Owner Maintenance

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Seen on cache
Top image  is in the description
Bottom image is a CO log 

The CO does not live in the same country as this cache 

 

Is this a thing now ?

 

Is this acceptable ?

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Deepdiggingmole

[+niraD]

1 minute ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Is this acceptable ?

Caches like this have been archived for not having an acceptable maintenance plan.

 

Not that there aren't other caches that are effectively the same, but when you come right out and say it in your cache description and in a log posted to the cache, you demonstrate that you don't have an acceptable maintenance plan.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Note - this is not a dig at the help cachers give by doing maintenance - they do that as a choice - but this effectively suggests the CO has relinquished responsibility regarding his role in maintaining the cache. 

[+Max and 99]

5 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Seen on cache
Top image  is in the description
Bottom image is a CO log 

The CO does not live in the same country as this cache 

 

Is this a thing now ?

 

Is this acceptable ?

 

Not a new thing. A previous reviewer allowed similar statement on cache pages at the time of publication. 

Edit: the COs did live in the state. Not a vacation cache, so not the same as OP. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Max and 99

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Just now, Max and 99 said:

A previous reviewer allowed similar statement on cache pages at the time of publication

 

When you say previous - is that because the reviewer was not doing their job properly by ensuring that there was acceptable maintenance plans in place ??

[+cerberus1]

"Self maintenance mode" huh ?     

I feel that was written in after it was published.  I can't believe a Reviewer saw this and it was okay.  

Those things always seem to have a ton of favorite points too.  Weird...

 - I'd be willing to bet there's a couple Reviewers that see it now though.    

 

You don't give much more info...

Just-for-the-heck-of-it, would this happen to be a "pioneer", or "legacy" cache, one published '04  or earlier ?

I could see someone feeling a bit cocky if they were contacted by HQ , and asked what they "had planned" for their cache simply because of its date.   

[+Deepdiggingmole]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

You don't give much more info...

Just-for-the-heck-of-it, would this happen to be a "pioneer", or "legacy" cache, one published '04  or earlier ?

I could see someone feeling a bit cocky if they were contacted by HQ , and asked what they "had planned" for their cache simply because of its date. 

 

No, not going to name and shame - but to answer your Q - not not a 'legacy' cache - only placed in 2013 :-) 

a mass of favourites - no 

Anything special - no - it's just a micro hidden in a hole 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Deepdiggingmole
adding info

[+cerberus1]

13 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

a mass of favourites - no 

Anything special - no - it's just a micro hidden in a hole 

 

Wow.  Thanks.             No big deal to boot.  Really surprised a Reviewer hasn't heard about this yet.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

45 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Really surprised a Reviewer hasn't heard about this yet.

[Keystone]

Reviewers are not alerted every time that a cache page is edited.

 

If this cache were in my review territory, I would disable the cache page and ask for the language to be removed.  I would learn about this either (1) from a report by a responsible geocacher, or (2) by stumbling across the cache page in the course of planning my own geocaching activities as a player.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Just-for-the-heck-of-it, would this happen to be a "pioneer", or "legacy" cache, one published '04  or earlier ?

Are you saying they are given more protection? I have nothing against that; just interested.

[+L0ne.R]

55 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Are you saying they are given more protection? I have nothing against that; just interested.

 

Mingo has been given protection and a blind eye turned to vandalism (pouring of cement). 

 

[+ecanderson]

10 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Seen on cache
Top image  is in the description
Bottom image is a CO log 

The CO does not live in the same country as this cache 

 

Is this a thing now ?

 

Is this acceptable ?

No, it's not acceptable, but certain reviewers past and present seem willing to ignore vacation caches, especially in the western hemisphere south of about N24º.   These are sometimes also left in the hands of proprietors of businesses who must be met and consulted to obtain access to the 'vacation cache', a second violation of the guidelines.

 

I've mentioned several here, even providing GC codes for one or two of them, but they persist.

 

A classic log example, the most recent for one such cache:

 

"Found it today! Lovely Canadian bar located close to 5th ave. Just have to ask for the cache at the bar. ???"

Edited June 28, 2020 by ecanderson

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, ecanderson said:

No, it's not acceptable, but certain reviewers past and present seem willing to ignore vacation caches, especially in the western hemisphere south of about N24º.   These are sometimes also left in the hands of proprietors of businesses who must be met and consulted to obtain access to the 'vacation cache', a second violation of the guidelines.

 

I've mentioned several here, even providing GC codes for one or two of them, but they persist.

