Jump to content

Inactive Caches


PILTY

Recommended Posts

You can NOT just archive cache listings if there is still a cache out there.

I agree!

 

This cache might actually still be there. It was placed by a cacher that is no longer around and doesn't respond to email. It was found once by a couple who have yet to respond to emails and only attempted once more by a couple who aren't as experienced with caches with bad coords as some of us are. It's very remote in the sense it's hard to get to, but not so remote that it pops up on people's nearest list. Thus the reason people wanted it archived. (I'm assuming.)

 

A satellite photo of the area with the coords plotted doesn't match the hint given. An extensive search maybe required. Sissy and I are going to attempt it when the water temps warm up.

 

If we don't find, no big deal. If we do find it... :)

Link to comment

My comments, in no particular order...

 

The issue here is that there is a problem that too many caches go for long periods of time as being temporarily unavailable, most of which eventually get archived as opposed to becoming available again. The current system involves much human interaction upon the general cachers and admins to monitor caches. The key here is that if a cache is flagged as "temporarily unavailable", it should be just that and not be left in that state for over 6 months or longer. A month would seem like a reasonable amount of time, but could be any other set time period as determined by the admins. I will just using "1 month" in all of my examples.

 

So with regards to "temporarily unavailable", I would like to hear from some admins on what the intent of this means...in other words, what is a reasonable amount of time for a cache to be in this situation? Or what was the intent for a time period when this feature was first implemented?

 

Posted by southdeltan: Check out Http://www.mi-geocaching.org MiGO has a cache 'Rescue Mission' where caches that are verified as abandoned or geolitter are retrieved.

Another issue raised was that if a cache gets archived, but yet parts of the actual cache remain still, who cleans it up? I think that MiGO has the right idea here and that every state/province/country should have such a system, but not everyone does have this system. People can see a list of caches that need to be cleaned and people can assigned themselves to retrieve any of these abandoned remains...this could even be a system through GC.com. Hey, perhaps another new feature! But that's for another topic to be discussed.

So whether cache remnants remain or not and a cache is temporarily unavailable, most people will probably NOT go visit the cache to clean it up, because they simply do not know if the owner has done that already or not, since a lot of cache owners don't bother to always say that they have cleaned up the area or not, and other times it is obvious that they have removed the remnants of their cache. So I don't think this should be an issue for the topic at hand. Also, perhaps a bigger problem is that those who place caches and it doesn't get approved and those then become geotrash, but again I don't think whether or not a cache becomes geotrash is the issue at hand here and MiGO has a system in place to handle it...do they handle it for caches not approved too?

 

Posted by Keystone Approver: 1. Cache has been pulled for the winter because the hiding spot is not accessible.

2. Cache is disabled because its owner is serving our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

3. Cache is disabled and the owner wasn't able to replace it promptly due to serious illness.

4. Cache is disabled because the owner is attempting to obtain a permit from the land manager for a cache placed prior to the land manager's permit process, which often takes well over a month to complete.

5. Cache is disabled because of the deer hunting seasons, which basically last from October to January in PA once you string together archery, standard rifle, muzzleloader/black powder and all the other special seasons.

6. Cache is disabled due to the presence of a cache thief in the area, and the owner is waiting for that scourge to blow over.

Keystone, in the above situations that you state...are the caches still there, or are they missing/removed or a mixture?

Posted by southdeltan: 1. Winter in the Northern US, Canada, Northern Europe (etc) typically means several months of snow. Caches are often disabled during this time.

 

2. Hunting Season. Some people (not me, I leave mine active) deactivate their caches during hunting season.

 

3. Flooding. I live in the MS Delta (the part of the state, not the actual delta going into the gulf) - there are large areas that are covered by several feet of water during portions of the winter and spring annually.

