Wait time

[+mystphyre]

How does one go about putting out a cache in an area where one has been disabled and there have been DNF for more than a year?

[+cerberus1]

How does one go about putting out a cache in an area where one has been disabled and there have been DNF for more than a year?

Disabled more than a year?

CO still around?

You could log an NA, asking for it to be archived, if it's been disabled for a year.

Year old DNF and recently disabled, it'd be nice to allow the CO some time to fix it...

Got a GC#?

[+rjb43nh]

If the cache isn't archived it still owns that spot even if it is disabled.

[+Manville Possum]

How long has it been disabled?

[+dprovan]

If the cache isn't archived it still owns that spot even if it is disabled.

In case it's not clear how this answers the question, the answer to the question in the OP is that you don't put a cache near one that's disabled. Simple as that. End of thread.

 

Whether an archive request should be posted for any specific cache is an entirely unrelated discussion.

[+SwineFlew]

How long has it been disabled?

Long enough to annoyed the OP to come in here to asked us.

[+mystphyre]

How does one tell the difference between the archived and the just out commision? The title comes up grey and with a line through it.

[+WarNinjas]

If it is gray with a line threw it then it is probably just disabled. If it was archived it probably wouldn't show up at all.

[+WarNinjas]

Sorry only reason I say probably is there could be some instances if it was on your saved caches or something it might still show up if archived.

[+Team Microdot]

If the cache isn't archived it still owns that spot even if it is disabled.

In case it's not clear how this answers the question, the answer to the question in the OP is that you don't put a cache near one that's disabled. Simple as that. End of thread.

 

Whether an archive request should be posted for any specific cache is an entirely unrelated discussion.

 

What?

[+mystphyre]

Thank you all for the information. Being new to this adventure, I was asking for more information. I now have it. I didn't know that to archive meant that is would be off the map. As for it still being on the map,then I know better. I hadn't been sure but thought that was the case. I will refrain from asking again on things I don't know. I do follow the rules and just wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. If the mediator wishes to remove the thread, that will be fine.

[+NanCycle]

Thank you all for the information. Being new to this adventure, I was asking for more information. I now have it. I didn't know that to archive meant that is would be off the map. As for it still being on the map,then I know better. I hadn't been sure but thought that was the case. I will refrain from asking again on things I don't know. I do follow the rules and just wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing. If the mediator wishes to remove the thread, that will be fine.

 

I'm wondering why you feel you need to refrain from asking about things you don't know. Did you find the responses rude? Maybe I missed something, but i sure didn't see that; I thought they were straightforward and to the point.

 

Threads are (almost) never removed; and that's a good thing, because they can often provide answers to someone else with the same question--if they bother to look.

[+dprovan]

I will refrain from asking again on things I don't know.

I'm not sure why you're reacting this way. It was a good question that got an easy answer. Did you feel someone was complaining about you asking, 'cuz I didn't notice anything like that.

 

If the cache isn't archived it still owns that spot even if it is disabled.

In case it's not clear how this answers the question, the answer to the question in the OP is that you don't put a cache near one that's disabled. Simple as that. End of thread.

 

Whether an archive request should be posted for any specific cache is an entirely unrelated discussion.

What?

I thought that was a straightforward point. What did you find confusing about it?

[+Team Microdot]

 

If the cache isn't archived it still owns that spot even if it is disabled.

In case it's not clear how this answers the question, the answer to the question in the OP is that you don't put a cache near one that's disabled. Simple as that. End of thread.

 

Whether an archive request should be posted for any specific cache is an entirely unrelated discussion.

What?

I thought that was a straightforward point. What did you find confusing about it?

 

Mainly the parts where you appeared to be dictating what could and could not be discussed in the thread and when it should end which, unless you've been granted moderator status is I think somewhat outside your remit.

 

Your answer to the OP about not putting a cache near to one that's disabled left me asking why not? and doesn't that really depend on what is meant by near?

[+J Grouchy]

How does one go about putting out a cache in an area where one has been disabled and there have been DNF for more than a year?

Disabled more than a year?

CO still around?

You could log an NA, asking for it to be archived, if it's been disabled for a year.

Year old DNF and recently disabled, it'd be nice to allow the CO some time to fix it...

Got a GC#?

 

I don't think the questions were ever answered.

 

If it's been nothing but DNFs for a year but was only recently disabled, usually 60 days (give or take) is enough time to wait before posting a Needs Archived log or even just a 'Note' to ask the CO about his or her plans. If no answer, a Needs Archived log is reasonable.

