No "NM", when not finding a cache?

[+Goldenwattle]

36 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

Well just for fun and because it is relevant to the thread. Check this out: https://coord.info/GC8RK5H

The cache had NM from someone who is notorious here for not finding things others seem to find easily (take that as you will!). It then got reviewer disabled. I then found it and it was a REALLY good cache. You can see my log. And next thing I know - archived today. I note that yes it is TOTALLY the CO's fault for not putting an OM log after my find. More surprising is that they last found a cache only a month ago and before that went after a few new ones. So they've been active since my find. Now do not scold me that it is the CO's fault, I get that... but I would argue that there was zero reason to archive it - the only thing that happened is the CO didn't tag it with OM and enable. It's a huge waste because now it *is* geo-trash and it was actually a really nicely built thing. It's the CO's own fault but it's kind of on the reviewer now that it is geo-trash. Pretty sad IMHO. (YES I get your opinions may vary.)

That's sad and very unnecessary. Fortunately though there are lots of other caches in the area, so not a rare cache.

[+CCFwasG]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's sad and very unnecessary. Fortunately though there are lots of other caches in the area, so not a rare cache.

Well actually there really aren't... there are lots generally but it was the only cache in that land preserve (a bigger area than the nearby one with new caches). But what disappoints me more is that it was a really great container!
 

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

 

I see the cache history differently.  A problem was reported to the CO in February and a Reviewer archived the cache in November?  That's really generous.  Had the "bad neighbor experience" been reported directly to HQ, the cache would've been archived in February.  Had I disabled the cache, instead of the friendlier local Reviewer here, the cache would have been archived four weeks after I disabled it.

 

Yes, there may now be unmaintained, unmonitored trash out in the wild.  The Reviewer didn't cause that result.

 

Oh, so the fact it was found in good condition in between disabling (two people didn't find in winter, cache was not winter friendly!) and archiving means that it isn't the reviewer's issue for archiving something that is OBVIOUSLY there and in good shape. Ok. Well, that's an opinion, and as I said opinions vary. p.s. the "bad neighbor" was someone whose house you drive past on a public road to reach a public open space... sure they can try to enforce speed, and I went slowly, but that's nothing to do with the cache itself! Or even the location! 
 

Edited November 17, 2023 by CCFwasG

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

Well actually there really aren't... there are lots generally but it was the only cache in that land preserve (a bigger area than the nearby one with new caches). But what disappoints me more is that it was a really great container!

I saw the map; there are nearby caches. Not like there are no caches for a hundred kms or more, or even none for twenty kms. But I fully agree with you, as it was a great container, it shouldn't have been archived. (I'm pleased my local reviewer is slow to act on remote caches, which are also often oldish. They won't be replaced.)

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, Keystone said:

A problem was reported to the CO in February and a Reviewer archived the cache in November?

 

I primarily see reports by one entitled player venting to the owner about not being able to find the caches. I have been in a similar DNF & NM situation with "bad neighbor experience" but didn't post NA. In my case, next player posted found and additional note about the "bad neighbor experience". The last finder had taken all these notes into account and avoided the "bad neighbor experience". I am not willing to post NRA because I know that it may start unstoppable process that is not necessary, even I would like to have the issue fixed.

 

 

 

 

[Keystone]

9 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Oh, so the fact it was found in good condition in between disabling (two people didn't find in winter, cache was not winter friendly!) and archiving means that it isn't the reviewer's issue for archiving something that is OBVIOUSLY there and in good shape.

 

That's correct.  Same correct answer if a Reviewer disables a cache and someone "helps out" by replacing the cache with a throwdown container.  Once a Reviewer needs to step in because of owner inactivity, only the cache owner can stop the process.  That's why there are so many waiting periods built into the process, as was evident in your example.

[+L0ne.R]

18 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Well just for fun and because it is relevant to the thread. Check this out: https://coord.info/GC8RK5H

It's a huge waste because now it *is* geo-trash and it was actually a really nicely built thing. It's the CO's own fault but it's kind of on the reviewer now that it is geo-trash. Pretty sad IMHO. (YES I get your opinions may vary.)

I would have no problem removing the now archived cache. I would post a note on the cache page — ‘The container has been removed and I will hold on to it for a month. If the owner would like it back I will be happy to arrange a pickup. After one month I will recycle the container for use in a new cache. ‘ I would also email him for good measure. 

[+fizzymagic]

22 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Well just for fun and because it is relevant to the thread. Check this out: https://coord.info/GC8RK5H

The cache had NM from someone who is notorious here for not finding things others seem to find easily (take that as you will!). It then got reviewer disabled. I then found it and it was a REALLY good cache. You can see my log. And next thing I know - archived today. I note that yes it is TOTALLY the CO's fault for not putting an OM log after my find. More surprising is that they last found a cache only a month ago and before that went after a few new ones. So they've been active since my find. Now do not scold me that it is the CO's fault, I get that... but I would argue that there was zero reason to archive it - the only thing that happened is the CO didn't tag it with OM and enable. It's a huge waste because now it *is* geo-trash and it was actually a really nicely built thing. It's the CO's own fault but it's kind of on the reviewer now that it is geo-trash. Pretty sad IMHO. (YES I get your opinions may vary.)