As for possible valid reasons given for disabling a cache for an extended period of time. I don't think I would don't think reasons such as flooding, hunting season, too much snow, someone being away, sick, etc. One of the requirements is that a cache should be maintained by it's owner...if the user is away fighting a war, is sick, etc, then obviously they are not able to maintain the cache and the cache should be removed/archived/adopted or whatever. Just because an area has too much snow, flooding, etc, doesn't mean that the cache should be made unavailable if it is still there. I would never disable a cache because of this, as they are still huntable, although the difficulty would definitely increase. What is the use of a cache if it can't be accessed half of the time. Again, isn't another requirement of the site that a cache should be available to be hunted most of the time. If an area has flooding or something else, then obviously that probably is not a suitable area for a cache or a different type of cache should be thought about that would not be affected by flooding.

 

A lot of people keep saying to use the "This Cache should be archived" option...fine for now as that is the current system, but we are trying to come up with a better solution, and that is what this topic is about. Coming together with others in this discussion to perhaps find a better solution, which not many people seem open to do, but instead shoot down the idea and turn the discussion into a negative direction. So instead of saying that this, this and this are problems with the alternative solution being proposed, instead why not use your efforts to add to the alternate solution and think of ways that it CAN be improved.

 

As for using the "This Cache should be archived" option, I am uncomfortable to use it, since I know (sorry, I think I will) it will annoy the admins and the cache owners. If someone is going to be critical towards me for using this option or reply with a negative comment, it makes me think twice and become really hesitant to use it again...ok I will make an experiment to see if I can back this up, but I have seen it before. I have talked ot a local admin and given them a list of 6 caches that I thought should be archived, and he agreed and promptly archived 5 of them and contacted the owner on the 6th one.

 

Posted by Keystone Approver:Permit me to educate you on how the current process works for "should be archived" notes. Contrary to your request, the notes do not receive personal attention from Jeremy Irish. Rather, "should be archived" notes find their way into the mailboxes of several of the volunteer cache reviewers. A few of us act as traffic cops, taking care of the obvious archive candidates, and referring other requests to the reviewer who is responsible for the area where the cache is located. So, watch those cache pages. Within a day or two, you'll see notes from either the reviewer who received the archive request, or from the Oklahoma reviewer, asking the cache owner to take action.

Thank you for explaining how the current system works...another thought for another topic perhaps is, maybe we should create a FAQ that explains things like this...or maybe it exists already somewhere.

 

Adding more thoughts and ideas to the solution and expanding on the above is that perhaps on the last day of each month all caches that are temporarily unavailable to into some reviewer list/report for them to look at again and make decision on what should be done with each on an individual basis. Keystone or any other admin...I am curious is there a way to know how many caches are temporarily disabled at any given point? Should be pretty easy to determine with a query on the database. I know some approvers do currently look review caches on a monthly basis, which is great!

 

And finally, by having an automated system, this would create more accountability towards the owners for the caches that they own. If they know their cache is going to be archived after a month (again, this is just a time period we use as an example, so don't focus on the "month" thing, but it is a reasonable amount of time) of being temporarily disabled, then they would be more inclined to act on it in a timely manner, whereas now as stated, too many caches go for 6 months in this state where the owner eventually loses interest and it does become completely abandoned. And what I proposed yesterday of having emails sent out to the cache owners as reminders would be a good thing too.

 

If you would like me to address a certain situation on how I think certain things should be handled with respect to disabled cache, I will be more than happy to and I hope this topic will turn to more of a constructive direction. Whether or not a new system is implemented or not, but at the very least it may pave a path to some improvement with other features down the road. Or perhaps lets relook at the current system and it's faults and find ways to work with the current system through procedures...um, I mean guidelines.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy post, and perhaps some other can get involved too, since I am sure a lot of you have good ideas, but as myself, are hesitant to post sometimes.

Link to comment

I agree to not leaving caches in the wild and if there was a list to remove abandoned caches I would, as res2100 suggested, be willing to ensure the removal of any cache that was near my caching area!

I am currently the most active cacher in Oklahoma and around 31 on the overall Oklahoma leaderboard so, I guess that you could say, I get around a bit! I would be willing to check such a remove list as I planned for the days caching.

Link to comment
I will remove any remnants of the packers cache tomorrow as soon as I have transport. Happy to oblige. Sounds fair on the smiley. If anybody objects let me know and I shall simply note its removal!

Thank you for offering to help the situation. You deserve a :) for trashing out the remains and getting the cache page archived.

