Jump to content

Resurrected Brooklyn Cache


splicingdan
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Doesn't seem like a quick archival to me. 3 SEP 02 Cache Ninja says he'll check on it, since there was a DNF that mentioned lightening hitting the tree where the seeker zero'd out, and they searched a 50 foot radius and found nothing, thinks it's gone. 29 APR 03, almost 8 months later, it's archived since there was no update on it's status.......

Link to comment

Definitely sounds like a proper archival, if nothing else due to poor/non existant maintenance. Guess some people always have to find something to complain about. Common people lets use some common sence and spend our time having fun caching, not criticizing GC or others here. You dont like it or think you can do better, then by all means DO SO. Until then stop being a part of the problem with all the second guessing and complaining.

 

MH

Link to comment
Until then stop being a part of the problem with all the second guessing and complaining.

 

Just out of curiosity, what problem are you referring to and who's doing the complaining????

 

<_<

 

June 28 by splicingdan (152 found)

OK, everything is in place.

[view this log on a separate page]

June 25 by splicingdan (152 found)

Another CN cache unnecessarily archived.

 

The cache was still in place but in poor shape. The evidence of the fire is still clearly visible on the surrounding trees.

The log book was soaked and inhabited by insects. but the entries are still legible. The remaining contents are a Pez dispenser, a Lego man, and 3 foreign coins.

I'll replace the container and log book sometime next week.

Check out the pictures!!

 

2nd guessing indeed. <_<

Link to comment
Definitely sounds like a proper archival, if nothing else due to poor/non existant maintenance. Guess some people always have to find something to complain about. Common people lets use some common sence and spend our time having fun caching, not criticizing GC or others here. You dont like it or think you can do better, then by all means DO SO. Until then stop being a part of the problem with all the second guessing and complaining.

 

MH

So, you feel free to criticize many people with the same tired tune in thread after thread, but others should refrain from leveling criticism? Yeah, right.

 

MH, how many abandoned, archived or temporarily disabled caches have you checked up on in the northeast region? How many of those caches did you verify as missing? How many of those caches did you verify as remaining viable? How many of those caches have you personally maintained?

 

So, you offer criticism from a position of absolute ignorance. That's not a very good position from which to influence people.

Link to comment

There was a recent thread in which cache owners discussed when and if they should check up on their caches after a DNF was posted. The consensus from cache owners (and admins, if I recall correctly) was that a single DNF would not cause an owner to make a maintenance visit ... and most stated they wouldn't visit a cache unless at least three or four DNFs had been logged.

 

One DNF led to the ultimate archival of this cache by an admin. Yes, the cache was not properly maintained by its owner in a timely manner. But I am most definitely NOT of the opinion that caches should be archived by an admin. until it has been determined by the admin. (personally, through communication with the cache owner, or by having someone who found the cache previously visit the site) that the cache is, in fact, missing or has been removed.

 

The archiving of caches by admins. where no determination of the status of the cache has been made has, in my opinion, happened too many times in this region.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
<SNIP>

 

The archiving of caches by admins. where no determination of the status of the cache has been made has, in my opinion, happened too many times in this region.

You make some rather intense statements there. What proof can you offer to support this. Should the Reviewers check every single cache, even ones that well known catchers claim to have already picked up? Unless it is your cache how can you tell how many DNF's a cache has? If they get deleted you wont see them unless you watch every cache in the country. You don't do that do you? How can you tell how many e-mails the reviewer has sent the owner Since you are not in that loop. Failure to maintain a cache is indeed a valid reason to archive it. It always has been.

From the guidelines:

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

My experience with the Admins had been that they have been very sensitive to the cache owners' needs. On my secret agent caches there was an old cache that hadn't been maintained for 4 months. The owner was AWOl and would not return my e-mails. Despite this, NJ Admin gave the owner 2 weeks to respond to his\her e-mails, and thus ample time to maintenance the cache. This was very fair all around.

Link to comment
One DNF led to the ultimate archival of this cache by an admin. 

Well, no. Let's look at the cache page.

 

Found the cache lying in the open. Looks like there was a fire very recently (lightning strike?), and one side of the cache was melted through. Contents muddy and wet.

Put it as close to the original coordinates as I could determine with my bottom-of-the-line eTrex. Contacting hider to rehide or change clue.

 

Took nothing, signed log, left Lego knight.

