Jump to content

Sombody Please Help Me To Understand


Recommended Posts

I live approximately 1hr and 20 min from one of my caches. I can only get to check on this cache once a month or so. It is definately not a "vacation" cache because I am not that far away for one, I have a "home" to stay at 2 min walking distance if I desire to stay in the neighborhood, and finally I am in this place at least once a month if not more often (think grandma).

 

Now this cache was not found by many experienced cachers (5 DNFs) in nearly as many months, and this brings me to my question, is this reason enough to archive my cache?? (I checked on this cache in the middle of the 5 months and found it still there and logged as such)

 

On the day I went to check on the cache, I found it and placed it so it might be a little easier to find. Then I went back to my "home", the one two minutes not over an hour away, and found the following log from one of our approvers (and I do not wish this to be an occasion of approver bashing, just a question to the community at large):

 

"This is a great example of why "vacation" caches are no longer approved. There has now been five DNF's by some very experienced cachers, so despite the pleas by the owner I'm archiving it.

If the cache is verified to still be there, please find someone to maintain it, and I will be happy to unarchive it.

Thanks for your understanding.

Name removed to protect the reviewer

Volunteer Cache Reviewer"

 

Well needlessly to say, I felt that this was only going to become a fight to get this unarchived so I just went back (what's a 2 min walk) and removed the cache.

 

So my final question to the community at large is; what should I have done here? Should this have been archived? Is there a general rule about how far away from "home" you can "maintain" a cache? What constitutes a "vacation" versus an "I'm always there anyways" cache?

 

Finally, I really don't want this to be a flame the approver thread, there have been enough of them already. I really want to know the opinions of the community at large their opinions of the questions asked.

 

Thanks for your time, and as always...

 

Peace!

Link to comment

Number One: Your approver does not watch every cache, hence he had some reason to notice it. Most likely, a complaint.

Number Two: So, he looks at the cache for whatever reason, and he now sees that it is collecting dnf's. I check a local cache here (for a guy who lives an hour away) whenever it collects two dnf's. His collects them because it involves reachin way way in to a spooky hole...and lots of people don't. He could solve that with a give-away hint, but chooses not.

Number Three: If it appears that no one is attending it (which is wrong in this case), he knows you live some distance. His math is obvious.

:o Here's my advice: Figure out why it gets the dnf's and explain that to him. His name is at the bottom of the page. Perhaps you can correct it without ruining same. Tell him you will email a hint to the dnf-ers, if indeed that would help. Explain that you are around often enough.

B) If, however, you re-evaluate the cache and decide you're not all that attached to it, so much the easier. For future relations with the Approver, drop him a note. Always give him the waypoint and/or a link.

Link to comment

As I understand it, the reviewers take into consideration the area in which an individual regularly finds caches as a guide to the area that individual frequents; probably more so for cachers with whom the reviewer is not familiar.

 

You stated that you have checked on the cache recently; perhaps it would help to leave periodic maintenance "notes" on the cache page so that a concerned cacher or reviewer has some evidence of your continued active involvement with your cache.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to comment

I don't think it should have been archived. One thing, so I've been told, is approvers look at your finds to get some idea of how far you travel to hunt for caches. Suppose all of your finds are within 10 miles of your house. It would be possible for an approver to get the impression that you don't travel far enough or often enough to keep tabs on the cache.

 

I'd state my case to the approver to have it un-archived. If he/she doesn't agree then contact Jeremy and let him be the judge.

 

Zack

Link to comment

Looking at your cache, there were 7 consecutive DNFs over a 5 month period for a cache that was rated 1 for difficulty, all by very experienced geocachers. That is what probably set off alarms in the mind of the approver. If it was appropriately rated, this probably wouldn't have happened. The approver would have expected to see DNFs and the searchers probably would have put more time into looking.

 

That being said, you made two visits during this time to confirm that it was still there, which proves that you are able to maintain the cache. I think the approver was out of line archiving this without first contacting you to discuss the matter.

 

And since the approver archived a cache that was still there, its another example of the potential of geo-litter being left behind thanks to this practice.

 

I applaud the approvers who are making efforts to eliminate problem caches, but sometimes they get a bit overzealous. They should make sure the cache is gone, or will be removed before archiving it and at the very least, contact the cache owner about their plans to archive it.

 

You stated that you have checked on the cache recently; perhaps it would help to leave periodic maintenance "notes" on the cache page so that a concerned cacher or reviewer has some evidence of your continued active involvement with your cache.