Link to comment
If it is so well hidden and the owner will not remove it then surely, if it is on a removal list, it will stay on the list until it is found and removed?

You miss my point. How do you know if it's already gone or your just can't find it?

 

Your statement assumes it's still there. What if it were stolen?

 

I think my point is, a previous finder would be better suited to retreiving a cache.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

If the cache is stolen, missing etc. then it would be left on the remove list until it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was gone! If the owner is not wiling to go and look and, no previous finders go and, no other cachers find it, how long should we leave it unavailable. Let the moderators decide on when a cache is removed from the remove list!

Link to comment

From what I can see, all points seem to have been addressed and, there is no reason that unavailable caches cannot be removed automatically after the preiously suggested 1 month. The programming options are there. The safety net is there. Even the subject of Geotrash has been dealt with. Perhaps the powers that be would like to comment?

Link to comment
From what I can see, all points seem to have been addressed and, there is no reason that unavailable caches cannot be removed automatically after the preiously suggested 1 month. The programming options are there. The safety net is there. Even the subject of Geotrash has been dealt with. Perhaps the powers that be would like to comment?

 

<Sigh> No, all of the concerns have not been addressed. Please read the thread again, this time without filtering it through your insistence that your idea must be accepted.

 

Just as an example, you have repeatedly ignored the following question -

 

'How does an automated system distinguish between a disabled cache that has been abandoned by its owner and one that needs to be disabled for a longer period due to circumstances beyond the owner's control?'

Link to comment
If the cache is stolen, missing etc. then it would be left on the remove list until it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it was gone!  If the owner is not wiling to go and look and, no previous finders go and, no other cachers find it, how long should we leave it unavailable.  Let the moderators decide on when a cache is removed from the remove list!

Sorry, wasn't sure how to use the quote thingy :-)

 

Link to comment
'How does an automated system distinguish between a disabled cache that has been abandoned by its owner and one that needs to be disabled for a longer period due to circumstances beyond the owner's control?'

 

A possible solution that I gave was to have the owner post once a month a note atleast to indicate that he has not abandoned it. The automated system would also give a warning/reminder when the owner makes the cache temporarily unavailable in addition to a week prior to it potentially being archived by the system.

 

If for whatever reason a cache needs to be archived for an extended period of time for whatever reason then perhaps there can be an additional feature (perhaps a checkbox or a date box) that the owner could use to indicate this. And if a cache needs to be archived for this extended period of time either do to the owner not being able to maintain it for whatever reason (ie health or fighting in the Iraqi war as has been suggested) or due to the environment (floods, snow, etc), then perhaps the owner should not place a cache in this specific spot or even place a cache at all if they are unable to maintain it, so archiving it would be a very valid reason. And I know you are thinking now that you don't want it to become geotrash, well I think that was MiGO does is great and this could be extended to a gc.com feature/set of procedures.

 

See, if we work together we can come up with some solutions to existing problems, and it really doesn't take much effort to throw around ideas, whether they will work or not, but through the brainstorming I am sure some good things will come from it.

Link to comment

Let's have a look at a real life example of a disabled cache. In November, this section of the state park was closed indefinitely for a special hunting season. The owner, being responsible, disabled the cache. In January during my regular periodic review of disabled caches, I noted that it was still disabled and I asked for an update. The owner dutifully checked into the situation and found that the hunt restriction was still in place. He promised to post another update and re-enable the cache when it was legal and safe to enter the park again, which he expected will occur in March. I have no doubt that he will do this when the park opens, and in the meantime I have the cache on my watchlist so I will check it again. There's no problem with this cache staying disabled from November to March.

 

What you're asking this cache owner to do is the following:

 

November 30, 2003 by Cache Owner

 

Park is still closed.

 

December 30, 2003 by Cache Owner

 

Park is still closed.

 

January 30, 2004 by Cache Owner

 

Park is still closed.

 

February 29, 2004 by Cache Owner

 

Park is still closed.

