 |
MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3673
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Pear Head wrote: |
| Moe the Sleaze wrote: |
| spinowner wrote: |
| We can discuss this until we're blue in the ears, but I don't think an attributes icon will ever be satisfactory regarding a cache's winter status. The only good way for a cache owner to let finders know about winter findability is to write about it in the text on the cache page. |
People read cache descriptions!?  |
I only really read them in the winter (when it's so much harder to find caches and you need to be more selective about what you're looking for). |
Hey, wait a minute. I thought having two accounts on mngca.org was against the rules..  j/k |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EPMinnesota
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 1908
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bflentje wrote: |
| Pear Head wrote: |
| Moe the Sleaze wrote: |
| spinowner wrote: |
| We can discuss this until we're blue in the ears, but I don't think an attributes icon will ever be satisfactory regarding a cache's winter status. The only good way for a cache owner to let finders know about winter findability is to write about it in the text on the cache page. |
People read cache descriptions!? |
I only really read them in the winter (when it's so much harder to find caches and you need to be more selective about what you're looking for). |
Hey, wait a minute. I thought having two accounts on mngca.org was against the rules.. j/k |
What are you saying? Pear Head is not the same person as Moe the Sleaze who is not the same person as spinowner...at least last I checked.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knowschad
Geocacher
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 448
Location: South St Paul
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="MN.Fruitcake"]
| knowschad wrote: |
I will also say that caches that are disabled for more than 3 months, with good reason or not, require extra work on my part, so the less you disable the better. Don't be miffed when I'm on your case in the spring and it's not re-enabled - I want it off my list.  |
What is magic about 3 months? Our winter is never only 3 months long. Do you use a GSAK script to identify those caches, or a tool that Groundspeak provides, or other, and why can't you change it to, say, 4 months; December, January, February, and March at the very least, if not November and April, are winter months even down here in the Twin Cities.
_________________
Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Don't drink & deriv |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| knowschad wrote: |
| MN.Fruitcake wrote: |
I will also say that caches that are disabled for more than 3 months, with good reason or not, require extra work on my part, so the less you disable the better. Don't be miffed when I'm on your case in the spring and it's not re-enabled - I want it off my list. |
What is magic about 3 months? Our winter is never only 3 months long. Do you use a GSAK script to identify those caches, or a tool that Groundspeak provides, or other, and why can't you change it to, say, 4 months; December, January, February, and March at the very least, if not November and April, are winter months even down here in the Twin Cities. |
3 months is what SJ used and I believe what most other reviewers use.
If I make it 4 months then someone will come along and ask for 5, and on and on. 3 months isn't set because of the length of winter, it's set because disabling a cache is supposed to be a temporary thing - it gives the CO time to fix or replace a cache (for example). Temporary means different things - to me 3 months has exceeded temporary.
To answer your other question though, yes, I am currently using GSAK to determine which caches have exceeded 3 months. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad_CRC
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MN.Fruitcake wrote: |
I will also say that caches that are disabled for more than 3 months, with good reason or not, require extra work on my part, so the less you disable the better. Don't be miffed when I'm on your case in the spring and it's not re-enabled - I want it off my list. |
I just got an email from you on this topic and don't know how to handle it. Whether I should just archive the series and be done with it for good, or leave them disabled till I can get to them to verify if they still exist (spring?) I have several more that will be on the list soon as well.
The flood wiped out a bunch of my canoe caches, but not all, and then the sheriff closed the canoe launch so I couldn't get back out to them, they're pretty much impossible to reach till spring now. way more than 3 months.
how would you like us to handle this? Is there something we can do to get them off your list till spring? I certainly don't want anything on your list or that will cause you extra work. But there's no realistic way to get to these before then, and even when spring comes, I don't know what the plans are for opening the launch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spinowner
Geocacher
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 561
Location: Plymouth, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad_CRC wrote: |
| MN.Fruitcake wrote: |
I will also say that caches that are disabled for more than 3 months, with good reason or not, require extra work on my part, so the less you disable the better. Don't be miffed when I'm on your case in the spring and it's not re-enabled - I want it off my list. |
I just got an email from you on this topic and don't know how to handle it. Whether I should just archive the series and be done with it for good, or leave them disabled till I can get to them to verify if they still exist (spring?) I have several more that will be on the list soon as well.
