Silly reasons for archiving caches.

[+MNTA]

31 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

The problem I encounter is not that I don't have a heat gun, but that the log is currently a spit wad of gross, moldy compacted paper fibers, a plug of un-signable papier mache even when bone dry.  This is the end result of the OP.  Cachers who can't even close a cache properly are doing random "maintenance" poorly, because they're not prepared to clean and dry a container, install a new O-ring or whatever is compromising the seal, and place a new log (plus, as noted, they don't have the capacity to "close" the lid).  When it is possibly the 20th soaking wet spit wad container on this cache run.  Maintenance which is the sole responsibility of the Cache Owners, which the Cache Owners insist the Finders must do.

 

My gallery is fully of pictures with this exact issue.

 

I'm so disappointed, my last OAR log of this back in early January was ignored as the CO is not active recently. Three subsequent found it logs all say the same thing. Needs maintenance needs maintenance. So 2/23 filed a RAR nothing and sent an email to HQ nothing. Cache heath must be high because we have all found it but come on. Clean up the red flags please reviewers! 

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

I'm so disappointed, my last OAR log of this back in early January was ignored as the CO is not active recently. Three subsequent found it logs all say the same thing. Needs maintenance needs maintenance. So 2/23 filed a RAR nothing and sent an email to HQ nothing. Cache heath must be high because we have all found it but come on. Clean up the red flags please reviewers! 

 

The last time I logged a RAR, which was last September on a Wherigo that hadn't been found in over two years and with an OAR a year earlier that had been ignored, it took 5 weeks and another DNF before the reviewer stepped in and disabled the cache. Six weeks after that, and again with no response from the owner, he archived it. I wonder now whether reviewers still get notified of RARs or if it just adds a downwards nudge to the CHS. If the latter, subsequent find logs, even if the cache is still in poor condition or missing, will effectively negate it.

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, kunarion said:

Do you mean a propane heat gun?  I've sometimes hung a log sheet over a branch and waited a half-hour (if it's sunny and breezy), or on my car windshield which can dry the log fast on a hot, sunny day.

 

It is a battery operated portable heat gun.  I have also dried logbooks on my car windshield and, when it is not sunny day, using car heating with circular ventilation to blow hot air to the log.

[+kunarion]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

It is a battery operated portable heat gun.  I have also dried logbooks on my car windshield and, when it is not sunny day, using car heating with circular ventilation to blow hot air to the log.

 

You mean one of these things?

 

My boldest thought was to buy a windshield de-icer, or a hair blower which plugs into the car cigarette lighter outlet, and leave it in the car.  I can't imagine lugging a heavy power tool cache to cache (certainly with extra battery packs?), on the off chance that I see a log sheet in a condition between slightly humid and spit wad.

 

With that tool, are you able to dry the contents of an ammo box in the field?  How long does it take?  Some that I own are a surprise, where a finder didn't close it (cachers can't operate cache lids), and it's super soaked.  I have real log books in my ammo boxes, even my Small containers.  I've redesigned most of them so the box is removable, separate from any creative theme.  But there would be advantages to drying it in situ.  Again, I would need to catch it before mildew and rust takes over, but often I do.

 

Edited April 2 by kunarion

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

You mean one of these things?

 

Yes, a different brand but the same idea.  I will bring it only when I know that the logbook needs conditioning.

 

With full power the logbook burns. Carefull drying of a wet logbook takes few minutes. Containers are easier to dry with a rag.

[+ChriBli]

The silliest reason for a cache to be archived is that the CO has promptly responded to a DNF and disabled the cache when it was found to be missing, and then failed to restore it in time. I have had several close calls. Promptly six weeks after disabling, there's a warning from a reviewer. If you respond to that or restore the cache within another month, you're OK.

 

Once, with a particularly difficult cache that I had already replaced three times, I failed and it got archived. I had already procured the material to rebuild it, but I was trying to find a better location so it would not be muggled again. I hesitated to respond to the warning until I had some solid plan (an estimate is requested) and boom, it was gone. Now I have some useless material lying around, and a ton of effort was wasted.

 

What I should have done is obviously to investigate the cache status, but not disable it even though it was gone. Then I would have had all the time in the world. When there is one qualified DNF, typically no one else will try, especially if there is a puzzle to solve. CHS will not be an issue.

 

I once DNF:ed a cache one year after the last (proper) found log. I tried again two weeks later, armed with spoiler pictures, added this experience to the previous DNF log. Three years and two months later I tried again, no one else had logged in the meantime. This time I put an OAR on it. Another two years, nine months later another cacher put an OAR on it without solving the puzzle and looking for it. Six months later a third cacher put a RAR on it, again likely without looking for it. Then it was immediately disabled, and one month later archived, by the reviewer. Nothing from the CO during all this time. If I had done it that way, I would have had six and a half years to fix my cache.