 

What if I forgot to make my monthly log? I own 25 or so caches and many people responsibly maintain many more than that. Even the best of us could overlook something like this, especially if I'm out of town on business, or sick with the flu, or busy with the holiday season, etc. So the listing gets auto-archived. Now the cache owner has to write and beg an admin to unarchive the cache. How do cache owners feel about this?

 

This is a fairly elaborate procedure to ask Jeremy to code, and it's bound to be unpopular with the "less rules is better" crowd. There are 45 temporarily disabled caches in the State of Oklahoma. They can be dealt with, just as I deal with the disabled caches in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Link to comment

I did provide an alternative solution in my last post indicating that one of the options is to have a date field that the cache owner can enter on when he believes the cache would be available again, and of course the automated bot would handle this accordingly. I am sure that others can come up with some alternative solutions too.

 

Yes this particular cache owner is responsible enough to post updates and seemingly will make the cache available at such time when the hunting season is over...however...a lot of people say they will do things and many do not. I do like to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, one of my first thoughts of a cache that is not available for hunting most of the time (ie, unavailable during Nov to March...that's about 2/3 of the year), is what's the point if no one can enjoy the hunt, but thats a different topic for discussion. And another issue is that 2 travel bugs are stuck in the cache for this period. No system is perfect, whether it be the current or the automated that is being discussed.

 

Actually further to this specific cache, perhaps the owner making it temporarily unavailable was not the right solution, since obviously hunters are allowed in the area, and some hunters are also cachers, so perhaps a big note indicating that this is hunting season and onyl hunters are permitted at the moment, would be an adaquate solution also, since afterall the cache is still there. I know it's all up to each individual's judgement as to what to do with their own cache.

 

I realize that the current system probably will not change, but obviously this discussion is working by drawing some attention to the problem and having some of these long since unavailable caches, where it is apparant are no longer maintained, to be archived, hence cleaning up local lists of posted caches.

Link to comment

Another solution/feature that we may want to consider implementing is the option to have a cache owner be able to unarchive their own cache...provided that their cache is not flagged as being an UNACCEPTABLE (for lack of a better word) cache. This way no admin would have to be bothered.

 

Now I think that is a nice little feature to have.

 

...Now lets see if I am going to hear a lot of negativety as to why this feature should not be implemented.

Link to comment
Another solution/feature that we may want to consider implementing is the option to have a cache owner be able to unarchive their own cache...provided that their cache is not flagged as being an UNACCEPTABLE (for lack of a better word) cache. This way no admin would have to be bothered.

 

Now I think that is a nice little feature to have.

 

...Now lets see if I am going to hear a lot of negativety as to why this feature should not be implemented.

OK, I'll bite with the most obvious one.

Archived caches are considered gone. Removed from searches. If I never found an archived cache, I'd never know it existed.

I place my new cache 25ft from the archived cache. No problem getting it approved, the other cache is archived.

Owner of archived cache finally replaces his cache, after recovering from a broken leg. Reactivates it. Now you have 2 caches 25ft apart, and confused cachers are logging the wrong ones.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Another solution/feature that we may want to consider implementing is the option to have a cache owner be able to unarchive their own cache...provided that their cache is not flagged as being an UNACCEPTABLE (for lack of a better word) cache. This way no admin would have to be bothered.

That ability is what the temp disabled feature is for. My understanding is that an archived flag is for a cache that is gone. Gone is gone. There is no bringing back. If it is not gone, for whatever reason, then the temp disabled is there.

Link to comment

It appears that the only problem that needs to be solved is how to cope with a cache listed as disabled. A definite MAJOR problem having to look at a listing with a disabled cache in it. Boy is life getting tough these days. I really wish TPTB would make everybody do things my way.

 

It's too hard to get in touch with the owner of the cache and offer some assistance if he needs it. I cannot be bother with trying to open a dialog with the owners first. After all he should know better than to put a cache out there when he knows something unexpected will happen to him or his cache.

 

Let's work real hard at finding a solution to another non-problem.

 

John

 

 

edit for spelling

Edited by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)
Link to comment
I place my new cache 25ft from the archived cache. No problem getting it approved, the other cache is archived.