 

A classic log example, the most recent for one such cache:

 

"Found it today! Lovely Canadian bar located close to 5th ave. Just have to ask for the cache at the bar. ???"

In some countries, that's the only way a cache will survive.

[+TriciaG]

It's in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If the area isn't safe for a physical cache to survive in the wild it's probably not safe for caching in general.

 

It can be tough in urban areas, but there are ways to work around that: Wherigo, Adventure Labs, offset multis, Virtuals Rewards.

 

It's one thing to have a cache behind a desk at a library. It's another to have it behind a bar. At least in Canada I suppose cachers under 21 are still allowed to enter.

[+cerberus1]

16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Are you saying they are given more protection? I have nothing against that; just interested.

 

I'm not "saying" anything, simply adding that it's been mentioned a couple times now.     

One, a member posted saying that folks with 2000 caches were supposedly contacted (they were), and asked about what they'd like to do with their caches  in the future, "JIC".    That post  Here.

Haven't found anything else about it...

Then this mention in the Help Center says that a "test" on inactive owners didn't include caches placed before  January 1, 2004.

[Keystone]

Neither of the narrow use cases mentioned in cerberus1's post is in any way applicable to the cache under discussion here.  The inactive owners test only involved caches in Georgia and North Carolina, USA.

[+ecanderson]

10 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

In some countries, that's the only way a cache will survive.

I've heard that same explanation before.  And as I noted in those older threads, not EVERY place is a GOOD place for a geocache, or geocaching. 

 

[+frostengel]

I am happy not to have to decide this for myself as I don't know which cache this is. But... have you thought of correctly logging NA? I think this post by a reviewer tell's you to do so:

 

19 hours ago, Keystone said:

I would learn about this either (1) from a report by a responsible geocacher

 

And obviously that's not a maintained geocache anymore and therefore it shouldn't be listed!?

Logging NA doesn't mean that the cache gets archived at once but the owner will get some time to do the right thing. Perhaps - and that would be best? - the cache gets adopted by a local geocacher who is able to maintain the cache properly?!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, ecanderson said:

No, it's not acceptable, but certain reviewers past and present seem willing to ignore vacation caches, especially in the western hemisphere south of about N24º.   These are sometimes also left in the hands of proprietors of businesses who must be met and consulted to obtain access to the 'vacation cache', a second violation of the guidelines.

 

I've mentioned several here, even providing GC codes for one or two of them, but they persist.

 

A classic log example, the most recent for one such cache:

 

"Found it today! Lovely Canadian bar located close to 5th ave. Just have to ask for the cache at the bar. ???"

 

I have found one like that too, but it wasn't in Manhattan.  It was one of only two caches that I've found in that country.  When it was initially placed it was muggled several times but then was brought inside where it could be looked after by a caretaker.  It is still active today with over 370 finds.  Most of the logs say something like "Our first cache in ----------".  The other I have found in the city was archived a couple of years ago.  Yes, the cache stretches the guidelines a bit but it really isn't hurting anyone and could be the only opportunity for many to find a cache in an exotic country.  

[+coachstahly]

It's my guess (hope?) that the reviewer didn't see what the OP posted during the review process as this shouldn't be the maintenance plan - everyone is welcome to do as they need to in order to help maintain my cache for me.  I can understand the "vacation" caches with the notion that they have someone in place to maintain their cache (a single entity/family/person) as that's a different type of plan.  There's no way this would fly in my area.

[+ecanderson]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Yes, the cache stretches the guidelines a bit but it really isn't hurting anyone and could be the only opportunity for many to find a cache in an exotic country.  

Trust me, Mexico isn't exotic (that's where my current example resides) and there are plenty of other legitimate caches nearby that example.  In fact, I do not recall ever finding an 'exotic country' cache where there weren't other, more appropriate (per guidelines) caches available for me to find.  Not saying the 'appropriate' ones were all easy, urban caches, but hey -- there's geocaching, and there's talking to the bartender. 

 

I recall going after GC39E8 while in port on a VERY hot day, avoiding the caches down in Castries proper.  That one was worth a lot more than the 2.5T rating!  Was a really great site for a cache, but sadly, it turns out that this was a vacation cache, too.  Finally archived due to inattention by an owner from Ireland who had caches in multiple countries.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, ecanderson said:

I've heard that same explanation before.  And as I noted in those older threads, not EVERY place is a GOOD place for a geocache, or geocaching. 

 

And as I've said before, spoken by someone from a place with many caches, who doesn't have to worry about not being able to find a cache.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

it really isn't hurting anyone and could be the only opportunity for many to find a cache in an exotic country.

