How long can I leave a cache disabled?

[+barefootjeff]

I have a multi (GC6XHHJ) placed along a section of the Great North Walk that suffered extensive damage in the recent heavy rains and floods here. The track has now been closed indefinitely:

 

 

Fallen trees and the like generally get cleared fairly quickly but the mention of damaged bridges makes me think the closure may extend for many months or even into next year, particularly as the almost constant rain is forecast to continue until at least mid-year. The cache itself is likely to be okay, as it's on higher ground, but will remain inaccessible until the track reopens. The reviewers here say to post a note every four weeks in a situation like this, and I'm happy to do that, but I'm wondering how long that's allowed to go on for before it's considered too long. Or is there no limit as long as continue posting monthly notes?

[+Max and 99]

A local cache has been "unavailable" for almost 2 years. Lots and lots of reviewer questions and posted notes and owner maintenance logs. But it's been unavailable for almost 2 years. So it appears that continued communication has kept it going.

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Max and 99

[+Corp Of Discovery]

14.5- 16 years or so in some cases...

[+lee737]

That stretch of GNW was pretty wet when we did it, I can imagine it being pretty difficult to pass now!

[+Jayeffel]

I would think that disabling the cache and and stating the reason as you did, plus periodic updates and communication with the reviewer should suffice until it is enabled.

 

If the situation is that bad will people go there enough to make the cache worthwhile once enabled? 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Jayeffel

[+barefootjeff]

37 minutes ago, Jayeffel said:

If the situation is that bad will people go there enough to make the cache worthwhile once enabled? 

 

It's only had one finder since Lee's visit in 2020, and a total of 11 (with 9 FPs) since it was published in 2016, so it's never been particularly popular. Its most favourable logs have been from people who visited just after heavy rain when the waterfalls were really pumping:

 

 

It's a low maintenance cache, still the original container and logbook, so as long as it hasn't been buried in a landslip I'm happy to keep it going. It's just that if the track damage is as extensive as they're suggesting, they may decide to wait to get funding for a complete rebuild and that would see it out of action for quite some time. There's another walking track of similar length in a nearby park that they've been rebuilding for the last two years, although that one has multiple access points so they've been able to just close off one section at a time.

[+Jayeffel]

Not quite as quick and easy as a GR or LPC!

[+cerberus1]

18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 The reviewers here say to post a note every four weeks in a situation like this, and I'm happy to do that, but I'm wondering how long that's allowed to go on for before it's considered too long. Or is there no limit as long as continue posting monthly notes?

 

Our first cache, a working 1700s mill was nailed by two hurricane tails, and damage had the ground flooded three feet at parking as well.

Checked with the Township, knowing this is a pet project, and they said they'll have people working on it immediately. They did.

Limited parking, workers all over, and equipment at GZ, I temp disabled it.   I left a write note every month, on what we heard/saw.

A year later, got the "I noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess..." note from the Reviewer.

At the bottom it said "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.".     Well, I've been "logging a note to the cache" every month.  Mine the only logs, the Reviewer had to see that.

Finally, with some changes that happened here and home, and not too happy about either, I just got ticked enough and archived the thing...

 

But like Corp Of Discovery, we remember a cache mentioned in these forums that's was temp-disabled well-over ten years when we read about it.

[+barefootjeff]

32 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

A year later, got the "I noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess..." note from the Reviewer.

At the bottom it said "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.".     Well, I've been "logging a note to the cache" every month.  Mine the only logs, the Reviewer had to see that.

 

A couple of years ago, in the aftermath of the fires in late 2019, a cache in the Watagan Mountains was disabled as the access road was closed, then the COVID lockdowns started too. It got the "please post a note every 28 days" the day after the owner had posted a note, and then a few days after the owner posted a follow-up note saying the road is still closed, it got summarily archived for "non-communication". The reviewer subsequently unarchived it on appeal, but it makes me wonder whether some reviewers might be a little too reliant on their tools that sweep for excessively disabled caches.

[+JL_HSTRE]

In my experience, Reviewers are usually lenient as long as the CO posts periodic updates, especially in response to any Reviewer Notes asking for an update. 

[+dprovan]

On 3/27/2022 at 6:11 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

In my experience, Reviewers are usually lenient as long as the CO posts periodic updates, especially in response to any Reviewer Notes asking for an update. 

I wouldn't call it "lenient". That implies archiving the cache would be a punishment. I'd say "patient". The reviewers don't want to archive a viable cache, and they won't as long as they are kept informed about its status.

Edited March 28, 2022 by dprovan

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

The reviewers don't want to archive a viable cache, and they won't as long as they are kept informed about its status.

