I guess this is a 2 part question and would like this to be a good and honest discussion as well.
1. When should a cache be archived?
2. Should complaints be validated before a cache is archived?
Printable View
I guess this is a 2 part question and would like this to be a good and honest discussion as well.
1. When should a cache be archived?
2. Should complaints be validated before a cache is archived?
I think that complaints should not be a valid reason to archive anything. So haffy I dont like your Frenches Mountain cache. Does that mean it's outta here if I can come up with a good lie and sell it well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haffy
This was just an example, I havent even done the Frenches Mountain cache.
And I think that we all know when a cache should be archived.
:)
Part 1: a.)When a cache is no longer loggable due to lack of maintenence or simply missing and when the original cache owner can not be reached or the original hider has shown no intention of maintaining or replacing the cache.
B.) When the cache is in violation of gc.com's hiding guidelines. c.) When the owner wishes to discontinue the cache.
Part 2: Only complaints that can be validated are legitimate complaints. An anonomous complainer should not be considered valid as the true intention behind the complaint is unknown. While the anonomous complainer may site specific things, those things may be fabricated with malice intent. Anonomous complainers that quote greviences of other as a focus for action are usually done to promote their own interest in hope to convince others they are the benefactors for the agrieved. This tactic is used as diversionary in hopes to shift blame onto the supposed person with a complaint, in case the complaint is found unjust and unvalid, which usually happens.
Because unvalidated complaints are simply that; unvalidated, it would be hard to pass a judgement without talking to the actual parties involved, not the supposed benefactor (usually anonomous) of the agrieved party. As details progress by those investigating, it may be found that there was no complaint or even knowledge of any conflict by those people cited as having the complaint.
Responding to these complaints in a punitive or definitive manner without validating the complaint is not fair to the person or party that the complaint was made against. Any action in favor of the unvalidated complaint is like saying that an individual is guilty until proven innocent, instead of the other way around. To reiterate, were punishing someone for a crime they may or may not have commited simply because someone said you did it.
The short answer: No, caches should not be archived based on unfounded and unvalidated complaints. Maybe disabled until circumstances can be properly investigated but not archived. I'm sure there are special circumstances to stand against my arguments here but I'm not debating those here.
What law school did you attend Steve.:eek: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
:D I was reading Steve's thread thinking the very same thing as you Brad . . . scary that we were thinking along the same lines, huh? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mainiac1957
There is a relatively new cache in my area that I have a complaint about. I have made my issue with it known to both the owner, and the entire geocaching community(needs maintenance icon), and NOTHING has been done about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haffy
Is it a serious issue?....yes and no....could someone get hurt because of it? not likely....could some one get questioned by muggles or the muggle force due to the area it is in?....yes....very likely. Should the cache be archived?....no....it's an okay cache. The owner has done nothing to fix this cache. I have heard through the geo grapevine that he has no plans to fix it and that he was somewhat pleased because then, cachers would have to search longer. I believe several other finders had the same problem with this cache. I don't know. I feel my complaint has been "validated" since others have had the same complaint, but I don't think that should force an archive. I think it depends on the situation, and every situation is going to be different, and handled accordingly.
Thankfully, we have a great approver in GPSFUN who is willing to guide us and educate us on how things will work. :)
Goooooo Steve, That was awesome. I should have called you to handle my Divorce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trezurs*-R-*Fun
OBTW, Why are divorces so expensive.....
Because their worth it.
LOL, LOL, LOL
From the reviewer perspective, there are separate archive situations.
In the case of a property owner complaint, including private property, trespassing, complaints from the managers or stewards of land parcels and the like, we typically will archive the cache immediately and then look into ways the property owner's issues might be mitigated. There are a few exceptions, but this is the general practice.
If we are notified of a situation where a cache should not have been published, e.g., placement on a railroad right of way, we will either un-publish the cache page if there are no find logs or archive it if there are find logs.
In the case of a "needs archived" note placed on a cache page, I will generally add a reviewer note to the page asking the cache owner to let me know their intentions within ten days. If I encounter a cache that has been inactivated for more than a month, I may post a reviewer note with the same question. Reviewer notes placed on a cache page cause an e-mail to be sent to the cache owner; if there is no response, I will archive the cache page.