 

He did do this, which makes the archival of this cache all the more puzzling.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Were those maintenence visit logs all there before? Or were they added after someone here suggested it? Was the cache disabled the last 4 months?

It DOES seem odd that a 1 difficulty cache that had almost no DNFs before should suddenly get a 4 month string of DNFs from experienced cachers with no find logs except your own.

Link to comment

Maintanence logs are nice, but optional. I can come up with a couple of reasons for that. A cache of mine accumulated a few skunks and I was getting emails. I checked on the cache, answered the emails, and let sleeping dogs lie by not posting anything on the cache itself.

 

As BrianSnat said, In this case I think there was an issue with the rating and the DNF's. A one should not have any DNFs so the difficulty should be moved up a notch.

Link to comment
Were those maintenence visit logs all there before? Or were they added after someone here suggested it?

Looking at the logs, it looks like they were posted as he did ongoing checkup visits, not after the approver starting throwing stuff at the fan.

It DOES seem odd that a 1 difficulty cache that had almost no DNFs before should suddenly get a 4 month string of DNFs from experienced cachers

He posted notes after two separate checks that the cache had apparently been moved a little bit both times. Not much, though, so it seems to me that perhaps the difficulty rating is a little low given the sensitivity to the cache being in just the right spot in order to be found.

 

wildlifeguy,

Back on your July note of "will be there in a couple of weeks to check on it, find it and replace it if that is what is needed", I'd have temporarily disabled the cache until you could get to it and rectify any problem with it.

 

I, too, disagree with the archiving. Even if the cache was only 20 minute from your house still doesn't mean you'd be able to drop everything in your life and run out to check on it right away.

Link to comment
"This is a great example of why "vacation" caches are no longer approved. There has now been five DNF's by some very experienced cachers, so despite the pleas by the owner I'm archiving it.

 

This is a great example of something, I just cant come up with the perfect word for it right now........other than BS- which doesnt do it justice......

Link to comment
Were those maintenance visit logs all there before? Or were they added after someone here suggested it?

Looking at the logs, it looks like they were posted as he did ongoing checkup visits, not after the approver starting throwing stuff at the fan.

I'm not say this cache hider did this at all, but we've all seen cases where people go back and add/change things when things they did wrong are pointed out.

There is no way for us to know if those notes were posted on the date they say, or posted yesterday and back-dated, after someone mentioned you should log your maintenance visits.

Again, I'm not accusing the hider of trying to be sneaky, or doing something wrong. I'm just trying to get the same perspective the person who archived it had at the time. Trying to see the cache page as he saw it when he archived it. Obviously if those notes were not there at the time, most of us will look at it differently then if they were.

Link to comment

I think a little tactful communication with the approver would successfully resolve the problem. I had a cache that I placed 5-6 hours from home (but near a vacation cabin I frequently visit). I had similar problems with people not able to find the cache (including myself!) and after archiving it myself, a couple emails with this same approver was all it took to get my cache back up and running despite 1) my great physical distance and 2) the previous problems with the cache.

Link to comment
So my final question to the community at large is; what should I have done here? Should this have been archived? Is there a general rule about how far away from "home" you can "maintain" a cache? What constitutes a "vacation" versus an "I'm always there anyways" cache?

 

I dunno, but I really hope that they've stopped approving vacation caches. Right now about 75% of the caches in my area are vacation caches. Some of them are fairly old, but we've had at leat four approved this year.

 

I'm pretty sure that Top O' the World wouldn't get approved any more though, when the actual description says "We will not be able to maintain this cache, so please contribute generously and hide it well." :o

Link to comment

First off, thank you everybody for your responses. It is a great lesson to learn when learned from your peers.

 

To answer some of the questions/comments posed in the posts, I did not "back date" any of my posts. I was there and did maintenence on this cache when I said I did in the logs and even some times I didn't mention it in the logs. The cache (a 35mm) was originlly placed in the duff at the base of a tree. The city came along and cleaned up the park and did some trimming of the bush that helped hide the spot. The first time it went missing I found it in the center of the bush under the leaf litter. Yes it was replaced incorrectly by either a cacher or a muggle who cleaned the park. I do feel some amount of responsibility as I didn't up the difficulty when I knew people were having a hard time with it. The hint on the cache page really gave it all away. We all know of caches that are hard to find even though once found we are amazed at our inability to see it. This cache was a seed cache from another cache and felt it needed to be placed somewhat nearby to the original cache so I didn't take it several hours away in case the original cacher wanted to hunt his seeds (I hope that made sense). So, I was not really attached to this cache. Archiving it was not a big deal to me. The questions arise because I have another cache in the same park that is a big deal to me. It has a personal connection and I would hate to lose it because it could be labeled a "vacation" cache.