Owner of archived cache finally replaces his cache, after recovering from a broken leg. Reactivates it. Now you have 2 caches 25ft apart, and confused cachers are logging the wrong ones.

Whether it's a human process like we have now or an automatic as an alternative, this problem is present under the current system also.

 

That ability is what the temp disabled feature is for. My understanding is that an archived flag is for a cache that is gone. Gone is gone. There is no bringing back. If it is not gone, for whatever reason, then the temp disabled is there.

Haven't you seen archived caches come back from the grave? I have. Just because something is archived, doesn't mean it is gone forever. I have an archived cache that still gets logs. Someone I know created a mystery cache that has always been archived, but is still there and expected to be found, if you can figure it out from the clues. Also if you look at many archival logs by admins, they even say that they will unarchive it if the cache is brought back/maintained...so it is not permanent.

 

It's too hard to get in touch with the owner of the cache and offer some assistance if he needs it.

I have contacted owners of disabled caches many times with questions and most of the time my messages are ignored, hence adding to the problem.

 

I have discussed with an admin the feature of temporarily disabling a cache and it was said that this is something that if a cache owner uses it, it should be temporary, such as a few weeks until they are able to rectify the problem with their cache, and not something to last 6+ months, which does happen A LOT! I think this is the issue right now in that many cachers disable their cache listings, but don't do anything about rectifying the situation, and then many times 6 months go by, it's determined that the owner has no intent or has forgotten about it or has disappeared.

 

Perhaps a simple automated email reminder once a month to the cache owner is sufficient to help the situation.

 

Perhaps having local admins review all temporarily disabled caches manually once a month (and I see this is being done more and more...good job!)

 

Before posting a reply, have a look at the temporary unavailable caches in your area, and see if some have been like that for extended periods of time and seem pretty obvious that they are abandoned...unless your local admin has cleaned up these listings by archiving many of them, as has finally been done here. Think about what else can be done to improve the system...perhaps just a change in procedures. That's what I am trying to encourage here the brainstorming of ideas to help improve the system and the sport, and this was one of the issues that is being discussed in this thread. I have provided a lot of suggestions, but don't see too many others stepping up with suggestions and some people like John that feels the need to give a sarcastic reply, instead of being constructive.

 

Most of us are adults here, many of us have jobs that we have to deal with issues every day and provide suggestions/solutions to problems. I am sure in your work environment you wouldn't be sarcastic to others, or belittle them or be negative....you wouldn' last too long. This topic should be no different.

 

And to the next person that feels like putting down an idea, let me ask you, what should be done about cache xyz that has been disabled for 6+ months and is obvious wono't be fixed...and what would you propose be done so that this doesn't happen in the future? The obvious answer to the first part is to use the "This cache should be archived" feature.

Link to comment
I place my new cache 25ft from the archived cache. No problem getting it approved, the other cache is archived.

Owner of archived cache finally replaces his cache, after recovering from a broken leg. Reactivates it. Now you have 2 caches 25ft apart, and confused cachers are logging the wrong ones.

Whether it's a human process like we have now or an automatic as an alternative, this problem is present under the current system also.

No it is not. The owner can not unarchive a cache without approver intervention. If my cache is there, they wouldn't/shouldn't unarchive the old one 25ft away.

 

That ability is what the temp disabled feature is for. My understanding is that an archived flag is for a cache that is gone. Gone is gone. There is no bringing back. If it is not gone, for whatever reason, then the temp disabled is there.

Haven't you seen archived caches come back from the grave? I have. Just because something is archived, doesn't mean it is gone forever. I have an archived cache that still gets logs. Someone I know created a mystery cache that has always been archived, but is still there and expected to be found, if you can figure it out from the clues. Also if you look at many archival logs by admins, they even say that they will unarchive it if the cache is brought back/maintained...so it is not permanent.

Look closer. Most of those archive notes I've seen say the cache can be unarchived if it still meets the guidelines. While it's archived, anyone is free to place a new cache there. If they do, the old one will not be coming back from the grave. If it's just disabled, the area is still reserved for the original cache, and nobody else can hide a cache there.