It is not our goal to archive as many caches as we can; actually we would like to keep as many caches in play as we can. If a cache falls into poor condition, our actions are intended to motivate the cache owner to bring it back up to par. If you do a search or a pocket query to plan a geocaching outing, we would like the result to be a list of caches that are not going to disappoint you.
Also keep in mind that cache pages that have been archived can be unarchived if the issues are mitigated successfully.
Hope this helps.
Well we did this cache yesterday and it was one of my favorite short hikes with a view. But I get the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave1976
I have temporarily disabled my cahces when I recieved complaints.
But it does depend on tne nature of the complaint.
Some common complaintsL
Missing log, pen: replace on next maint. visit
Missing cache: verify as soon as posible
Wet cache:temporarily disable and fix on next maint. visit
Got feet wet going to/from the cache: do nothing
Ticks bugs, etc. at the cache: do nothing
Access complaints: Temporarily disable until the complaint is resolved.
Mis-read or mis-understood instructions: Temporarily disable the cache description can be made foolproof.
Complaints regarding GC.com rule violations: i.e. cache in railroad row. Temporarily disable and ask the reviewer for a ruling.
Complaints should always be considered. If the complaint is valid, it does not matter what the source is. However, if the compaint is from the land owner/manager, the cache needs to be disabled until their concerns are met. The land owner/manager has the final say, always.
I agree that all complaints should be considered. One of the benchmarks though is validity. One of the first steps to establishing that would be to determine it the complanent has a right to complain. For example, I can complain a farmer is driving to fast across his corn field. I can attempt to justify my complaint by saying, " the farmer could lose control of the tractor and careen out into traffic." Further more I could shift focus of the complaint and say," I heard people in town, especially the folks who live in the green house at the end of the corn field complain that the farmer drives his tractor too fast." Is this a valid complaint????? Without investigating the complaint you wouldn't know if there truly is a complaint or I may just making it hard for the farmer to do his farming. Not all sources offer legitimate complaints. No action, in regards to the complaint should be made until the complaint or complanent is validated. To do so in my example would be to punish the farmer without giving the farmer the benefit of due process.Quote:
Originally Posted by tat
Any others? I knew I should have gotten my degree and gone to law school...lol. Thanks for all the clarifications from everyone and also GPSfun our reviewer and know that there is more discussion to be had here.
We have not had any troubles with our two caches. But it seems to me that a complaint is only as good as its validity. Otherwise it's just whining. Trying to enhance the sport of caching, seems lately to be pushing the envelope, in trying to make the hides more ingenious. Not everyone is going to agree with some of them. My response comes once again from GPSfun." The sport is big enough for everyone. Just do the caches that appeal to you." A hike to the top of a mountain, or an urban lamp post micro. We have enjoyed this sport tremendously, we hope you do too.
"Who" complains is not relevant. In fact, everyone should feel encouraged to point out potential problems or rule violations.
What is relevant: Is the complaint valid. The complaint is valid if it is in violation of 1, Federal Law, 2. State Law, 3. Local Law, 4 Geocaching.com rules.
If the complaint is valid, obviously, the cache should be disabled until the violation can be rectified..
If I did not understand or agree that there is a violation, then I would be inclined to disable the cache.
If I was certain that the complaint is someone’s attempt to make their own rules, I would not disable the cache.
Just having a little fun here. . . . Incidentally, I agree with the problem-solutions you presented. Couldn't help myself though so this is what I came up with . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by tat
Missing log: ask that the geocacher write out his log on birchbark . . . barring that, ask that the next geocacher attempt to make his own paper on site if it is a missing log
Missing pen: ask the geocacher to make a small fire, douse the fire and use the charcoal to write in the logbook
Missing cache: blame it on UFO alien abductions . . . first they abducted us and conducted their anal probe examinations on us . . . and now they're after our caches -- either that or tell the geocacher that he/she must not have realized that you have equipped your cache with a Romulan cloaking device
Wet cache: bring the towel you swiped from the Holiday Inn on the next trip in to dry out the cache
Feet wet going to the cache: advise the cacher that a) in the future they shouldn't go caching in the rain or right after ten days of rain if they want dry feet or b) advise the cacher that you truly are concerned about their feet and on the next trip in you'll pave the trail, erect bridges, etc.