 

Not only that, but a single geocacher was able to manipulate the system to get the cache archived.  A single geocacher posted multiple logs complaining about the cache; it looks like the reviewer just disabled it and archived it on autopilot as a result of owner non-response,.

 

Now, ultimately, it is the owner's fault that they did not respond.  Perhaps they thought that the next glowing log would absolve them.  But it didn't, because once that reviewer disabled the cache an automatic system cut in (the one people keep claiming does not exist) and the die was cast.   Should the owner have written an OM log highlighting the positive report on the cache?  Yes, they should have.  But don't tell me that reviewers look at the whole picture when archiving a cache using this method.  They clearly look at it at some point, and I know they are very busy, but the description of careful consideration does not seem to apply in this case.

 

What is shown here is a very clear example of abuse of the system by the poster of the OAR and RA logs.

[+barefootjeff]

15 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

What is shown here is a very clear example of abuse of the system by the poster of the OAR and RA logs.

 

Maybe this is how "refreshing the gameboard" is supposed to be done when an old well-loved cache with an inactive owner is blocking your nice shiny new one. Log a fallacious NM, followed by an NA a month later, and just sit back and wait for the wheels to grind.

[+CCFwasG]

On 11/17/2023 at 7:20 PM, fizzymagic said:

 

Not only that, but a single geocacher was able to manipulate the system to get the cache archived.  A single geocacher posted multiple logs complaining about the cache; it looks like the reviewer just disabled it and archived it on autopilot as a result of owner non-response,.

 

Now, ultimately, it is the owner's fault that they did not respond.  Perhaps they thought that the next glowing log would absolve them.  But it didn't, because once that reviewer disabled the cache an automatic system cut in (the one people keep claiming does not exist) and the die was cast.   Should the owner have written an OM log highlighting the positive report on the cache?  Yes, they should have.  But don't tell me that reviewers look at the whole picture when archiving a cache using this method.  They clearly look at it at some point, and I know they are very busy, but the description of careful consideration does not seem to apply in this case.

 

What is shown here is a very clear example of abuse of the system by the poster of the OAR and RA logs.

I do appreciate that some folks agree with my perspective. (And as I said I get that there are differing views.) You are correct here in my opinion. And in fact the single cacher in question seems to put NM a fair amount when they can't find something. I had a QEF on something that others also found easily, the person in question went twice and stuck NM on it, then the CO went to check and it was exactly where it should have been, right on coords, where I found it. Needless to say, the CO was not best pleased. (But understands it's their responsibility, in case anyone decides to snipe at me about that.)

I think it relevant to add that the variation across the game - across the WORLD - in terms of the acceptability of "throwdowns" is enormous! I get that it doesn't follow the rules, but equally I get that sometimes a CO just can't get to a good cache in a timely manner (& there are LOADS of reasons why). I really appreciate living in, or caching in, places where the local caching community *is* a community and supports one another by helping with each others' caches - despite it being sometimes "against the rules".

[+MNTA]

We all get that some folks agree with your position that caches should live beyond their natural lifetime.

 

Saturday, I drove out to the beach and enjoyed the inclemently nice weather. My dog had a blast running and digging. I enjoyed my ten mile drive on the sand. On the way home I decided to take the really long way home to grab a few caches that help with challenges. Unfortunately, they were all owned by a CO that probably passed away over a year ago. Had I researched these hides I would have seen all of them having multiple DNFs by experienced cachers including one note begging the reviewer to not archive and that they would maintain them. Well guess what, that cacher hadn't maintained it in the 1.5 years since their statement. Even the COs child a local did not bother to maintain or adopt the caches out, So I wasted an a couple of hours of my time and waste of gas going to caches that were abandoned.  Just because back in 2013 these were great caches does not mean it stays that way forever. I apreciate GS's position that caches need to be maintained. The sad thing is if any of the 6 or 7 other cachers that had filled a DNF on the simple hides, I could have chosen to go a different way home and had a positive experience rather than be annoyed that cachers are afraid to get an abandoned cached archived by policing the game and encouraging a positive experience.

[+fizzymagic]

54 minutes ago, MNTA said:

We all get that some folks agree with your position that caches should live beyond their natural lifetime.

 

Well guess what, that cacher hadn't maintained it in the 1.5 years since their statement. Even the COs child a local did not bother to maintain or adopt the caches out, So I wasted an a couple of hours of my time and waste of gas going to caches that were abandoned.

 

I understand the frustration and pain of having finds not being guaranteed when you go to all the trouble to go out caching.  I mean, you're the customer, and the customer is always right! It's Groundspeak's job to make sure that any cache you go for is 100% there and findable.  The very idea of going for something that might not be there is intolerable.