 

Over the years I've seen instances when a reviewer has archived a disabled cache even though the CO has posted update notes in situations where an area has been closed for an extended period. Admittedly those updates weren't as regular as the reviewer stipulated (every 28 days) but when an area is closed for months, even years, with on-again off-again construction work happening at the snail's pace typical for local governments here, it's perhaps not surprising that eventually an update note gets forgotten.

 

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there's a point when a reviewer's patience with a long-disabled cache wears thin, even if the CO posts a note every 28 days saying "The area remains closed with little or no progress being made", and whether it's preferable in a situation like that to just archive the cache and maybe create a new one when the area eventually reopens (or leave it free for someone else to maybe put something there).

 

Things are looking rather grim here. I've only been able to get to about 20 of my 48 caches since the deluge began in early March, and of those I've archived two where GZ had become too problematic with little prospect of it being restored. With the rain continuing to fall and more flooding and gale force winds expected later this week, I'd be very surprised if I don't end up with more caches that are long-term disabled due to track closures.

[+JL_HSTRE]

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Over the years I've seen instances when a reviewer has archived a disabled cache even though the CO has posted update notes in situations where an area has been closed for an extended period. Admittedly those updates weren't as regular as the reviewer stipulated (every 28 days) but when an area is closed for months, even years, with on-again off-again construction work happening at the snail's pace typical for local governments here, it's perhaps not surprising that eventually an update note gets forgotten.

 

I have seen some instances of Reviewers deciding to Archive a listing because the property has been closed for an extended period of time (years) and there was no indication of when it might reopen again. It may depend on the reason for the closure.

 

I think that's understandable, although likely results in all the geocache containers becoming litter.

[+lee737]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I guess what I'm wondering is whether there's a point when a reviewer's patience with a long-disabled cache wears thin, even if the CO posts a note every 28 days

The ones I've seen where the reviewer finally drops the axe are when comments like 'still waiting for a new container', 'will get out there soon' etc are being posted - one near here went on like this for 2 years I think before the reviewer put the poor thing out of its misery.....

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

The ones I've seen where the reviewer finally drops the axe are when comments like 'still waiting for a new container', 'will get out there soon' etc are being posted - one near here went on like this for 2 years I think before the reviewer put the poor thing out of its misery.....

Makes sense. There's a big difference between "yet another delay in the construction that's blocking access" and "still working on the new container".

 

I disabled one of mine for construction, and then there were construction delays, and then the construction changed something that I was told would not be changed so I had to come up with a new hide style. But I didn't take months to replace the cache once I had access to GZ again.

[+barefootjeff]

Following a fatal rock fall in the Blue Mountains earlier this week and with more severe weather now impacting the coast, many of the walking tracks around here are now being closed indefinitely, including the entire southern half of the Great North Walk. I now have ten of my caches disabled for the duration, with more likely to be added as parks are closed.

[+lee737]

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Following a fatal rock fall in the Blue Mountains earlier this week and with more severe weather now impacting the coast, many of the walking tracks around here are now being closed indefinitely, including the entire southern half of the Great North Walk. I now have ten of my caches disabled for the duration, with more likely to be added as parks are closed.

Meanwhile we die in our hundreds on the roads, yet one freak accident in a national park, and they close. Closed when its hot, now closed when they're wet - we might get the odd mild weekend for walking in Spring! Someone will get hit by lightning next, and they'll close all outdoor spaces.....

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, lee737 said:

Meanwhile we die in our hundreds on the roads, yet one freak accident in a national park, and they close. Closed when its hot, now closed when they're wet - we might get the odd mild weekend for walking in Spring! Someone will get hit by lightning next, and they'll close all outdoor spaces.....

 

From what I'm seeing locally, mainly in Brisbane Water NP, most of today's closures are due to track washaways and damaged infrastructure. It's been torrential here most of the morning. My caches along the Great North Walk are all in high and dry hiding places so they should be okay once they become accessible again.

[+lee737]

It was Blue Mountains who closed the whole park as heavy weather was expected. Meanwhile we've had one moderate shower here and a bit of spitting, we always miss the worst of it, probably a good thing!

 

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, lee737 said:

It was Blue Mountains who closed the whole park as heavy weather was expected. Meanwhile we've had one moderate shower here and a bit of spitting, we always miss the worst of it, probably a good thing!

 

 

Yeah, all the Sydney parks closed everything yesterday but so far Brisbane Water is just selective closures, with Bouddi and Propran NPs still fully open. My cache down at the waterfall near Popran will need checking though once it's dry enough for me to get down there. Don't worry, you'll probably get your turn before this la Nina's done with.

[+barefootjeff]

I guess I now know how long our reviewer's patience lasts, as he just posted this Reviewer Note on GC6XHHJ:

 

 

I realise this is a boilerplate note, but I've been pedantically posting WNs every 28 days since I had to disable it back in March when floodwaters did major damage to a bridge and the National Parks service closed that section of the Great North Walk. I'd hoped that would have been sufficient to have held this Reviewer Note at bay, but I guess not. Since then there's been further flood damage along the track when the Mooney Mooney Creek dam overflowed during the deluge earlier this month and it now seems unlikely that the track will reopen this year.

