|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 20:36:38 GMT -9
"Needs Maintenance" logs do not get sent to the Local Reviewer. They are meant to be a cacher to cacher communication tool. I'm aware. I'm only talking about how I, personally, handle those types of situations. It doesn't mean that it is how you or others playing this game conduct their cache log business, but it also doesn't render my method "wrong". In the situation where I mention that a NM log would be posted, I'd be clear about the issue of questionable permissions. But, sometimes owners don't see things the way that I do, and it has proven helpful in more situations than one to loop the Reviewer in on possible permission issues. Reviewers have access to things that I cannot see, Reviewers know what caches they have published, and Reviewers carry more authority than I do as a general geocacher posting a NM and a possible permission issue.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 22, 2014 21:16:04 GMT -9
If an absent CO was a deciding factor, all but a couple caches in Valdez would have to be archived. How involved the owner is doesn't matter as long as the cache is maintained by the community. If someone has unofficially adopted the cache, it is still present, in decent repair and has a logbook, then the point is moot.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 21:36:55 GMT -9
If an absent CO was a deciding factor, all but a couple caches in Valdez would have to be archived. How involved the owner is doesn't matter as long as the cache is maintained by the community. If someone has unofficially adopted the cache, it is still present, in decent repair and has a logbook, then the point is moot. To quote (roughly) what you said yourself, each cache can be handled on a case-by-case basis. I'm by no means saying that one cache should lead to the generalized archival of those caches. But, if one of those Valdez caches starts to fall apart, and someone posts a NA log, wouldn't that log need to be seriously considered against the guidelines and not personal preference? Has anyone in Valdez (or other GeocacheAlaska folks) reached out to those cache owners to ask about adopting the caches?
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 22, 2014 22:25:05 GMT -9
A lot of the caches are owned by a guy who moved out of state. A local adopted most of those. That person hasn't done any caching in at least 2 years. The rest of the caches in town are pretty much owned by about 3 or 4 former cachers. None of them are active anymore. In fact, the only caches around here getting regular maintenance are my two and the handful that LBK has over here. There have been 2 new caches in the last year and they were both placed by a tourist cacher with family/friends in the area to take care of maintenance (and we all know how well those arrangements usually work out).
At any rate, I stick by the cache-by-cache basis. But with the particular cache you're talking about, GLR says that someone has stepped forward to take on community maintenance of it. Hence, that case appears to be moot. So when you say that the absentee owner is the deciding factor, I just don't see that. If it were an absentee owner and the cache wasn't being maintained and had since gone missing or had been broken beyond repair, then the NA would seem to fit. Since someone has taken on the cache maintenance, that no longer seems to apply in this case.
I've only enter 2 NA logs since I started this game. Both were for caches that were gone. One was a banned cacher who picked up his only hide after he was kicked out of the game. When a DNF showed on his hide, I verified the cache was gone, then put in the NA log. The other was a cache on a bridge. DOT tore down the bridge to build a new one. Cache was gone as was the ability to redo the hide, so NA it was.
Permissions and nails simply don't blow my skirt up. If I approach a GZ and question the permission issue, I'll just leave and ignore the cache unless there is something really serious about it. Older caches with nails don't bother me (and they are often some of the best caches). A new cache that has used "illegal" attachment methods get a direct contact to the CO pointing them to the GS guideline with some positive and helpful advice on how they can fix their hide to remove the bad attachment. That always gets a better response than any NM or NA log on their cache page, especially with new cachers.
I firmly believe that Education is the way to win on this one. Reach out to new cachers and teach them the right way up front.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 23:09:43 GMT -9
I'm right there with ya, JOAT.
My only hangup in situations like this is that it isn't just the cache container/location, but also the listing that are part of a geocache. That's why I really lean toward adoption, and, if there are enough other factors affecting the cache to its detriment, eventual archival.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 23, 2014 6:53:53 GMT -9
In fact, the only caches around here getting regular maintenance are my two and the handful that LBK has over here. Yes, and maintenance of my caches during the past two years in Valdez has actually been done by SSO JOAT and barnacle9 because the nature of my work has changed enough I don't travel their as routinely as I used to. Many thanks, guys, for helping keep those caches alive!!!
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 23, 2014 9:36:08 GMT -9
To try and wrap up the "Homer cache in question", I'm happy that the cache can live on. That's great. There are some circumstances surrounding the cache that are getting cleared up, but that's water under the bridge as far as I and this divergence in the thread are concerned. I'll gladly help to keep it alive as well.
My only regret is that the cache in question needs to have its listing updated because it is misleading with it's D/T ratings and holding onto the NM attribute. But, the cache can be found, and it will be watched over by at least 4 people that I can see on the Watchlist!
I think part of my anxiety for this cache is that I really want Homer to have quality, accurate, and maintainted caches to keep us "on the map". Since Cathy and I are really the only active cachers in the area, it is up to us to place those "quality, accurate" caches and maintain the site and listing. When it comes to caches in town that may start to fall into disrepair, it would be great if we could adopt them to let the cache live on or place a new cache in its place so that we can have caches that are meeting the owner maintenance guidelines.