Exactly. And it's being maintained.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

2000 caches

That's in the USA. The oldest cache is some other countries (and appreciated by locals) might be later. I believe Australia's oldest cache is 2001 or example.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Trust me, Mexico isn't exotic

It is to this Australian. As was the USA for my first visit . But I get your point; there are other caches in Mexico. (Although looking at the map, there are large areas without caches, unlike compared to country over the border to the north.)

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's in the USA. The oldest cache is some other countries (and appreciated by locals) might be later. I believe Australia's oldest cache is 2001 or example.

 

Australia's oldest cache is GC3E hidden on the 18th of May 2000 so very early in the scheme of things. It was originally a traditional in Lane Cove National Park but was converted to a virtual after the ranger removed it.

 

Edit to add: There are 6 others in Australia placed in 2000 and still active; 3 in New South Wales, 2 in Victoria and 1 in Queensland.

Edited June 29, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

34 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Australia's oldest cache is GC3E hidden on the 18th of May 2000 so very early in the scheme of things. It was originally a traditional in Lane Cove National Park but was converted to a virtual after the ranger removed it.

 

Edit to add: There are 6 others in Australia placed in 2000 and still active; 3 in New South Wales, 2 in Victoria and 1 in Queensland.

Thanks. I was wrong about the dates then. The oldest in the ACT is GC6CF, placed 15/Apr/2001. It is (or was when I found it) a regular sized cache; an ammunition box.

[+ecanderson]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It is to this Australian. As was the USA for my first visit . But I get your point; there are other caches in Mexico. (Although looking at the map, there are large areas without caches, unlike compared to country over the border to the north.)

Largely because there are huge areas where all you'll find is mostly uninhabited territory.  From an elevated position in the Yucatan, you can get a sense of the amount of abandoned Mayan civilization, long since taken over by jungle, that hasn't been looked at in centuries.  Perhaps some day there will be the requisite funds to explore more of it.  Then there are the areas where no sensible tourist would travel these days, though I see caches in most of those areas as well.  E.g.,  I haven't looked for any caches in most of Guerrero -- too many 'privately operated road blocks', to put it in the most possibly polite of terms.  Now that's some territory that fully qualifies as the epitome of "Not EVERY place is a GOOD place for a geocache, or geocaching." 

 

To my mind, it's not 'exotic' when any area a visitor is likely to travel has plenty of caching opportunities that have some reasonable access.  I guess to score 'country souvs', or light up more map, there are a few independent islands that would qualify, but many of the islands light up only their corresponding associated country (UK, France, Spain, etc.).  Most places don't need 'vacation caches'.  If the locals aren't interested in the hobby, even after exposure to it by visitors, I'd leave it alone.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 6/28/2020 at 3:33 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

Yes, the cache stretches the guidelines a bit but it really isn't hurting anyone and could be the only opportunity for many to find a cache in an exotic country.  

 

22 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

And as I've said before, spoken by someone from a place with many caches, who doesn't have to worry about not being able to find a cache.

 

So what you're saying is the Guidelines are merely suggestions to be ignored when it would be difficult or impossible to follow them?

[+The Jester]

13 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

 

So what you're saying is the Guidelines are merely suggestions to be ignored when it would be difficult or impossible to follow them?

No, but they can be flexed to fit the situation.  That's why they are guidelines not rules.  I've had caches 203 feet apart, Mystery cache more than 2 miles from the list co-ords - all done with permission.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

 

So what you're saying is the Guidelines are merely suggestions to be ignored when it would be difficult or impossible to follow them?

As The Jester said, they are guidelines not rules.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 6/28/2020 at 12:46 AM, Keystone said:

Reviewers are not alerted every time that a cache page is edited

 

Half the battle with reviewers for which we are all grateful for the work you all do
I have seen it many times, especially with events, where the cache is submitted and published and then later amended to include details that would not have been allowed at submission stage  

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 6/28/2020 at 8:33 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

Yes, the cache stretches the guidelines a bit but it really isn't hurting anyone and could be the only opportunity for many to find a cache in an exotic country.  

 

Many other caches in the country in question - this is just a cacher who lives in another country who no longer has a maintenance regime in place 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 6/29/2020 at 1:45 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I believe Australia's oldest cache is 2001 or example.