 

/s

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

Just because back in 2013 these were great caches does not mean it stays that way forever. I apreciate GS's position that caches need to be maintained.

 

I asked this earlier in the thread but nobody answered, so forgive me if I ask again as clearly I'm missing something here. What sort of regular maintenance do caches like these two need to keep them in good working order?

 

 

The top one is mine that I placed just on a year ago, and lives inside that small cave on a narrow ledge just below the top of a remote rocky hilltop. It's had 8 finds. The bottom one was placed in 2007 and lives inside a crack 15 metres down a vertical cliff and can only be accessed by abseiling.

 

I'll also ask the same question for this one, which is my most recent hide and lives inside that hollow space in the base of a large cave.

 

 

It's a 16km return hike from anywhere and is up the hill a bit from the waterfalls and pools so it won't get washed away or muggled. It was published six weeks ago and has only had one finder, so its 150 page logbook isn't going to fill up anytime soon. If its find count ever gets into double digits I'll be surprised. I designed that cache (and all my other ones) to be as maintenance-free as I could possibly make it and, while I'm happy to respond promptly to any issues that are reported (I mean actual issues, not DNF logs saying it started to rain so we turned back), I don't want to have to be making needless "regular" visits to it, should that become a mandated requirement.

 

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

So I wasted an a couple of hours of my time and waste of gas going to caches that were abandoned.

 

So what about all the hours and fuel you want me, and the others who still hide robust remote caches like these, to expend doing unnecessary regular visits? Getting rid of caches like these that don't need regular maintenance won't fix your leaky micros that turn to pulp every time it rains.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What sort of regular maintenance do caches like these two need to keep them in good working order?

Maybe every ten years , and then maybe longer than that.

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

won't fix your leaky micros that turn to pulp every time it rains.

Yes, seen too many of those. Mostly they are place and forget. Anyone who cares enough doesn't place caches like that, but sadly too many are placed. Rusting, leaking mintie tins, tiny plastic specimen tubes...

Edited November 20, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+MNTA]

59 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So what about all the hours and fuel you want me, and the others who still hide robust remote caches like these, to expend doing unnecessary regular visits? Getting rid of caches like these that don't need regular maintenance won't fix your leaky micros that turn to pulp every time it rains.

 

I said nothing of the sort. These caches I'm talking about were all placed by a local cacher I was driving through out of my way on the way home. If you don't want to maintain them archiving when they are flagged by a reviewer is your best bet. That is the risk of being a CO. You can not expect a cache to live forever without helping it out somehow. 

 

4 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

I understand the frustration and pain of having finds not being guaranteed when you go to all the trouble to go out caching.  I mean, you're the customer, and the customer is always right! It's Groundspeak's job to make sure that any cache you go for is 100% there and findable.  The very idea of going for something that might not be there is intolerable.

 

 

I am only frustrated with long time experienced cachers refusing to file a NM or now OAR. Maybe not the first but definitely by the sixth DNF. One even knew the CO had passed away over a year ago. 

 

[+barefootjeff]

30 minutes ago, MNTA said:

You can not expect a cache to live forever without helping it out somehow.

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "forever", but if at least several decades is a reasonable timeline (and that will almost certainly be "forever" relative to my life expectency), then yes, I fully expect those ammo cans and ABS instrument caches would happily survive that long without any helping out. So again I must ask, what sort of helping out do you think caches like those would need after, say, a decade? The abseiling one has already gone 17 years since it was placed by its owner yet the container and all its contents look like they were just placed yesterday. This is the logbook from it:

 

 

You can't really tell from the photo, and I didn't count the number of pages anyway, but that cache only gets found once or twice a year (usually by groups) so even if each group used a whole page, there's still at least another 50 years room left in it.

 

I have a similar expectation for my plastic ammo can in the cave. Its logbook is 250 pages but it's only had 8 finds in past year and only one in the last 6 months, so I'd be surprised if it gets more than 2 or 3 a year going forward. So what's going to happen to it if I don't give it any regular "helping out"? It won't rust, even the metal bits on it aren't iron-based, it's sitting in darkness so it won't go brittle from sun exposure, likewise it won't get wet where it is. I probably will have to archive it sometime in the next 10-20 years when I become too old to get to it, but I expect when I do it'll still look pretty much the same as when I placed it.

[+lee737]

As a CO.... if I saw a TD log from a reviewer on one of our caches, it would make me get off my tush, pull my finger out, whatever - and either sort that cache out, post *something* about what I was going to do, or archive it myself.

 

I'm yet to see a cache forcibly archived out from under a CO begging for it to be spared as there was some reason why they couldn't/shouldn't fix it. If you want your cache to survive troubled times, speak up - say something.... anything....

