Action on NA

[+TheOldfields]

A bit of an odd one where I went back to check out a past DNF....

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC224RT_east-clevedon-series-no-8

 

We DNFed it, and the next person posted an NA (on their second day caching), and then disabled by reviewer two days later.

 

The CO does look to be out of action, but is that now being taken into account?

[+lee737]

Yes, they were fast on the NA trigger.... if the CO doesn't respond the cache will almost certainly be archived.

[+cerberus1]

Could be a case of no one "helping it along..." (throwdowns), so yeah, maybe so.

 

Seems most of the logs mentioned a crappy rag/bag, not the container (I guess) it was covering .

NM placed with no notice from the CO since May'16.

 

Your DNF and a Needs Archive by a newb who may not have known better (or did) probably just brought an unmaintained cache of an inactive CO (Sept. '16) to the Reviewer's attention.

- If the CO shows and fixes it, they can enable it.

Edited June 9, 2017 by cerberus1

[Keystone]

Seems most of the logs mentioned a crappy rag/bag, not the container (I guess) it was covering .

NM placed with no notice from the CO since May'16.

Yep, the two DNF's would not normally result in reviewer action. But, when you add in the above facts, I would have done the same thing if the "Needs Archived" was logged on an identical cache in my territory.

[+lodgebarn]

Seems most of the logs mentioned a crappy rag/bag, not the container (I guess) it was covering .

NM placed with no notice from the CO since May'16.

Yep, the two DNF's would not normally result in reviewer action. But, when you add in the above facts, I would have done the same thing if the "Needs Archived" was logged on an identical cache in my territory.

Really, one DNF and a mistaken NA becuase they could not find it from someone with a whole 13 finds. Wow!

[+Team Microdot]

Seems most of the logs mentioned a crappy rag/bag, not the container (I guess) it was covering .

NM placed with no notice from the CO since May'16.

Yep, the two DNF's would not normally result in reviewer action. But, when you add in the above facts, I would have done the same thing if the "Needs Archived" was logged on an identical cache in my territory.

Really, one DNF and a mistaken NA becuase they could not find it from someone with a whole 13 finds. Wow!

 

The CO isn't maintaining it or responding to reviewer communication.

 

Let it go.

[+justintim1999]

It's obvious that the CO is gone. Just take a look at their other 19 caches. Too bad the reviewer has to waist their time monitoring these caches just waiting for a reason to archive what's clearly been left to rot.

 

And yes the current state of the CO should be taken into account.

[+lodgebarn]

Seems most of the logs mentioned a crappy rag/bag, not the container (I guess) it was covering .

NM placed with no notice from the CO since May'16.

Yep, the two DNF's would not normally result in reviewer action. But, when you add in the above facts, I would have done the same thing if the "Needs Archived" was logged on an identical cache in my territory.

Really, one DNF and a mistaken NA becuase they could not find it from someone with a whole 13 finds. Wow!

 

The CO isn't maintaining it or responding to reviewer communication.

 

Let it go.

Fair enough, I hadn't done enough research.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Every geocache should have a caring owner that would react within a reasonable time. This one will likely get archived if the CO does not step in. But that's no tragedy. It is just the final part of a cache lifecycle.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Every geocache should have a caring owner that would react within a reasonable time. This one will likely get archived if the CO does not step in. But that's no tragedy. It is just the final part of a cache lifecycle.

 

The lifecycle of a cache should be:

 

1. A person hides a container

2. The CO submits a listing and the cache is published.

3. The CO maintains the cache while others find it

4. The cache listing is marked as archived

5. The CO removes the container

 

In this case, the cycle barely gets past stage 2 in the lifecycle.