones that were ammo boxes were stolen and I replaced them with lesser containers.  (Your smoking problem gets no sympathy from me.)

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

You don't feel your caches are good enough to make someone out of the area interested in including them when there ? 

I have some of yours included already JIC I ever get the chance (12 hours w/o a smoke is gonna hurt     ).

I'd hate to think your quality containers might be replaced by someone leaving pill bottles...  I can do that here.

 

One of the locals put this in the description of a T3 mystery cache:

 

Quote

This cache, like all caches on the Central Coast with a walk involved, will probably get found 5 times in quick succession and then never again as no-one from anywhere else bothers to come here

 

He was pretty close. That cache had a group of three come up from Sydney a couple of weeks ago but the last find prior to that was in 2017 (also someone from Sydney). A lot of my higher terrain caches are like that too; my Nemophilist Challenge got two finds in the week after publication last October and has been as quiet as a graveyard since.

 

Most of the day visitors from Sydney and Newcastle have young families with them so only venture out to the more urban low-T caches.

Edited September 27, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+cerberus1]

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

One of the locals put this in the description of a T3 mystery cache:

 

This cache, like all caches on the Central Coast with a walk involved, will probably get found 5 times in quick succession and then never again as no-one from anywhere else bothers to come here  

 

He was pretty close. That cache had a group of three come up from Sydney a couple of weeks ago but the last find prior to that was in 2017 (also someone from Sydney). A lot of my higher terrain caches are like that too; my Nemophilist Challenge got two finds in the week after publication last October and has been as quiet as a graveyard since.

That's a shame...  

We have two that occasionally have folks asking if they're going to remain there a while.  Both caches lucky to be found once a year.

 - Maybe they've seen similar examples as yours where they are too.

There's not many visitors total, , but enough folks seem interested that I'd adopt them out when I'm too beat to go on.

A couple have asked if I'd tag along.   Possible JIC they're worried of an issue while there.      

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

That's a shame...  

We have two that occasionally have folks asking if they're going to remain there a while.  Both caches lucky to be found once a year.

 - Maybe they've seen similar examples as yours where they are too.

There's not many visitors total, , but enough folks seem interested that I'd adopt them out when I'm too beat to go on.

A couple have asked if I'd tag along.   Possible JIC they're worried of an issue while there.      

 

Even my Adventure Lab, which went live a couple of weeks ago, had six completions on the first day (including that group of three from Sydney who did it on their way through) but nothing since in spite of some beautiful spring weather and school holidays now underway. With a few exceptions, this region really is a caching graveyard.