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

38 minutes ago, lee737 said:

I'm yet to see a cache forcibly archived out from under a CO begging for it to be spared as there was some reason why they couldn't/shouldn't fix it.

 

I have, well sort of, GC72T55, a multi in the Blue Mountains where there was a fatal rock fall resulting in an extended closure of that part of the trail. The CO did the right thing and disabled the cache at the time, it then got a prod from the reviewer about being disabled for more than "a few weeks". The CO responded to that with a note saying he'd been advised it would be closed for another couple of months, probably thinking that would cover it, but when there wasn't another follow-up note within 28 days it got archived without any further warning. Okay, maybe the CO should have been a bit more vigilent and remembered to post a note every 28 days, but anyway it's probably a moot point as, five years on, that trail is still closed.

 

Last year, I disabled one of my multis after a bridge on the Great North Walk was damaged in a major flood, resulting in an extended trail closure. Remembering what had happened to Valley of the Falls, I marked my calendar to show when I'd need to post follow-up notes and did so every 28 days without fail, but even then I still got an archival warning from the reviewer and several follow-up reminders. I have visions of him sitting there with his finger poised on the Archive button, waiting for me to slip up and miss a note. Ultimately, a year after the flood, the bridge was replaced and the cache lives on, though it's only had one finder since so maybe I should have just archived it and saved all the bother.

Edited November 20, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

You can not expect a cache to live forever without helping it out somehow. 

Not forever...that's a long time, but a good cache container (say an ammo tin) placed in a protected, dry place, should last decades. I have even found plastic containers in protected places still in good condition after more than ten years, and the log still having lots of room.

[+barefootjeff]

16 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have even found plastic containers in protected places still in good condition after more than ten years, and the log still having lots of room.

 

Yes, I've found quite a few Sistemas placed in the early 2000s that were still in good condition with the original logbook bone dry. Just keeping them out of the sun does wonders!

 

This is one of mine I placed in March 2014, so nearly a decade old:

 

 

Original container and original logbook, nothing special about it except the hiding place is tucked under a small rock ledge where it's dark and dry. It's had 99 finds and 15 DNFs but none of those DNFs were due to it being missing or misplaced, just people having an off day.

Edited November 20, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+L0ne.R]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, I've found quite a few Sistemas placed in the early 2000s that were still in good condition with the original logbook bone dry. Just keeping them out of the sun does wonders!

 

This is one of mine I placed in March 2014, so nearly a decade old:

 

 

Original container and original logbook, nothing special about it except the hiding place is tucked under a small rock ledge where it's dark and dry. It's had 99 finds and 15 DNFs but none of those DNFs were due to it being missing or misplaced, just people having an off day.

 

Australia seems to be dry and dirt free. That wouldn't last 3 years tops around here without it getting shabby. Rain and snow and dirt does a number on containers here. Occasionally the tabs don't get locked down properly, or seal in moisture, or break off, or get something in the seal. It happens to the good containers too. Examples:

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by L0ne.R
Removed white space.

[+CAVinoGal]

10 hours ago, MNTA said:

I am only frustrated with long time experienced cachers refusing to file a NM or now OAR. Maybe not the first but definitely by the sixth DNF.

 

We were traveling recently, and when we make a stop to stretch our legs, get gas, food, restroom break, we'll look for a cache or two as well.  We looked for this one - https://coord.info/GC3DQPN - didn't find it, I logged the DNF, and also logged OAR, based on a year of DNF's prior to mine, and one Find, the day before we attempted it.  The CO promptly archived it.

 

Since I (and several others) were unable to find it, does that mean there's a possibility it is still there?  Maybe, but not very likely.  Should I have logged the OAR?  I thought I should, so I did.  

[+lee737]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Australia seems to be dry and dirt free. That wouldn't last 3 years tops around here without it getting shabby. Rain and snow and dirt does a number on containers here. Occasionally the tabs don't get locked down properly, or seal in moisture, or break off, or get something in the seal. It happens to the good containers too.

 

We wish! It certainly can be dry, but we have plenty of wet/dirty spots too, and plenty of finders who can't close containers properly, and plenty of hiders who can't choose good containers....

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Australia seems to be dry and dirt free. That wouldn't last 3 years tops around here without it getting shabby. Rain and snow and dirt does a number on containers here. Occasionally the tabs don't get locked down properly, or seal in moisture, or break off, or get something in the seal. It happens to the good containers too.

 

No, but there are hiding places that are dry and well away from any mud. This is where my 2014 cache lives:

 

 

It's on the top of a hill so it's not going to get submerged. In a hiding place like this, it's not relying on just the seal to keep the contents dry and clean. The cash boxes I've used on some of my hides aren't sealed at all but that doesn't matter since it doesn't rain inside caves. This one I placed nearly 5 years ago, with these photos taken when I went out there a couple of weeks back:

 

 

I'm not saying all caches can last for decades without needing maintenance but, given a good choice of hiding place and a container appropriate for it, some can (and do).