 

If it's been disabled for a year, then I see no reason why you couldn't just post a Needs Archived log right away and let the CO and Reviewer work it out.

[+kunarion]

How does one go about putting out a cache in an area where one has been disabled and there have been DNF for more than a year?

As mentioned, the old one must be Archived to make way for a new one within 528 feet of that spot. The Cache Owner may be working on a replacement, so you could try to contact him.

 

Do you know the local cachers? They may have info on what the cache's problems are. Some of my first caches were in a park where other caches had been archived. The placements surprised the cache veterans, since my selected cache spots were commonly muggled. A little advance research may be advisable.

 

One of my recent caches is in a spot where the previous Cache Owner couldn't keep a container (ammo can) without it going missing. So my new cache there is a super-aggressively hidden 50ml tube.

 

In the cases of archived caches, I asked the previous Cache Owner if he intended to set a replacement. It's not a requirement, but it's polite.

[+dprovan]

Mainly the parts where you appeared to be dictating what could and could not be discussed in the thread and when it should end which, unless you've been granted moderator status is I think somewhat outside your remit.

I didn't dictate the topic, the OP did. I wasn't saying nothing else could be discussed, I was merely pointing out that it would be off topic.

 

Your answer to the OP about not putting a cache near to one that's disabled left me asking why not? and doesn't that really depend on what is meant by near?

You can ask whatever you want, but the OP asked a specific, practical question that did not imply a desire to learn about the rational or the minimum distance.

 

Thanks for clearing up your point, but next time please save time by just making your point instead of posting "What?" and forcing me to ask what your point is.

[+Team Microdot]

Mainly the parts where you appeared to be dictating what could and could not be discussed in the thread and when it should end which, unless you've been granted moderator status is I think somewhat outside your remit.

I didn't dictate the topic, the OP did. I wasn't saying nothing else could be discussed, I was merely pointing out that it would be off topic.

 

You didn't say it was off topic - you said it was end of thread.

 

The only aspect of this thread that's in any way off topic is the exchange you and I have engaged in. Thankfully other contributors to the thread have ascertained the most appropriate direction for the thread and the additional specificity required to usefully assist the OP with their general question - and they are doing a sterling job. Hopefully the OP (the elder of three generations of the same family who cache together) hasn't missed out on those useful responses as a result of being frightened off by one deliberately unhelpful post.

 

Your answer to the OP about not putting a cache near to one that's disabled left me asking why not? and doesn't that really depend on what is meant by near?

You can ask whatever you want, but the OP asked a specific, practical question that did not imply a desire to learn about the rational or the minimum distance.

 

Thanks for clearing up your point, but next time please save time by just making your point instead of posting "What?" and forcing me to ask what your point is.

 

I read your post as particularly unhelpful and in the manner of a self appointed moderator / censor and instantly assumed that I must be wrong - must have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

 

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the end of the stick I was holding was the right one all along.

 

In all fairness, we could have all saved time if you'd chosen to contribute helpfully - or not at all.

 

I'm hoping the OP hasn't been scared off and is instead reading all the useful, helpful, on-topic posts that have been made and I'm quite happy to end this off-topic conversation now so that the thread can continue as it should. Hopefully you are too.

[+wmpastor]

How does one go about putting out a cache in an area where one has been disabled and there have been DNF for more than a year?

Short answer:

You post a "Needs Archived" to the cache listing. This sends it to a Reviewer, who will probably post a note telling the cache owner that he/she has 30 days to correct the problem. If the CO doesn't make the correction & post a note saying so, the Reviewer will then post "archived" to the listing. It will then not show up on the map, and if you call it up by its code it will say "archived." On lists of your finds (if you ever found it), it will have a red line through it. The site is open for a new cache. The old cache should be removed by the CO, otherwise you can.

 

That's the summary.

[+dprovan]

You didn't say it was off topic - you said it was end of thread.

Yes, I did. I made the point strongly because I think it's important: neither the OP nor anyone else should get the impression that after the question "How do I put a cache near a disabled cache?" and the answer "You don't until it's archived?" that a reasonable follow up discussion is about how to get that cache archived.

 

I'm hoping the OP hasn't been scared off and is instead reading all the useful, helpful, on-topic posts that have been made and I'm quite happy to end this off-topic conversation now so that the thread can continue as it should. Hopefully you are too.

I'm hoping the OP didn't get the impression that wanting to plant a cache is a good reason to try to get another cache archived.

 

Short answer:

You post a "Needs Archived" to the cache listing.

So much for that plan...

[+AKACRider]

How does one go about putting out a cache in an area where one has been disabled and there have been DNF for more than a year?