 

The request to "Please either repair/replace this cache, or archive it (using the archive listing link in the upper right) within the next 4 weeks so that someone else can place a cache in the area, and geocachers can once again enjoy visiting this location" has me scratching my head as, with the track closed indefinitely, no-one else would be able to place a cache there even if they wanted to. I'm fairly certain my cache is okay, as its well above water level, but I simply can't get to it, either to check on it or remove it if I wanted to archive it.

 

At this point I'm unsure what to do, apart from posting more WNs. I really want to avoid the stigma of having a reviewer archive one of my caches (I'm sure LOne.R and thebruce0 would have a field day if that happened) and, if that's likely to be inevitable, I'd rather archive it myself and then go and collect the cache when the track eventually reopens. Either way, I won't be placing a new cache there and I very much doubt anyone else would as there's oodles of empty space on the map around there. There's one other cache a few hundred metres away on the opposite side of the dam (accessed from the west) then the next nearest is 2.7km to the east.

Edited July 30, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+colleda]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I guess I now know how long our reviewer's patience lasts, as he just posted this Reviewer Note on GC6XHHJ:

 

 

I realise this is a boilerplate note, but I've been pedantically posting WNs every 28 days since I had to disable it back in March when floodwaters did major damage to a bridge and the National Parks service closed that section of the Great North Walk. I'd hoped that would have been sufficient to have held this Reviewer Note at bay, but I guess not. Since then there's been further flood damage along the track when the Mooney Mooney Creek dam overflowed during the deluge earlier this month and it now seems unlikely that the track will reopen this year.

 

The request to "Please either repair/replace this cache, or archive it (using the archive listing link in the upper right) within the next 4 weeks so that someone else can place a cache in the area, and geocachers can once again enjoy visiting this location" has me scratching my head as, with the track closed indefinitely, no-one else would be able to place a cache there even if they wanted to. I'm fairly certain my cache is okay, as its well above water level, but I simply can't get to it, either to check on it or remove it if I wanted to archive it.

 

At this point I'm unsure what to do, apart from posting more WNs. I really want to avoid the stigma of having a reviewer archive one of my caches (I'm sure LOne.R and thebruce0 would have a field day if that happened) and, if that's likely to be inevitable, I'd rather archive it myself and then go and collect the cache when the track eventually reopens. Either way, I won't be placing a new cache there and I very much doubt anyone else would as there's oodles of empty space on the map around there. There's one other cache a few hundred metres away on the opposite side of the dam (accessed from the west) then the next nearest is 2.7km to the east.

I also recently received the same note on

GC4D0MB

  a little over two weeks from last WN. I just posted another WN and will wait another month to see if construction work has finished - not hopeful at this stage.

Chill out Jeff.

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, colleda said:

I also recently received the same note on

GC4D0MB

  a little over two weeks from last WN. I just posted another WN and will wait another month to see if construction work has finished - not hopeful at this stage.

Chill out Jeff.

 

Last month there was another cache where the owner posted a note after the warning but it still got summarily archived a few weeks later. I'm just trying to avoid that.

[+Joe_L]

Here’s a suggestion:  temporarily change and simplify the cache page and solution, but save the current version for re-use. Use the sign at the first stage for the letters and numbers for the final location.   It will be much less elegant and less interesting than what you currently have, but it allows you to activate the page.  Whether or not the cache is accessible as originally intended is moot.  When the trail is restored and reopened, re-load your original page. 

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Joe_L said:

Here’s a suggestion:  temporarily change and simplify the cache page and solution, but save the current version for re-use. Use the sign at the first stage for the letters and numbers for the final location.   It will be much less elegant and less interesting than what you currently have, but it allows you to activate the page.  Whether or not the cache is accessible as originally intended is moot.  When the trail is restored and reopened, re-load your original page. 

 

I'm not sure if I'm missing something with your suggestion, but the final itself is currently inaccessible as it's midway along the closed section of track, so changing the field puzzle isn't going to help any.

[+Joe_L]

My thinking was that access to the entire track, which appears to be needed for the current cache page, would not be necessary.  Maybe one can’t easily get to the sign or the cache, but both could still be made active, which appears to be the point. 

[+barefootjeff]

14 hours ago, Joe_L said:

My thinking was that access to the entire track, which appears to be needed for the current cache page, would not be necessary.  Maybe one can’t easily get to the sign or the cache, but both could still be made active, which appears to be the point. 