If we can keep a cache alive without adoption or archival, that's great! I just hold the opinion that listings should be accurate and maintained just like the cache itself. I really don't want that opinion to cause problems in our community, but it already appears that it has. For that I apologize. It was not my intention.
|
|
|
Post by TheFirefly on Jan 23, 2014 9:48:12 GMT -9
... I had been in conversation with GR about this cache, and it was going to be archived, and I was going to relist it--not unlike that old Wynn Nature Center cache. I hoped to rehide the same cache in the same location, but using non-invasive attachment. It could even keep the "hidden on" date if that were to happen. I was hoping to be able to take this site and listing over so that it could continue to "live on" and be wholly maintained. That Wynn Nature Center cache was archived 3 months before I found it. Had I been able to do some maintenance on it and keep it under the original 2003 post, I would have. Unfortunately, that was not an option, thus I republished it with homage given to the original posting. I do not feel the need to have it under my account to keep it in good shape to 'live on'. The same for the cache about which I posed my question regarding nails. Thank you for the comments, everyone. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programs!
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 23, 2014 11:33:05 GMT -9
... I had been in conversation with GR about this cache, and it was going to be archived, and I was going to relist it--not unlike that old Wynn Nature Center cache. I hoped to rehide the same cache in the same location, but using non-invasive attachment. It could even keep the "hidden on" date if that were to happen. I was hoping to be able to take this site and listing over so that it could continue to "live on" and be wholly maintained. That Wynn Nature Center cache was archived 3 months before I found it. Had I been able to do some maintenance on it and keep it under the original 2003 post, I would have. Unfortunately, that was not an option, thus I republished it with homage given to the original posting. I do not feel the need to have it under my account to keep it in good shape to 'live on'. The same for the cache about which I posed my question regarding nails. Thank you for the comments, everyone. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programs! I'm very happy to see that cache revived with an accurate listing and an active owner to maintain the cache and listing. In fact, because of the number of logs on the old cache and confusion about coordinates and fallen trees around the GZ, it is very good that you've revived the site with a new listing and accurate coordinates. That certainly makes your hide findable compared to the old listing.
|
|
|
Post by alaskacariboozer on Jan 23, 2014 11:47:07 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 23, 2014 11:53:21 GMT -9
Always a help, but notes and other logs start to get buried as more recent logs are added. The constant for D/T is the listing, and an active owner can update or change as needed or mentioned in the logs.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 23, 2014 16:02:38 GMT -9
All you can do is send the CO messages through their GC profile. You'll either get through to them, or you won't. I believe you can actually go to the adoption request form, and fill out the adoption request. That triggers another message to be sent to the CO. All they have to do is click a link to accept the adoption and it's a done deal. If they never respond, then you'll either end up with a community maintained "old" cache, or it will eventually become a Zombie Cache, go missing, and get archived.
You don't have to have the absent CO's permission to correct the attachment method. If the community is going to take over the cache maintenance, then go out there with your hammer and pull the nails. Install a new "eco friendly" attachment. And here's something else... if everyone agrees that the coordinates are off, then go look at the spot where the coordinates are correct. Can you move the cache to the coordinates, while fixing the attachment issue at the same time? Maybe you can move the cache to the next closest landmark/host item near or facing the actual coordinates so that the hide is pretty obvious when someone does get to GZ.
The NM is a bummer and I've always thought it was too bad that GS won't allow individual reviewers the latitude to administratively clear the NM attribute from an "abandoned" but active cache. The D/T rating you just have to live with. Not a big deal, since 73.6% of all D/T ratings are made up on the spot, very subjective, and frequently inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 23, 2014 17:05:32 GMT -9
I think part of my anxiety for this cache is that I really want Homer to have quality, accurate, and maintainted caches to keep us "on the map". Since Cathy and I are really the only active cachers in the area, it is up to us to place those "quality, accurate" caches and maintain the site and listing. When it comes to caches in town that may start to fall into disrepair, it would be great if we could adopt them to let the cache live on or place a new cache in its place so that we can have caches that are meeting the owner maintenance guidelines. If we can keep a cache alive without adoption or archival, that's great! I just hold the opinion that listings should be accurate and maintained just like the cache itself. I really don't want that opinion to cause problems in our community, but it already appears that it has. For that I apologize. It was not my intention. I see your point about wanting Homer to "have quality, accurate, and maintained caches." That's an excellent goal for one's own community. Here's exactly the sort of situation the 'chapter' concept was supposed to help nurture - a sense of local community pride in how the game gets set up and played in one's own back yard. Whether you formalize a chapter or not, I suggest you and Cathy get together to meet your community goals in the future when you folks come across a cache like Raven's View. If it's essentially abandoned, has reached the serious "Needs Maintenance" stage, or has become what a land manager would call 'geolitter', you decide as a local community of your own whether to perform community maintenance, or simply put a "Needs Archived" log on the cache. Once the Groundspeak listing service processes the "Needs Archived" request (which does take time), the 'geolitter' can be removed so there's room for a new cache placed in a way which conforms to guidelines, has