UnHoly453

From my experience it's people in the forums who claim "you stole his cache". The actual owners could care less. They leave containers rot--unfortunately so do many finders. I have removed several caches (often with a pristine logsheet in a baggie floating in the boggy mess of contents, but I digress). I NA it. It gets archived by a reviewer. I go back to retrieve the litter. I put the mess in my garage, post a note saying I'll hold on to the container for a month, on or after 30 days after I dispose of the broken container. I have never been contacted by a cache owner asking for their cache back. Occasionally the cache was so gross I wasn't going to put the stinky moldy mess in my garage, it went straight in the dumpster. (Once I gagged it was so gross and smelly, I used my hiking stick to fish it out and carry it to the trash bin--gross, yet no one posted an NA, lots of NMs, owner long gone). If they did contact me, I would gladly give the owner a better quality container to replace their broken mayonnaise jar. Oh egh, now I'm just picturing a broken glass mayo jar, with a moldy mayonnaise covered logbook.

Very well put. Thanks.

Is that a skill? No. It's a way of life. You don't choose to Geocache. Geocaching chooses you. Putting that thought provoking commment to one side... My linkhttp://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=311306&view=findpost&p=5653652 Should we be concerned for your geocaching skills? That happened one time. And I was irked. Hence the need for abandoned, or un-maintained caches to be removed. It's been mentioned before. Just because a cacher can't find a cache, even after several attempts, doesn't mean the cache isn't there or isn't maintained. Just because a cache seeker contacts a CO and asks for a hint, but gets no response, doesn't mean the CO has abandoned the cache. <eom> We're in no way talking about asking for hints, and not receiving them. Maybe read the actual conversation before chiming in with an accusatory, and irrelevant 'suggestion'. Thanks.

So did you try to contact the owner to see if they might respond? Sometimes if they are not able to maintain cache they will agree to let you adopt it. You never know. So did you try to contact the owner to see if they might respond? Sometimes if they are not able to maintain cache they will agree to let you adopt it. You never know. Of the few that I've NAd - I've emailed and PMd the owner before NAing. None had responded to either method of communication. It would be nice if there was a way to adopt a cache without the CO's response, but that topic has been beaten to death... Of course. I have tried reaching out to the cache owner. No response. I gave that one an NA, and now it is temp disabled. Once it gets archived, I'll go place a new one in it's place, as I feel it was a solid cache.

Is that a skill? No. It's a way of life. You don't choose to Geocache. Geocaching chooses you. Putting that thought provoking commment to one side... My linkhttp://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=311306&view=findpost&p=5653652 Should we be concerned for your geocaching skills? That happened one time. And I was irked. Hence the need for abandoned, or un-maintained caches to be removed.

Be prepared for low numbers of finds and for many of those who do find it to have been handed the final coordinates I doubt it, this one will be complicated enough that only dedicated cachers will even attempt it, and they certainly won't be spoiling the experience for others. Maybe I'll require anyone who logs the cache to also take some step which otherwise can't be done (unless they've visited every stage of the cache).

Multi-caches are an odd-breed, but one of my favorites! I'm working on a very complicated one now Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines - Multicaches

Should we be concerned for your geocaching skills?

I'm pretty sure you choose to geocache. Considering the number of choices it takes just to get to a single cache alone...

I'm still not completely sure what you expect your "clean out the abandoned caches" event to look like. I'm not sure it will qualify as a CITO event because it doesn't really "improve parks and other cache-friendly places". Instead, it focuses on the caches within those "parks and other cache-friendly places", which by definition are isolated spots at least a tenth of a mile from each other, a tiny fraction of any given park or open space. As an event cache, it would need to meet the requirements for all event caches. Others have already mentioned that an event cache "should not be set up for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search", but there are others. And there are guidelines that apply to all listings, like the no solicitation guidelines, which apply to most agendas of any kind, and not just advertising for commercial entities. Personally, I think it might be more effective to host an event with more of a Geocaching 101 (or Geocaching 102) feel to it, and to encourage use of the current NM/NA log system. But maybe you can come up with some way of "going further" that doesn't violate the guidelines or aggravate the local geocaching community. Thank you for a useful contribution! Ultimately, I suppose the point of the event would be to get folks together, discuss/locate (not physically, but on the site) caches within the parameters (which, is up in the air) and decide among the group who (if anyone) would want to adopt (or, in the case that the CO is unreachable, place a new cache in it's place after archival). And for the caches that were not 'adopted', the group would organize from there to set out within a period of time and search for those caches (not necessarily together, nor as part of the event). From there, the process of archival/adoption/replacement could be sped up, as the people attending would be reporting NAs. Again, i'm just spitballing here. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas for this that could improve upon what I've thought of.

