When You (don't) Find A Cache In Trouble...

[+Moose Mob]

<snip> If a cache is pretty much destroyed--container turned to mulch, log shreaded, trinkets chewed--I guess you could argue that's a "maintenance issue." Me, I'd say that's a no longer viable cache.

 

Besides, the log is only for the status of the cache at that point in time. It doesn't always mean the cache should be retired and no other cache put in it's place, does it? Nope.

<snip>

I would also recommend documentation of shredded caches or those subjected to high temeratures with your SBA post. It helps the admins to confirm the demise of the cache.

 

I have only posted 7 SBA's. A lot of thought and research went into posting them. First I always make sure I am not the only person who can't find it. Atempt to contact the owner. In ALL cases, the cache owner has not logged in for at least 3 months. Sometimes over a year since last login. Send an e-mail and wait for thier response. Yes, posing an SBA could be considered being a "cache-police", I consider it assisting future cachers to be able to find what they are looking for.

 

Note: Since I did not post the photos with the SBA, the Smashed Cache is still active after 6 weeks. (3 weeks ago the owner said they might replace it nearby?)

[+planetrobert]

Third, posting a note, shooting off an email and waiting for a response, well, means you have to wait. You have to monitor that cache. In the meantime, while you are waiting, other folks have the pleasure of hunting a cache that needs replacing. Is that fair to those other folks? I'd say not.

 

While just like replacing a container, it would be nice if another cacher monitors the status of your cache, I don't think you should expect them to. An SBA relieves them of that "duty."

 

So, by posting an SBA you alert the owner the cache has serious <---(note) maintenance issues, alerts potential finders of maintenance issues (so they can avoid what might be less than pleasurable experience), and you don't have to wait around monitoring someone else's cache.

That is EXACTLY what I was thinking and why I have used the SBA log, if you wanna replace it or fire me an email asking me to do so and it isn't a big deal for me yeah i'd do it, otherwise I am not gonna mess with somebody elses cache and get their panties in a wad(this has never to me also i must say tho).

 

I feel that the SBA does two purposes, 1 alerts the owner of a serious problem, 2 alerts potential seekers.

[+southdeltan]

"Should be archived" means just that - it doesn't mean the cache needs maintanence - it means you need to remove the cache and de-list the cache. 

You are most certainly correct. If a cache is pretty much destroyed--container turned to mulch, log shreaded, trinkets chewed--I guess you could argue that's a "maintenance issue." Me, I'd say that's a no longer viable cache.

 

Besides, the log is only for the status of the cache at that point in time. It doesn't always mean the cache should be retired and no other cache put in it's place, does it? Nope.

 

Second, not everyone reads the logs before hunting a cache. A lot of time you only need to scan the caches log icons to get an idea of if it's worth hunting maintenance-wise. A lot of DNFs or a lot notes raises a red flag. A smilie pretty much says it good to go. So, if you find a cache and post a smilie, but the cache is in serious need of maintenance--like replacing--what does the smilie tell the person who only scans the log types?

 

Third, posting a note, shooting off an email and waiting for a response, well, means you have to wait. You have to monitor that cache. In the meantime, while you are waiting, other folks have the pleasure of hunting a cache that needs replacing. Is that fair to those other folks? I'd say not.

 

While just like replacing a container, it would be nice if another cacher monitors the status of your cache, I don't think you should expect them to. An SBA relieves them of that "duty."

 

So, by posting an SBA you alert the owner the cache has serious <---(note) maintenance issues, alerts potential finders of maintenance issues (so they can avoid what might be less than pleasurable experience), and you don't have to wait around monitoring someone else's cache.

 

Besides, I don't know of any reviewers who are so quick on the archive trigger to pull it over a maintenance issue until the owner has time to respond.

 

Plus, it's not as if they can't unarchive it if if passes muster.

 

HOPEFULLY, the "needs maintainence" log type isn't just a rumor and then this issue goes away.

Ditto. But, I'd still hold that known destroyed caches would warrant an SBA. Besides, you did trash it out, right?

 

What? You gonna make the owner go in and CITO it?

I've never found a cache like that, so I can't say what I would or wouldn't do - but I don't think that automatically warrants a "should be archived" log. If the owner is inactive, yes. If the owner is very active, no.

 

Should be archived means, to me, that you should remove your cache and delist it. It doesn't mean maintainence. You can TELL me that by putting it in a note, if you're so worried about people making assumptions.

 

I don't think you have any duty when it comes to somebody elses cache. You can be courteous, and I certainly welcome that, but as said before I don't expect people to maintain caches for me.

 

I don't understand why the SBA ICON on a log makes any difference to the content of the log. You can put the same information about maintanence in a note, find, or dnf. SBA's indicate you should remove the cache - not that you should repair it.

 

Who's to decide how a cache hider handles a damaged, destroyed, or missing cache. It's entirely up to the hider to decide if they will repair, replace, or archive the cache. I don't need you telling me to archive a cache just because you don't think it's viable. Give me a chance to make it viable. Post a note.

 

There's no reason to upset a cacher by posting a SBA log on a viable or potentially viable cache or location. A lot of geocachers are "part time" geocachers - they don't read the forums, and don't know all of the "finer points" of cache etiquette. They often will take offense at that, or be confused, or think they did something wrong.

 

As for approvers - it's obvious that some have quicker trigger fingers than others.

 

In response to your last comment - Nope, I wouldn't. If they use a container that would "turn to mulch" then they deserve to have to CITO it themself

[+southdeltan]

That is EXACTLY what I was thinking and why I have used the SBA log, if you wanna replace it or fire me an email asking me to do so and it isn't a big deal for me yeah i'd do it, otherwise I am not gonna mess with somebody elses cache and get their panties in a wad(this has never to me also i must say tho).

