Solution To Long Standing "disabled" Caches

[+HartClimbs]

This thread looked interesting but was locked by the owner (unfortunately).

 

A solution (which has come up before) for cache listings where the cache is LONG GONE but the listing remains "disabled" for a long period of time?

 

Two words: Cache renewal.

 

Every 12 months you need to sign onto the site and click "Yes, this cache is still maintained". If it's not clicked - the cache can be put up for adoption (or marked "next finder please pick up any trash found at the cache site") - or failing that - archived. No owner response in a year (or pick your length of time) - no cache listing.

 

There's gotta be some way to deal with those listings for caches hidden by folks who've long since gotten bored by the game and left.

[+Metaphor]

It makes sense to me. A simple click once a year to maintain ownership. If you can't do that, the spot should be opened up for archival or adoption.

[+Runaround]

I remember this being discussed a long time ago.

 

Three alternatives:

1. Send a note to the cache owner.

 

If that doesn't work:

2. Send a note to your local approver and let them work with the owner. KA is great about helping to keep things clean around here.

3. Post a SBA log.

[+IV_Warrior]

Hmmm....and here all along I was thinking the "Should be archived" log was the solution to the problem.

[+Metaphor]

This way puts the onus on the cache owner to prove maintenance and upkeep, not the poor geocacher who goes out to seek a non-existent, run-down, or otherwise owner neglected cache. There are a lot of caches out there "owned" by people who have left the game; a yearly update wouldn't be too much to ask of me to verify my active status in maintaining my cache responsibilities. An automated email to the address listed with gc.com, a simple click to respond, and active status is confirmed. If no response within a reasonable amount of time, say a month or two, the cache can be opened up for adoption or archival. All this approach asks is that the cache owner verify that he or she is still caring for the cache.

[+HartClimbs]

>>> Post deleted by the National Security Agency under the authority of the Patriot Act <<<

Edited September 6, 2004 by HartClimbs

[+Hemlock]

So we have a cache out there who's owner has gone AWOL. Nothing is wrong with the cache. As a matter of fact its found on a regular basis. But the owner hasn't logged in in a year so suddenly the cache is automatically archived, leaving a perfectly good cache abandoned and isolated with no way for cachers to even look for it.

 

Nope, not a good idea at all.

[+Prime Suspect]

This way puts the onus on the cache owner to prove maintenance and upkeep, not the poor geocacher who goes out to seek a non-existent, run-down, or otherwise owner neglected cache.

We're talking about disabled caches here. If someone goes out searching for a cache that's been disabled, they deserve to be disappointed.

[+Prime Suspect]

This thread looked interesting but was locked by the owner (unfortunately).

 

A solution (which has come up before) for cache listings where the cache is LONG GONE but the listing remains "disabled" for a long period of time?

 

Two words: Cache renewal.

 

Every 12 months you need to sign onto the site and click "Yes, this cache is still maintained". If it's not clicked - the cache can be put up for adoption (or marked "next finder please pick up any trash found at the cache site") - or failing that - archived. No owner response in a year (or pick your length of time) - no cache listing.

 

There's gotta be some way to deal with those listings for caches hidden by folks who've long since gotten bored by the game and left.

This won't solve much. Most long-disabled caches aren't abandoned. They're owned by active cachers who "haven't gotten around" to fixing their cache. Making them press a button once a year isn't going to fix that.

[+Renegade Knight]

Disabled and gone are two different things. Sometimes a disabled cache is gone and sometimes they are not. If they are still around and they become archived you have created litter, resulting in the need for a Cache Rescue Mission.

 

On the other hand being disabled forever isn't much different from creating litter.

 

Automating the solution that is being utilized by the approvers right now might be the way to go. "This is an automatic notice. Your cache has been disabled for 7 months. It will be automaticly archived in 7 weeks and a CRM cache will be created to either retrieve your cache or, confirm it's missing.

 

If there are special circumstances regarding your cache or you would like to make other arrangments, please contact your approver. Your approver is CO Admin"

 

7 weeks/months can be any number that is reasonable. Your approver could be from the list that GC.com should have but can't keep up, or from the actual approver who is listed as having approved the cache. Approvers would have the ability to reset the date flag that triggered the automatic notice. This would be a specific solution to disabled caches. Active caches as Hemlock has pointed out are another thing.

Edited September 6, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+planetrobert]

Nope, not a good idea at all.

hurrah for that, couldn't have said it better

[+HartClimbs]

>>> Post deleted ..... aw just because Ralaan is so smart <<<

Edited September 6, 2004 by HartClimbs

[BassoonPilot]

Great idea. Too bad people weren't talking about this two or three years ago ... oh, they were.

Edited September 7, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+fly46]

Why have it be that way on an anual basis? I hope you don't think a cache being disabled for a year (see smallest cache in the world in Athens, GA) is a good idea.

 

How about every six months if it's disabled?

Or every four?

 

Caches shouldn't be temporarily disabled forever. Hence the word temporary.

[+flask]

i have one that's been disabled since spring. it needs a few days in a row of warm sry weather before i can get it back to condition. unfortunately we have not had a few days of warm dry weather all in a row for a really long time.

 

i have another that's been disabled for months because the park in which it is located (it's a long multi) is under reconstruction.

 

and another one for which i have the replacement container all set and ready to go, but i needed the weather conditions to be right, AND i had to have my technical advisor and the appropriate equipment ready to go, and try as i might, it's just not clicking yet. one day it will.