[+Team Canary]

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What sort of regular maintenance do caches like these two need to keep them in good working order?

 

Enough to keep them in good order. Monitoring the logs, particularly DNFs. Going on site to check if required.

12 hours ago, lee737 said:

I'm yet to see a cache forcibly archived out from under a CO begging for it to be spared as there was some reason why they couldn't/shouldn't fix it. If you want your cache to survive troubled times, speak up - say something.... anything....

 

100%. Maintain your caches is all that's required, or if you can't, tell the Reviewer and the community that you care and you will soon.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Team Canary said:

Monitoring the logs, particularly DNFs. Going on site to check if required.

 

Last week I got yet another DNF on Lurking in a Dark Corner (GC5H5G2), bringing the total now to 16, so I've just been around to check. The cache is fine, as it always has been after a DNF. I really wanted this to be a fun cache and not one people walk away from shaking their head in disgust and muttering obscenities about unmaintained missing caches under their breath, but by the same token there's a surprise element in it that I don't want to give away. I've been gradually making the hint more explicit, going from originally "reach into the dark corner, if you dare" to "reach down and around into the darrk corner, if you dare", then adding "not in the big cave but close by" and now "not in the big cave but in the same boulder". Whether that will help or not remains to be seen. Some caches are just DNF magnets.

[+Goldenwattle]

14 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Australia seems to be dry and dirt free.

You can't get dry without dirt. The dirt on windy days will blow  around. The whole of Australia doesn't have the same climate, as we also have rainforest and places that get snow too. We aren't unique in having dry places. I clicked on your name but you don't say in which country you live , and you don't allow others to click on your caches to see where you cache. So where is "around here"? (Edited: Okay I just realised you had a what3wordsconversion and you live in Canada.)

 

1. Near Broken Hill. 42C and windy. That's haze is dirt. So dry AND dirt.

 

2. Rainforest at one of the places I grew up in. I played in there.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+MNTA]

8 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Since I (and several others) were unable to find it, does that mean there's a possibility it is still there?  Maybe, but not very likely.  Should I have logged the OAR?  I thought I should, so I did.  

Thanks!

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

How do I make these photographs smaller? I have tried to grab the corners and shrink them, but that doesn't work.

 

Control-right click on the image and select Edit Image from the menu that appears. You can set the display size in there.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Control-right click on the image and select Edit Image from the menu that appears. You can set the display size in there.

Thank you. Done.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The whole of Australia doesn't have the same climate, as we also have rainforest and places that get snow too. We aren't unique in having dry places.

 

This is typical of the sort of places I put my caches, namely wind-eroded sandstone formations in amongst predominantly dry sclerophyll forest:

 

 

We do get some weather extremes, though, like the severe drought and intense fires of 2019 and the frequent deluges and floods of 2020-2022. In mid last year, after record-breaking rainfall during autumn, I visited all my more remote caches, more out of concern about access than the cache itself. I ended up archiving five caches as a result, including an EarthCache, due to weather-related damage to the area, even though the physical containers were fine. Three of my other caches, though, which were Sistemas, got submerged and let a bit of water in so I replaced them with ABS instrument cases, having seen how one of lee737's survived bone-dry after being underwater in a flooded creek for many days. That experiment has been so successful that, even though they're quite expensive (the small-sized one is $22 and the regular-sized is $27), they've become my go-to container for most of my recent hides. I want finders to have a good experience of my caches, regardless of whether I've been there recently or not.

Edited November 21, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+CCFwasG]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:53 AM, MNTA said:

 

I am only frustrated with long time experienced cachers refusing to file a NM or now OAR. Maybe not the first but definitely by the sixth DNF. One even knew the CO had passed away over a year ago. 

 

If I see a cache with 6 DNFs I do some due diligence before attempting a find. I look at how experienced the DNFers were/are. I read the logs. Then I decide whether to attempt a cache rescue or not. It is MY choice whether to "waste gas" and look for it. I would suggest that applies to all of us... your call if you want to spend time + money + gas going after something with 6 DNFs.  It's not up to me to tell other cachers to put a NM or OAR or whatever. It's a game and everyone plays differently, that's how it goes.

[+thebruce0]

Depends on the nature and content of the DNFs.

 

ETA to be clear: 6 DNFs by experienced cachers on a low D cache may warrant an OAR. 10 DNFs by average cachers on a high D intentionally hard hide may be par for the course and an OAR is an annoyance. There is no 'rule', there is only judging case by case, cross the bridge when you get to it.