 

Found it without too much problem. I didn't use the cheat, but from the location, the obvious hiding spot turned out to be the right one. Inside of the cache is wet, the log book is water-logged and the pen didn't work, so we didn't sign the log. Took the where's George bill and replaced it with two bicentennial Kennedy Half-dollars in Au condition (a buck for a buck that's worth more than a buck). Had fun, thanks!

 

The two previous FIND logs indicate problems with the cache then there was the one DNF, then from the cache owner:

wI\\ [h3[k on|t so0n

 

So, THREE logs in a row indicate problems with the cache, the owner says he'll check on it, and never does.......THAT ultimately led to the archival of the cache.........

Link to comment

My comment:

 

"Another CN cache unnecessarily archived"

 

Does not imply neglience by any party. One can interpret it however they deem necessary. Arguments can easily be made for both sides.

I believe that Cache Ninja's caches are among the best ever placed. Time and effort were sacrificed by him to bring people to unknown and infrequently visited locations throughtout the area. Anyone who's found (or attempted to find) his caches knows that there is a greater degree of difficulty encountered than most others. That is why I'll make an extra effort to keep these caches active.

For whatever reasons, maintenance is clearly an issue (this fact is well documented), but he's also subject to cachers that are quick to press the panic button and log a "didn't find" or state that the cache must be missing. This catches the attention of an Admin. and usually results in an archive.

 

Here are some examples:

 

Yell0w |0nG thIng [vEr3.0=nW}

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7e-102ec237bee8

 

- 1 no find >>>>>>>archived

 

 

sra_li

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...log=y&decrypt=y

 

- 1 record of a damaged container, 1 no find (half-hearted effort) >>>>>archived

Cache most likely still there.

 

 

gwØn

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...14-ff687a5dcf04

 

- Active cache, no record of a current problem >>>>>>>>archived

 

 

fl0unDer c4ch3

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...fb-fefa99490885

 

- 2 no finds>>>>>>>archived

 

 

Also, CN himself has archived his caches without any verification:

 

AsSaTEAgue 4

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...cf-db6726a2037e

 

-1 no find, 1 note >>>>>archived

 

 

cladiµs was here + \_0nely blu

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0d-6432916b1fa3

 

- 1 no find >>>>>>archived

 

 

So, clearly there's no winner here.

But, there's a whole bunch of caches that could use a visitor.

 

I can only imagine the uproar when I find that dadgum BURIED one!!!!!

Link to comment
Should the Reviewers check every single cache, even ones that well known catchers claim to have already picked up?

I didn't write about that, but now that you mention it, at least two well-known cachers in the northeast region have histories of archiving their caches and falsely stating that they removed the cache, as you are probably aware. If you aren't, then the local admin. undoubtedly is. I wrote about caches that were archived by an admin. Yes, I do believe the admin. should determine that the cache has been physically removed prior to archiving the cache. I remember a thread that dealt with the topic a few months back, and I believe that at that time, the position of the admins. was a cache should remain "temporarily disabled" until that determination had been made.

 

If they get deleted you wont see them unless you watch every cache in the country.

 

I see. I need to "watch every cache in the country" in order to see which caches in my local area have logged a DNF or have been archived by an admin. That's a most interesting concept.

 

Failure to maintain a cache is indeed a valid reason to archive it.

 

Great. There are at least a hundred caches within 25 miles of my home that have never been maintained and have been reported to be in less-than-pristine condition. For at least a couple of dozen of them, the cache owners have not logged onto the site in at least six months. I look forward to your taking care of the problem.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment
The consensus from cache owners (and admins, if I recall correctly) was that a single DNF would not cause an owner to make a maintenance visit ... and most stated they wouldn't visit a cache unless at least three or four DNFs had been logged.

 

If its the thread I'm thinking about, the consensus was 2-3 DNF's and as low as one if it was an experienced geocacher coming up empty on an easy cache.

Link to comment
My comment:

 

"Another CN cache unnecessarily archived"

 

Does not imply neglience by any party. One can interpret it however they deem necessary. Arguments can easily be made for both sides.

I believe that Cache Ninja's caches are among the best ever placed. Time and effort were sacrificed by him to bring people to unknown and infrequently visited locations throughtout the area. Anyone who's found (or attempted to find) his caches knows that there is a greater degree of difficulty encountered than most others. That is why I'll make an extra effort to keep these caches active.

For whatever reasons, maintenance is clearly an issue (this fact is well documented), but he's also subject to cachers that are quick to press the panic button and log a "didn't find" or state that the cache must be missing. This catches the attention of an Admin. and usually results in an archive.

