Battle of the boilerplate bots..

[4wheelin_fool]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2HQMC

 

 

What happened to old fashioned communication?

[+Beach_hut]

Yep. Surely there's a point when as a CO you say "stuff it" and archive.

 

Makes you wonder when he last visited GZ?

[+cerberus1]

Two years later seems like a long tree-cutting project.

Guess the hint may not apply any longer.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

"this area is not currently safe and would conflict with grounspeak's policy of cache placement"

 

What part of the policy?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Two years later seems like a long tree-cutting project.

Guess the hint may not apply any longer.

 

Looking at the satellite photos it's clear that there is a lot of construction going on at the time the photos were take but it's on the other side of the highway. The regular maps show a off ramp that goes right by the cache but on the satellite view, there is no road but if you look real close you can see six people standing around in hard hats and a shovel and one person digging.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Our reviewer would probably just archive the cache. If the cache is going to be out of play for extended periods of time (like a year+), it's not appropriate to keep it on the map. Edited April 23, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[4wheelin_fool]

"this area is not currently safe and would conflict with grounspeak's policy of cache placement"

 

What part of the policy?

 

Safety issues make as much sense as opening up an area under construction for others to hide caches.

 

The filibuster goes on..

Edited April 23, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Maingray]

Love this.

[+The A-Team]

According to OpenStreetMap, the off-ramp was put through the area where the cache was hidden at least several months ago. The CO won't be able to rehide the cache in that area anyway. They might as well archive it.

[jholly]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

At least that reviewer is present. Local one is MIA. Caches haven't been archived in months despite multiple reports.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I had a seasonal cache that got disabled, and re-enabled with the start of the season (can the access gates opened). There were rare occasions during the off season the gate was opened, and I noted that in the cache page, but still disabled during the off-season. Of course one off-season it got muggled, and I was on my "break" when the next spring rolled around and it got archived. This at the very least does show attentiveness to the situation.

[+The A-Team]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

That's what "Needs archive" is for.

[+wimseyguy]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

That's what "Needs archive" is for.

Not if they are being posted from clear across the country without any firsthand knowledge of the cache's status.

[jholly]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

That's what "Needs archive" is for.

That's a good chuckle. Check out http://coord.info/GC877 and tell me the NA will do any good.

[+The A-Team]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

That's what "Needs archive" is for.

That's a good chuckle. Check out http://coord.info/GC877 and tell me the NA will do any good.

"Needs archive" is absolutely the right tool for most caches like this. However, there will always be exceptions, like this cache in particular. Since an NA would just go to the owner (the reviewer), any concerns would be best raised to a level higher than the reviewer, like contact@geocaching.com. As much as I like mtn-man (he was our reviewer for a while and I met him at GW8), he's setting a bad example by keeping this disabled cache going for so long. Negotiations are clearly not going anywhere, and this cache has been disabled "for an unreasonable length of time" (that's how our current reviewer states it in her reviewer notes). As much as mtn-man may be emotionally attached to that cache, he needs to apply the same guidelines to himself that he'd apply to others and put this cache to bed.

[+Don_J]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

 

Or caches in the Angeles National Forest in areas that have been closed since 2009 due to fire. Our reviewers agree that the disabled caches serve as a warning to cachers that the areas are still off limits.

[+The_Incredibles_]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

That's what "Needs archive" is for.

That's a good chuckle. Check out http://coord.info/GC877 and tell me the NA will do any good.

 

This is crazy. Nobody here would be allowed to have their cache disabled for that long. The area is closed to caching, he should let it go.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I had a seasonal cache that got disabled, and re-enabled with the start of the season (can the access gates opened). There were rare occasions during the off season the gate was opened, and I noted that in the cache page, but still disabled during the off-season. Of course one off-season it got muggled, and I was on my "break" when the next spring rolled around and it got archived. This at the very least does show attentiveness to the situation.

 

There's one like that near me. It's in a gorge which has a stone walking trail along side a creek with multiple waterfalls (a couple are over 50 feet high). The trail closes every year around November and usually doesn't reopen again until April. The cache is disabled every year when the trail closes and enabled when the trail opens. It's been like that since 2002.

 

 

[4wheelin_fool]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

That's what "Needs archive" is for.

That's a good chuckle. Check out http://coord.info/GC877 and tell me the NA will do any good.

 

This is crazy. Nobody here would be allowed to have their cache disabled for that long. The area is closed to caching, he should let it go.

 

Without it being disabled on the map, other cachers may think the area is OK to hide caches, and then plant a dozen or so before finding out it is not allowed. If they have little or no value, they have a good chance of being abandoned as litter.

