Joined: 20 May 2007
|Posted: Nov 13, 2018 3:08 pm Post subject: I have a dilemma
|Over the past couple of months many people will have received an email from HQ relating to Low Health Score on one or more of their caches. This email is basically a reminder that there may be a problem with a cache and that you should check on it to confirm that it's still in place and doesn't need maintenance.
Part of my duties as a reviewer is to go thru the list of caches with a Low Health Score that is provided to me by HQ. I end up putting notes on caches that have been tagged and archiving those where I haven't had any response from the owner since I disabled it or posted my last note.
My dilemma comes in the fact that a cache listing and associated cache are considered to be the property of the CO. This may seem obvious but each time I go thru this list I run into problems where the cache owner has been inactive for an extended period of time or left the game and can no longer be contacted. This also means that maintenance on the cache is the responsibility of the cache owner.
The problem I run into is when a well intention-ed cacher finds a cache whose owner is not active and replaces the cache for them in order to record a find and keep it going. That does not eliminate the low health score on that cache and I am still required to follow thru with the cache owner. What is going to end up happening is that I am going to eventually archive that cache because I have had no response from the owner even though the cache was replaced by someone else and there is a container in place to be found.
While I have the power as a reviewer to re-enable a cache, it is not something that HQ wants us to do. So the result is that the cache will end up on the Low Health Score list time after time.
If a cacher is asked to replace a cache by the owner while they are in the area that is not a problem, the CO knows about it. Or if the owner is an active member of the caching community and I can contact them, not a problem. However if the owner is not active I would much prefer that people don't replace the cache unless they can get confirmation from the owner that is what they want.
This was brought about by the discovery of several caches that were replaced recently by a crew of cachers where the owner has not been active in over a year and has not found a cache in over 2 years. The CO has not responded to any of my emails or requests for information. As a result I am going to be disabling or archiving those caches even though they were replaced and can be found again.
While this may seem like an illogical and heavy handed thing to do I am bound by the policies laid out by HQ as to what my duties are and how I am to carry them out. I don't like archiving caches unnecessarily but it happens.
So please, before you just head out and replace a cache thinking that you are doing the owner a favor, make sure you can confirm with the owner that it is ok with them. If you can't contact the owner then I would prefer you don't replace the cache.
If anyone has any questions regarding this feel free to let me know.