But while it's archived, another cache can be placed within the 528ft radius.  My point was that I was trying to hold the area until the construction was complete and evaluate reactivating it or archiving the cache myself.  I can't do that if another cache has encroached.  It's the same reason I didn't move it... the Mostly 7's name would lose its significance if it's moved.

Jake - Team A.I.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Rich B <azicn09@gmail.com> wrote:

That is good to know - we have a cache we want to un-archive and place a "less conspicuous" container for it.  Will keep this in mind.


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 5:26 PM, AZcachemeister <azcachemeister@getnet.net> wrote:
Jake,
and Bob,
Once your caches are repaired/replaced, they can be unarchived and put back in service.
An EMail to our reviewer (with a link to the cache page included for convenience) stating that the cache is fixed should result in unarchival.
Worst case scenario is you would need to 'hide' a 'new' cache at the same location.
The speed with which disabled caches are archived is pretty-much left up to the local reviewer, and is not mandated by Groundspeak/Geocaching.com.
With around 500 caches a month being published  in Arizona alone (I could only guess how many are submitted) our reviewer is overworked and under paid, and should be screaming for some help. With that kind of pressure, some errors of judgment are bound to creep in.

Back on topic. Once a virtual is archived, it's gone for good. :'(

ACM


Jake Olson wrote:
Similarly, they archived one of my caches that I disabled due to construction in the area.  I posted a note on the cache before the archive stating that I was wanting to hold the cache disabled until the construction was complete to re-evaluate archiving it myself then. I sent a subsequent note to the approver that archived it which went ignored, or at least un-responded to.

The cache was named "Mostly 7's" and ended with 4 sevens in both the longitude and latitude.  Moving the cache to an adjacent location would have undermined the whole concept of the placement.

Jake - Team A.I.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Bob & Linda Smith <Lrsmith@cableone.net> wrote:
I think I must agree here that some things GC see as needing heavy-handedness.  They decided to archive one of my caches that I temporally archived because I had not replaced it within 30 days.  I explained in a note that I was laid up with a serious leg injury and would get to it asap.  I don't think they read that but just acted on the flag on my tempory archive.  Which by the way must be fairly new as they threatened to archive another of my caches when I temporally archived it over a year ago and the flag just popped up.  I found that I needed to post a different kind of log other than just a note.
 
I still look after a couple of caches for away owner that are close to me.
 
Anyway, we get a note whenever our caches are logged on line and should act on the note if needed.
 
Jumping off box onto bad leg Ouch!!
Bob Smith, Team Petite Elite, Prescott, AZ


____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching

Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com

____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching

Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com



____________________________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com
To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching

Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com