Ftfs And Unavailable Caches

[Colonel Mustard]

I've noticed a slew of new micros and a couple of traditionals in my area that were recently approved. Quite a few of these hidden by cachers who consistantly are the FTFs on other new caches. At the same time this group has a number of "Temporarily Unavailable" caches that are sitting unrepaired and unmaintained, some of them for months. Perhaps I'm just ranting, but it doesn't seem right to approve new caches when the same hider has unmaintained caches in limbo. I think that maintaining existing caches should be first priority. Am I missing something?

[+tirediron]

I haven't noticed this problem in my area, but I have to agree with you. At the very minimum the approvers (IMHO) should be saying to the person: "Hey, get those other 'caches fixed first" . Sounds almost like some people have decided to create an FTF club for each other?

[+wimseyguy]

I say take 'em out with the candlestick in the den.

[+flask]

i think these are separate issues.

 

i love my first finds. i have some new caches coming out. i also have three temporarily unavailable caches that have been unavailable for months. it is not possible at this time for me to fix them. my local approver knows this, and knows the reasons.

 

when it is possible for me to fix them, they'll get fixed. for me to give more information on the cache page would be giving away hints. so should i not place any more caches until the construction is finished? or the trail is repaired? or the ice melts?

 

if you're really upset about the FF's go beat them to it.

[Colonel Mustard]

It's not the FTF part in itself that I find inappropriate. Personally I don't have time during the week to go out and be FTF on new caches. My complaint is that the same people who have time to be FTF and hide new caches aren't taking the time to maintain what they've already got in place. If there is some reason beyond your control that places a cache in a holding pattern, ie; road construction, bridge out, etc., that is understandable. As such, a note in the cache log should be made ( and reinforced from time to time with a follow up or a progress report). A 3 month old note that says "am cleaning up the cache and will rehide" doesn't cut it for me.

[+WalruZ]

This is one of my bigger peeves. Admin notes are the solution, usually. One a month or so.

[+PandyBat]

It's not the FTF part in itself that I find inappropriate. Personally I don't have time during the week to go out and be FTF on new caches. My complaint is that the same people who have time to be FTF and hide new caches aren't taking the time to maintain what they've already got in place. If there is some reason beyond your control that places a cache in a holding pattern, ie; road construction, bridge out, etc., that is understandable. As such, a note in the cache log should be made ( and reinforced from time to time with a follow up or a progress report). A 3 month old note that says "am cleaning up the cache and will rehide" doesn't cut it for me.

Completely agree. I've even emailed some local cachers and offered my help in getting their caches going again. Sometimes, things come up that don't give them much time to maintain their caches as they used to and they might need help.

[+joefrog]

I gave up the emailing bit with one or two of the local cachers -- instead I replace it myself, and post a note on their cache page. They usually say "thanks."

[+briansnat]

Perhaps I'm just ranting, but it doesn't seem right to approve new caches when the same hider has unmaintained caches in limbo. I think that maintaining existing caches should be first priority. Am I missing something?

 

I'm not big on the idea of new rules, but if some admins took it upon themselves to turn down new caches submitted by people who have a history of unmaintained, or problem caches, I would be the last in line to complain.

[+JohnnyVegas]

You shold conntact the approver for your area, he or she may not be aware of the problem.

 

I know the approver in my area keeps an eye on caches that are temp. unavailable. He sent me some e-mails regarding one of my caches.

 

THere may be a problem getting the cache replaced, but if there is the cache owner should post a note.

 

I had a problem with maintianing one of mine, it is a multi made up of ester eggs. some of the eggs came up missing and I had to wait for the stores to get the plastics eggs back in stock, these are hard to find if it is not easter, Now I have a supply of extra eggs.

[+Sparky-Watts]

There is a cacher in my area that has well over 70 hides. Many of his become disabled at a time. I know from conversations with our approver that he requires any unavailable caches be fixed or archived before he will let a new cache be placed. I can't speak for approvers in other areas, but at least in my area, the approver takes note of problems such as this, and is very good about sending notes to cachers that have disabled caches as a reminder to get them going again, and he will not let you place a new cache if you have a disabled cache, unless there is a really good reason you can't get it back up and running.

[+Webfoot]

There is a cacher in my area that has well over 70 hides. Many of his become disabled at a time. I know from conversations with our approver that he requires any unavailable caches be fixed or archived before he will let a new cache be placed. I can't speak for approvers in other areas, but at least in my area, the approver takes note of problems such as this, and is very good about sending notes to cachers that have disabled caches as a reminder to get them going again, and he will not let you place a new cache if you have a disabled cache, unless there is a really good reason you can't get it back up and running.

This is a good position to take. It would seem that a cache hider has the responsibility to maintain existing caches before hiding any new ones.

[+Renegade Knight]

I would be first in line to complain.

 

1) Two rest area caches are in construction for the indefinate future. Looks bad, I can't do a thing until construction is done.

2) Cache maggots are running amok. I can't keep up with them. But work at it slowly and steadily. Eventually I'll catch up.

3) I'm not caching as much but while I can't maintain most of my caches at lunch I can snag a FTF if I chose to. Often I wait for other locals to snag the FTF.

 

If a cache is an issue start the process to archive it. But no more rules. There are too many variables to track to be fair about it.

[+shunra]

There is a cacher in my area that has well over 70 hides.  Many of his become disabled at a time.  I know from conversations with our approver that he requires any unavailable caches be fixed or archived before he will let a new cache be placed.  I can't speak for approvers in other areas, but at least in my area, the approver takes note of problems such as this, and is very good about sending notes to cachers that have disabled caches as a reminder to get them going again, and he will not let you place a new cache if you have a disabled cache, unless there is a really good reason you can't get it back up and running.

This is a good position to take. It would seem that a cache hider has the responsibility to maintain existing caches before hiding any new ones.

Not as a rule, but as a guideline.

 

I totally don't see the FTF problem (if you want FTF's, hunt them. If you don't, why complain?), but I agree with the problem of the unmaintained disabled caches.

 

I also see RK's objections, and they are fair.

 

Here are some ideas, though.

 

I can imagine a 'My Caches in Need of Maintenance' field, which would appear in a bold large font at the top of everyone's My Cache Page. This field would show the name of the cache, the date of disablement, and the last comment made by the owner himself with regard to that cache (for instance: a promise to fix it within two weeks). That will serve many people as a reminder.

 

That same field could be made to appear on a cacher's profile page, where others could see it. If a cacher's negligence would be out there in the open for all to see, it might nudge him at least to update his promises, if not actually to perform maintenance.

 

The content of the field could also be made to be included automatically with new cache submissions, for approvers to see. An approver could then at his own discretion decide whether he wants to approve a 71st hide for a cacher who has 5 unmaintained hides.

 

(My hope would be for discretionary aprovers who are very tolerant of disabled caches with clear and up-to-date notes, but who have zero tolerance for neglect.)

 

Currently, under "Geocaches (Mine)", I see my archived caches in red, but the temporarily disabled ones are merely stricken. They ought to be stricken, bold, and always on top.

 

Temporarily disabled caches should be temporarily removed from a hider's Hide count.

 

I don't want more rules either. But I hate to see these indefinitely temporarily disabled caches all the time. Currently, the only effective nudge is a generous use of SBAs. But wouldn't it be better if technology took care if that?

The 'nudges' I suggested will help cache owners remember to avoid neglect, and relieve the approvers and the geocaching community of the annoying job of nudging. delinquent cache owners.

[+shunra]

Maybe my suggestions would have been more appropriate in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum...

Edited June 25, 2004 by Shunra