 

I feel that the SBA does two purposes, 1 alerts the owner of a serious problem, 2 alerts potential seekers.

After reading your other posts, I really think my first impressions on the reasoning for this thread are correct. You have a specific incident (or incidents) that you're concerned about. You're trying to take the views on damaged/destroyed/missing caches (in general) and apply it to a specific incident to justify your actions. I don't see how that's possible.

 

From what I've read - if a certain cacher makes a stop to check on a cache (even if spur of the moment) they oughta be prepared to do the repairs if they think there's a reason for them to check on it. Especially if it's a micro (small container/logsheet - cheap, etc). Otherwise, why check on it?

 

I can understand how certain other cachers would get upset. I'd probably think that the certain cacher checked just so they could post a SBA on my cache.

 

---

 

As far as I'm concerned, SBA's serve one purpose - to tell the hider (or the approvers) that the cache needs to be removed - period.

 

southdeltan

[CoyoteRed]

SBA's indicate you should remove the cache - not that you should repair it.

I think this, right here, is the sticking point.

 

My contention is that it doesn't mean you have to remove the cache. Like I said, a cache can be in such bad shape that it just not viable. (Note I'm leaving "viable" open for interpretation, so yes, "viable" will be in my opinion.) BUT, if you fix it, it will fine.

 

It's not as if an SBA is saying that a cache can't be there. I think that would be closer to "The Cache Should Never Have Been Approved."

 

I think the true meaning of an SBA is "Should Be Archived Unless You Get Out There And Repair It."

 

But that's a little long--> SBAUYGOTARI

 

EDIT EXPAND A LITTLE: If an SBA meant that you had to remove the cache, but the site was still okay to place one, that would mean you could place another one, right? So, you place another cache in the same exact spot, what have you done? Nothing but create a new cache page, but not a new hunt! See how the logic doesn't follow?

 

The logic you are presenting would mean that an SBA could only be used if the cache location is not safe, legal, or ethical. (If it's still there.) In other words, it should not ahve been approved or conditions have changed to the point it has to be removed.

Edited November 29, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+planetrobert]

After reading your other posts, I really think my first impressions on the reasoning for this thread are correct. You have a specific incident (or incidents) that you're concerned about. You're trying to take the views on damaged/destroyed/missing caches (in general) and apply it to a specific incident to justify your actions. I don't see how that's possible.

Yes there is a specific, yet unnamed 'incident' which hopefully will remain that way so this can stay as a peaceful discussion, because as we all know once a name is dropped the witch hunt begins.

 

I am not trying to justify my actions, just get a feel for what others think so that I can if needed adjust my actions accordingly. I feel what has been done has been done and there is a) no changing that AND trying to feel justified doesn't help a situation.

 

From what I've read - if a certain cacher makes a stop to check on a cache (even if spur of the moment) they oughta be prepared to do the repairs if they think there's a reason for them to check on it.  Especially if it's a micro (small container/logsheet - cheap, etc).  Otherwise, why check on it?

 

Suppose the reason, and yes this is my motivation for multiple visits, is to read over the log and see who was there and what they said, even a micro log tells a story.

[+planetrobert]

I think the true meaning of an SBA is "Should Be Archived Unless You Get Out There And Repair It."

[+southdeltan]

SBA's indicate you should remove the cache - not that you should repair it.

I think this, right here, is the sticking point.

 

My contention is that it doesn't mean you have to remove the cache.

It is the sticking point.

 

My contention is that it means the cache needs to be removed. (That doesn't necessarily mean the cache never should have been approved. Locations, situations, etc - change. At the time it was approved the location, the container, the hide, etc - could have been viable. The cache owner obviously was active, but if he's no longer active, there may not be anybody to repair it).

 

A LARGE number of geocachers feel that SBA means the cache should be removed. A LARGE number of those geocachers don't read the forums, and don't necessarily know general geocaching etiquette - and subsequently they get upset when there's a SBA.

 

SBA's aren't a maintainence solution, imo.

 

A "needs maintainence" log has great potential to be a viable solution.

 

 

sd

[CoyoteRed]

A "needs maintainence" log has great potential to be a viable solution.

Yup.

[+planetrobert]

How about this...

 

Hi <insert name here>,

 

I have recently visited your cache and am concerned about it's condition.  I feel that it is  <option 1> destroyed beyond repair, I found bits and pieces  <option 2> plundered, I or another cacher in my group previously found it and it is not in it's previous location or anywhere around

 

While I have posted a SBA log that doesn't truly mean I believe that to be the case, more like... True meaning of an SBA should be "Should Be Archived Unless You Get Out There And Repair It."

 

If you can not repair it and would like to have me repair this cache if it is not to far out for me too I can do so at your request.  I will not be monitoring this cache to see if further action is needed on my part.  Any action will need to be initiated by you or a GC admin.

 

<insert your name here>

[+Markwell]

But should the needs maintenance REPLACE the SBA log? Doubtful. I think they should BOTH be in place. SBA log for when the cache needs to be removed and never replaced; "needs maintenance" for when the cache is sick, shredded, mishandled, out of room in the log book, etc., etc., etc.

 

could be the icon.

 

However, what the log DOES (notify the site administrators, and subsequently the local reviewer) should be the same for SBA and Needs Maintenance.

[+southdeltan]

From what I've read - if a certain cacher makes a stop to check on a cache (even if spur of the moment) they oughta be prepared to do the repairs if they think there's a reason for them to check on it.  Especially if it's a micro (small container/logsheet - cheap, etc).  Otherwise, why check on it?

 

Suppose the reason, and yes this is my motivation for multiple visits, is to read over the log and see who was there and what they said, even a micro log tells a story.

I don't think your reason's are as important as the perception that your actions may have.