Edited November 22, 2023 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

On 11/15/2023 at 3:10 PM, barefootjeff said:

The other one is GC4YF8F, a 3.5/4 traditional placed by a prominent player here in the mid 2010s who's since left the game completely and fallen out of contact. It's one I found in 2014, not long after it was published, but in 2020 I happened to see it'd had a run of 4 DNFs from some quite experienced players. Knowing the nature of the hide, I thought I knew what had happened so I went out there. My suspicion was confirmed, with the cache still intact but pushed too far into its hiding place in a honeycombed cave so it couldn't be easily seen without knowing exactly where to look. I managed to prise it out with a couple of sticks, confirmed that its contents were still good, placed it back where it was meant to go and posted a WN to that effect. Three of those DNFers were then able to return and make their finds. I see now that it's recently had a couple more DNFs so the same thing may have happened again. When we get a cool day I'll probably go back out to take another look, so if it's just been pushed too far in again I can reset it and it can live on, otherwise if it has actually gone missing this time I'll log an NA.

 

Today being sufficiently cool (although a bit showery), I went out to GC4YF8F to satisfy my curiosity ahout those recent DNFs:

 

 

I was expecting to either find it missing (in which case I'd have logged an NA), as those DNFers clearly thought (though luckily none of them were sufficiently convinced to log an NM or NA), or pushed too far into its hiding place and out of sight, so I came equipped with a torch and a gooseneck camera. I didn't need either of those, as the cache was just sitting there in plain sight, exactly where it was meant to be. If it had a mouth, it would have been yelling "I'm here, find me!", I'm sure. Given that it lives in the roof of a cave, the container and logbook were bone dry and in excellent condition:

 

 

Yes, sure, the CO has been inactive since 2018 and has likely left the area, but caches like this one and the others he placed are a rare treat and would be unlikely to be replaced by anything new if they were archived. I wouldn't place a cache there, or adopt it if I was offered it, as I find the climb into the cave a bit more daunting and nerve-wracking than I'd be comfortable with on one of my hides, and I don't know of anyone else in the region who'd be likely to either, so if it did get archived due to an inactive owner it would almost certainly just become more empty space on an already cache-sparse map. We're a community here and help each other out on caches like these.

Edited November 23, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

Then convince the reviewer not to archive it.

Or else blame the reviewer for archiving it.

None of that changes the fact that the inevitable end of the listing that was abandoned by a person who gave up their rights to it being active is archival, and so ultimately is the fault of the physical container property's owner.

It's either worth keeping listed without a confirmed owner (a decision by a reviewer or hq which risks problems of its own), or it deserves archival (as in that is the stated and expected and agreed up on result of listing abandonment).

[+colleda]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Today being sufficiently cool (although a bit showery), I went out to GC4YF8F to satisfy my curiosity ahout those recent DNFs:

 

 

I was expecting to either find it missing (in which case I'd have logged an NA), as those DNFers clearly thought (though luckily none of them were sufficiently convinced to log an NM or NA), or pushed too far into its hiding place and out of sight, so I came equipped with a torch and a gooseneck camera. I didn't need either of those, as the cache was just sitting there in plain sight, exactly where it was meant to be. If it had a mouth, it would have been yelling "I'm here, find me!", I'm sure. Given that it lives in the roof of a cave, the container and logbook were bone dry and in excellent condition:

 

 

Yes, sure, the CO has been inactive since 2018 and has likely left the area, but caches like this one and the others he placed are a rare treat and would be unlikely to be replaced by anything new if they were archived. I wouldn't place a cache there, or adopt it if I was offered it, as I find the climb into the cave a bit more daunting and nerve-wracking than I'd be comfortable with on one of my hides, and I don't know of anyone else in the region who'd be likely to either, so if it did get archived due to an inactive owner it would almost certainly just become more empty space on an already cache-sparse map. We're a community here and help each other out on caches like these.

Interesting (to me) is the CO's last find in 2017 was one of my caches. Maybe I put them of their game.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Then convince the reviewer not to archive it.

Or else blame the reviewer for archiving it.

None of that changes the fact that the inevitable end of the listing that was abandoned by a person who gave up their rights to it being active is archival, and so ultimately is the fault of the physical container property's owner.

It's either worth keeping listed without a confirmed owner (a decision by a reviewer or hq which risks problems of its own), or it deserves archival (as in that is the stated and expected and agreed up on result of listing abandonment).

 

I don't want to blame anyone, I'm just trying to preserve what little we have left of the higher terrain caches around here that have nothing wrong with them other than an inactive owner and a few DNF logs. I don't think there's anything more I could say to the reviewer beyond what I put in the WN I posted yesterday, so if that string of DNFs turns out to have been enough to trigger the CHS and it lands on his desk as an abandoned cache, I guess he'll make the call regardless of what I think.

 

Just this week, Geocaching NSW posted a new page in their Geo-Discovery series which targeted the Central Coast. They said "Whilst Central Coast may not have large numbers of geocaches, it is quality caches what sets the Central Coast apart.  So if numbers is not your game but you enjoy adventure, great walks in nature and some fabulous caches, then the Central Coast is a destination to put in your calendar!" It would be nice if, when any visitors do decide to come here, there are still some of those fabulous caches listed for them to find.