The flood wiped out a bunch of my canoe caches, but not all, and then the sheriff closed the canoe launch so I couldn't get back out to them, they're pretty much impossible to reach till spring now. way more than 3 months.
how would you like us to handle this? Is there something we can do to get them off your list till spring? I certainly don't want anything on your list or that will cause you extra work. But there's no realistic way to get to these before then, and even when spring comes, I don't know what the plans are for opening the launch. |
Speaking as an objective third party it seems reasonable for a CO to keep a cache disabled for an extended period if there are extenuating circumstances as long as you keep the reviewer up to date on the situation.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3673
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pfalstad
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 967
Location: Edina
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad_CRC wrote: |
| I just got an email from you on this topic and don't know how to handle it. Whether I should just archive the series and be done with it for good, or leave them disabled till I can get to them to verify if they still exist (spring?) I have several more that will be on the list soon as well. |
If they do get archived, they can always be re-activated if the spot is still available, which it probably will be. It happens a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad_CRC
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spinowner wrote: |
Speaking as an objective third party it seems reasonable for a CO to keep a cache disabled for an extended period if there are extenuating circumstances as long as you keep the reviewer up to date on the situation. |
well, reasonable or not, it's a reality in this state. (Even if I left my underwater caches out over winter, it would take a chainsaw and a heck of a lot of luck to find them -- if the lake was even legal to walk on in winter.)
I'm just wondering if there's something that can be set for caches that aren't accessible in winter to avoid making them a cause of extra work for fruitcake.
maybe the "not winter friendly" attribute or the "requires boat" attribute, or something could be set that would keep them off his list at least til the ice goes away? I'm not one who likes the idea that something I'm doing is causing someone else unnecessary work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3673
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad_CRC wrote: |
| spinowner wrote: |
Speaking as an objective third party it seems reasonable for a CO to keep a cache disabled for an extended period if there are extenuating circumstances as long as you keep the reviewer up to date on the situation. |
well, reasonable or not, it's a reality in this state. (Even if I left my underwater caches out over winter, it would take a chainsaw and a heck of a lot of luck to find them -- if the lake was even legal to walk on in winter.)
I'm just wondering if there's something that can be set for caches that aren't accessible in winter to avoid making them a cause of extra work for fruitcake.
maybe the "not winter friendly" attribute or the "requires boat" attribute, or something could be set that would keep them off his list at least til the ice goes away? I'm not one who likes the idea that something I'm doing is causing someone else unnecessary work. |
I challenge you all to find my river caches during the winter. I would be impressed. But I will not disable them. Doesn't make sense. With enough will power, you can get them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spinowner
Geocacher
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 561
Location: Plymouth, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad_CRC wrote: |
| spinowner wrote: |
Speaking as an objective third party it seems reasonable for a CO to keep a cache disabled for an extended period if there are extenuating circumstances as long as you keep the reviewer up to date on the situation. |
well, reasonable or not, it's a reality in this state. (Even if I left my underwater caches out over winter, it would take a chainsaw and a heck of a lot of luck to find them -- if the lake was even legal to walk on in winter.)
I'm just wondering if there's something that can be set for caches that aren't accessible in winter to avoid making them a cause of extra work for fruitcake.
maybe the "not winter friendly" attribute or the "requires boat" attribute, or something could be set that would keep them off his list at least til the ice goes away? I'm not one who likes the idea that something I'm doing is causing someone else unnecessary work. |
How about just editing the cache page to include a message at the top in big letters saying "not winter friendly" or "requires boat"?
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AerosmithPA
MnGCA Board
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 563
Location: Grand Rapids
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MN.Fruitcake wrote: |
3 months is what SJ used and I believe what most other reviewers use.