 

I can understand how certain other cachers would get upset. I'd probably think that the certain cacher checked just so they could post a SBA on my cache.

 

How is a person to know what your reason for checking is? I just know how it'd look to me. I guess that'd be my problem for assuming - but it's a hard habit to break for many people.

 

If you care enough about the cache to check the logs, why tell the person to archive it?

 

sd

[+planetrobert]

How is a person to know what your reason for checking is? I just know how it'd look to me. I guess that'd be my problem for assuming - but it's a hard habit to break for many people.

seems to be a common problem.

 

If you care enough about the cache to check the logs, why tell the person to archive it?

 

If it is gone, it is gone, they can decide at that point what to do.

 

FOUND IT - ralann (x finds)

Nice cache, found the spot but no cache, THANKS

[+southdeltan]

EDIT EXPAND A LITTLE: If an SBA meant that you had to remove the cache, but the site was still okay to place one, that would mean you could place another one, right? So, you place another cache in the same exact spot, what have you done? Nothing but create a new cache page, but not a new hunt! See how the logic doesn't follow?

The logic doesn't follow because there's no reason to remove the cache (and archive the cache page) if the site is ok. If the sites ok, you put another container there. If the containers in the same place there's no reason for a new cache page. If you put the container back in the same spot it's the same cache.

 

The logic you are presenting would mean that an SBA could only be used if the cache location is not safe, legal, or ethical.  (If it's still there.) In other words, it should not ahve been approved or conditions have changed to the point it has to be removed.

 

I don't agree that it would mean the cache shouldn't be there, but the conditions could have changed. Or (and this doesn't exactly mean it shouldn't have been placed, but I guess it's close) perhaps there is now proof that the location isn't a viable one for the cache. On the surface everything looked fine, but later you find out it's a place where some illegal activity takes place. I suppose that would mean it shouldn't have been approved, but it doesn't assign guilt or negligence to the hider or approver.

 

sd

[+southdeltan]

But should the needs maintenance REPLACE the SBA log? Doubtful. I think they should BOTH be in place. SBA log for when the cache needs to be removed and never replaced; "needs maintenance" for when the cache is sick, shredded, mishandled, out of room in the log book, etc., etc., etc.

 

could be the icon.

 

However, what the log DOES (notify the site administrators, and subsequently the local reviewer) should be the same for SBA and Needs Maintenance.

"Needs maintenance" should NOT replace "Should be archived". They cover two different problems.

 

I'm totally sold on the idea that needs maintenance should notify the admin/approvers.

 

sd

[+southdeltan]

FOUND IT - ralann (x finds)

Nice cache, found the spot but no cache, THANKS

Why would you log a find if you didn't find the cache? Just because you found the "obvious" spot where it should be doesn't mean it hasn't been moved. (among other things)

 

If you can't find it, log a DNF.

 

sd

[+planetrobert]

FOUND IT - ralann (x finds)

Nice cache, found the spot but no cache, THANKS

Why would you log a find if you didn't find the cache? Just because you found the "obvious" spot where it should be doesn't mean it hasn't been moved. (among other things)

 

If you can't find it, log a DNF.

 

sd

I was just going over the current options I wasn't really serious

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I mean this particular person drove across town after the cache got a single no find on it.  They could have taken the time to bring a film canister with them, they knew it was a film canister.

Maybe the cacher in question lived near the cache and was just passing by and thought they would do a quick check. What do you do it you don't use a film camera? where do you get film canisters?

Robert you know full well that you hit SBA on one of my caches without bothering to email me. Ever. You have done this again and again to cachers. You are hitting that button as a way to get to people who you don't like and who don't like you.

 

Quit starting threads to deflect responsibility for hitting that SBA button more than anyone else and perhaps quit sticking your nose in other peoples business. You could have emailed me and you didn't.

 

Oh and film canisters are available for free, at any WalMart.

 

Emails are free too.

[+planetrobert]

you know full well that you hit SBA on one of my caches without bothering to email me. Ever.

Wrong

 

You have done this again and again to cachers.  You are hitting that button as a way to get to people who you don't like and who don't like you.

 

Actually I don't dislike you, rooster, bufford or anybody else. If you dislike me this is the first I heard of it(and i don't mean today). If I was using that button as a weapon of hate and actually hated somebody here I would have gone on a button clicking spree. Sometimes i get annoyed with people, but who doesn't.

 

Quit starting threads to deflect responsibility for hitting that SBA button more than anyone else

 

I am not trying to deflect responsibility

 

perhaps quit sticking your nose in other peoples business

 

I am not sticking my nose in other peoples buisness

 

You could have emailed me and you didn't.

 

Actually I did about a week before I hit the button

 

Oh and film canisters are available for free, at any WalMart.

 

Did not know that, thanks for the fyi.

[+ValleyRat & TillyMouse]

I'm a relative newbie to this wonderful sport, but.... I have found two "camo micros" that were no longer in the original location. One had apparently been muggled and all contenrts removed. It was laying in the grass. I logged it as such; maybe I should have logged it as FOUND, but ...

 

The second one was intact but in the grass below the tree where it apparently was placed originally. I placed it in a tree hollow at the original coordinates, hoping that was the original location.

 

Being new, I'm not sure this was the proper action. Any comments?

[+planetrobert]

I'm a relative newbie to this wonderful sport, but.... I have found two "camo micros" that were no longer in the original location. One had apparently been muggled and all contenrts removed. It was laying in the grass. I logged it as such; maybe I should have logged it as FOUND, but ...

 

The second one was intact but in the grass below the tree where it apparently was placed originally. I placed it in a tree hollow at the original coordinates, hoping that was the original location.

 

Being new, I'm not sure this was the proper action. Any comments?

<sarcasm>if you get to within the 30ft circle of confusion I say it is a find weather the cache is there or not.</sarcasm>

 

sounds good to me.