 

Here are some examples:

 

Yell0w |0nG thIng [vEr3.0=nW}

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7e-102ec237bee8

 

- 1 no find >>>>>>>archived

 

 

sra_li

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...log=y&decrypt=y

 

- 1 record of a damaged container, 1 no find (half-hearted effort) >>>>>archived

Cache most likely still there.

 

 

gwØn

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...14-ff687a5dcf04

 

- Active cache, no record of a current problem >>>>>>>>archived

 

 

fl0unDer c4ch3

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...fb-fefa99490885

 

- 2 no finds>>>>>>>archived

 

 

Also, CN himself has archived his caches without any verification:

 

AsSaTEAgue 4

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...cf-db6726a2037e

 

-1 no find, 1 note >>>>>archived

 

 

cladiµs was here + \_0nely blu

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0d-6432916b1fa3

 

- 1 no find >>>>>>archived

 

 

So, clearly there's no winner here.

But, there's a whole bunch of caches that could use a visitor.

 

I can only imagine the uproar when I find that dadgum BURIED one!!!!!

2 of the ones you mentioned were archived by Cache Ninja himlself. I know of at least one other where the archive button was hit a bit too quickly, by the owner. The problem is that he is known for placing wonderful, challenging caches, then forgetting about them. Once there is a problem he either archives them without checking, or one of the admins does.

 

The archival of caches that still exist is an issue that must be addressed. Leaving this "geolitter" in the woods does not hepl our case when trying to get the sanction of land managers for our sport.

Link to comment
My comment:

 

"Another CN cache unnecessarily archived"

 

Does not imply neglience by any party. One can interpret it however they deem necessary. Arguments can easily be made for both sides.

I believe that Cache Ninja's caches are among the best ever placed. Time and effort were sacrificed by him to bring people to unknown and infrequently visited locations throughtout the area. Anyone who's found (or attempted to find) his caches knows that there is a greater degree of difficulty encountered than most others. That is why I'll make an extra effort to keep these caches active.

For whatever reasons, maintenance is clearly an issue (this fact is well documented), but he's also subject to cachers that are quick to press the panic button and log a "didn't find" or state that the cache must be missing. This catches the attention of an Admin. and usually results in an archive.

Like Co Admin said, unless you are the reviewer involved, or the cache owner, you really don't know the full story.

gwØn

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...14-ff687a5dcf04

 

- Active cache, no record of a current problem >>>>>>>>archived

 

Not true. Multiple DNFs logged, leading to cache owner disabling the cache. 5 months after he disabled it, and over a year after it was last found, he finally archived it himself, 2 months after he was asked to check if it was still there. A responsible cache owner would not leave geotrash out there, so surely he picked it up before he archived it.

Here is one of 4-5 deleted DNFs and notes that lead to the disabling and archiving of this cache, btw.

New Jersey  Saturday, December 28, 2002

  Zaphod Beeblebrox couldn't find gwØn (Traditional Cache)     

 

I looked for a half hour but didn't find anything, but this was only my second try at finding a cache. The cache description and logs make it sound like the cache is on the GWB (which is where I looked) but my new Garmin E-trex Legend said the coordinates were 200 feet past the side of the bridge. Is the cache down by the lighthouse? 

 

Then we have this one:

 

sra_li

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...log=y&decrypt=y

 

- 1 record of a damaged container, 1 no find (half-hearted effort) >>>>>archived

Cache most likely still there.

Sept 2002, cache is reported damaged. CN lives 800 miles away and notes he is not capable of maintaining it.

There is also a deleted DNF on that cache, so that makes 2 dnfs on a cache the owner can not check on.

 

 

Yell0w |0nG thIng [vEr3.0=nW}

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7e-102ec237bee8

 

- 1 no find >>>>>>>archived

Cache owner disabled cache in June 2002 after 1 DNF. Cache sat disabled for 10 months. I believe this one was one of several long disabled caches I exchanged emails with cache owner several months before, and nothing was ever done.

 

fl0unDer c4ch3

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...fb-fefa99490885

 

- 2 no finds>>>>>>>archived

 

Easy cache. 17 people found it no problem. 2 DNFs + 3 more deleted logs in the next 13 months, yet cache owner never bothers to check on it or replace it.

 

One last thing. Archiving a cache does not mean there can never be a cache there ever again. Even after the cache was archived, CN could have replaced the cache and had it unarchived. It's been 2yrs or more for many of these caches, yet in 2 years he hasn't replaced them.