 

Less than 2 minutes. Went and placed cache, took coords, put listing together, submited, went for a cup of coffee, didnt make it across the housebefore I got the tripple ding of the published cache. ( 3 emails )

[+The A-Team]

How does one go about putting out a cache in an area where one has been disabled and there have been DNF for more than a year?

 

Less than 2 minutes. Went and placed cache, took coords, put listing together, submited, went for a cup of coffee, didnt make it across the housebefore I got the tripple ding of the published cache. ( 3 emails )

That answer seems to have no relation at all to the question (I guess you just read the title and not the OP's post). You could have also answered "yellow" and it would have been just as useful.

[4wheelin_fool]

You didn't say it was off topic - you said it was end of thread.

Yes, I did. I made the point strongly because I think it's important: neither the OP nor anyone else should get the impression that after the question "How do I put a cache near a disabled cache?" and the answer "You don't until it's archived?" that a reasonable follow up discussion is about how to get that cache archived.

 

I'm hoping the OP hasn't been scared off and is instead reading all the useful, helpful, on-topic posts that have been made and I'm quite happy to end this off-topic conversation now so that the thread can continue as it should. Hopefully you are too.

I'm hoping the OP didn't get the impression that wanting to plant a cache is a good reason to try to get another cache archived.

 

Short answer:

You post a "Needs Archived" to the cache listing.

So much for that plan...

 

That's another thread "Why so much negativity towards a NA".

 

If someone does want to hide a cache, and a disabled cache is blocking it for several months, they certainly should post an NA. I don't know why this is frowned upon, but if the reason is container maintenance and it hasn't been done, then archive it and let's get another one out there. The real problem is that people will post NAs because the length of time the cache is disabled will annoy them, but yet they don't have any plans to hide anything.

 

If they do want to hide something, is it wrong? No.

[+dprovan]

That's another thread "Why so much negativity towards a NA".

Yes, I know. I am the strongest supporter of posting NAs when appropriate.

 

If someone does want to hide a cache, and a disabled cache is blocking it for several months, they certainly should post an NA.

If you mother's gravely ill and you want her house, you should put her in a home.

 

No, wait, that can't be right. Oh, yeah, I remember now: you might make the very serious decision of putting your mother in a home, but it would be the height of assholery to do it because you want her house.

 

If they do want to hide something, is it wrong? No.

It's not wrong to want to hide something. It's wrong to let your desire to hide something cause you to abandon impartiality when evaluating whether someone else's cache should be archived.

[+Team Microdot]

The real problem is that people will post NAs because the length of time the cache is disabled will annoy them, but yet they don't have any plans to hide anything.

 

I don't think this is a problem at all as at least the person posting the NA is less likely to be judged and branded an a**hole by people who think the NA was posted purely for the purposes of grabbing the location.

 

In fact I'd already composed this thread in my head with a view to posting when I got to a PC. The content of the previous post couldn't have come at a better time

 

The amount of emotional investment people can have in abandoned caches they don't even own can be quite surprising

[+J Grouchy]

If someone does want to hide a cache, and a disabled cache is blocking it for several months, they certainly should post an NA.

If you mother's gravely ill and you want her house, you should put her in a home.

 

No, wait, that can't be right. Oh, yeah, I remember now: you might make the very serious decision of putting your mother in a home, but it would be the height of assholery to do it because you want her house.

 

Let's not start equating caches to loved-ones...you're overstating the importance of it all. In the end it's just a hidden box with a slip of paper inside. If it's damaged and not being maintained, it's not even fair to compare it to one's bed-ridden mother being sent to a nursing home.

 

Would you say leaving a throwdown is akin to having an impostor move in so one can cash one's dead mother's Social Security checks?

[+dprovan]

No, wait, that can't be right. Oh, yeah, I remember now: you might make the very serious decision of putting your mother in a home, but it would be the height of assholery to do it because you want her house.

 

Let's not start equating caches to loved-ones...you're overstating the importance of it all. In the end it's just a hidden box with a slip of paper inside.

No, I'm not equating the two. I'm presenting a blindingly obvious example because the more subtle examples don't seem to be working.

 

If it's damaged and not being maintained, it's not even fair to compare it to one's bed-ridden mother being sent to a nursing home.

If it's damaged and not being maintained, those are very good reasons to ask for it to be archived. The point is that "I want to plant a cache there" is not a good reason. In fact, it's such a bad reason we should all be offended by anyone that even appears to be using it.