a great cache page with a useful hint and good attributes, and which has excellent coordinates - a cache to be proud of. The key for Homer is going to be Homer cachers deciding what course of action they want to follow in situations like this. The sort of situation surrounding everything to do with Raven's View is why these get handled on a case by case basis. Where a viable active 'local' community exists to help with either maintenance or with a "Needs Archived" log, the reviewer can make a decision that's informed and supported by the local community's actions. Otherwise, after a bit of time passes, the listing gets archived (and too often that means the cache becomes definitive geolitter since it's never picked up). We have a fair number of these caches out in play whose owners have drifted away. Without community help, they become geolitter - a detriment to our game by any measure. Rooting them out when they go bad can be painful, and the process always seems to take forever (because the reviewer has to provide notice etc). With community help, they keep on providing smilies. Unfortunately, Groundspeak won't adopt over the cache in question unless the prior owner agrees (because the cache belongs to its owner - not Groundspeak) - and thus the conundrum if the prior owner doesn't respond to email. Again - the reviewer makes a choice based on how the 'local' community works to support the maintenance of otherwise-abandoned caches. There are definitely cases where a "Needs Archived" is a necessary step to take, and where several NA logs from local cachers might help to get the point across. I'm pleased to see how well we do in Alaska with 'community maintenance.' Over half of my geocaches are found more than a thousand miles from my home, so I can speak with surety when I say that 'community maintenance' is a choice, not a normative behavior found in every geocacher. It's disappointing to find most cachers elsewhere don't travel with replacement logs at the very least, and apparently don't look ahead to read cache logs for updates and information about what they should expect to find (or might need to do to help a cache needing maintenance). Putting a cache back to rights in a way which conforms with its original setting is good. In Raven's View case, the apparent fastening method allowed a return of the container to an already-existing location. That's not a cause for concern with such an old cache, but new placements have to conform to the latest guidelines, of course.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 24, 2014 19:26:14 GMT -9
I totally hear what you're saying. We're working on some recruitment in town with more events and some local advertising. Lots of Homer places will put a community listing up on the web for free, and there is even a possibility to get on the radio. It's pretty cool! I'm hopeful that we can get enough folks to get a "chapter" going, but we're still 8 short according to the bylaws There's some fun to be had at the end of the road...and I'm looking forward to building GeocacheAlaska!'s following and reputation here
|
|
|
Post by tomanoble on Jan 27, 2014 0:23:44 GMT -9
To get back to the original reason for this thread: There is nothing that requires a night cache to have all reflectors visible from the previous reflector. That is one of the ways to increase/decrease the difficulty of the night cache.
Take GC1A1J5 Torturous Slog for example. Some of the reflectors are more than .10 of a mile apart and one has to proceed on blind faith that the next turn will have a reflector at it. In this case they did increase the number of reflectors when they were needed. It took blazingpathways and me over 3 hours to complete this cache in winter. I hear it is even worse in summer. The closer the placements of the reflectors, the easier the difficulty rating in general.
Other tricks I have seen to raise the difficulty are throwing in such things as dead ends, unexpected turns in the trail, and even incorporating field puzzles to solve along the way to arrive at the correct coordinates for the final.
In summation, the reflectors should be placed where they are necessary for geocachers to navigate the trail and arrive at the final hide of the cache in a manner reflective of the difficulty rating. The easier the rating, the more closely spaced the reflectors.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 27, 2014 10:05:15 GMT -9
To get back to the original reason for this thread: There is nothing that requires a night cache to have all reflectors visible from the previous reflector. That is one of the ways to increase/decrease the difficulty of the night cache. Take GC1A1J5 Torturous Slog for example. Some of the reflectors are more than .10 of a mile apart and one has to proceed on blind faith that the next turn will have a reflector at it. In this case they did increase the number of reflectors when they were needed. It took blazingpathways and me over 3 hours to complete this cache in winter. I hear it is even worse in summer. The closer the placements of the reflectors, the easier the difficulty rating in general. Other tricks I have seen to raise the difficulty are throwing in such things as dead ends, unexpected turns in the trail, and even incorporating field puzzles to solve along the way to arrive at the correct coordinates for the final. In summation, the reflectors should be placed where they are necessary for geocachers to navigate the trail and arrive at the final hide of the cache in a manner reflective of the difficulty rating. The easier the rating, the more closely spaced the reflectors. I had done a night cache in North Carolina that took you on and off of trails, but you had to decipher the symbol the tacks made to know if it meant left, right, straight, turn around, or stop. It was awesome, except for all the worry I had about stepping onto a sleeping cottonmouth! It took us across creeks (I'd call it a shallow river for how wide it was!), up and down hills, and was an absolute blast. I don't know if the one coming in Homer will be that sinister, but it will be fun. We're planning on it being easy enough for folks who aren't geocachers to do it, and to make it family-friendly. I might incorporate a "symbol" to lead to two different caches with different difficulties...hmmm, the ideas keep coming!
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Jan 27, 2014 18:01:26 GMT -9
Keep the evil thought provoking comments coming please!
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 28, 2014 8:32:07 GMT -9
Keep the evil thought provoking comments coming please! Why do I keep doing that?!
|
|