 

Now we have someone else replacing them and then asking them to be unarchived, when the cache owner has shown no interest or desire to have these caches replaced, or to maintain them.

 

I also find it most interesting that another person who is of the opinion that all caches should be archived automatically after a set number of months now has a problem with caches being archived.

Link to comment

Come on this thread is ridiculous and going nowhere.

 

Cache Ninja placed the caches and can therefore archive them whenever he/she wants, for whatever reason. Why are we debating if he/she should have archived them or not... as finders it is not our decision.

Link to comment
Come on this thread is ridiculous and going nowhere.

 

Cache Ninja placed the caches and can therefore archive them whenever he/she wants, for whatever reason. Why are we debating if he/she should have archived them or not... as finders it is not our decision.

I think the point is that they are being archived and left out there, or at least there is no verification from either the owner, or a previous finder, that they are indeed gone.

Link to comment
I also find it most interesting that another person who is of the opinion that all caches should be archived automatically after a set number of months now has a problem with caches being archived.

I certainly do firmly believe that caches should be "approved for listing" on the website for a defined period of time. And as you are fully aware, NJ Admin, I also believe cache owners should have the right and ability to "renew" their caches at the end of that period by following a simple procedure. If nothing else, such a system would go a long way to help identify "inactive" cache owners and abandoned caches. Those caches could then be efficiently dealt with ... by the cache being temporarily disabled until the cache was removed.

 

THAT is, and has been for a very long time, the opinion of THIS person. That concept, and various ways to implement it, has been discussed at greath length in these forums on a number of occasions over the past two or three years. Such a procedure, however, is not in place, and the cache cited was, in fact, another example of "admin. created geolitter" until a geocacher took action of his own volition.

 

I will conclude my participation in this thread by stating the same thing I have stated on many previous occasions in many threads: A cache should not be archived by a cache reviewer until it has been determined that the cache is, in fact, missing or has been removed.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

hahaha...figured i'd reply to this one for a change...honestly, i dont consider any of my caches abandoned(those i've archived)-i will return to every single one(and have returned to most). my feeling is that if multiple experienced geocachers cant find them and the cache is noowhere to be seen, i can safely archive them and pick up the remains when i feel like it/get a chance. some plastic box under a rock for 3 yrs with paper and toys in it isnt going to do any harm. granted, others will have a different opinion on this....and for the record, ive done this(picked up remains of caches)....i have gone back and checked on caches, archived stolen caches/removed some... ...many of the caches they seem to assume i've archived and just left out there, ive gone and checked out, and either removed or verified were gone (i.e. flounder cache, gwon, yelllow long thing mentioned here.. countless others, i could post a list of 20-40 if you like).. ive done this either before or after they were archived.   i had assumed that if i archived a cache, people wouldnt go looking for it, so it would be inane to post an update that it was, in fact gone, if i checked after i archived it(due to however many DNFs), i hold myself accountable for what ive left in the woods, i dont feel a need to report to anyone else that i've taken care of it... and if i archived a cache, similarly, i didnt think i needed to post a comment stating that in fact, i was archiving it because i checked and it was gone.  if it;s archived, my opinion was, dont look for it, and ill take care of it.  which ive done/been doing, sure slowly at times.  all of this/these problems seem to revolve around some urgent timeline that makes some geocaching folks very anxious, which again i must submit perplexes me...i can only conclude that these people have not much else going on in their lives...perhaps rules and this sorta thing gives them comfort somehow, control.  i dunno. too bad people can't just chill.. but "geocaching" means many things, to many people and always will(perhaps much to the frustration of nj admin and others)...of my caches that remain, people constantly desire posts that they are still there, i find this annoying....if i leave it up, feel free to look for it (i.e. serpentor cache has been there all along, as has aqua), the people who want me to constantly post updates that the caches are still there/i checked on them, can just as well not look for them as far as im concerned, im not going to post a log every time i check on an existing cache, its annoying, if people want to assume i dont check on caches, so be it, i dont care.... i do e-mail people every time they post a DNF to see where they looked/give hints etc, and do the same if someone declares a cache wet or trashed or so on to see if i need to check on/replace it, feel free to verify this-some people here might enjoy doing that sorta thing(i seem to see them posting really strangely anal lists of all sorts quite often).... i suppose i also feel as though i went to all this trouble, initially, to find certain types of spots to hide caches at, to share an experience/spot on the earth with some strangers, i was very particular about said spots, and often passed up many locations(which noone seems to bother to do anymore), if my cache gets trashed/flooded, i think it's fair to say it's up to me to decide on how fast i want to get there to replace it.  if 20 , or even 5 people found a cache, had an amazing experience finding it(which makes me happy/is the point), and then it takes me 4yrs to replace it, i see no problem with this, as long as its not trash out in the open... granted there is this new density rule or whatever/people want to hide caches within 10 feet of existing/previous caches because they cant think of/find a place of their own..but i wouldve archived the caches to allow this, so it wouldnt be a problem. in the past i'd left them unavailable simply because i can't unarchive them myself, and didn't want to deal with this nj admin guy, who admittedly, has been less than enjoyable to deal with and loves to make all sorts of assumptions, accusations and so forth...and just doesnt get it, in my opinion...if people want to hide a million little geocaches within .3 miles of the spot i spent all thie time finding, go ahead, i realize folks have many different ideas about geocaching, perhaps creativity isnt at the top of their list....yes, i am bitter that people dont close/seal, rehide caches properly, put stupid things inside that ruin them(i.e. food), and/or give up after 10mins of searching and declare them "gone"..this has made me less likely to replace a cache that is messed up frequently and more likely to archive it eventually....sure in the beginning i used containers that I didnt anticipate not being so optimal(also, being broke doesnt help), but this hasnt been the main problem IMHO...granted, there is one cache someone listed up there i've been meaning to replace for 4 months, it's disabled.  so what? holy crap, 4 months!  it's a little unclear to me why people are so anal about timelines for this sorta thing, people have been to the cache, enjoyed finding it, it;s a cool spot, it'll take me awhile to get back there.  so what? but again, there is no one "geocaching". i suppose there is one web site however, with some people with little else in their lives/too much time on their hands... whatever

