Thanks: 0
I don't know whether to laugh or cry...
I feel like I'm missing something Alan. Shouldn't the owner reactivated it months ago? It could well be in place, but they should have responded to the SBA log with something... unless they're on holiday- I see they've not signed in since the end of July and August is the month lots of people go away.
It's unusual for me to be too deep for you, Paul. It's usually the other way roundOriginally Posted by Simply Paul
.
What I meant was that the cache was disabled by a reviewer (completely unnecessarily as the cache is not on farmland) and then archived by another reviewer because the owner hasn't enabled it!! If it were my cache I'd be pretty miffed, I can say.
Well, the owner/s did have (just) over a year to click a button and bring it back online. Fair's fair.
And have the wrath of a reviewer on them? I wouldn't do it.
The reviewer(s) should have re-enabled it when they thought it appropriate, not archived it!
Why would they have the wrath of the reviewer on them when the problem was over?
I personally think your trying to find a problem that is not there
GAGB Supporter
Sorry but ALL caches within the Exclusion Zone without exception were Disabled. The others affected were enabled either by their owners directly or by request to a reviewer when the Exclusion zone was lifted.It's unusual for me to be too deep for you, Paul. It's usually the other way round
What I meant was that the cache was disabled by a reviewer (completely unnecessarily as the cache is not on farmland) and then archived by another reviewer because the owner hasn't enabled it!! If it were my cache I'd be pretty miffed, I can say.
If the situation happens again I will not hesitate to take the same actions again, and I can promise you that if any owner of a cache within a Exclusion Zone which had been Disabled was enabled before the exclusion zone was uplifted, I'd not hesitate to Archive and lock it.
The cache was Archived due to the owner not maintaining it. He/She could have enabled it, or emailed a reviewer to enable it. But instead chose to ignore the cache.
[] The Guidelines the details of which I've had pointed out to me on several occasions clearly states a cache should be disabled for a short period, usually a few weeks. Months after the exclusion zone was lifted the cache hadn't been enabled and as a result the appropriate action was taken
Deci
Last edited by Brenin Tegeingl; 19th August 2008 at 09:14 PM. Reason: added Deci at the end
My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!
Dave
Brenin Tegeingl
Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC
Ok, I see the problem. Deceangi's temp disable log does say 'until further notice' - a cache owner taking that literally *might* wait to get an email or log saying it was safe to bring it back online, or expect the reviewer to reactivate it. I say might- I would have taken things into my own hands after the DEFRA exclusion zone was dropped, clicked it live and risked the consequences
Last edited by Simply Paul; 19th August 2008 at 09:38 PM.
A completely unnecessary over-reaction. As was archiving them.
yes yes Aaln
GAGB Members
Echoing that on this instance (as is normal!) common sense prevailed. The cache was unmaintained for over a year, it was totally right to archive it.
The exclusion business is a separate matter imo
GAGB Members
The owner can request it is unarchived if they wish. It's not like it's gone for good.
How do you know? The cache had been disabled, on threat of being archived and locked if the owner re-enabled it.
The poor owner couldn't win: if he'd enabled it it would have been archived; if he didn't enable it it would be archivedhmy:.
already been pointed out others inthe same situation were re enabled. Again my personal opinion, an argument with no foundation for the sake of it.How do you know? The cache had been disabled, on threat of being archived and locked if the owner re-enabled it.
The poor owner couldn't win: if he'd enabled it it would have been archived; if he didn't enable it it would be archived
Sounds to me like the owner has been waiting for DC to re-enable the listing. I don't see the huge issue, I mean it can be re-activated at the owners request, who is probably off sunning himself somewhere nice.
I rekon it's time to take the big chill pill Mr White.... then you can laugh soooo much you might just cry
I'd be more concerned with the cache police who grassed him up to the reviewers tsk! A safer world with or without them I wonder.....
h34r:
Exactly my point. I'm glad that at least one other person can see the foolishness of this situation.
In this particular situation I tend to agree with you, though my general view that we are all the cache police prevails.
Oh I can see your point 1, however its very much a clutching at straws situation. Not as if there was no opportunity to clarify is it?
Cache maint is the owners concern, lack of maint becomes the reviewers concern. Not hard to contact them is it?
As for the second point, well I have expressed my view privately.
Inactive Member
Well, I think the irony is delicious and Alan kindly pointed it out.
The cacher apparently lives in Cambridge (now?) according to their profile and has apparently had a gap of about a year in caching and then logged 3 caches.
So, it is corny that perfectly good caches have been archived by reviewer action alone (did they go to collect the containers by any chance, or have they now created geolitter?) More COTI than CITO, I would suggest.
However, it is even more corny that the person who posted the SBAs on parts 1 and 3 of the series is "a Yorkshireman stranded in Lancs", not even local. So as a Lancastrian by birth (and the wars of the roses are ongoing
What remains is for part 2 to be put out of its misery
I'm almost tempted to do it myself, but they are a little outside our patch.
Inactive Member
The personal attack was uncalled for.However, it is even more corny that the person who posted the SBAs on parts 1 and 3 of the series is "a Yorkshireman stranded in Lancs", not even local. So as a Lancastrian by birth (and the wars of the roses are ongoing
I take my analytical skills from my day job, and occasionally put them to use with GSAK to help the reviewers out (who at the time numbered one plus a new recruit), and I ever get is personal attacks, most of them through private EMail or on the cache pages themselves.
At least I have the decency to use my main account, and not resort to using sockpuppets.
I really couldn't care less about the F&M situation in this instance, it was just one of many caches that were disabled over a year ago, and had no logs from their owner indicating the caches were being sorted, so I flagged them up so the reviewers could cast their eye over the listings.
Last edited by Jaz666; 12th September 2008 at 09:06 PM.