[4wheelin_fool]

If someone does want to hide a cache, and a disabled cache is blocking it for several months, they certainly should post an NA.

If you mother's gravely ill and you want her house, you should put her in a home.

 

No, wait, that can't be right. Oh, yeah, I remember now: you might make the very serious decision of putting your mother in a home, but it would be the height of assholery to do it because you want her house.

 

Let's not start equating caches to loved-ones...you're overstating the importance of it all. In the end it's just a hidden box with a slip of paper inside. If it's damaged and not being maintained, it's not even fair to compare it to one's bed-ridden mother being sent to a nursing home.

 

Would you say leaving a throwdown is akin to having an impostor move in so one can cash one's dead mother's Social Security checks?

 

dprovan's analogy is probably the most extreme, off base, erratic one that can be imagined. So someone else's cache is equivalent to one's mother?

 

If someone has a disabled cache that they are not maintaining for an extended period of time, an NA is certainly justified if another person wants to hide something there. Either @#$% or get off the pot.

 

And likewise, it's impossible for me to imagine anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to the point of thinking that it shouldn't be archived.

True, but I guess my problem was imagining anyone being emotionally invested in the geocache to think that it should be archived.

 

I'm sensing a definite pattern here, and it sounds like dprovan is emotionally invested in NA logs. Posting a NA because the owner is not maintaining something, and you want to place something there should not make someone feel guilty, and it's a perfectly valid reason. The original cache owner certainly has precedence, but that's limited to their ability to maintain something in a timely fashion.

 

So someone wants to hide something, and the existing cache has been disabled for 5 months. Perhaps they should feel like an evil person and visit a psychiatrist about hating their mother? I'd rather see valid reasons for these NA logs, rather than complaining it has been long disabled just for the sake of complaining. If I have something disabled for many moons, I'm not going to start calling someone an ***hole because they want the spot. I'd rather the honest communication, than the simmering hate and silence.

[4wheelin_fool]

If it's damaged and not being maintained, those are very good reasons to ask for it to be archived. The point is that "I want to plant a cache there" is not a good reason. In fact, it's such a bad reason we should all be offended by anyone that even appears to be using it.

 

In these situations geocaches very frequently get archived so someone else can hide something there. There is absolutely nothing...about it, unless of course the cache is in fine shape. I'm rather offended at your extreme reaction to it, and over the top colorful language. If you are really living in fear of someone placing an NA on your disabled cache, then fix the dang thing.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Cascade Reviewer
Removed innapropriate language

[+NeverSummer]

If it's damaged and not being maintained, those are very good reasons to ask for it to be archived. The point is that "I want to plant a cache there" is not a good reason. In fact, it's such a bad reason we should all be offended by anyone that even appears to be using it.

 

In these situations geocaches very frequently get archived so someone else can hide something there. There is absolutely nothing...about it, unless of course the cache is in fine shape. I'm rather offended at your extreme reaction to it, and over the top colorful language. If you are really living in fear of someone placing an NA on your disabled cache, then fix the dang thing.

Well, that's just it. If you "don't have the time" to get out and fix your cache, then you can't be surprised if you get a note from the Reviewer with a deadline.

 

I've seen this handled quite well by some Reviewers back when I lived in Oregon. If a cache was "under the weather", and someone wanted to place a cache within proximity, they'd email the Reviewer with details. The Reviewer would post a note to the cache in question asking that action be taken with X amount of time. If it wasn't then the Reviewer would archive and let the person who wanted to hide a new cache know it's coming. Sometimes there would be only a matter of short hours before a new cache appeared within proximity of that older, less well taken care of cache.

 

Oftentimes it would be an example where the cache out of order was placed in a seemingly convenient place, albeit easy to get muggled or a poor choice of container. Usually--but not always--the next cache placed by a new owner would have learned from those mistakes and improved on hide location, container choice, D/T accuracy, listing details, and all matters related to improving on the old.

 

I can't say that I see that anymore with Reviewers (not that my current Reviewer wouldn't be ready to be that helpful--he really does a great job), as oftentimes people seem to complain that it isn't their job to "enforce NM logs" or "impose" on someone's cache. "The cache and listing are the cache owner's, not Groundspeak's or their Reviewers" people bellow. I digress...

 

So yeah. With some patience, and clear and open conversations with the local Reviewer, a new cache can replace a cache that isn't being dealt with. Sometimes it takes a bit of prodding with the Reviewer, but so long as it all follows the guidelines, it rarely ends with the Reviewer denying a new cache to replace a cache where an owner is neglecting their responsibilities.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Cascade Reviewer
Removed innapropriate language within quote