 

outside of those, my disabled caches all get quietly updated and refreshed. sometimes you have to wait for the ice to melt or the water to recede or the ground to be replaced. not everybody knows the particulars, and noting them on the cache page may give away clues.

[+SherwoodForest]

as it generally seems from most any time this topic comes up, the best ways to deal with it are to email the cache owner....

 

email the regional approver and work with them...

 

and use the SBA...

 

there are so many valid reasons for longer term disablings.... construction, ice, etc...

 

but, JMHO...

[+HartClimbs]

No issue with long term disabled caches (as others have said, there's often good reason), but the issue is with absentee owners (or abandoned caches).

 

I mis-titled the thread - but as it's also been said, this has been discussed before (having owners just click "yes I still am alive and maintaining this cache" once a year or so) - but nothing has come of it.

 

There's three sides to every issue, but nobody seems to have a better idea on how to handle caches which are "unowned" (short of having the approvers identify them based on complaints and try to find an adopter).

 

I don't envy the approvers jobs....

[+Hemlock]

There's three sides to every issue, but nobody seems to have a better idea on how to handle caches which are "unowned" (short of having the approvers identify them based on complaints and try to find an adopter).

The status quo seems to be working just fine. If the cache is in good shape, it doesn't matter if the owner is active or not. If the cache disappears or degenerates, someone can trash it out and post a "needs archived" note.

 

I fail to see what the problem is that you guys are trying to fix

 

I'm the one that reacts to the notes in California (hands down the busiest state) and it's pretty easy to deal with the average of 4 a day that I get. I typically leave them for a week, to give the owners a chance to react on their own. About 30% do. Of the rest half are very obvious that the cache and owner are gone. They get archived. The remainder are questionable, so I leave a note asking the owner or a previous finder to check on it. I keep an eye on these and deal with them as info becomes available. It's really not a big deal.

 

I think the real problem is that many people are fearful of logging a "needs archived" note, so many damaged or disabled caches tend to sit around longer than they should. These people can also email their local reviewer directly, so their report is not made public.

[+HartClimbs]

So what you're saying Hemlock is that NJAdmin stinks?

 

There's seems to be a bunch of caches out there hidden by people who no longer even log onto the website. Maybe it's a local problem here (you know, like Tony Soprano). With you getting only four notes a day - something's amiss, 'cause our local admin complains he's swamped (maybe he's a sandbagger).

 

The PA admin setup a local "cache adoption" thread as a way to combat the issue of abandoned caches. Seems to work well - but again, it requires manual intervention on his part. I'd be curious how many people with hides haven't signed onto the system in the last 3 months (or 6 months, or year).

 

I thought PA_Admin was at least being proactive (kudos to him), but I'm glad California doesn't have this problem (hey, you've got other problems like Aaaaaarnold though!).

[BassoonPilot]

I think the real problem is that many people are fearful of logging a "needs archived" note, so many damaged or disabled caches tend to sit around longer than they should.

It's "peer pressure."

[+HartClimbs]

What's beer pressure?

 

Of course, some cachers archive their caches mere days after they're hidden - thus assuring the quality of the cache experience remains pristine.

 

Seriously - I thought these abandoned caches were a problem as it seems to keep coming up on the forums every so often. I'll lock the thread and let the suggestion slide off into obscurity.

[+brdad]

I agree with HartClimbs. It's best to have these ownerless caches adopted or removed and archived before it is an issue. I wouldn't even give it six months. Anyone who can't log into a computer every 6 months (Or have someone do it for him) should not place caches to begin with. Maintenence of caches includes checking in reguraly to make sure the status is ok. What if people email asking for help, or to alert of potential problems? Do we email the owner and give it a year, and then when we realize the owner is not present, send the local approver an email?

 

IMO, disabled caches should have a time limit as well, being able to keep it disabled longer if he replies with good cause.

[+Marky]

So we have a cache out there who's owner has gone AWOL. Nothing is wrong with the cache. As a matter of fact its found on a regular basis. But the owner hasn't logged in in a year so suddenly the cache is automatically archived, leaving a perfectly good cache abandoned and isolated with no way for cachers to even look for it.

 

Nope, not a good idea at all.

Okay, agree that it's a bad idea to disable or archive a perfectly good cache. But it seems to be like it would be an okay thing (assuming it was agreed to when checking those little checkboxes at the bottom of the submit form) to verify that you are actively maintaining the cache and if you don't verify it in a timely manner, it becomes an ownerless cache, still active and findable, but up for adoption.

 

There would have to be some formal adoption mechanism in place probably.

 

--Marky

[+Marky]

I fail to see what the problem is that you guys are trying to fix

I don't see it as that big a problem in our area, so probably wouldn't waste to much time trying to figure out a better way to do it. You definitely would know best. If you think it's working fine in our area, then it probably is.

 

--Marky

[+Hemlock]

I wouldn't even give it six months. Anyone who can't log into a computer every 6 months (Or have someone do it for him) should not place caches to begin with. Maintenence of caches includes checking in reguraly to make sure the status is ok.

I recently posted a note saying something similar to what you said, on a cache that had been disabled for a few months. The reply I got back said, in part, "Sorry I haven't been able to fix my cache. My husband was in a car accident and my daughter was diagnosed with cancer."

 

 

Sometimes even the best of intentions are derailed by forces out of our control. A missing box of McToys just isn't important in comparison.

 

I continue to believe that peer pressure is the solution to this "problem." Anything automated will just end up catching innocent caches in the crossfire.

[+HartClimbs]

Guess you know best.

 

Closing the topic so Hemlock doesn't have to keep rebutting cachers opinions.