 

I have discussed with an admin the feature of temporarily disabling a cache and it was said that this is something that if a cache owner uses it, it should be temporary, such as a few weeks until they are able to rectify the problem with their cache, and not something to last 6+ months, which does happen A LOT! I think this is the issue right now in that many cachers disable their cache listings, but don't do anything about rectifying the situation, and then many times 6 months go by, it's determined that the owner has no intent or has forgotten about it or has disappeared.

 

Perhaps a simple automated email reminder once a month to the cache owner is sufficient to help the situation.

 

Perhaps having local admins review all temporarily disabled caches manually once a month (and I see this is being done more and more...good job!)

 

Before posting a reply, have a look at the temporary unavailable caches in your area, and see if some have been like that for extended periods of time and seem pretty obvious that they are abandoned...unless your local admin has cleaned up these listings by archiving many of them, as has finally been done here. Think about what else can be done to improve the system...perhaps just a change in procedures. That's what I am trying to encourage here the brainstorming of ideas to help improve the system and the sport, and this was one of the issues that is being discussed in this thread. I have provided a lot of suggestions, but don't see too many others stepping up with suggestions and some people like John that feels the need to give a sarcastic reply, instead of being constructive.

 

Most of us are adults here, many of us have jobs that we have to deal with issues every day and provide suggestions/solutions to problems. I am sure in your work environment you wouldn't be sarcastic to others, or belittle them or be negative....you wouldn' last too long. This topic should be no different.

 

The monthly reminder is a good idea, and I know many of the admins do check for disabled caches. Some have stated they do that right here in this thread. I also was talking to one of them in the IRC chatroom last night that I've known for years, and brought this topic up with him. He said he was ready to resign as an admin because of all the nasty emails he got for cleaning up those long disabled caches. Hopefully after a good night's sleep he reconsidered, but it's another case of you can't make everyone happy, no matter what you do here, someones gonna get POed about it.

 

I also took your suggestion and looked in my area. For this discussion that would be a 100 mile radius around zipcode 07080. There are 2,528 caches listed for that area. Out of that 2,528, there are 84 that are disabled. Of those 84, only 15 have gone more then 6 months since last found. Of those 15, it appears 5 of those have been disabled for less then 6 months. 1 appears to have been replaced, but the owner forgot to enable it. 2-3 had recent notes from an admin. So, that leaves 7-8 "problem caches" that have been neglected. 8 caches out of 2,528. Sorry, but the proposed solutions seem worse then the "problem" of abusing the disabled cache feature.

 

And to the next person that feels like putting down an idea, let me ask you, what should be done about cache xyz that has been disabled for 6+ months and is obvious wono't be fixed...and what would you propose be done so that this doesn't happen in the future? The obvious answer to the first part is to use the "This cache should be archived" feature.

You answered the 1st part yourself. As to the second, I'll make sure an admin knows about those 7-8 "problems" out of 2,528. I don't think much more then that needs to be done.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Haven't you seen archived caches come back from the grave?

 

Yes, I have. I even had one. The archive flag indicates the cache is no longer there. If it is still present, it should not be archived.

 

Before posting a reply, have a look at the temporary unavailable caches in your area, and see if some have been like that for extended periods of time and seem pretty obvious that they are abandoned

 

There are some around here. My admin is well aware that I contact him/her about these caches. Together, as a community, the admin, other cachers, and myself keep on top of these things. We have no formal group, we have no meetings, etc. But, it all works out. Communication!

 

Think about what else can be done to improve the system

 

I think this is the rub. For me, the system works. I am confident that NJ Admin will take action on the caches I notify him about in due course. No automation is needed to rid the area of disabled caches for no matter how the system would be set up, no one knows the status of these caches better than those who seek them.

 

And to the next person that feels like putting down an idea, let me ask you, what should be done about cache xyz that has been disabled for 6+ months and is obvious wono't be fixed...and what would you propose be done so that this doesn't happen in the future? The obvious answer to the first part is to use the "This cache should be archived" feature.