[+colleda]

Only 3 DNFs on a D3.5 won't trigger CHS. I recently had 5 DNFs on a D3.5 without being "pinged".

[+barefootjeff]

8 minutes ago, colleda said:

Only 3 DNFs on a D3.5 won't trigger CHS. I recently had 5 DNFs on a D3.5 without being "pinged".

 

It depends on whether it also adds in the string of 4 DNFs it had in 2019-2020 that were followed by the 3 finds later in 2020. I once got a CHS ping on a 2/5 multi after just one DNF, so it seems a bit hit and miss.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 11/23/2023 at 11:27 AM, barefootjeff said:

Given that it lives in the roof of a cave, the container and logbook were bone dry and in excellent condition:

There's an expression: 'No one ever looks up.'

[+barefootjeff]

For what it's worth, I just posted an NA (RAR) on another of that CO's caches. That cache, a 1.5/5 traditional which I found in 2015, was concealed on the end of some fishing line inside the post of a nautical speed limit sign out in the middle of the waterway at Gosford, but had a DNF just on a year ago and an NM posted by a previous finder last May saying that the sign and post had gone. I drove over there this morning to see for myself, took a photo from the nearby road bridge and included that with my RAR. I doubt anyone (including me) will place another T5 cache on that waterway, and it's sad to see it go as it was a fun cache, but when they are actually missing they need to be archived.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There's an expression: 'No one ever looks up.'

 

In this case, the cave has a sloping roof and, if you sit where the two photos on the cache page line up with what you can see, the cache is right in front of your nose. My guess is the recent DNFers didn't read the description properly and use the photos.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It would be nice if, when any visitors do decide to come here, there are still some of those fabulous caches listed for them to find.

 

Why must you demand that abandoned litter be listed on geocaching.com as the only way for wonderful experiences to be enjoyed?  There are plenty of other ways to get people out and enjoying the exact same experience, just with the trust that someone is responsible for it. Or even a website that provides experiences that no one is responsible for (like that website that lists "unfairly archived quality geocaches", or that Waymarking category to accomplish the same). Why must these abandoned containers remain actively listed incorrectly as owned active geocaches? That is not what this website is promotes. And anyone who lists their property on this website agrees to this.  But we've been over this. Repeatedly.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Why must you demand that abandoned litter be listed on geocaching.com as the only way for wonderful experiences to be enjoyed?  There are plenty of other ways to get people out and enjoying the exact same experience, just with the trust that someone is responsible for it. Or even a website that provides experiences that no one is responsible for (like that website that lists "unfairly archived quality geocaches", or that Waymarking category to accomplish the same). Why must these abandoned containers remain actively listed incorrectly as owned active geocaches? That is not what this website is promotes. And anyone who lists their property on this website agrees to this.  But we've been over this. Repeatedly.

And why can't good containers remain listed? No reason they can't, because despite, your fanatical mission to ruin the game for others and archive good caches, if they are archived, they are still there. Leave them alone; it doesn't hurt you!

[+thebruce0]

3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

And why can't good containers remain listed? No reason they can't, because despite, your fanatical mission to ruin the game for others and archive good caches, if they are archived, they are still there. Leave them alone; it doesn't hurt you!

The legalities and liabilities of this problem for the company have been addressed, as well as the solutions. And stop assuming and projecting my motives. I have never stated or implied that is what I want, I have been addressing why it is for this website, in the agreements everyone checks when they choose to list their property on it. I want the website to continue. I want the company to continue. So they have a standard and a purpose for the website. They can choose whether to enforce that standard or provide exceptions. And exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule. Not obligations, not expectations. Exceptions have been shown and demonstrated. But the rule is if you abandon your listing, it moves on a reasonable and extensive route towards archival. All the reasons why this is the expected path have been addressed.

Edited November 24, 2023 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The legalities and liabilities of this problem for the company have been addressed, as well as the solutions.

 

I'm curious, what legal liability does an absent owner expose HQ to, and why doesn't this apply if the cache doesn't have any DNFs, NMs or NAs? HQ doesn't know the CO's real name, physical address, phone number or anything else apart from an email address that may or may not be monitored. From what I've read of the Terms and Conditions, HQ absolve themselves of any responsibility at all for the physical caches, regardless of whether the CO is active or not.

[+thebruce0]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm curious, what legal liability does an absent owner expose HQ to,

It's been addressed over the years in these topics and those of listing adoption. Property ownership issues. As you just quoted from the T&C. Ask someone at HQ. As we all know, they are "a listing service" and will avoid any presumption or implications that they in any way own the property people choose to list on it so as not to claim any responsibility for the physical objects. I know you've seen the threads where this topic has come up before.

 

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

why doesn't this apply if the cache doesn't have any DNFs, NMs or NAs?

Because no one knows if the owner has abandoned the listing. It happens when there is an issue - when a reviewer has chosen for whatever reason to require owner intervention/response. That has been addressed.