Ticks/bugs at the cache: Immediately hire a cropduster to spray banned DDT . . . and mix in a little Agent Orange for those cachers who may feel as though there's too much vegetation for the cache to hide behind
Access complaints: If the issue is that access is too far or too muddy, etc. then buy a Jeep and leave it at the start of the trailhead for cachers to use. If the issue is landowner permission then attempt to buy the land from the landowner so that access will not be an issue.
Misread cache description: Include a link to the Hooked on Phonics website for those who have problems reading the cache if the issue is theirs . . . or consider hiring a professional writer to write up caches if the issue is your own
Yeah - Glad GPSFun is active in this forum. He's a big help to all of us. :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Haffy
you must have read the log someone wrote yesterday for one of my caches!Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighterjake
I have found that fireboots work well for wet feet! ;)
Actually I missed that . . . which cache?Quote:
Originally Posted by becket
They're not exactly made for hiking . . . though I do often wear an old pair while four wheeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollora
it was for birdsacre. guess it never rains where this person is from! not to mention that i pretty much spell out how to get within a few feet of the cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighterjake
I found a pair of zippered front, leather, interior boots for a steal (David was jealous);) and they are great for hiking. I need the steel toes as I fall a lot!:) The walking stick I got for Mother's Day helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighterjake
Guess these folks better get tough if they're going to cache in Maine. The caches aren't under lamp posts.
I found a cache this weekend that was a plastic container with a cracked lid and full of water. The cache contents were ruined, including the log. I put in a temporary log, a couple of pages in a baggie as that was all I had with me. When I logged the cache, I noticed the owner had never found a cache and this was the only one they had placed. They had logged on to GC.com in April but not since. I posted a maintenance issue for the cache which at this point is basically trash. It's a good spot so it would be good if it is replaced. I ran into a couple of caches in nice spots but were plastic jar types and were having problems. There is no substitute for an ammo box. :D
I think that this is an example of a :( condition that, if the cache owner does not fix it or archive it, should be recommended for archiving.Quote:
I found a cache this weekend that was a plastic container with a cracked lid and full of water. The cache contents were ruined, including the log. I put in a temporary log, a couple of pages in a baggie as that was all I had with me. When I logged the cache, I noticed the owner had never found a cache and this was the only one they had placed. They had logged on to GC.com in April but not since. I posted a maintenance issue for the cache which at this point is basically trash. It's a good spot so it would be good if it is replaced. I ran into a couple of caches in nice spots but were plastic jar types and were having problems. There is no substitute for an ammo box. :D
Nuff said.
I love my ammo boxes and tend to favor them when trying to decide where to drop a TB or signature item . . . although if a cache is a lock-n-lock or a good and dry plastic pickle jar or something similar I'll also drop something off . . . ones that are questionable I leave as a TNLN (I figure someone spent good money for a TB tag and I spent some money and time on my signature items for them to get ruined).Quote:
Originally Posted by parmachenee
That said, ammo boxes are not perfect for every situation -- I used a Nalgene bottle for a cache in Bangor due to the size and I have used some waterproof matchstick holders and magnetic key holders for a micro and micros as part of a multi-stage cache. I did however laminate the coords for the next stage in case of water penetration. In addition, I have one cache in Bangor with an ammo box that had water enter it . . . I didn't realize at the time that I was placing it in a low-lying area prone to puddling . . . I have since remedied that problem.
I acknowledge that there is sometimes a fine line between attempting to motivate a cache owner to make repairs through a "needs maintenance" log or through a "needs archived" log, and I am not being critical of parmachenee's actions to put the cache on life support while awaiting action by the cache owner. In fact, parmachenee is due a thank you for doing what could be done under the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by parmachenee
With that said, I suggest that this situation (cache in bad shape, owner with one hide and no finds, and a two month absence from the geocaching web site) could justify use of the "needs archived" log option.
Needs archived logs cause the reviewers to receive an e-mail copy of the log, and with that we can request the cache owner to let us know their intentions and place the cache page on a follow-up list for further action if the cache owner is unresponsive.
It's not about giving the cache owner a bad time - it's about helping to ensure that other area geocachers and visitors to your area have quality caches to find.
Hope this helps. Seriously.