[+Don_J]

We could discuss some caches in Georgia that have been disabled for years and no threats of being archived.

That's what "Needs archive" is for.

That's a good chuckle. Check out http://coord.info/GC877 and tell me the NA will do any good.

 

This is crazy. Nobody here would be allowed to have their cache disabled for that long. The area is closed to caching, he should let it go.

 

Without it being disabled on the map, other cachers may think the area is OK to hide caches, and then plant a dozen or so before finding out it is not allowed. If they have little or no value, they have a good chance of being abandoned as litter.

 

And, assuming that there really are negotiations going on, those dozen or so caches would quickly end them. I think that the big problem with that cache is simply a lack of communication. Something should be done because it is obviously upsetting the Canadians

[+The_Incredibles_]

And, assuming that there really are negotiations going on, those dozen or so caches would quickly end them. I think that the big problem with that cache is simply a lack of communication. Something should be done because it is obviously upsetting the Canadians

 

Thanks for noticing, Don.

 

This really gets me. Did you know what an anti-social hobby we have?

 

"Geocaches typically are hidden in natural areas, archeological sites or in man made features. The object of this game is to locate well-hidden caches of materials stored in a container that may be buried. This game encourages participants to move off trail that leads to vegetative damage and erosion problems. Digging disturbs park resources and damages archeological sites. Sometimes cache containers are labeled as hazardous, radioactive,corrosive or explosive leading to misidentification by bystanders and first responders. This activity can be alarming to bystanders who misidentify the individuals when they observe participants hiding or acting in a suspicious manner to avoid detection"

[+NYPaddleCacher]

And, assuming that there really are negotiations going on, those dozen or so caches would quickly end them. I think that the big problem with that cache is simply a lack of communication. Something should be done because it is obviously upsetting the Canadians

 

Thanks for noticing, Don.

 

This really gets me. Did you know what an anti-social hobby we have?

 

 

Perhaps they've been reading the forums.

[+dbrierley]

GCTRNB was disabled for nearly three years before being archived.

[+Don_J]

GCTRNB was disabled for nearly three years before being archived.

 

The repeated boilerplate messages seems strange to me as our local reviewers will usually write something that pertains to the particular circumstances of the cache if they find the need to write a second reviewer note.

 

The "Battle of the boilerplate bots" from the opening post makes it look like the reviewer is on auto-pilot and is not really paying attention to what is really going on.

[+dprovan]

The "Battle of the boilerplate bots" from the opening post makes it look like the reviewer is on auto-pilot and is not really paying attention to what is really going on.

While repetitive, when I consider the situation, I'm not sure what should be different. The reviewer is, per force, reporting that the cache has been idle too long and the CO has to do something, and the CO does something: he reports the he is still actively interesting in replacing the cache, but the situation hasn't change so he still can't.

 

While some people might feel that this has "gone on long enough", apparently neither the reviewer nor the CO feel that way, and I see no reason to declare either of them unreasonable. This isn't a fight, it's just a periodic refresh.

[Mr.Yuck]

GCTRNB was disabled for nearly three years before being archived.

 

The repeated boilerplate messages seems strange to me as our local reviewers will usually write something that pertains to the particular circumstances of the cache if they find the need to write a second reviewer note.

 

The "Battle of the boilerplate bots" from the opening post makes it look like the reviewer is on auto-pilot and is not really paying attention to what is really going on.

 

+1 for Don's post. I don't know or have dealt with that reveiwer, but I live a few hundred miles away, and have found plenty of caches in their territory. They certainly don't seem to be running on auto-pilot. Besides this, I mean.

[+Michaelcycle]

GCTRNB was disabled for nearly three years before being archived.

 

The repeated boilerplate messages seems strange to me as our local reviewers will usually write something that pertains to the particular circumstances of the cache if they find the need to write a second reviewer note.

 

The "Battle of the boilerplate bots" from the opening post makes it look like the reviewer is on auto-pilot and is not really paying attention to what is really going on.

 

+1 for Don's post. I don't know or have dealt with that reveiwer, but I live a few hundred miles away, and have found plenty of caches in their territory. They certainly don't seem to be running on auto-pilot. Besides this, I mean.

I DO know the reviewer and have dealt with him on several issues over the years. He is bright, conscientious and hardworking (disclaimer: he is not likely to be the person that would review a submission of mine.) He has over 10,000 finds to his credit on his player account. He's attended dozens and dozens of events.

He is responsible for a lot of geocaches and as such I suspect he is just doing his due diligence as simply as possible.

[+jellis]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2HQMC

 

 

What happened to old fashioned communication?

Thank you that was very entertaining