Jump to content

Cache archived without disabling first?


Recommended Posts

I looked for a similar topic and found vaguely related questions but nothing recent enough not to start a new thread.

Question about archiving rules (or maybe just norms?).

The cache in question has lots of DNFs but still gets found. D is 3.5 (justified, maybe) and T is 1 (pretty sure a wheelchair can get it but I'd have given it 1.5 in case). It's older, from 2009. The hint is fairly explicit and helped me find it pretty easily. The hide is in a hole you can't really see in, with space enough for the cache to move a bit far if someone puts it back badly, I think. If undisturbed it gets cobwebs, like everything. I used a phone camera to see it rather than feel around, but either way works.

 

My find was after 3 DNFs by cachers with find totals now ranging from 8k to 18k (2 years ago, so obvs lower then but NOT low!). I just think people don't want to get dirty (just MHO). After me there was a long string of finds with occasional DNFs, almost all were people with under 1k finds or much less. Last find was February this year. Then 2 DNFs by relative newbies and then a DNF by someone with 2k finds who added needs maintenance. That was mid-June. Today the reviewer straight up archived the cache.

Questions: do reviewers not HAVE to disable first and give 30 days notice to the CO? That's what happens in my area (the cache is not in my area). The reviewer noted the CO had not logged on since 2017 but that's not a requirement! And people just using an app often show as not logging in. I have known a handful of COs who stopped playing but do their maintenance, including a very well known CO in NYC. Shouldn't the reviewer wait until the NM has not been answered in a month (that's two weeks away still)? Or at the least shouldn't they disable and give the CO a month before archiving?

Note two things about my question before piling on please: 
1. I know COs are responsible for their caches and they aren't supposed to be maintained by others, so yes if they didn't check it then likely it should legitimately be archived.

2. I am not saying where the cache is or its GC code because I have no need to get on any reviewer's bad side!

I admit I have not (yet) gone to read the rules but in my experience a number of reviewers have their own interpretations of the rules anyway! 
Thanks all.
 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Is this the only cache by the CO? If many others have been archived with never any kind of response than they probably felt like disabling is just a waste of time. 2017 is a long time ago... the reviewer can see if they've done any maintenance on any caches since then. If they haven't been active at all in 7+ years I think waiting 2 more weeks is not really going to change anything. My understanding is that most things are more guidelines than rules, so I would imagine the 30 days notice is recommeneded but in different contexts they can choose to not do that. 

 

Also, I don't think asking this question would get on a reviewer's bad side, you were just curious about something! :)

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

There's no requirement to follow a prescribed path, although Reviewers typically provide notice prior to archiving.  Like all geocachers, we'd prefer to see caches maintained and active.  We also get less "blowback" when repeated warnings are ignored by the CO.  If a low health score email is followed up by a Reviewer disable log two weeks later, that's two clear alerts prior to archival - not to mention any DNF logs or Owner Attention Requested logs.

 

There are many circumstances where immediate archival is chosen.  These include, without limitation:

  1. Archival in response to a complaint from a landowner, land manager or law enforcement;
  2. Cases where a Geocache Hiding Guideline violation comes to the Reviewer's attention, which wasn't disclosed during the review process;
  3. Cases where the Reviewer knows that the Cache Owner is deceased and there is no maintenance plan in place; and
  4. Cases where the Reviewer knows from multiple prior interactions that the CO is not responsive to maintenance requests.
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Keystone said:

There's no requirement to follow a prescribed path, although Reviewers typically provide notice prior to archiving.  Like all geocachers, we'd prefer to see caches maintained and active.  We also get less "blowback" when repeated warnings are ignored by the CO.  If a low health score email is followed up by a Reviewer disable log two weeks later, that's two clear alerts prior to archival - not to mention any DNF logs or Owner Attention Requested logs.

 

There are many circumstances where immediate archival is chosen.  These include, without limitation:

  1. Archival in response to a complaint from a landowner, land manager or law enforcement;
  2. Cases where a Geocache Hiding Guideline violation comes to the Reviewer's attention, which wasn't disclosed during the review process;
  3. Cases where the Reviewer knows that the Cache Owner is deceased and there is no maintenance plan in place; and
  4. Cases where the Reviewer knows from multiple prior interactions that the CO is not responsive to maintenance requests.


It might have had a low health score (not sure, but has more finds than DNFs recently) but they did not ever disable, just archive.

The list for immediate archival (though I get it isn't exclusive) ?? None of the things listed apply here. So still feeling it was a bit rushed, if not unfair.

 

Edit to add: checked and the needs maintenance posted was the first and ONLY NM on the cache in 15 years of existence.
 

Edited by CCFwasG
Link to comment

Without a GC Code, I can't provide additional insight.  I covered what I thought to be the four most common reasons for immediate archival.  There are others which may apply on a case-by-case basis.  For example, I recently provided the standard four weeks' notice before archiving a cache that needed maintenance.  The CO told me that they had moved 1,000 miles away, so that if any of their other caches had issues, I could archive them immediately.  If I did that next month for another of this CO's caches, an uninformed observer could view my action as abrupt.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
Quote

The reviewer noted the CO had not logged on since 2017 but that's not a requirement!

Quote

I admit I have not (yet) gone to read the rules but in my experience a number of reviewers have their own interpretations of the rules anyway! 

 

How did you  get all those caches published?  :o

 

Well, here's the link to the Guidelines:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

 

Not knowing any details about the cache in question, and therefore not being able to read the log history, I would guess that the cache owner has stopped playing the game.  In  my area, the Reviewers post notes  on cache pages, and ask that the CO respond by posting at least a "write note" to indicate their wish to keep their cache alive.  If one can't bother to log in to do that, then that indicates lack of interest or absence from the game.

 

--Pup Patrol

Edited by Pup Patrol
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

Without a GC Code, I can't provide additional insight.  I covered what I thought to be the four most common reasons for immediate archival.  There are others which may apply on a case-by-case basis.  For example, I recently provided the standard four weeks' notice before archiving a cache that needed maintenance.  The CO told me that they had moved 1,000 miles away, so that if any of their other caches had issues, I could archive them immediately.  If I did that next month for another of this CO's caches, an uninformed observer could view my action as abrupt.

 

Thanks

 

1 hour ago, Pup Patrol said:

 

How did you  get all those caches published?  :o

 

Well, here's the link to the Guidelines:

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

 

Not knowing any details about the cache in question, and therefore not being able to read the log history, I would guess that the cache owner has stopped playing the game.  In  my area, the Reviewers post notes  on cache pages, and ask that the CO respond by posting at least a "write note" to indicate their wish to keep their cache alive.  If one can't bother to log in to do that, then that indicates lack of interest or absence from the game.

 

--Pup Patrol

 

No idea about the first comment/question?


Thanks for guidelines... obvs I can check but I know absolutely some are taken as law and some ignored by reviewers. It's a mix, as I have experienced living in 4 different areas over my 10+ years of caching. (Or just ask anyone in CT. Though I note I am not in CT nor is the cache in question.)

As to the last comment, no reviewer asked for a response and the only NM on the cache (ever, in 15 yrs) was added two weeks ago. Absolutely if the CO doesn't answer the reviewer (or maybe even the NM after a month) then archiving is the norm, no probs there. That's not what happened though.

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...