[+planetrobert]

Also I want to say a couple more things...

 

sorry I offended anybody, didn't mean to, not at all, it just isn't my way.

 

I will leave leave this thread open for another day, maybe two to let you all get your opinion out.

 

You may now return to your regularly scheduled post...

[+BadAndy]

I wasn't gonna wade in here....but I can't resist.

 

I've had caches go missing, received a couple dnf's, checked on it, and replaced it. No archival nessesary.

 

I've had caches ruined, received a note to that effect from a finder, temporarily disabled it, replaced the cache, and reenabled it. No archival nessesary.

 

I had a cache go missing 3 times in a month, disabled it, forgot about it for 5 months, got an sba and said to myself...yeah...I should archive the sucker so someone else can lose a cache there.

 

Missing or trashed caches don't need to be archived, the owners just need to deal with them in a timley fashion, by disabling it until it's replaced/fixed.

 

An SBA is only needed when a cache owner fails to follow up on things that could go wrong with a cache, or if it's placed on pvt property without permission, or if the bomb squad blows it up. Everything else is simple maintenance.

 

It's tough enough getting caches approved these days without overzealous cachers wanting them archived because they didn't look hard enough, or a squirrel got ahold of the cache.

[+ibycus]

Anyone know how an SBA is treated by geocaching admin? I've always assumed it raises a big ol' red flag that brings a reviewer running (and I've always treated it as such). If this is the case, then it hardly seems necessary or even desirable to bring in a third party when the owner may be just as able to make the determination themselves.

Posting an SBA to me carries the assumption that the owner won't take appropriate action on their own, and maybe needs an extra push by admin, or even by receiving an SBA log itself to take appropriate action.

SBA to me is a last resort. I will only post it if I can't get a hold of the people who should be notified, and a third party needs to be brought in to sort things out.

 

A simple not finding the cache is never enough for me to post a SBA, even if the cache is missing. If the cache is missing, and you KNOW it is missing, post a DNF and mention it. A responsible owner should follow up very quickly with a disabling, and what they are going to do about it very quickly.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Wow.... what a hot topic. Sounds like some folks want a SBA button for fellow cachers.

 

I'm lucky to live in a friendly caching environment. When people haven't found my cache they post a DNF -- I always then send a note asking if they would like an additional hint. If, together, we determine they were looking in the right place I suppose I could Archive -- hasn't happened yet. I even had a cacher find used syringes near a cache and they were nice enough to just let me know and make the decision on my own (I archived, moved and re-instated)

 

In the event of a broken container: people post a note, I post a note saying when I will fix. In several cases, I've had fellow cachers send me a note saying "don't worry about it, I'm in the area and will replace the container for you"

 

From the sounds of some of the posts in this thread -- some people are more concerned about other cachers activities then they are about finding and placing caches. Personally, I hate people that vote themselves the right to live in my back pocket. If you don't like someone or their caches -- it's called a filter -- learn how to use it.

 

Of course, I've never had any problems.

[+planetrobert]

people post a note, I post a note saying when I will fix. In several cases, I've had fellow cachers send me a note saying "don't worry about it, I'm in the area and will replace the container for you"

Not always an option

 

From the sounds of some of the posts in this thread -- some people are more concerned about other cachers activities then they are about finding and placing caches.

 

More like, concerned about a serious<--note problem with a particular cache, NOT cacher

 

If you don't like someone or their caches -- it's called a filter -- learn how to use it.

 

The only caches I don't like, and I mean TRUELY don't like, are ones that are missing or destroyed. Micros, I don't run out to find first, but they are ok, I have ranted about them but that is just a little venting.

 

Of course, I've never had any problems.

 

Guess you'll never know till you are in the shoes.

[+ibycus]

Wow.... what a hot topic. Sounds like some folks want a SBA button for fellow cachers.

 

I'm lucky to live in a friendly caching environment. When people haven't found my cache they post a DNF -- I always then send a note asking if they would like an additional hint. If, together, we determine they were looking in the right place I suppose I could Archive -- hasn't happened yet. I even had a cacher find used syringes near a cache and they were nice enough to just let me know and make the decision on my own (I archived, moved and re-instated)

 

In the event of a broken container: people post a note, I post a note saying when I will fix. In several cases, I've had fellow cachers send me a note saying "don't worry about it, I'm in the area and will replace the container for you"

 

From the sounds of some of the posts in this thread -- some people are more concerned about other cachers activities then they are about finding and placing caches. Personally, I hate people that vote themselves the right to live in my back pocket. If you don't like someone or their caches -- it's called a filter -- learn how to use it.

 

Of course, I've never had any problems.

Agreed, we are lucky up here (I'm assuming you're the same Dog I know). Reading some of these forums is a little scary. Some people can be soooooo mean.

I for one always assume the best of others. Like for example the guy who said that some other guy seemed to get delight out of posting SBA logs, may just have been trying to be an active and positive participant, by going out and seeing what was going on when the cache owner hasn't done it yet. They might be watching all caches they have found looking for prominant DNF logs, and go out and confirm that the cache is missing. Other than logging it as a SBA log as opposed to notifying the owner that the cache is in fact gone, sounds like the kind of guy I'd like to have in my area, and as this thread has shown, there is some definite confusion over exactly what a SBA log means. To me, the appropriate of an SBA log rests on wheather it red flags it for a reviewer. No point in putting extra work on them when the owner could just as easily make the decision.

[+planetrobert]

I for one always assume the best of others. Like for example the guy who said that some other guy seemed to get delight out of posting SBA logs, may just have been trying to be an active and positive participant, by going out and seeing what was going on when the cache owner hasn't done it yet. They might be watching all caches they have found looking for prominant DNF logs, and go out and confirm that the cache is missing.