It is my belief at least one of the caches referred to in this tread was placed on "temporarily unavailable" tonight along with all the others this owner placed. :confused: I have been trying to help the owner but he emailed he "just can't get the procedure of the game".
He said he hoped he had "permanently disabled" them. I don't think that really is the case. He is going to pick them all up tomorrow. :(
A shame - as with a little work - these would have probably all been ok. :mad: Actually I had suggestions for all - had he wanted to stay involved.
I had tried to explain to him that it was no joke for someone to struggle with a false or useless clue (better to have none), bad coordinates or an area which was not pleasant or perhaps safe to visit. Was so concerned about this before his posting to withdraw his caches, I even called Becket. :D
Becket - thank you for the comments, advice and support. Appreciated!:D :D
I actually tryed to adopt a soaked cache that the owners had not responded to GPS fun or me. The response I got, after posting to the log on line, was less than pleasant via email. I was accused of being the "cache police". Folks did replace their containers (finally) but not before they bashed me via email. That's a shame when anyone is trying to help. :(
As for the lost caches in my town - perhaps the owner will rethink his decision. He goes to FL for the winter so I don't know who was going to maintain them then anyway. I had agreed to do a few but that wasn't over 4 - think he had 7 out with a couple pending! :eek:
Archiving should come when a cache owner (or alternative designed person) does not respond in a timely manner to concerns about the cache or conditions of the cache which need attention....and document action with posting into the log. Some things I think a 5 - 7 day window is reasonable and should be expected. Others I think could be pushed out to 10 - 14 days but that would be the maximum.
In considering keeping the cache active, I think activity on the site by the owner should be considered. If someone is inactive (nothing - sign on, find, etc. - last 3 months) - then even a positive response should be looked at with caution.
My highest respect for GPSFun who has an unbelievable job to read a crystal ball! Thank you for all you do to keep us up and running with sites to find. You are much like a dog show judge - with a thankless job - wrong if you do and wrong if you don't. Again, thanks for all you do.:D
Many cachers have a problem with the temproarily disable vs. archive option, even in this forum. it used to be a big pet peeve, but I think people are getting better, I've even educated a few on it!Quote:
Originally Posted by hollora
Anyway, I emailed this cacher, too, with no reponse. Probably that upset him more, but I didn't know he was in contact with anyone else. I just nicely asked for clarification on whether he wanted it disabled or archived.
I have a problem with caches that should be archived but aren't, but if an owner wants to archive his I would not lose any sleep over it. Someone else can place a new one there if it is a worthy spot. IMO unless it is a classic cache that has been loved by many, it might be just a well a totally new one is placed there.
It's my opinion that this cacher has jumped the gun a little, that's for sure. Many of his caches brought you to a nice little spot, that I for one, would otherwise never have seen or known about. It's kinda sad that this has happened, but if he doesn't get it, then he doesn't get it. Thanks to the cachers who tried to assist. That's what we are all about. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by hollora
I was going to post something about how there is a "problem" and "danger" in having newbies start hiding caches when they've only been geocaching a short time . . . but I see that the cacher mentioned has had 73 or so finds so I would think by now he should be aware of how important it is to have good coords, clues and containers (the "Three C's of Caching.)Quote:
Originally Posted by brdad
If the caches are archived I'm thinking that there are more than enough cachers in the area to adopt some of the more primo spots . . . the key words being "if" and "archived."
Some people shouldn't fight fires, some people should not cook. The only thing worse than a woman who can cook and won't is a woman who can't cook but will. Some people should not hide caches. It doesn't make them bad people, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Hiding caches just falls into place for some, some have to work hard at it, and others will never get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighterjake
I too posted what I hoped would be taken as constructive criticism. Not as a complaint. If he took it the wrong way then I'm sorry. Yes, some of his caches were in very nice spots, while others not so much. At any rate if he doesnt want to play the game anymore, then he should not. If he doesn't want his caches to be adopted then removing them is the right thing to do.
You're not trying to suck up to GPSFun are you? ;) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by hollora
Actually, I have to admit I've never met the guy and he definitely has my respect as being very committed to this activity and in his genuine desire to make sure caches are done in the right place and the right way.