 

I have no suggestions for improving this really, other than perhaps some leniency towards a CO that is obviously still active and trying to do something about the situation. But maybe it is all too automated to make that kind of judgement.

[Keystone]

34 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

Once, with a particularly difficult cache that I had already replaced three times, I failed and it got archived. I had already procured the material to rebuild it, but I was trying to find a better location so it would not be muggled again.

Did you post this information as an update on your cache page?  As a Reviewer, I'm just looking for "signs of life."  If you gave me that update, it would buy you another month.

 

Your Reviewer may vary and, as always, remember that many Reviewers are dogs.

[+barefootjeff]

15 minutes ago, Keystone said:

If you gave me that update, it would buy you another month.

 

One of my caches (GC6XHHJ) is only sccessible along the Great North Walk, with entry points at Mooney Mooney in the south and Somersby in the north. In March 2022, a major flood damaged a bridge along that section of the trail, resulting in its closure until a replacement bridge could be installed. That finally happened just over a year later in April 2023. I was aware of the requirement to provide monthly updates and marked my wall calendar as a reminder to do so each time, and didn't miss any, but I still ended up getting this stern warning from the reviewer in July 2022:

 

Quote

I noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess of the period of "a few weeks" as contemplated by the cache guidelines published on Geocaching.com. While I feel that Geocaching.com should hold the location for you and block other caches from entering the area around this cache for a reasonable amount of time, we can't do so forever. 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.

 

I immediately sent an email to the reviewer explaining the situation and that there was nothing I could do about the trail closure until such time as the responsible government department built a new bridge. He accepted that, and I continued to post my monthly updates like clockwork, but still got three more warnings from the reviewer before the new bridge was finally in place and I was able to re-enable the cache. It's only had one find since, so I have to wonder whether I would have been better off saving all the trouble by just archiving it immediately after the flood.

 

In situations like this, where access to the area around GZ is closed for an extended period outside the control of the CO, it would be nice if there was a way to say "this area is closed for X months (or years in some cases)", which the reviewer could enter into their system to stop it from being flagged as excessively disabled until that time has expired. Looking down my cache listing, there are 17 WN logs from me during the time it was disabled, most saying "another four weeks have passed and the trail is still closed".

 

I was lucky, the trail to my cache was only closed for 13 months. In 2017, there was a fatal rockfall in the Blue Mountains that resulted in a substantial trail closure blocking access to a multi along there. The CO did the right thing and disabled it, then when he got a reminder from the reviewer he responded by posting a WN saying the park management had advised him that the trail would be closed for at least the next couple of months. He probably thought that this would buy him a couple of months before another update was needed, but 28 days later the cache was archived by the reviewer. In the end, that trail remained closed for several years and is closed again now due to multiple landslips following the 2022 deluges, so maybe archival was inevitable anyway, but in situations like this when access is closed for multiple years, trying to keep the reviewer's finger off the Archive button can turn into a battle of attrition.

[+CAVinoGal]

4 hours ago, ChriBli said:

I had already procured the material to rebuild it, but I was trying to find a better location so it would not be muggled again. I hesitated to respond to the warning until I had some solid plan (an estimate is requested) and boom, it was gone. Now I have some useless material lying around, and a ton of effort was wasted.

I wouldn't say your effort is wasted if you find a new location and publish a new cache, version 2 or whatever of the original cache name with the materials you've already got.

[+ChriBli]

21 hours ago, Keystone said:

Did you post this information as an update on your cache page?

I'll admit to not doing that.

[+ChriBli]

17 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I wouldn't say your effort is wasted if you find a new location and publish a new cache, version 2 or whatever of the original cache name with the materials you've already got.

Nah. It was part of an advent calendar series so I wanted to keep it alive, but the location turned out to be not so good. A new cache could not be part of the series. I might find use for the materials some day though, be it for a cache or something else.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 4/2/2025 at 6:52 PM, barefootjeff said:

I still ended up getting this stern warning from the reviewer

 

The "stern warnings" in Reviewer Notes are boilerplate text. 

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

The "stern warnings" in Reviewer Notes are boilerplate text. 

 

The words may be boilerplate but the intent is still there. At a recent event, our reviewer mentioned that the process of managing disabled caches, including their archival if any updates from the CO are missed, is now automated.

[Keystone]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

At a recent event, our reviewer mentioned that the process of managing disabled caches, including their archival if any updates from the CO are missed, is now automated.