 

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

HQ doesn't know the CO's real name, physical address, phone number or anything else apart from an email address that may or may not be monitored.

As explained earlier, to the world it's already "trash", but this website imbues them with a subjective value having implied claim to ownership. And so in this environment it is merely listing what has an implied owner. And they have built the company and website on the foundation that if that implied ownership is deemed no longer valid, it will move towards archival at the judgment of reviewers and lackeys, for the sake and safety of the community and the company and the perception and rapport of the hobby to law enforcement and organizations that manage natural and conservation areas -- worldwide.

 

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

From what I've read of the Terms and Conditions, HQ absolve themselves of any responsibility at all for the physical caches, regardless of whether the CO is active or not.

Exactly.

So it's a privilege to have it listed. For as long as you the owner abide by the standard requirement to have it listed. BE its owner.

How many more times must it need to be repeated?

Edited November 24, 2023 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It's been addressed over the years in these topics and those of listing adoption. Property ownership issues. As you just quoted from the T&C. Ask someone at HQ. As we all know, they are "a listing service" and will avoid any presumption or implications that they in any way own the property people choose to list on it so as not to claim any responsibility for the physical objects. I know you've seen the threads where this topic has come up before.

 

I'm not asking for HQ to adopt out anyone's caches or get involved in any ownership matters. I don't want to adopt any of the caches I've checked on, I just want to be part of a caring community that tries to preserve those enjoyable caches that are still in good condition while using the community-based tools (the WN and NA logs) to report on their state and advise the reviewers of any that really are missing or defunct. Geocaching NSW already has an officially-sanctioned community maintenance program for some of the very early "foundation" caches that no longer have active owners, so I don't see why the same principle can't apply to any cache the community is willing to watch over if the owner can't.

 

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

As explained earlier, to the world it's already "trash", but this website imbues them with a subjective value having implied claim to ownership. And so in this environment it is merely listing what has an implied owner. And they have built the company and website on the foundation that if that implied ownership is deemed no longer valid, it will move towards archival at the judgment of reviewers and lackeys, for the sake and safety of the community and the company.

 

So how is a reviewer-archived cache any less "trash" than one they haven't archived? An ownerless cache that the community is keeping an eye on is probably less likely to turn into trash than one that gets archived because of a few false-positive DNFs or an unanswered NM that was addressed by someone other than the owner. If I log an NA on a cache that's just a pile of broken plastic because an earlier NM about that went unanswered, I'll clean up the remains and dispose of them properly. The CHS and the reviewer don't do that.

 

The game is close to dead here, at least for higher terrain caches. Maybe its demise is inevitable, maybe caching really is just about stats, quick P&Gs and "refreshing the gameboard" these days, but I'd still like to think there's a chance of retaining at least something of what made it such an attractive and rewarding pastime when I joined a decade ago.

[+thebruce0]

1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

I just want to be part of a caring community that tries to preserve those enjoyable caches that are still in good condition while using the community-based tools (the WN and NA logs) to report on their state and advise the reviewers of any that really are missing or defunct.

So convince them the unowned listing is worth keeping despite it being unowned. That's your task. It's not theirs to find a reason to keep it active.

 

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Geocaching NSW already has an officially-sanctioned community maintenance program for some of the very early "foundation" caches that no longer have active owners, so I don't see why the same principle can't apply to any cache the community is willing to watch over if the owner can't.

As already addressed, reviewers and HQ can make that exception and have, in extreme circumstances, because they have been convinced to do so. That is the exception, not the rule.

 

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So how is a reviewer-archived cache any less "trash" than one they haven't archived?

Because the implied owner by the "Owned by" field is not longer confirmed, confirmable, or accurate, through a reasonable and extensive approach of allowing said person to respond in a timely manner. Thus, it is now no longer deemed "Owned" and now abandoned property. So, on the road to archival. ... ... It can't be any clearer.

 

4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The game is close to dead here

As you repeatedly make very very clearly known in this forum so everyone is aware, I'm still sorry to hear that.

...There are places in the world it hasn't even started.

 

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

maybe caching really is just about stats, quick P&Gs and "refreshing the gameboard" these days

As I said, if you want a website that lists unowned property or waypoints for amazing hikes and experiences, make one, commission one, or use one that already exists - like Waymarking.

 

[+colleda]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It depends on whether it also adds in the string of 4 DNFs it had in 2019-2020 that were followed by the 3 finds later in 2020. I once got a CHS ping on a 2/5 multi after just one DNF, so it seems a bit hit and miss.

That was early days. CHS has had much tweaking since.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

As I said, if you want a website that lists unowned property or waypoints for amazing hikes and experiences, make one, commission one, or use one that already exists - like Waymarking.

 

Yeah, like Waymarking's really popular here, there are a whole four of them in Sydney and none on the Central Coast or in Newcastle. Looking at those four in Sydney, none have had any logs yet. Yep, hugely popular.