Just out of curiosity . . . since as usual I'm totally oblivious to the obvious . . . I know some of the caches were in less than desirable locations (i.e. a front lawn) and some cache containers didn't seem like they would hold up well (i.e. a rusty first aid kit), but was there some cache or incident that set him over the edge? Most caches seemed to be OK -- I particularly liked the view of Mt Katahdin cache and the dam cache.
Personally I think there's no real excuse to not "get the procedure of the game" -- there's lots of resources from the FAQ page at Gc.com, the Bulletin board at GC.com, the website here, etc. If someone has questions all they need to do is ask . . . although if they're more patient than me they probably can read through past threads or through the various informational pages and find the answers to their questions . . . and if they're really impatient they can simply e-mail their question to one of the veteran geocachers for some guidance.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollora
What's also a shame is how some folks can't stand any constructive criticism about their caches. Some folks will be nit picky or express their feelings about a cache or its location without sugar coating it (i.e. I have seen logs saying how they didn't like the location and it wasn't very scenic or how there was really no good reason for a cache there . . . or how the cache was too easy to find). Personally, I have mixed feelings. When I like a spot I'll mention it in the logs. If I'm not so thrilled with a spot I won't degrade the cacher or the cache, but will simply log a blah-log like
"TNLN" -- I don't want to discourage the cacher as he or she may put out a great cache in the future once they see what other cachers are doing. Besides, to me it's just about having a little common decency. I will express my feelings or concerns about a cache though if there are some issues, but I try to be as kind as possible -- but that's just me -- some folks are more blunt and to the point (as you can see from this post, I am not one of those people who is blunt and to the point.) :D
I will say I want people to let me know if there are problems with my coords (i.e. Multi in a Mile and a Half with wrong coords), clues (no issues here yet although I try to be creative with my clues and not be so patently obvious as saying something like "Hope you don't get stumped") or cache containers (i.e. Sound of Music was sitting in a low-lying puddle and had water infiltration.) I don't take any comments personally, but instead welcome any suggestions . . . which I will then take with a grain of salt.
Did this cacher actually post bad coords or a clue knowingly? I would find it hard to believe someone would do so since the whole purpose is to hide a cache and leave the coords and clue so others can find the cache. DUH. :eek: :rolleyes:
Becket is truly a great person isn't she . . . I don't think I've ever read an unkind word about her or from her.
Final thought . . . I don't view going to Florida as too big of an issue myself since it seems as though geocaching usually tends to slow down in a normal winter . . . this past winter was a bit of an aberration with the lack of snow though. In a typical winter I would guess if there were any issues they could be resolved in the Spring.
I just happened to have another question . . . what happens to the TBs in these caches and signature items . . . does anyone know if this cacher is getting done entirely or is he just not hiding any more caches?
I had the same question to ask, as he apparently had 2 or 3 TB's in his caches and also a coin or 2. I hope he has enough sense to place them in other caches for the benefit of other cachers as well as the owners of the TB's and coins. It's too bad he had to take things in the wrong way.But maybe he did have to leave in a hurry as he said. :(
I think I've figured out what cache owner you're talking about.
We did several of his caches a couple of weeks ago, and at one, he was mowing his lawn and stopped to talk to us. He was very pleasant and seemed to enjoy caching.
But he "got the bug" while in Florida, and we all know that caching there is different. Maybe that has something to do with the problem... :confused: :confused:
Yes on clue. At least, that's my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by firefighterjake
For instance, the hint might be:
[The cache is not behind the good green door.]
and the cache is literally placed on the other side of the door.
Couple of things though....what if there are two ways to get to the cache....not likely since the door was shut and locked and leads to a business type of establishment. Cachers would normally come from one direction, and that would be about 30 ft. from a strip of town maintained pavement.
The cacher could have gotten turned around while placing the cache and just didn't realize of the placement and it's relation to the "door"....unlikely as well since the cacher would have to pass by the "door" in order to leave after placing the cache.
Maybe the cacher just forgot to update the hint...not likely since the hint remained unchanged after several logs about it and a maintenance icon being placed on the cache on May 21 with the following instructions, "Hint needs to be revised...it does not apply."
Maybe the cacher won the lottery...:p :D :)
There are several caches that say "go left", "take the trail after the big tree", "on the back side of the hill", and stuff of that sort. And you are right, they assume you will come in the same way you did. Cache hiders should give a better direction, such as NSEW or something that can not be misunderstood.