 

It is not so obvious. There was a cache around here that was disabled for a few months. It appears the owner is AWOL. Someone went out and rehabilitated the cache. Then we contacted the admin to take the temp disabled flag off. That seems to work pretty well. The area still has a cache, it is in good shape, and it was not archived. Had it been archived automatically, it would disappear from the listing, but the trashed cache would be sitting in that park as litter. I think the system in place worked like a charm. I do not see how it could be improved under these circumstances.

Link to comment

I fail to see what the problem is with disabled caches. As one of the first to respond to this thread I offered the suggestion to use Pocket Queries and click the "only active" button so you didn't have to see the disabled caches.

 

Is the problem that there is disabled caches out there?

 

I suggest that you check with previous finders for an exact location for the "problem"cache. Then go and find it and notify the Appprovers of the condition of the cache and perhaps adopt it.

 

Are you upset because the disabled caches show up in the nearest cache search? Or is it because you can not go look for these caches?

 

Please be specific as to what the problem is as YOU see it. We fail to see any problem here.

 

"Sarcastic" John

Link to comment
Posted by Mopar: No it is not. The owner can not unarchive a cache without approver intervention. If my cache is there, they wouldn't/shouldn't unarchive the old one 25ft away.

Yes I am aware of that, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

 

Posted by 2oldfarts: Is the problem that there is disabled caches out there?

That is not the problem, the problem is that the caches are disabled for too long extended periods of time, which after talking with an admin, was agreed that this is not the purpose of what the temporarily unavailable was intended for. 6 months, and even 3 months is not temporary. The intent from my understand is that it is a few weeks or a month, and in some rare cases longer, but those cases are not rare. The admin for my area and for Mopar's area sound like they are on top of things now, with the helps of the community, so the system is beginning to work better.

 

Here is an example of what my local admin posts when archiving a cache:

The disable feature is meant to be used only as a temporary measure to alert cachers to a potential problem that will soon be corrected..

As such we will be archiving your cache. If you wish to replace the cache at some point, just email me through my profile linked from the log on the cache page, with the cache name, and waypoint ID and we will unarchive it for you.

No mention of still meeting the requirements in order for it to be unarchived, and I checked a post of another admin too and no mention either.

 

Thanks Mopar for a constructive post. I was hoping an admin would post and indicate what gc.com's policy is on temporarily disabling a cache and what the intended time period is. I have only talked with 1 admin.

 

So what I do see is that some of these extended disabled caches are finally getting some attention in certain area, either from admins or from the community, so whether or not things ever get automated, the fact that things are getting addressed is very good, and hopefully it will stay that way and the current system will continue to improve or evolve.

Link to comment

I was hoping an admin would post and indicate what gc.com's policy is on temporarily disabling a cache and what the intended time period is.

 

This is actually already covered in the guidelines under Cache Maintenance, BTW.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.).  You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem.  This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.
Link to comment

Mopar just beat me to linking to the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines concerning Cache Maintenance, so I won't repeat what he said. As a practical matter, most volunteers wait for a few months before inquiring about caches that have been disabled. A progress report from the owner typically buys more time, as when the cache is disabled due to a hunting season, winter weather, park closure, flood, fire, etc. A volunteer who started sending reminders after three weeks would be quite unpopular. We wish we could share some of the hate mail received when caches are archived after being disabled for three months, six months or a year or more.

 

Nevertheless, the system has been working well in many areas, and it will continue to work well in the future and maybe even get better. In particular, the ability to locate all disabled caches through a pocket query is a huge help. Imagine being an approver in California where there are thousands upon thousands of caches to page through. The pocket query functionality just became available a few weeks ago. I review disabled caches in Ohio and Pennsylvania monthly. I do NOT miss having to page through the cache listing pages for more than 3,000 caches.

Edited by Keystone Approver
Link to comment

There is no longer any point to this discussion so if the name callers and abusers of the forum, no names mentioned, key approver, would like to have a bit more of a moan they have a little time left. After that I will close the post. The solutions are all above. The problem can easily be solved with a little thought. I have seen that there is a long way to go before any sensible ideas are taken from this forum! Maybe ALL caches should be removed so that there is NO chance of geotrash? Maybe someone should take it upon themselves to ONLY search for unavailable caches and remove them. Maybe the "sport" should be banned altogether? Maybe people should stop making stupid comments before they put their brains into gear? Maybe there is a way that someone new to geocaching could be shown that the sport wasn't stuck in the dark ages? Maybe I am disappointed at the way nobody except res2100 and, a couple of others, can grasp that there MAY be a need for change!

