GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Geocaching Australia governance issues
User avatar
Alansee
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
Posts: 560
Joined: 23 February 06 12:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Alansee » 16 July 07 10:20 pm

I am all for having an agreed process for dealing with apparently abandoned caches, however 3 DNF's is far too little. I have found a cache with 5 previous DNF's, and with no apparent action from the owner. I have also replaced someone's cache (which had definitely gone missing)with 6 previous DNF's and no action from the owner, simply to keep it going.

Every cacher is quite capable of reading the logs and deciding for themselves whether to tackle any particular cache.

Memory is surely not an issue, so I reckon it is really about making sure that something can be done if caches are defunct after a VERY LONG time. Like a YEAR.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16024
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 16 July 07 10:37 pm

Facitman wrote:I've got a dashboard thingy that tracks Victorian caches and have found that 3 DNF's in a row generally indicate that the cache has a problem. The only twist is sometimes you get a false positive when teams are caching together and all log a DNF; doesn't necessarily mean it's missing.

You could look for 3 DNFs on different days?

Of course some caches just get lots of DNF's even if they are a-okay eg. this evil tree one


In which case all the owner has to do is put through a "maintained" log and the DNF counter would restart. I doubt there could ever be a perfect system and this cache is unusual, but a few moments of interest by the owner to out through "maintained" would ensure that the cache hasn't been abandoned.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16024
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 16 July 07 10:42 pm

Alansee wrote:I am all for having an agreed process for dealing with apparently abandoned caches, however 3 DNF's is far too little. I have found a cache with 5 previous DNF's, and with no apparent action from the owner. I have also replaced someone's cache (which had definitely gone missing)with 6 previous DNF's and no action from the owner, simply to keep it going.

Every cacher is quite capable of reading the logs and deciding for themselves whether to tackle any particular cache.

Memory is surely not an issue, so I reckon it is really about making sure that something can be done if caches are defunct after a VERY LONG time. Like a YEAR.


I'm tending towards 4 being about the right number. That would include needs archived logs, BTW.

5 DNF's and a find is not particularly unusual, but after 5 DNF's and no "maintained" by the owner, one could wonder whether it has been abandoned. It may still be there, but the percentages are with it having gone missing.

Remember at GCA, all you would need to do it edit the cache, reactivate it and put through a "maintained" log. There is no need for anyone else to get involved. It's all self service stuff.

I am not a big fan of replacing a cache unless the owner has agreed with it being replaced. It perpetuates the problem of abandoned caches.

User avatar
Justcameron
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 39
Joined: 01 May 07 7:20 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Post by Justcameron » 15 January 08 6:54 pm

Could caches be put up for adoption before they are archived?

eg. 2 months after a needs maintenance log with no response from the owner, email the owner that their cache will be put up for adoption in a month's time if they do not post a note on the cache. If that email bounces, or after another month with no response, the cache should be put up for adoption. (Ask for volunteers by posting a note on the cache or on the forums.) If nobody adopts it within a month (so 4 months total after the initial needs maintenance log) then it should be archived.

Any interaction by the cache owner (performing maintenance, posting a log saying they are overseas and can't maintain it, etc.) would reset the counter to 0.

Why am I proposing this? I want to adopt The Chamber. The cache owner is quite clearly unresponsive.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16024
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 15 January 08 8:12 pm

's yours now.

User avatar
Justcameron
400 or more spectacular views seen
400 or more spectacular views seen
Posts: 39
Joined: 01 May 07 7:20 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Post by Justcameron » 15 January 08 8:15 pm

Well that was unexpectedly easy. Thanks :D

SUBYDAZZ
600 or more caches found
600 or more caches found
Posts: 81
Joined: 20 June 06 8:38 pm
Location: Singleton, Hunter Valley, NSW
Contact:

Re: GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Post by SUBYDAZZ » 19 January 08 11:53 am

caughtatwork wrote:With all the hoohaa going on with the two new cache police members and the archiving of caches from GCA


I missed something here, what is this referring to?

User avatar
Big Matt and Shell
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 1905
Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
Twitter: BigMattandShell
Contact:

Post by Big Matt and Shell » 11 February 08 7:13 pm

Damo. wrote:I'm all for "Free and Open" but I think as cache placers we have some responsibility for what we are putting out there.
If a cache has been abandoned by the placer and is in severe need of maintenance what use is it to anyone. In some cases the community will step up but some caches are not worth it.
I think putting something in place to clear out the garbage is the responsible thing to do.
Making it automated will take the heat off our volunteers as well as hopefully giving people an incentive to fix the caches involved.


Ditto!

Post Reply