 

I wouldn't say "fully automated," but rather that process improvements have been made to reduce the number of manual touches by a Reviewer.  The Reviewer, if they so choose, may press a button that initiates automated actions, including at a future date.  Also note that the "boilerplate" language is actually fully customizable by each Reviewer or Reviewer Team.  For example, none of my boilerplate templates contain the phrase "G'Day."

[+NanCycle]

On 3/28/2025 at 3:26 PM, kunarion said:

 

Me!  I've found a large Christmas Cookie tin cache from the early 2000s, tin can, tin lid.  Inside a bird house with no roof, on a post.  No plastic bags at all. And there is nothing wrong with that original log nor the contents.  Not even rust.  I believe it is going strong to this day.

 

I cannot recommend that all caches be a tin can, but I noted this dry one in rainy, humid North Georgia.

 

I found one similar to that--no bird house though.  Granted, it was in the desert in New Mexico.

[+TOW Vehicle]

On 1/12/2025 at 6:32 PM, Keystone said:

My volunteer job is to ask cache owners to address maintenance issues. If they don’t, any remaining consequences are on the cache owner, not me. 

Your response is appropriate to the situation that I just encountered.  But lately I have been getting responses that my recommendation to to close a cache after wanting for a month or more. Having waited for more than a three month period seems a bit long and allows other cachers to waste their time looking for these.

 

I just had one in a state park I know the owner will not response to the request for repairs (Same Owner as before) So I will have to play the waiting game to get the cache removed from the list.  

The topic of getting cachers out, "to pick up the trash" is a realistic approach to keeping this game vibrant and growing for the future. 

 

I'm all for it!  Premium Member since 2004

Example: https://coord.info/GC6PJYE

Edited April 8 by TOW Vehicle

[+Om_and_Nom]

On 4/1/2025 at 7:02 PM, MNTA said:

My gallery is fully of pictures with this exact issue.

 

I'm so disappointed, my last OAR log of this back in early January was ignored as the CO is not active recently. Three subsequent found it logs all say the same thing. Needs maintenance needs maintenance. So 2/23 filed a RAR nothing and sent an email to HQ nothing. Cache heath must be high because we have all found it but come on. Clean up the red flags please reviewers! 

 

My personal favorite - when OAR logs AND personal messages to the CO are ignored and they *are* an active player.  My reviewer is pretty awesome, I'll ask it to be archived and not 24 hours later the reviewer drops the 30 day timer on the cache...which of course goes unanswered by, again, an *active* player, and cache is archived.

 

While I kinda-sorta understand inactive players not archiving all their caches or whatever when they leave the game, but for an ACTIVE player to be non-responsive to messages and logs is inexcusable.  

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, Om_and_Nom said:

While I kinda-sorta understand inactive players not archiving all their caches or whatever when they leave the game, but for an ACTIVE player to be non-responsive to messages and logs is inexcusable.  

 

This is what I also can not understand. The player may publish new caches but is not capable of archiving missing ones. There are enough bells and whistles to inform about the situation even when the player ignores all emails, but the player makes no move to correct the situation.

[+Om_and_Nom]

On 4/15/2025 at 1:51 AM, arisoft said:

 

This is what I also can not understand. The player may publish new caches but is not capable of archiving missing ones. There are enough bells and whistles to inform about the situation even when the player ignores all emails, but the player makes no move to correct the situation.

 

Right?  I see that they are still finding caches, they are still hiding some...but personal messages are ignored, OAR are ignored, Reviewer's log ignored, then cache is archived.  What are we doing?  Not a great look when a player is trying to be considerate and is just blown off by a CO.  

[+MNTA]

45 minutes ago, Om_and_Nom said:

 

Right?  I see that they are still finding caches, they are still hiding some...but personal messages are ignored, OAR are ignored, Reviewer's log ignored, then cache is archived.  What are we doing?  Not a great look when a player is trying to be considerate and is just blown off by a CO.  

 

Come on GS fix this policy please. No maintenance of existing caches = no more hiding.

 

Though there will be complaints and issues.

 

Mass archival of long unmaintained caches just so that they can hide a new one and repeat the same issues.

 

Recent filing of a OAR during the publishing process. Give the reviewer some discretion. May be unable to access the GZ due to road closures as an example.

 

Retraining of expectations may be needed.

