View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 17 December 18 11:33 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit 
Author Message
2700 or more caches found
2700 or more caches found
User avatar

Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Posts: 1020
Location: Blackwater Queensland
GCA Found: 31
GCA Hidden: 5
Post Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Well, I am in a bit of a state of disbelief at the moment. I know a lot of cachers out there carry maintenance kits, and perform maintenance on caches that need it, when we find them. I have done this for years, replaced full log books, sharpened or replaced broken pencils or pens, even occasionally replaced entire missing caches. Well, it seems, with a current stand in reviewer from overseas, that all has to end. I recently replaced a missing cache in Townsville. It had a string of dnfs, and once at GZ, it was clear that the container was certainly gone. So, I did as I have done many times before, replaced the cache, then logged it, as it was an interesting location. Imagine my surprise when, a week later, one of our temporary reviewers posted a note stating the cache will probably be archived, treated as abandoned, because the owner didn't do the maintenance, as per the rules of GC.com. In my opinion, what a crock, and very unAustralian. The cache in question is GC3CEXR Wasted Art.

Opinions?

As far as I am concerned, this isn't the way we do things here in Oz.

Cheers

Bundy


25 July 18 1:04 am
Profile E-mail
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found

Joined: 07 October 12 1:59 am
Posts: 347
Location: Canberra
GCA Found: 1672
GCA Hidden: 13
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds1000 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
A cache I once found and logged, after a string of DNFs, was also archived, because of the DNFs. The cache was still there, although maybe not the original (:?:). Great hide, great place for a cache; I think I gave it a favourite; a real shame.

I have replaced several caches; some with the full knowledge and approval of the CO; others, because they were remote and definitely missing or found in pieces. There might be no other cache to find in that area if it were archived. Maybe we will all need to consider not mentioning this in logs now. Really is a shame; needing to hide, helping out. (Perhaps instead of admitting replacing it we will need to lie. 'Guess what, I found the cache twenty metres off GZ, hidden under leaves. I'm guessing an animal moved it. All is okay now, as I placed it back at GZ.')

Then I see other caches, with a many months of DNFs, NM logs and nothing is done about them.


25 July 18 2:16 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: 07 January 15 9:15 pm
Posts: 474
Location: Caringbah
GCA Found: 553
GCA Hidden: 614
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Temporary overseas reporters should not rock the boat as they are not aware of the why the ship still floats and they are not going to feel responsible for the sinking of it.

Edwin


25 July 18 9:55 am
Profile E-mail WWW
User avatar

Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Posts: 15754
Location: Melbourne
GCA Found: 1240
GCA Hidden: 333
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds1000 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Them's the rules we agreed to abide by. Really can't complain about enforcement of the rules if that's the way we are asked to play the game.


25 July 18 10:01 am
Profile E-mail WWW
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
User avatar

Joined: 10 April 05 10:39 pm
Posts: 873
Location: Leeming Western Australia
GCA Found: 1390
GCA Hidden: 89
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds1000 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
On GC a cache owner agreed to be responsible for maintenance on both the cache AND the listing when they submitted a cache for publication so if an owner doesn't acknowledge or respond to the finders 'maintenance' within 28 days then the cache is deemed to be abandoned and subject to being archived.

The Australian reviewers may word it different to our visitor but the results are the same.

A number of caches all over Australia have been archived in similar circumstances after throwdowns/maintenance by other than the owner has failed to get the cache owner to respond.


25 July 18 11:40 am
Profile
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found

Joined: 07 October 12 1:59 am
Posts: 347
Location: Canberra
GCA Found: 1672
GCA Hidden: 13
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds1000 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Chwiliwr wrote:
On GC a cache owner agreed to be responsible for maintenance on both the cache AND the listing when they submitted a cache for publication so if an owner doesn't acknowledge or respond to the finders 'maintenance' within 28 days then the cache is deemed to be abandoned and subject to being archived.

The Australian reviewers may word it different to our visitor but the results are the same.

A number of caches all over Australia have been archived in similar circumstances after throwdowns/maintenance by other than the owner has failed to get the cache owner to respond.

I don't replace caches in urban areas or nearby places, but I have replaced caches in remote areas; and if this wasn't done, no-one would have any caches to find there. Some of these have been old caches, say 2001.

Has any cache ever been archived for wrong listing, such as listing a cache as 1 star terrain, rather than say a more correct 4 or 5, or way-out coordinates, even after comments from finders? This never seems to happen. There was one cache with coordinates over 100 metres out, numerous comments, maintenance logs, nothing happened. It only disappeared when the CO archived it in a huff! It's only appears to be maintenance on the cache that matters.


25 July 18 1:52 pm
Profile E-mail
2700 or more caches found
2700 or more caches found
User avatar

Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Posts: 1020
Location: Blackwater Queensland
GCA Found: 31
GCA Hidden: 5
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Personally, I think it's a case of being extremely over zealous. I don't know where this reviewer is from, but I don't think they are from Oz. I recieved a email threatening archiving of one of my caches, because it had a string of DNFs on it, about 5. Not unusual for that particular cache, it has a roughly 4-1 find/DNF ratio. Went out, checked, it's right where it should be.