If I make it 4 months then someone will come along and ask for 5, and on and on. 3 months isn't set because of the length of winter, it's set because disabling a cache is supposed to be a temporary thing - it gives the CO time to fix or replace a cache (for example). Temporary means different things - to me 3 months has exceeded temporary.
|
Groundspeak suggests "a few weeks". I think tying an area up with a disabled cache for one quarter of a year is excessive and I appreciate the reviewers when they make these caches go away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad_CRC wrote: |
| MN.Fruitcake wrote: |
I will also say that caches that are disabled for more than 3 months, with good reason or not, require extra work on my part, so the less you disable the better. Don't be miffed when I'm on your case in the spring and it's not re-enabled - I want it off my list. |
I just got an email from you on this topic and don't know how to handle it. Whether I should just archive the series and be done with it for good, or leave them disabled till I can get to them to verify if they still exist (spring?) I have several more that will be on the list soon as well.
The flood wiped out a bunch of my canoe caches, but not all, and then the sheriff closed the canoe launch so I couldn't get back out to them, they're pretty much impossible to reach till spring now. way more than 3 months.
how would you like us to handle this? |
In this particular case (and I'm not sure which caches you're talking about without some further research), I'd post just that as a log on the cache page. It helps me a lot if you include a reasonable follow-up date ("I'll recheck on the situation by 4/1/11" for example). Assuming that there's a reasonable expectation that the cache will be able to be replaced, I don't have a problem with it. I think I would have a problem with the cache that Bart included the link to. If the area appears to be off limits for the foreseeable future then it's a different story. Naturally much of this is a judgment call, but I'm interested in trying to work with COs where I can (and within reason).
| Quote: |
| Is there something we can do to get them off your list till spring? |
The real work for me is putting it on the list to begin with. To get it off the list you'd either have to archive it or enable it (assuming it's there).
Archiving it is another option if you like. You're giving up rights to that location if you do it, and the cache will be reevaluated based on the current guidelines when unarchived (and will be reexamined for proximity issues as well). Assuming it's all ok then it can be unarchived. I'm not sure I'd recommend that here though - personally I look at unarchiving as a rare thing where something unanticipated happened, not as part of a maintenance plan. That's not to say that it couldn't be done though.
| Quote: |
| I certainly don't want anything on your list or that will cause you extra work. |
The job comes with the fact that there's additional work. If you really wanted to save me work, don't submit any caches. I don't mind the work, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the job. I am just trying to minimize the work where I can by being upfront about the issues that create the work.
| Quote: |
| But there's no realistic way to get to these before then, and even when spring comes, I don't know what the plans are for opening the launch. |
Post the note on the page I already hit as well as the others that will be hit, include a follow-up date, and we'll go from there. It sounds like you have a reasonable expectation that you'll be able to get back in there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bad_CRC wrote: |
| spinowner wrote: |
Speaking as an objective third party it seems reasonable for a CO to keep a cache disabled for an extended period if there are extenuating circumstances as long as you keep the reviewer up to date on the situation. |
well, reasonable or not, it's a reality in this state. (Even if I left my underwater caches out over winter, it would take a chainsaw and a heck of a lot of luck to find them -- if the lake was even legal to walk on in winter.)
I'm just wondering if there's something that can be set for caches that aren't accessible in winter to avoid making them a cause of extra work for fruitcake.
maybe the "not winter friendly" attribute or the "requires boat" attribute, or something could be set that would keep them off his list at least til the ice goes away? I'm not one who likes the idea that something I'm doing is causing someone else unnecessary work. |
There's no need in 99% of cases to disable a cache for the winter. The cache may not be locatable in the winter due to the environment, but that's not a maintenance issue, it's a location issue. Temporarily disabling caches should be held to maintenance issues.
Posting something in big red print on the cache page, if you feel the need, should suffice. For those that don't read the cache page and cache in winter, they shouldn't be too upset if they can't find it - that's one of the hazards of not reading a cache page I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bad_CRC
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bflentje wrote: |
I challenge you all to find my river caches during the winter. I would be impressed. But I will not disable them. Doesn't make sense. With enough will power, you can get them. |
Reaching a river cache in winter requires one of two things...
walking on a frozen river, which is EXTREMELY dangerous, or crossing private property, which is bad for the game, but unfortunately, there are some who would do it.
Frankly, I want no part of either.
That said, I have left some enabled for various reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission. |
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