 

Thanks again for your well mannered responses.

 

Peace!

Link to comment

While I don't agree this cache should have been archived, I definitely don't agree it should have been removed. I will bet that a quick, friendly note to your approver stating that you checked on the cache and it's still there (and that you check on it regularly) should have gotten it quickly unarchived and back in action. The approvers are using the archive feature more often these days because it is much easier that sending e-mails, and they are overburdened so taking the easy route is always desirable for them. Just learn not to take it personally and just make the request for the unarchive (which is also easy for them to do).

 

On a side note, Kablooey and I have a running joke that it is impossible to hide a difficulty 1 micro. I rate all my micros starting a 1.5 in general, unless the hide is really, really easy and obvious. When rating a micro, keep this in mind: How long would it take you to find the cache if someone moved it 5 feet away. Use that as a guideline to what the difficulty should be. :o

 

--Marky

Link to comment
A 35 mm film canister under a bush at the base of a tree is not a difficulty of 1.

It sure can be, if it's the only bush next to the only tree in the area.

Arguing the hypothetical solely, I would still say that it is a 1.5, leaving enough room below it for a larger size cache, like tupperware or ammo can. I did a cache that said it was at the base of a tree and 35 mm canister. I never found it...there were only 3 trees possible at the coordinates (and no bushes); it was so exposed, I assumed it went missing. The next finder found it. If it were a larger container, it would have been easier...thus reserving space for a 1 by giving your hypothetical a 1.5.

Link to comment

There are two 'distance' rules:

 

1. A cache has to be hidden more than 528 feet from another cache (I think it's 528...someone here will correct me if I am wrong). This rule generally does not apply if you are hiding a multi. In other words, if you hide a 3 stage multi, each stage can be exempt from the distance rule in relation to the other stages...but each stage has to be the proper distance from any other caches in the area.

 

2. The cache has to be within a maintainable distance from your home. For example, I live in Colorado and I took a vacation to Hawaii and wanted to plant a cache there. Since I cannot drive to Hawaii to maintain the cache and I am not there often enough to maintain it, it would not be approved.

 

#2 is the rule being discussed here. I don't think this cache should have been archived either. All of my hides are within a 5 mile distance from my home and I only do maintenence on them once a month unless someone alerts me to a potential problem that needs immediate attention.

Link to comment
:P I might have missed it in here some where, but what is the 'distance' rule?

Is it a measurement of distance or time? or is there or is ther not a 'distance' rule?

There is no distance rule. If you frequent an area and can prove it, you can place a cache there. Among other things, the admins look at your cache finds in an area. If you have no finds in an area they will hesitate to approve a cache you hid there . If you have a regular record of geocaching in a region, your cache will probably be approved no matter how far away you are.

 

As an example, I live in NJ, but own several caches in Vt. I go there frequently and have numerous finds over several years there. The reason I was able to place caches there was because I had a consistent record of visiting the area.

 

Here is a hypothetical. You live in San Francisco and have a hundred finds in the your home area. Your in-laws live hundreds of miles away in LA. You visit there regularly ahd have found dozens of caches there. Sacramento on the other hand is an hour away, but you have never found a cache there. You place a cache in Sacramento and one in LA.

 

Which one do you think the admin would approve?

Link to comment
I might have missed it in here some where, but what is the 'distance' rule?

Is it a measurement of distance or time? or is there or is ther not a 'distance' rule?

 

Although the rule is "close enough to maintain it", it can be interpreted as a time rule: i.e. close enough to maintain it as frequently as needed - i.e. in a reasonable amount of time. In the final analysis, it's not how far away you are, but how well you are able to maintain the cache (some people shouldn't be allowed to own caches no matter how close they live). :P

 

IMHO, this cache should have been archived by the reviewer (I also think it was great of wildlifeguy to discourage reviewer bashing and for others to respect that wish - the reviewers have a thankless job and we should cut them some slack!).