I am half expecting a similar email on a cache I CO own. It hasn't been attempted for about 8 years. Expecting a It's going to be archived because it's not there, email.

This is just like a small country town, with one local police officer. He keeps the peace, and allows certain small things to slide, as long as no one gets hurt, and is considered a good member of the community. Then, they boys come in from the big city for a weekend blitz. Fine anyone and everyone for the smallest infraction. The local copper them spends the next 12 months in damage control, trying to mend fences.

I think I will just put away my maintenance box, and not worry about it. Or perhaps I am just becomingng synical and grumpy in my old age.

Cheers

Bundy


25 July 18 2:11 pm
Profile E-mail
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found

Joined: 07 October 12 1:59 am
Posts: 347
Location: Canberra
GCA Found: 1672
GCA Hidden: 13
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds1000 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Bundyrumandcoke wrote:
Personally, I think it's a case of being extremely over zealous. I don't know where this reviewer is from, but I don't think they are from Oz.


Possibly Nevada, USA.


25 July 18 2:40 pm
Profile E-mail
2700 or more caches found
2700 or more caches found
User avatar

Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Posts: 1020
Location: Blackwater Queensland
GCA Found: 31
GCA Hidden: 5
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
It would be interesting to see how cache placement rules that apply here in Australia, but are different in the USA, and vice versa, are handled. Cache placement proximity to rail corridors is one I would be particularly interested in. The rules in Qld, and as far as I know, the rest of Australia, are very different to USA, specifically distance wise. Being in the industry, I have already had interesting discussions with an Australian reviewer who wanted to knock back a new cache of mine, using the yank rules as justification. Completely different rules and distances over here.


25 July 18 3:43 pm
Profile E-mail
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
User avatar

Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Posts: 4113
Location: Waitara, Sydney
GCA Found: 1369
GCA Hidden: 26
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds1000 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
I personally don't see anything wrong with community maintenance, and certainly when I used to travel to remote areas would often replace damaged containers, drowned log books and so on. If the reviewers can see the cache is maintained then I can't see why they need to take such a hard line. If there are a bunch of NM (lid is damaged) logs, then a log from someone saying they have replaced the container why can't the reviewer just remove the NM flag instead of threatening archiving, even if the original CO is no longer active? (Throwdowns may be a different issue as may not be in the spirit or even location of the original hide).

It's also a bit of an issue I have with the ban on holiday caches. Yes I can see that maintenance may be a problem, but given the spaces and lack of population in Australia if nobody throws one out in an area, nobody in that area is likely to take up the hobby and perhaps place more. How is it ever supposed to grow into places it already isn't. When I was in Paris (2005 I think) just about every cache I found had been placed by a visitor from another country as at least at that stage the French just hadn't gotten into it. So if it wasn't for tourists there would have been nothing to find - I think I found every active cache within about 50km of the CBD - all 14 or so.


25 July 18 9:44 pm
Profile E-mail
2700 or more caches found
2700 or more caches found
User avatar

Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Posts: 1020
Location: Blackwater Queensland
GCA Found: 31
GCA Hidden: 5
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Well, it seems that maintenance is only supposed to be performed by the cache owner. In the case of the cache I mentioned, I even used the same container, albeit with a request for a subsequent cachet to bring a spray can of rust coloured paint.

Apparently, the CO can remove the Needs Maintenance attribute, and all would be good with the world. I have sent an email to the CO requesting that.

It's interesting that, the guidelines state that if the CO doesn't respond to reviewers request to perform maintenance on a cache, it can be deemed abandoned, and archived by the reviewer. But then, the container is supposed to be removed by the CO within 60 days. The irony with this is, if a cache is abandoned by a CO, chances are, they don't give 2 hoots about removing the remains.

My issue is, yes, a lot of times, finder maintenance is simply replacing a log scroll or pencil. But sometimes it is entire containers, log book, and swag. This can get expensive. Do it multiple times on a trip, and the costs can add up. And then, if archived by a reviewer, then it's money wasted.

You would think Groundspeak would be encouraging maintenance, keeping caches alive, to allow the game (and their potential profits) to grow.

Cheers

Bundy


25 July 18 10:28 pm
Profile E-mail
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found

Joined: 05 October 10 10:20 pm
Posts: 1167
Location: Yorke Peninsula, South Australia
GCA Found: 349
GCA Hidden: 29
100 GCA Finds
Post Re: Seems like it's time to throw away your maintenance kit
Remember that Groundspeak is an American company with American rules. Why should they care about Australian rules? We only make up a small percentage of their user-base. And most of us keeping paying them anyway, irrelevant of what caches they decide they are going to archive...


26 July 18 12:57 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Forum theme by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.