I do watch MOST all caches in my area for just that reason. Also use a little tool to find caches that have not been found for a LONG time.

 

a couple examples of what I have found recently...

 

This one used to be a rickety old bridge, now there is a pipe culvert in it's place.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e1-cfbfd72f75be

 

This one the area has had a ditch dug right through the cache location and it is surely gone as is the owner.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7f-c96efbcf4417

 

This one has a bum camp right nearby and the cache is deffinatly missing. Both and the last spot I spent over an hour each confirming that the cache was gone.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...2b-504ca11d5764

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

 

If you don't like someone or their caches -- it's called a filter -- learn how to use it.

 

The only caches I don't like, and I mean TRUELY don't like, are ones that are missing or destroyed. Micros, I don't run out to find first, but they are ok, I have ranted about them but that is just a little venting.

 

Of course, I've never had any problems.

 

Guess you'll never know till you are in the shoes.

 

Well... I use the filter to elimintate caches that haven't been found in awhile, I then sort out those that have lots of DNF's (especially if they are rated 1's or 2's). Then, I go out and enjoy the hobby. However, I'm new as well.

 

It just strikes me as odd that people are so concerned about other people's caches and maintenance habits.

 

If you do not find - then DNF. You don't know if they are missing or destroyed. If you do -- then why are you hunting them?

 

If you are out on a hunt and there is an obvious addition of an environmental or health hazard then post a note. If you find a cache with live ammo, drugs, or pornography in it then SBA.

 

Maybe I just don't get it, but is seems so obvous to me that SBA is basically saying "take this cache off the site" The only motive for that should be A> if you see danger B> if you see the cache contents scattered all over the place (and common decency says pick it up and re-cache it or return to the owner)

 

As for running around and revisiting caches you've already found and then SBA-ing them....well...no comment on that.`

[+planetrobert]

If you do not find - then DNF. You don't know if they are missing or destroyed. If you do -- then why are you hunting them?

Already answered that earlier in this thread.

 

As for running around and revisiting caches you've already found and then SBA-ing them....well...no comment on that.`

 

99% of the time I don't even post a note, just read the logs and continue on along my way.

 

2 of the 3 i posted as examples have owners who are totally MIA the third I confirmed that the area had been totally changed, replacing the cache would have been out of the question.

[+ibycus]

It just strikes me as odd that people are so concerned about other people's caches and maintenance habits.

 

If you do not find - then DNF. You don't know if they are missing or destroyed. If you do -- then why are you hunting them?

The concern over other people's maintenance habits probably makes more sense in a more cache dense area, like some places in the states, if you're always going after abandoned caches, you might get pretty sick of it, and decide to try to do something about it.

There are times when even though you didn't find the cache, you can *know* it isn't there. For example, I went after a cache by the Ogganites around Longville. The Ogganites haven't been around in a while, so any maintenance likely won't be done by them. Anyways, the cache was hidden behind a fence post (really the only place available to hide in the area). Behind the fence post in question, there was a rectangular dead patch of grass, the exact size of the described container. Now I am absolutely sure that cache is gone, even though I never *actually* found the container.

Then there was Point of View III, hidden by Geo Wolf. He tends to come and go. I've had trouble getting in touch with him in the past. Point of View III was hidden under a trash can beside a busy street (cut grass all around, nothing else within the circle of error). I found the rocks that had been obscuring the cache, but no cache in sight. Now there I was pretty sure that I had looked in every possible place around that trash can for the cache, but I wasn't absolutely sure that the cache was gone. I sent an e-mail to the owner just in case, and I also contacted a previous finder to confirm that the cache was in fact gone. I then posted a SBA log as I didn't expect Geo Wolf to do the required maintenance (not that I'm trashing Geo Wolf, he does place some very nice caches, I just personally have a hard time getting a hold of him, maybe my spam filters block him, or vice-versa)

I also occaisionally check on other people's caches that I liked when I'm in the area, just to give them an is/is not there message if it hasn't been found in a while.

[+ironman114]

If you find a cache that is severely damaged(beyond repair), OR missing, what do you think is appropriate?

 

What do you think?

Twice in your opening post you asked what other people think!

 

Let them post what they think without your badgering them to think the way yopu think!

 

You asked for their opinion now let them give it without harassment by you.

 

I had 2 logs noting the logbook was wet. Should it be archived just because it took a few days to get to it?

 

I had a cache that was missing. Should it be archived because one person couldn't find it?

 

How about after 3 more couldn't find it? I talked to all 3 of them and determined that it really was missing and stated I would fix it on thanksgiving dayand disabled it. I didn't get to it should it be archived cause I had a chance to spend some time with my granddaughter who was born 3 months prematureand postponed replacing it for a week?

 

Let the people voice their opinion without your comebacks and then read and tally what their views are thaat is what you asked for!!!

[+planetrobert]

You asked for their opinion now let them give it without harassment by you.

 

<snip>

 

Let the people voice their opinion without your comebacks and then read and tally what their views are thaat is what you asked for!!!

I don't even know why I bother.

[+Snoogans]

 

You could have emailed me and you didn't.

 

Actually I did about a week before I hit the button

 

I wasn't going to bother with this thread anymore, but I got a mental picture of a vulture circling a dead animal after reading that. Just thought I'd share.

 

What's the big deal? So someone else finds the same problem you noted. So you hope to save other people's time and disappointment? Is that it???

 

I get the feeling that you want to clean up Dodge and that is the definition of self appointed cache police to me. You may believe you have a noble cause, but if all it's doing is making waves then maybe you need to rethink how you are going about helping.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't agree that it would mean the cache shouldn't be there...

Okay, now you've got me really confused. It seems as though you've eliminated all reasons that a cache should be archived.

 

If the cache is known missing or destroyed, no SBA should be issued because the owner can replace it.