GAGB Supporter
I'll say again caches in a exclusion zone. Once this has been lifted there are no caches in a exclusion zone to be actioned.How do you know? The cache had been disabled, on threat of being archived and locked if the owner re-enabled it.
The poor owner couldn't win: if he'd enabled it it would have been archived; if he didn't enable it it would be archived
JUST TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR SO THAT NO ONE READING THIS CAN MISUNDERSTAND! Caches in a Exclusion Zone will be Disabled, and if Enabled whilst the Exclusion Zone is in existence. I will Archive and lock them. Once the Exclusion Zone has been lifted, the owners are free to enable the cache or ask a reviewer to do so for them. This was how we worked over the last Exclusion Zone Incident, and will do so over any future ones.
Oh and several owners enabled their own caches without contacting a reviewer. Not one had any action taken against them for being enabled after the exclusion zone had been lifted.It's not up to a Reviewer to enable a cache which has been disabled, unless requested to do so by the owner. We do not know the status of that container. The owner could have removed it, it could have been muggled, the location might not be accessible due to construction work. That is something the owner will be aware of by maintaining their cache.
its funny how the reviewers receive complaints when the guidelines are not followed to the letter, and also receive complaints if they are
Deci
My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!
Dave
Brenin Tegeingl
Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC
Can you not see how unnecessary that is? The last exclusion zone included towns and villages. What purpose is served by disabling caches in town centres?
Even if a cache is on a right of way which crosses farmland there's still no reason to disable the cache unless the RoW is legally closed. A right of way can only be closed by DEFRA or the local council acting on advice from DEFRA. Some landowners illegally closed RoWs during the last outbreak and by disabling caches indiscriminately we encourage such landowners to continue to act illegally.
Common sense is required should this situation arise again. Caches should be disabled by the cache owner if, and only if, the area has been legally closed.
Of course it is, if a reviewer disabled it. With power comes responsibility.
GAGB Members
The Big Green Bird did ask me to point out that he was up till after midnight last night (and the night before - and the night before that each after a full days work in the office) and was wondering that if he did get paid for all his hard work what sort of salary he would get. He dealt with some 20 SBA logs last night amongst many other tasks and whilst he would love to talk to all the cachers whose caches are presenting him with problems he simply doesn't have time. He also said to spare a thought for his colleague who for many months was working on his own and doing the work that 3 had done before.
The Big Green Bird did say to me that if the original poster of this thread would like to become a volunteer Reviewer he would surely enjoy the job too.
The Big Green Bird has told me that despite the hard work, the emails and the forum posts he still enjoys the job and feels very privileged to be supporting the UK Geocaching community in this way. :socool:
Chris (MrB)
I'm sure one could make a perfectly coherent case to DEFRA that when they declare an exclusion zone, that instead of being just a circle, it should be a 5,000 point delimited polygon, with little holes in it delimited by 500 points for any population centre of more than 200 people. Or whatever. I have no way of knowing whether their failure to do that is caused by the genuine epidemiological requirements of the foot&mouth virus, or bureaucrats reacting in a panicked way, or some point in between. My guess would be "lack of time - this is urgent".
I am, however, reasonably certain that if DEFRA says "no movement within this zone", and geocaching.com or the GAGB were then to put a post on their site saying "nothing to see here folks, continue caching as normal as long as there's tarmac under your feet, we're all much cleverer than the civil servants, it's all an over-reaction, plenty of places are miles from any farm animals", it would not do the image of the game much good.
When the big F&M outbreak occurred a few years previously, entire parts of the country shut down. I remember an Ireland-Wales rugby match being cancelled because they didn't want Welsh supporters "roaming the countryside" on their way to the Swansea-Cork ferry (fill in your own joke here). For good reasons or bad, an F&M outbreak causes the authorities to close down all movement in a given area. They don't have time to work out all the exceptions for all the people who live inside the area, and communicate a 2,000 page list of those exceptions to every citizen and police officer. Nor do the UK reviewers have time to look at every cache in the area to see if it's "clearly" more than X hundred metres from the nearest sheep.
Anyway, what's the big deal about the cache being archived? Archiving just means that the cache owner needs to ask the reviewer (preferably nicely) to reverse the situation. In the absence of any other special circumstances that we might not know about, if the cache owner asks in the next few weeks, the cache will surely be unarchived. All that's happened is that the presumption about whether the cache is likely to be repaired in the near future, has gone from "yes" to "no". (From the reactions I often see when various caches get archived, it seems like a lot of people consider it to be like having a limb amputated, in terms of both its impact and its perceived irreversibility.)
Last edited by sTeamTraen; 20th August 2008 at 10:28 AM.
Now, even I think you're MENTAL! No, really I think you've completely lost the plot in a HUUUUGE waaaayyy man - keep taking the pills.
If there's a diesease outbreak, the gov want to limit movements to stop the spread. Joe Bloggs from clean area A goes to nasty B area caching for the day and comes back with nasty crap for area A to enjoy. Just simple procedures to stop the threat of anthrax, aids, hoof rot or whatever it is trying to infect you.
gagb/gc.com are doing the right thing by discouraging activity in the affected area.
Alan, talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill m8! to the bar :cheers:
I think PUP might have been saying the cache listing hadn't been maintained, in as much as it hadn't been reactivated. Could be a simple oversight.
I doubt it would have been archived if the owner had reenabled it. Reviewers aren't quite so daft, I hope! Once the 'danger' had gone it would have been fine I'm sure, but perhaps Dec' could have picked his words a tiny bit more carefully when putting the cache on hold last year. And now a smiley for the hell of it: :socool: Mmmm, now, that is cool.The poor owner couldn't win: if he'd enabled it it would have been archived; if he didn't enable it it would be archived
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