 

The only way to access the final is along the now-closed track, as to the east is private property and to the west is the lower Mooney Mooney Creek dam which is off-limits to watercraft (and swimmers). As the cache is quite remote, I don't want people to make a long journey there only to find they can't legally get to it and either have to turn back empty-handed or risk tresspassing.

[+Joe_L]

Then, with that criterion, your only choice is to continue posting notes and trust that the reviewer is not operating in a vacuum.  After all, your notes are identifying the physical constraints that are affecting your ability to re-enable the cache. The notes haven’t been month after month of “I haven’t had time to go out” or statements along those lines. 
 

Looks like something may change in the next few weeks per the GNW webpage. 

[+Joe_L]

One last thing (and I wish I had checked this earlier), the Disabling a Cache section in the Help Center says : “You can temporarily disable your cache page if the cache needs repairs or if the area is closed temporarily.”
 

So if the area is temporarily closed, then there is no time limit on how long the cache is Disabled. 

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Joe_L said:

One last thing (and I wish I had checked this earlier), the Disabling a Cache section in the Help Center says : “You can temporarily disable your cache page if the cache needs repairs or if the area is closed temporarily.”
 

So if the area is temporarily closed, then there is no time limit on how long the cache is Disabled. 

 

This just makes me more confused as to why the reviewer felt the need to post the warning and put it on notice of archival without further note, as I've already explained the situation and provided monthly updates as best I can. Anyway, I've emailed the reviewer asking what the best way forward is and will await his reply.

 

I'm not all that concerned about having to archive the cache, as it's only had 11 finds in its 6 years, the most recent in March last year, so it'd be no great loss to the community, it's just if it has to be archived I really want to be the one to do it. COs who've had a cache archived by a reviewer tend to be looked upon poorly. But I know of at least a couple of cachers from outside the area who have expressed an interest in doing it so I'd still like to keep it alive if I can.

[+Mudfrog]

On 3/25/2022 at 7:30 PM, barefootjeff said:

I have a multi (GC6XHHJ) placed along a section of the Great North Walk that suffered extensive damage in the recent heavy rains and floods here. The track has now been closed indefinitely:

 

 

Fallen trees and the like generally get cleared fairly quickly but the mention of damaged bridges makes me think the closure may extend for many months or even into next year, particularly as the almost constant rain is forecast to continue until at least mid-year. The cache itself is likely to be okay, as it's on higher ground, but will remain inaccessible until the track reopens. The reviewers here say to post a note every four weeks in a situation like this, and I'm happy to do that, but I'm wondering how long that's allowed to go on for before it's considered too long. Or is there no limit as long as continue posting monthly notes?

 

I have an older adopted cache located at a travel stop here in the USA that I'm trying to keep active. I've had to disable it twice because of a storm and then again when the travel stop was torn down and rebuilt. First disablement lasted right at 2 years and the second was 15 months. I tried to remember to post monthly notes but I would forget and ended up getting reminded by the reviewer to check the status of the cache several times. There was one point that I did have to explain to the reviewer, that my cache was not hampering anyone else from placing one since the whole area was closed. It worked out but yes, it did require a lot of cache update communication.

[+barefootjeff]

I just received this reply from the reviewer:

 

Quote

My note is more a formality to show cachers that I have noticed it and just to give cache owners a heads up that it's come under my attention.

 

We didn't used to post a note if the owners were posting an update but then would sometimes come back and find that nothing had been posted for 45-60 days then then we have to start all over. If you keep the notes up you should be fine.

 

So yep, I'm happy with that and will continue to post my regular updates until the track is reopened.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

Wouldn't it be better to get a note that actually meant what it says, instead of "We send this note to show that we're here, regardless of the message"?

[+barefootjeff]

Just to provide closure on this thread, thirteen months after the Mooney Mooney Creek section of the Great North Walk was closed due to a flood-damaged bridge, forcing me to disable my cache along there (GC6XHHJ), a new bridge is now in place and the track officially reopened. I went out today to walk the route, take updated waypoint photos where needed and check on the cache itself. It survived all the torrential rain and floods quite well, with just a little external mud that I've cleaned off, and is now back in play.

 

Subsequent to the Reviewer Note last August threatening archival in 4 weeks if the cache wasn't repaired or replaced, there were a further three Reviewer Notes reminding me to keep posting regular updates, which I did every 28 days even when there was no progress to report. I'm grateful for his patience over the extended time it spent disabled, as if it had been archived I wouldn't have put a replacement there and I doubt anyone else would either.

 

It being an 8-stage multi, a 12km return hike and with only 9 FPs from 11 finds in the almost seven years since publication, I'm not expecting a rush of new finders, particularly as it would be unappealing to anyone working on the current promotions. I know of two cachers, though, who expressed an interest in it prior to the floods, so perhaps they might give it a go now that it's back up. At least I no longer have the website constantly nagging me that one of my hides needs attention.