Not that this is relevant to the thread - but did feel this needed correcting - Australias oldest and still surviving cache is Lane Cove placed may 2000 - there are 2 others that I know of (because I have found all three) that were also placed in 2000 :-) 

 

EDIT - Apologies  I now see that others have pointed this out too ;-) 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Deepdiggingmole

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 6/29/2020 at 1:42 AM, Goldenwattle said:

it really isn't hurting anyone and could be the only opportunity for many to find a cache in an exotic country.

Exactly. And it's being maintained.

Except - there are a lot of caches to be found in this particular country - and if it became acceptable that COs were no longer required to maintain there own caches then you end up with a miriad of issues such as throwdowns, multiple containers 

[+Goldenwattle]

28 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Exactly. And it's being maintained.

Except - there are a lot of caches to be found in this particular country - and if it became acceptable that COs were no longer required to maintain there own caches then you end up with a miriad of issues such as throwdowns, multiple containers 

That top quote was NYPaddleCacher's

[+Goldenwattle]

36 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Not that this is relevant to the thread - but did feel this needed correcting - Australias oldest and still surviving cache is Lane Cove placed may 2000 - there are 2 others that I know of (because I have found all three) that were also placed in 2000 :-) 

 

EDIT - Apologies  I now see that others have pointed this out too ;-) 

And I gave a reply.

[+RobinsonClan56]

On 6/28/2020 at 1:38 PM, Keystone said:

Neither of the narrow use cases mentioned in cerberus1's post is in any way applicable to the cache under discussion here.  The inactive owners test only involved caches in Georgia and North Carolina, USA.

 

I know this is a side conversation to the OP, but as a cacher in NC I very much appreciate the cleanup done on inactive COs.  It is frustrating enough that this area is overrun with PNGs, but folks also tend to place caches and then abandon them, meaning day trips for caching end up being a waste of time, gas, and bug spray.

[+ottieolsen]

On 6/27/2020 at 8:18 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

Mingo has been given protection and a blind eye turned to vandalism (pouring of cement). 

 

 

Are you implying that it was a geocacher that poured the concrete?

[+TmdAndGG]

48 minutes ago, ottieolsen said:

 

Are you implying that it was a geocacher that poured the concrete?

I don't think a non-geocacher would have poured concrete to protect a geocache. I think the point is that really old caches get extra protection.

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by TmdAndGG

[+NYPaddleCacher]

45 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

I don't think a non-geocacher would have poured concrete to protect a geocache. I think the point is that really old caches get extra protection.

 

Nobody knows who poured the concrete into the hole, but its wasn't done to protect the cache.  We don't even know if the container was removed before the hole was filled, but there was nothing there except a blue ribbon after the hole was filled (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=7fd84684-eff0-4e36-b909-e6cce8a77fb1).     There was a thread in 2011 that started when someone found the cache missing, then the hole filled with dirt.  It was dug out and subsequently filled with spray insulation foam and finally with concrete.  The concrete is still there but was drilled out to hold a new container.   I speculated that the land owner filled the hole but geocachers have kept digging a new one.  

 

[+TmdAndGG]

21 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Nobody knows who poured the concrete into the hole, but its wasn't done to protect the cache.  We don't even know if the container was removed before the hole was filled, but there was nothing there except a blue ribbon after the hole was filled (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=7fd84684-eff0-4e36-b909-e6cce8a77fb1).     There was a thread in 2011 that started when someone found the cache missing, then the hole filled with dirt.  It was dug out and subsequently filled with spray insulation foam and finally with concrete.  The concrete is still there but was drilled out to hold a new container.   I speculated that the land owner filled the hole but geocachers have kept digging a new one.  

 

Never knew about that! The things you can learn from the forums!

[+ottieolsen]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Nobody knows who poured the concrete into the hole, but its wasn't done to protect the cache.  We don't even know if the container was removed before the hole was filled, but there was nothing there except a blue ribbon after the hole was filled (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=7fd84684-eff0-4e36-b909-e6cce8a77fb1).     There was a thread in 2011 that started when someone found the cache missing, then the hole filled with dirt.  It was dug out and subsequently filled with spray insulation foam and finally with concrete.  The concrete is still there but was drilled out to hold a new container.   I speculated that the land owner filled the hole but geocachers have kept digging a new one.  

 

I wouldn't say nobody knows. I live nearby and know several of the locals and nearby property owners.   

[+ecanderson]

8 hours ago, ottieolsen said:

I wouldn't say nobody knows. I live nearby and know several of the locals and nearby property owners.   

So whose property is it?

[+K13]

It has been a few years, but I remember Mingo being in a county road right-of-way near a property fence line. I would expect that property owner may to be the owner of the spot, subject to the road right-of-way.