c/n

Link to comment

Well as long as it gets replaced or taken care of, I don't see a problem with that...

 

So do we have a time limit now? 2 weeks to get to a cache and fix it or remove it?

 

I know I try to get mine taken care of in a timely maner, but things happen. But then again, all my caches are near by.

 

But it's funny how some people say one thing, and do another.

Link to comment
if 20 , or even 5 people found a cache, had an amazing experience finding it(which makes me happy/is the point), and then it takes me 4yrs to replace it, i see no problem with this, as long as its not trash out in the open... granted there is this new density rule or whatever/people want to hide caches within 10 feet of existing/previous caches because they cant think of/find a place of their own..but i wouldve archived the caches to allow this, so it wouldnt be a problem. in the past i'd left them unavailable simply because i can't unarchive them myself, and didn't want to deal with this nj admin guy, who admittedly, has been less than enjoyable to deal with and loves to make all sorts of assumptions, accusations and so forth...and just doesnt get it, in my opinion...if people want to hide a million little geocaches within .3 miles of the spot i spent all thie time finding, go ahead, i realize folks have many different ideas about geocaching, perhaps creativity isnt at the top of their list....yes, i am bitter that people dont close/seal, rehide caches properly, put stupid things inside that ruin them(i.e. food), and/or give up after 10mins of searching and declare them "gone"..this has made me less likely to replace a cache that is messed up frequently and more likely to archive it eventually....sure in the beginning i used containers that I didnt anticipate not being so optimal(also, being broke doesnt help), but this hasnt been the main problem IMHO...granted, there is one cache someone listed up there i've been meaning to replace for 4 months, it's disabled.  so what? holy crap, 4 months!  it's a little unclear to me why people are so anal about timelines for this sorta thing, people have been to the cache, enjoyed finding it, it;s a cool spot, it'll take me awhile to get back there.  so what? but again, there is no one "geocaching". i suppose there is one web site however, with some people with little else in their lives/too much time on their hands... whatever

c/n

C/N,

I don't make up the rules regarding caches listed on this site. Not the rules on maintaining your caches, not the rules on cache density, not any of them. Considering your relationship with this website, you of all people should know that.

You are of course free to maintain your caches as you feel fit, just like Jeremy is free to ask that caches listed on his website that are missing or neglected, sometimes for years, be repaired, replaced, or removed.

If you (or any other cacher) ever feels that you are not being dealt with in accordance with this site's guidelines and Terms Of Use, you may address this directly with my boss by emailing approvers@geocaching.com . Reviewers that do not follow the guidelines may be removed.

Thanks,

NJ Admin

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Link to comment
Consider this can of woms open for business. I bagged it today. CN - please unarchive it so that others can enjoy it as well.

I think only an Admin can unarchive it. I don't see that happening unless someone steps up and agrees to maintain and/or adopt it.

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...