 

If a cache receives several consecutive DNF's from experienced geocachers, I don't think waiting a month to check it is reasonable, UNLESS you temporarily archive it with a note explaining that you can't check it right away. If you have to archive it multiple times because of this, I would argue that it's too far away for you to properly maintain it.

 

I take the maintanence requirement seriously: If one of our caches collects several consecutive DNF's, I try to check it within a few days, or by the following weekend at the latest (depending on how far away it is and what else is going on in my life). I'll often post a note saying that I'll check it by a certain date, not out of fear of reivewers, but out of courtesy to my fellow geocachers. If I can't check it within a week (e.g. if I'm away from the area), I'll temporarily archive it, with a note, until I can.

 

If I see a cache with 3 or more consecutive DNF's from experienced cachers and no notes from the owner, I won't bother to look for it (it might as well be archived as far as I'm concerned). There's enough frustration in life without looking for a cache that may, or may not, be there. Nothing annoys me more than people who are invested in seeing how many caches they can place, regardless of whether they can maintain them (I'm not suggesting that's the case with wildlifeguy).

Link to comment

I (we) live in Jacksonville, FL, but my job takes me into South west Gerogia on a monthly basis. The cache count was low in the area, so I dropped a couple and they have been approved. Since our caches were placed, the area is beginning to grow more caches. I have found all along my route except 2. One is a longer multi and I need a change of clothing to do (maybe next trip) and the other has come up missing as stated by the owner. I do not feel that this cache should have been archived, but maybe disabled until things could have been checked. If it was checked and still there, maybe they weren't looking hard enough. We (a group of 5 local cachers) turned a 1.5 difficulty micro into a 30 minute search. When we found it we said "Duh!" We actually had touched it twice before we realized it, and it was bright orange!

Link to comment
Now this cache was not found by many experienced cachers (5 DNFs) in nearly as many months, and this brings me to my question, is this reason enough to archive my cache?? (I checked on this cache in the middle of the 5 months and found it still there and logged as such)

I'll answer that, and point out that I am the reviewer in question here. At the time I archived it it had been a month since you posted a log stating "I found it there in May after several people were not able to. I'm willing to bet it is still there. ... I will be there in a couple of weeks to check on it," It seemed reasonable to me to assume that since you didn't get there "in a couple weeks" that you may not get there anytime soon.

 

Then I went back to my "home", the one two minutes not over an hour away, and found the following log... "If the cache is verified to still be there, please find someone to maintain it, and I will be happy to unarchive it." ... Well needlessly to say, I felt that this was only going to become a fight to get this unarchived

I don't know why you felt it would be a fight. Had I received an email clarifying the situation and pointing out your home away from home I would have happily unarchived it immediately.

 

Believe it or not, we actually prefer to have caches listed instead of archived. I just looked at the actual location of the cache, and its only a few miles from where I work. I may have wanted to search for this cache someday :P

Link to comment
f a cache receives several consecutive DNF's from experienced geocachers, I don't think waiting a month to check it is reasonable, UNLESS you temporarily archive it with a note explaining that you can't check it right away. If you have to archive it multiple times because of this, I would argue that it's too far away for you to properly maintain it.

In this case the owner checked the cache at least twice during the string of DNFs and noted his visits in the logs.

 

I don't know why you felt it would be a fight. Had I received an email clarifying the situation and pointing out your home away from home I would have happily unarchived it immediately.

 

Why archive it in the first place? Why not send an e-mail to the (ovbiously active and interested) owner expressing your concerns? Does an owner really need to e-mail their approver periodically to provide updates about their maintenance schedule?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Here is a hypothetical. You live in San Francisco and have a hundred finds in the your home area. Your in-laws live hundreds of miles away in LA. You visit there regularly ahd have found dozens of caches there. Sacramento on the other hand is an hour away, but you have never found a cache there. You place a cache in Sacramento and one in LA.

 

Which one do you think the admin would approve?

:P

Uhhhmmmm Gimme a hint,,,, :D Sacramento? :P:D

Link to comment
wildlifeguy, if you're still in town, put the cache back and let me know and I'll unarchive it.

I posted this as an example and really have some other concerns with this and the other cache in the same park. I will send Hemlock an email so we can work out some of the particulars. Again, I was just using this cache as an example to post questions I have had about "maintenence" and "vacation" distances for my own calibration of judgement. I am grateful for all of the responses from this wonderful community and am especially thankful to Hemlock for all the great pearls of wisdom and advice to help me be a better member of said community.

 

Again thanks

 

Peace!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...