[+barefootjeff]

On 4/15/2025 at 10:16 AM, Om_and_Nom said:

While I kinda-sorta understand inactive players not archiving all their caches or whatever when they leave the game, but for an ACTIVE player to be non-responsive to messages and logs is inexcusable. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make excuses for intentional maintenance-shirking, and I'd welcome anything that makes it harder for those who ignore maintenance requests to hide more caches. However, recent experiences make me wonder whether many of the newer hiders simply don't get any notification of issues with their caches. From what I understand, if you sign up through an app store or with a social media account, you don't have to provide a validated email address. Perhaps that's needed when you go to hide a cache, I don't know, but I'm seeing quite a few players now who only visit the website to create a listing but otherwise exclusively cache with the official app. On that, is there any indication of owned caches needing maintenance? Even the Message Centre can be easily overlooked if push notifications are turned off, as the only other indication of an unread message is a tiny little dot next to the Messages icon at the bottom of the screen, something which is easily overlooked especially if they've unaware that Message Centre even exists.

 

Back around Christmas, I had a find logged on my virtual by one such new player but he didn't send me any answers to the questions. I sent him prompts through both Message Centre and email, then follow-up ones a few weeks later, but received no response and in the end had to reluctantly delete his log. While all that was going on, one of his hides, that had been published in October, got a bunch of finds then four straight DNFs starting in December, an OAR in January, another DNF and then the reviewer disabled it pending a maintenance check. All that was totally ignored and the reviewer archived it in March. Meanwhile the CO continued happily finding caches with the app through to early February, when he seems to have lost interest. Maybe he decided he didn't care about everything that was going on with his hide and the people trying to contact him, but I have to wonder whether he simply wasn't aware of anything as he'd set himself up, intentionally or otherwise, to be essentially uncontactable.

[+brekkcaching123]

47 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make excuses for intentional maintenance-shirking, and I'd welcome anything that makes it harder for those who ignore maintenance requests to hide more caches. However, recent experiences make me wonder whether many of the newer hiders simply don't get any notification of issues with their caches. From what I understand, if you sign up through an app store or with a social media account, you don't have to provide a validated email address. Perhaps that's needed when you go to hide a cache, I don't know, but I'm seeing quite a few players now who only visit the website to create a listing but otherwise exclusively cache with the official app. On that, is there any indication of owned caches needing maintenance? Even the Message Centre can be easily overlooked if push notifications are turned off, as the only other indication of an unread message is a tiny little dot next to the Messages icon at the bottom of the screen, something which is easily overlooked especially if they've unaware that Message Centre even exists.

 

Back around Christmas, I had a find logged on my virtual by one such new player but he didn't send me any answers to the questions. I sent him prompts through both Message Centre and email, then follow-up ones a few weeks later, but received no response and in the end had to reluctantly delete his log. While all that was going on, one of his hides, that had been published in October, got a bunch of finds then four straight DNFs starting in December, an OAR in January, another DNF and then the reviewer disabled it pending a maintenance check. All that was totally ignored and the reviewer archived it in March. Meanwhile the CO continued happily finding caches with the app through to early February, when he seems to have lost interest. Maybe he decided he didn't care about everything that was going on with his hide and the people trying to contact him, but I have to wonder whether he simply wasn't aware of anything as he'd set himself up, intentionally or otherwise, to be essentially uncontactable.

I live near BYU-Idaho where we get a lot of new cachers discovering caches on campus that have started caching. For example, one cacher has 3 hides. 2 of them are very active and one of them got found very quickly by a muggle and emptied. GCAYFC7. The CO disabled the cache. I've talked to multiple cachers saying they reached out to the CO and both of them said they didn't get a response. His last find was Christmas of 2024. The cache was hidden in September and disabled about a month after the cache was hidden by the CO. One cacher reached out 3 days after it was published and got no response. Another cacher said he messaged the CO THE DAY IT WAS DISABLED and he got no response. I've had newer cachers find my caches and not sign the log. When I noticed they didn't on one of my caches I messaged them. They responded saying "Yes I did" even though the last signature was by another player 3 weeks before that. A bunch of these newer cachers I won't be going for any of their hides because they're not being maintained and a bunch of these cachers aren't signing logsheets.

[+brekkcaching123]

On 4/14/2025 at 6:16 PM, Om_and_Nom said:

While I kinda-sorta understand inactive players not archiving all their caches or whatever when they leave the game, but for an ACTIVE player to be non-responsive to messages and logs is inexcusable.  

We've got a few inactive cachers in my area that still have hides. I totally understand them not maintaining these caches. There are some cachers that I've seen that are often visiting the website but they aren't maintaining their caches, which is unacceptable. We have an active cacher now in Texas that has 50+ active hides in our area. Even though he only makes it back to the area once a year, he is still very active with maintaining his caches in our area. Although he can't physically maintain them, I feel that it is acceptable because he is being a responsible CO. I always hate it when new cachers hide geocaches for them to get archived by the time I say "Oh look, a new cache" because they're active but not maintaining their caches.