Temporarily out of Order

[seldom|seen]

I have noticed in the past couple of years that cache owners, including myself, have had to temporarily disable or archive caches dues to unforseen circumstances when we have no intention of shutting them down, but can’t help but do otherwise.

This can be due to a number of factors, the most common being “trails closed” for the season. Others include “road is under construction”, “area is currently flooded”, “bridge is out”, that kind of thing.

Take Fox Locks | #4 Fast-forward to the Past for example. I pulled this cache during the reconstruction of College Ave. Bridge, but it will go back in once the construction is done. However, that could take over a year and the cache has already been down since about September.

Being disabled for so long, the cache generated an automatic response from our reviewers:

“I noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess of the period of “a few weeks” as contemplated by the cache guidelines published on Geocaching.com. While I feel that Geocaching.com should hold the location for you and block other caches from entering the area around this cache for a reasonable amount of time, we can’t do so forever. Please either repair/replace this cache, or archive it (using the archive listing link in the upper right) so that someone else can place a cache in the area, and geocachers can once again enjoy visiting this location.

If you plan on repairing this cache, please log a note to the cache (not email) so I don’t archive the listing for non-communication.”

But, none of this applies. The cache didn’t need repair or replacing nor could anyone else put a new cache in the area under the current circumstances, or “enjoy visiting the location”.

So, my question is, should we not have some form of communicating this to reviewers and cachers? Something like an new logging category similar to “Needs Maintenance” that allows cache owners to say “Hey, this is a great cache, it may not be accessible for a while, but it will be back.” that can take some pressure off the reviewers who keep track of this stuff while letting other cachers know that they shouldn’t attempt while the “Not Accessible” marker is listed in the attribute section? Or is the current system doing an decent job of this already?

[SammyClaws]

There is a communication mechanism in place. Simply post a note to cache page to explain the circumstances and the reviewers have something to go on. If there is no response, the reviewers can assume the cache owner is MIA. Simple, effecient and no need for more cache status flags.

[Team Deejay]

Actually, if you post a note to the cache page every couple months, indicating progress to those watching the caches, you will never hear from a reviewer.

[marc_54140]

Alex, since there is a considerable amount of … doubt? … as to what the area will look like when the new bridge is finally completed, I would consider archiving the current cache.

Then, when the bridge is done, place a new version.

[-cheeto-]

My wife and I refuse to do that with the cache we placed on the other side of the bridge along the trail. It will stay until we can access it and we will continue to post notes on the page as appropriate. If the contruction ends up impacting this one we will archive but not until we can verify that.

I do agree with S|S that in certain circumstances it would be handy to set a cache to out of order but as to whether that would ever be made possible I am not holding my breath. I think the notes on the cache page to make it look like you are keeping track of it is the best option.

[Author]

Posts