 

Can't archive it because you've found a reason it shouldn't have been approved.

 

Can't archive it because conditions have changed.

 

Can't archive it if it is no longer a viable cache.

 

What other reason is left? It's almost as if you're arguing an SBA should never be issued. If so, then why does it exist?

 

No, an SBA can be issued for any reason an approver might archive it or cause it not to be approved in the first place, grandfathering aside.

 

Eh, I think I'll go back to my original thinking on when to issue an SBA. If it's not a viable cache, archive it or fix it. I'll even CITO it out if it's in too bad of shape.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

If you find a cache that is severely damaged(beyond repair), OR missing, what do you think is appropriate?

 

What do you think?

Twice in your opening post you asked what other people think!

 

Let the people voice their opinion without your comebacks and then read and tally what their views are thaat is what you asked for!!!

That is not the reason for this guys posts. As I claimed earlier it's a way to justify his quick SBA finger. This guy actually drives around to other cachers caches in Klamath County to see if they're there or not. He spends time doing this and then instead of fixing them as needed he rushes home to "tattle" on them and clicks the SBA button.

 

He was hoping that everyone would agree with his actions so he could justify them. Instead he's discovering that being a self appointed GeoCop isn't appreciated.

 

Well he should be discovering that.....

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

 

I get the feeling that you want to clean up Dodge and that is the definition of self appointed cache police to me. You may believe you have a noble cause, but if all it's doing is making waves then maybe you need to rethink how you are going about helping.

Bingo

 

.

[Keystone]

Anyone know how an SBA is treated by geocaching admin? I've always assumed it raises a big ol' red flag that brings a reviewer running (and I've always treated it as such). If this is the case, then it hardly seems necessary or even desirable to bring in a third party when the owner may be just as able to make the determination themselves.

Posting an SBA to me carries the assumption that the owner won't take appropriate action on their own, and maybe needs an extra push by admin, or even by receiving an SBA log itself to take appropriate action.

SBA to me is a last resort. I will only post it if I can't get a hold of the people who should be notified, and a third party needs to be brought in to sort things out.

 

A simple not finding the cache is never enough for me to post a SBA, even if the cache is missing. If the cache is missing, and you KNOW it is missing, post a DNF and mention it. A responsible owner should follow up very quickly with a disabling, and what they are going to do about it very quickly.

I am one of several volunteers who receive copies of the log notices for all SBA logs worldwide. I also respond to the logs that relate to my little corner of the world. Based on my experience, SBA's fall into four categories:

 

1. Archive the cache immediately. There is a safety, law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue. Example: the LAX airport cache that resulted in the detention and interrogation of Otter & Lemur. It was archived by the volunteer for Washington and Oregon, who stepped outside of regular channels. I would've done the same thing had I been the first official person to see the request.

 

2. Archive the cache, not because there's an immediate problem, but because it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing. This is typically done either by the volunteer who's responsible for routing all the SBA logs to the various regional volunteers, or by the regional volunteer for the area where the cache is located.

 

3. Post a note to the cache page in response to the SBA log, providing the owner with an opportunity to fix the problem, and then following up in a few weeks to make sure the issue has received attention from the owner. This is done by the regional volunteer. In cases where there's a legitimate maintenance need like a wet or possibly missing container, but not a trail of evidence that the owner has ignored their responsibility, it is appropriate to give the owner a fair chance to respond.

 

4. Do nothing. Some SBA notes are logged purely as a matter of frustration, either because of a personal dispute with the cache owner or an inability to find the cache. Or, newbies often mistakenly assume that because they cannot find the cache when their GPS zeroes out, it *must* be missing and therefore should be archived. Or, folks simply choose the wrong log option. Each day, there's usually an SBA note that says "we really enjoyed the hike to this beautiful spot. We took a toy bear and left a screwdriver set. Thanks for the cache."

 

I hope that this is helpful. Please note that these are my personal observations as one of 50 or so volunteers, and others may treat SBA's somewhat differently.

[+Kit Fox]

I have another dimension to add to the debate.

 

Suppose the cache owner Temporarily Archives their cache. They post a note that they will replace the missing cache within a week. 7 to 9 months goes by and no effort has been made to replace the archived cache.

 

The cache is in a nice park (good place to hide caches), the owner has logged on to the website recently but they have done nothing to replace thier cache.

 

I posted a note on one of the above-mentioned caches.

 

On another cache I was accosted by an non-uniformed, "dirt bag", who told me I was trespassing on private property. I recommended that the cache should be archived due to the trespassing issue. I check back and the owner ignored my recommendations. The cache is still listed as active.

 

Bill,

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Does Groundspeak track absentee owners? My thought is that if someone does not log onto the site for --- maybe 6 months? and they have caches, then they should be contacted by Groundspeak with a "Pending Archive" note for ALL their caches. If they respond - great. If not, then those caches should be archived -- because there is no maintenance being done on them or contact with the owner. Then, if they are known to be good caches by local cachers, they can be adopted or replaced by someone able to do the maintenance. I hope if I tragically die in a car crash that someone will say "where the heck did that guy go -- let's maintain his caches because they are in such beautiful places" Just try to contact me first, okay?

 

As for a "cache-cop" deciding that they want to maintain my cache.... go away. I'll maintain my own caches thank-you, you maintain yours. If you replace a container you find broken, you have my thanks, as you do if you post a note for me to replace it. If you ask Groundspeak to remove it, then you are over-stepping your bounds. Get a uniform if you must, but leave my caches out of it. Thank goodness all the local cachers here treat each other with respect.