 

Greenbaypackers cache is no longer there! My valid points stand! Keep it the way that it is! It's your loss. If this is the way that a newcomer is treated then maybe there will be many who leave geocaching. I will be staying however. Like me or loathe me, I have tried to help the sport for the last time. I shall do what I wish I had done in the first place and not post to the forum. The experience that I have had here tells me that you are not here for the betterment of the sport but to whinge and moan when you can't be out caching!

 

To the few that try to improve the sport I am sorry!

Link to comment
There is no longer any point to this discussion so if the name callers and abusers of the forum, no names mentioned, key approver, would like to have a bit more of a moan they have a little time left.
Nice cheap shot there. I'm sure that made an impression on a number of people and helped them form opinions of you.
After that I will close the post.
A little too late but better late than never.
The solutions are all above.
No. Some possible solutions are listed but most of them seem to create new problems as they solve the old ones.
The problem can easily be solved with a little thought.
And a little effort, such as requesting caches to be archived. But I think that was mentioned already
I have seen that there is a long way to go before any sensible ideas are taken from this forum!
Odd, I see sensible ideas taken all the time. I must be reading different threads.
Maybe ALL caches should be removed so that there is NO chance of geotrash?
You don't have to play if you don't want to
Maybe someone should take it upon themselves to ONLY search for unavailable caches and remove them.
I can't figure that one out. If it's unavailable how will the person know they found it if they never searched for it when it was there?
  Maybe the "sport" should be banned altogether?
Why? Because your idea wasn't implemented? Doesn't that seem a little like overreacting to you?
Maybe people should stop making stupid comments before they put their brains into gear?
Yes. Re-read your message in a month or so and take your own advice
Maybe there is a way that someone new to geocaching could be shown that the sport wasn't stuck in the dark ages?
Does that mean I can bring my GPS to the next SCA fest and still be authentic?
Maybe I am disappointed at the way nobody except res2100 and, a couple of others, can grasp that there MAY be a need for change!
Change I can understand but so far I'm a lot more in favor of local geocaching groups policing themselves than I am of the system automatically archiving caches. I'm sorry, but I came up with the same solution not that long ago and I realized that it wasn't an ideal solution.
If this is the way that a newcomer is treated then maybe there will be many who leave geocaching.
And if this is the way newcomers behave, there will probably be a couple of people who leave the forums.
I will be staying however.  Like me or loathe me, I have tried to help the sport for the last time.  I shall do what I wish I had done in the first place and not post to the forum.  The experience that I have had here tells me that you are not here for the betterment of the sport but to whinge and moan when you can't be out caching!
Promise?
To the few that try to improve the sport I am sorry!
apology accepted.
Link to comment
... We wish we could share some of the hate mail received when caches are archived after being disabled for three months, six months or a year or more. ...

What am I missing here? We place a cache and then list it on a site that does not cost anything if you choose not to pay and when something does not go the way of the cache owner they ('they' being some) jump all over the Approvers and Moderators as if they have some huge personal investment and are owed whatever they so desire. I would be nothing more than happy to see these disgruntled "geocide" cachers simply vanish.

Link to comment

I agree cache viking but that has nothing to do with this post. I for one appreciate the hard work that the approvers put into what they do! It is shameful that approvers, keystone approver included, should have to put up with that kind of abuse. People that send hate mail etc. should put their enegies into trying to improve geocaching for all!

Link to comment

Actually it has quite a bit to do with this topic. Too quick on the trigger in archiving caches, you get flamed by disgruntled cache owners. Too slow, and you get forum topics complaining about how many disabled caches there are. This isn't the first such topic! There's a balance in there somewhere. In my opinion, it requires thoughtful review of each situation to achieve the proper result.

 

Anyways we know we're in for a bit of flaming when we signed up for this job, so I am sorry for whining about it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...