 

SBA button? Safety, tresspassing, danger. I do NOT think it should be used for "missing" caches or "missing" owners -- although I think a purge process should be introduced for absentee cache owners. If a cache is no longer in a place you once found it in, then send a note to the owner and post a note on the log - don't SBA it. People should read logs before they go to a cache anyways. I haven't found many caches, but I did once return to a cache with a friend to introduce them to the hobby -- the cache was gone! As we walked past a gentleman on a nearby bench, we noticed a strange object next to him -- a GPSr! So much for missing.

 

As for purging unfound caches -- that's harder. If I am maintaining a cache, but it has never been found (remote location), then it is still valid -- As long as I can be contacted about it. Unmaintained caches are litter. However, maintaining other peoples caches is sort of rude if you aren't asked to. Imagine if someone started doing your yardwork and planting uninvited -- it *seems* friendly -- but is just plain wierd. If they clear some snow - that's nice and neighborly.

 

I guess to my way of thinking -- SBA is like pulling a fire alarm. It needs to be there, but don't be the little cacher that cries wolf. (except here....there really COULD be a wolf....)

[CoyoteRed]

People should read logs before they go to a cache anyways.

More irony.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Short answer:

 

IMHO

 

SBA should be used for an issue that is time-senstive and relates to the safety or legality of a cache.

 

SBA should not be used as a method of self-appointed cache maintenance.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

If you find a cache that is severely damaged(beyond repair), OR missing, what do you think is appropriate?

 

1) Post a SBA log? 

2) Ignore it and hope the owner checks on it?

3) Email the cache owner and just let other cachers continue to seek the missing cache untill the owner receives their email and disables the cache.

4) Post a DNF 

 

In my book posting the SBA log is appropriate in this situation.  The owner gets notified.  They can respond on the page with a note that says "hey, I'll fix it." if they want to do so.  It alerts other cachers of the problem so they don't wast their time looking for a MIA cache.

 

A SBA log is NOT A death axe on a cache.  Just a serious warning about the condition of the cache or lack there of.

 

What do you think?  T

 

I guess I should just answer the question originally asked in a more straightforward way....

 

1) No

2) No

3) Yes -- you're loading the question by suggesting people will seek a cache that isn't there --see my response to your 4th suggested reaction.

4) Yes -- it avoids the situtation you suggest is caused by people searching for caches that aren't there because it it is very important to read the logs before you go caching in case there are warnings about times of entry, permissions to property, construction in the area, etc.

 

IMHO:

SBA's are a serious warning to Groundspeak - see my previous posts

Notes and Logs are warnings and informaion to owners and cache seekers who can make their own decisions re: maintenance and seeking.

 

Thank you for asking what I think.

[+southdeltan]

I don't agree that it would mean the cache shouldn't be there...

Okay, now you've got me really confused. It seems as though you've eliminated all reasons that a cache should be archived.

 

If the cache is known missing or destroyed, no SBA should be issued because the owner can replace it.

 

Can't archive it because you've found a reason it shouldn't have been approved.

 

Can't archive it because conditions have changed.

 

Can't archive it if it is no longer a viable cache.

 

What other reason is left? It's almost as if you're arguing an SBA should never be issued. If so, then why does it exist?

 

No, an SBA can be issued for any reason an approver might archive it or cause it not to be approved in the first place, grandfathering aside.

 

Eh, I think I'll go back to my original thinking on when to issue an SBA. If it's not a viable cache, archive it or fix it. I'll even CITO it out if it's in too bad of shape.

Not nearly as confused as I am. I didn't say that, at least I certainly didn't mean any of that.

 

I think I found the problem:

I don't agree that it would mean the cache shouldn't be there, but the conditions could have changed.

should have said:have been approved

 

Basically, I misunderstood what you meant - I never thought that you meant you would find a cache that shouldn't have been approved because it was outside the guidelines. I was saying that the cache (and/or location) could have been fine when it was approved, but something changed at the location.

 

If the cache is known missing or destroyed, no SBA should be issued because the owner can replace it.

 

If the owner is active, there isn't necessarily a reason to post a SBA. If the owner is inactive (hasn't logged onto the website in months), then by all means it should be used. I'd think a SBA is serioius enough issue that somebody wanting to use it can take the time to click on the hiders profile to find that out.

 

Can't archive it because you've found a reason it shouldn't have been approved.

 

As I said, I was confused (for some reason) about what you meant.

 

Can't archive it because conditions have changed.

 

I didn't say, that - I actually meant you should post a SBA log.

 

Can't archive it if it is no longer a viable cache.

 

Define viable cache? I'm not sure what this means. To me a cache is more than the container. If the containers not viable - then that's not a reason. If the locations not viable, that is a reason.

 

sd

[+southdeltan]

I am one of several volunteers who receive copies of the log notices for all SBA logs worldwide. I also respond to the logs that relate to my little corner of the world. Based on my experience, SBA's fall into four categories:

 

1. Archive the cache immediately. There is a safety, law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue. Example: the LAX airport cache that resulted in the detention and interrogation of Otter & Lemur. It was archived by the volunteer for Washington and Oregon, who stepped outside of regular channels. I would've done the same thing had I been the first official person to see the request.

 

2. Archive the cache, not because there's an immediate problem, but because it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing. This is typically done either by the volunteer who's responsible for routing all the SBA logs to the various regional volunteers, or by the regional volunteer for the area where the cache is located.

 

3. Post a note to the cache page in response to the SBA log, providing the owner with an opportunity to fix the problem, and then following up in a few weeks to make sure the issue has received attention from the owner. This is done by the regional volunteer. In cases where there's a legitimate maintenance need like a wet or possibly missing container, but not a trail of evidence that the owner has ignored their responsibility, it is appropriate to give the owner a fair chance to respond.

 

4. Do nothing. Some SBA notes are logged purely as a matter of frustration, either because of a personal dispute with the cache owner or an inability to find the cache. Or, newbies often mistakenly assume that because they cannot find the cache when their GPS zeroes out, it *must* be missing and therefore should be archived. Or, folks simply choose the wrong log option. Each day, there's usually an SBA note that says "we really enjoyed the hike to this beautiful spot. We took a toy bear and left a screwdriver set. Thanks for the cache."

 

I hope that this is helpful. Please note that these are my personal observations as one of 50 or so volunteers, and others may treat SBA's somewhat differently.

As a fairly heavy forum reader, I was aware that this is pretty much how it generally goes. I know these are your personal procedures, but from what I've read and experienced (and been told by other approvers) this is generally how everybody does it.

 

Now - I know this because I spend way too much time reading forums. But like I've said time and time again (I think most people will agree with me), there are a LOT of people that never read the forums, and if they do so they're certainly not regular forum users.

 

This is the kind of information that needs to be posted somewhere in an FAQ. It wouldn't solve all of the confusion that some people have about the archival process, but it'd certainly help.

 

sd

[+planetrobert]

People should read logs before they go to a cache anyways.

More irony.

[Jeremy]

1. Archive the cache immediately. There is a safety, law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue. Example: the LAX airport cache that resulted in the detention and interrogation of Otter & Lemur. It was archived by the volunteer for Washington and Oregon, who stepped outside of regular channels. I would've done the same thing had I been the first official person to see the request.

 

2. Archive the cache, not because there's an immediate problem, but because it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing. This is typically done either by the volunteer who's responsible for routing all the SBA logs to the various regional volunteers, or by the regional volunteer for the area where the cache is located.

 

3. Post a note to the cache page in response to the SBA log, providing the owner with an opportunity to fix the problem, and then following up in a few weeks to make sure the issue has received attention from the owner. This is done by the regional volunteer. In cases where there's a legitimate maintenance need like a wet or possibly missing container, but not a trail of evidence that the owner has ignored their responsibility, it is appropriate to give the owner a fair chance to respond.

 

4. Do nothing. Some SBA notes are logged purely as a matter of frustration, either because of a personal dispute with the cache owner or an inability to find the cache. Or, newbies often mistakenly assume that because they cannot find the cache when their GPS zeroes out, it *must* be missing and therefore should be archived. Or, folks simply choose the wrong log option. Each day, there's usually an SBA note that says "we really enjoyed the hike to this beautiful spot. We took a toy bear and left a screwdriver set. Thanks for the cache."

 

I hope that this is helpful. Please note that these are my personal observations as one of 50 or so volunteers, and others may treat SBA's somewhat differently.

This has been my experience. Well explained. It's definitely the common sense approach to responding to SBA emails.

[+planetrobert]

3. Post a note to the cache page in response to the SBA log, providing the owner with an opportunity to fix the problem, and then following up in a few weeks to make sure the issue has received attention from the owner. This is done by the regional volunteer. In cases where there's a legitimate maintenance need like a wet or possibly missing container, but not a trail of evidence that the owner has ignored their responsibility, it is appropriate to give the owner a fair chance to respond.

That is the ticket. It doesn't mean, kill this cache NOW, it means, we have a problem here and it needs attention BEFORE anybody else seeks this one.

 

As KA says, you got fair time to respond and fix it if needed. That is how I have always though it worked.

[+southdeltan]

3.  Post a note to the cache page in response to the SBA log, providing the owner with an opportunity to fix the problem, and then following up in a few weeks to make sure the issue has received attention from the owner.  This is done by the regional volunteer.  In cases where there's a legitimate maintenance need like a wet or possibly missing container, but not a trail of evidence that the owner has ignored their responsibility, it is appropriate to give the owner a fair chance to respond.

That is the ticket. It doesn't mean, kill this cache NOW, it means, we have a problem here and it needs attention BEFORE anybody else seeks this one.

 

As KA says, you got fair time to respond and fix it if needed. That is how I have always though it worked.

That is often how it works. Like I've said, most people don't know that. I don't think that the issue is that people think there cache is automatically archived (although SOME people do think that) - it's more about how an active owner is going to feel (or what they'll think) when they get that SBA log.

 

I think it's obvious that a big issue is what cache owners (and cachers in general) think SBA means. I still say a lot of people think it means "You need to remove this cache permanantly and delist it - no questions asked". I mean, it's called "should be archived" not "should be archived unless you go out and do some maintainence". (I know people shouldn't assume, but they do - and people get confused and their feelings get hurt and they get angry - those are things that should be considered.)

 

I don't think this is about caches that are gone or destroyed and the owner no longer caches so he/she can't fix the problem or remove the cache. Of course those should be archived. I think the issue is about active geocachers and their caches. From the sounds of things, that may be what this really is about....

 

More specifically, it seems that certain cachers are posting lots of SBA's on caches that some people say don't deserve them. I'm sure if it is a problem, since all of the approvers get them - they're aware of the problem and will deal with it. (But I mean, seriously.. if a certain cacher has posted SBA logs on an active local cachers caches - and that cacher has said that he will replace or maintain his caches - why is this an issue? The certain cacher tried to help, the way he was helping wasn't welcomed, so he probably should find another way to help - or stop trying to help).

 

-----------

 

So, Jeremy - are there plans for a "needs maintainence" log? Or did am I dreaming that I saw that somewhere?

 

sd

[+Team Perks]

Does Groundspeak track absentee owners? My thought is that if someone does not log onto the site for --- maybe 6 months? and they have caches, then they should be contacted by Groundspeak with a "Pending Archive" note for ALL their caches. If they respond - great. If not, then those caches should be archived -- because there is no maintenance being done on them or contact with the owner.

I know of people who NEVER log on to GC.com but who DO read the cache logs as they come in and they check on their caches promptly if there is a reported problem. Just because someone isn't logging on to GC.com doesn't automatically mean they're derelict in their duties.