My expertise has more to do with dead bodies than dead caches, but I read the subsections as referring to the content of their site rather than your physical container. Groundspeak can take the pictures I post and make derivative works or otherwise use them. They cannot take over the physical container or unilaterally transfer that. In other words, they are protected both ways -- I am responsible for the container I place but if they ever want to use my pictures (as they once did on their banner) or quote my cache descriptions or logs in an advertisement, they can do it. Instagram and other sites have similar clauses that grants them an expansive right to use content. But Groundspeak could not sell your container to the highest bidder or grant someone else the rights to it. I don't see a different tale between the two sections. I have to admit that I did not graduate from the Signal the Frog School of Law since it is not accredited in my state, but if I find broken pieces of plastic on the ground then I apply Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" test to determine if it is property, abandoned property, or litter. And when I am caching, I also am guided by CITO principles and write appropriate logs. I don't think it needs to be made more complicated than that. Perhaps one day I will get the Signal SoL souvenir. I can only hope. Familiar name...hmm... In any case, thanks for the input. I understand the mentality to just clean as you go... I just feel there is no reason we can't go a step further (besides CITO events).

I do check the activity before a cache run. But I don't outright skip a cache with a string of DNFs. I check d/t and the count of the dnfers. Then read the logs. Some, primarily 1/1 types with several DNFs, won't make the cut. Others, with higher d ratings, I'll read and attempt. I'm not sure that it'll get to that level, but I don't see disqualifying a cache based solely on a string of DNFs and no other variables. Oh I don't actually foresee it getting there, so much as believe that is the type of mentality that causes these types of things to happen...

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens. I don't think there is anything wrong with being 'less than active', or even inactive. I just believe that if you're choosing to step away from it, the responsible thing to do, is to arrange for your caches to be maintained by someone else. Since Geocaching allows for adoption, etc... I don't see that as really asking too much. Nah. I think people are free to do whatever they want with their cache. If a cache goes missing, and the CO wants to replace it six months later, there shouldn't be any issues with that. How is that not an issue? So for six months of it being reported as missing, people should just waste their time? No a cache owner shouldn't go out after 1 or 2 DNFs. After 3-4, they should probably, at the very least, open a dialog with one of the most recent cachers to report it, and see if they can establish that it is actually missing. If there are people looking for a cache that has six months worth of DNFs, I'd be concerned with their geocaching skills. One way that I play the game is like this: I have a planned route and I click on each cache prior to leaving the house and look at the logs to make sure it's been recently found. Or when I just head out to find caches, I'll find one then before going to the next one I'll click on it and read the activity logs. That way I'm not running into the problem of getting to the cache, THEN reading the logs and finding out there's been no finds in the last two months. Again, viewing this as a competition, which it is not. Though I hear navicache, and terracaching are both more geared towards the competitive side. If everyone were to just avoid caches that haven't been found in a while, then ultimately this entire system falls apart. If no one looks for caches that have a few months of DNFs, eventually anything with DNFs never gets looked for. Thus, less people cache, as more and more caches go unfound in their areas. As less people cache, more caches go unmaintained, and thus missing, and the cycle continues until this website exists as nothing more than a directory for 'once monitored' trash in the woods. But hey, on the bright side, at least we'll have the exact coordinates of all that trash!

Remember it's the same company that allows power trails of pill bottles tossed out along busy highways. That is just litter and creating a traffic hazard as I see it. As for you abandoned cache event idea, it sounds feasible that you host a CITO event and go out and gather up all these owner-less caches and remove them from the environment and post your NA's accordingly. Funny you should say that - I was thinking along similar lines but in a different direction... Part of the debate here seems to revolve around the idea that we can't know that a cache is trash and thus confidently place it where trash belongs because: i) It's someone's property - and the owner is out there - SOMEWHERE ii) It might be listed on some other website somewhere that we don't know about Locally I'm aware of cross listings and such on other services because I play there myself. I select geocaches that I seek, and if there are ones like the glass jar full of mush where the owner has not signed on or found any geocaches in a few years, I cart the trash off and post a NA. High-Stinkin' Five for you! I just always try to give people the BotD, at least until I get back home, and find that they have a ton of reports of poor maintenance, and then see a 'Last Active: January 9, 2011'

Come on... I thought for certain that I'd really catch h ell for that one!!! You guys are slipping! Lol, why do I keep finding you in the interesting threads... Anyway, my length of search is highly dependent on the cache. Is it a 'series' (see, GC5KEGQ (KP #1) & its brethren)? How big is it? Are there just a TON of places that it could be? Are there no logical hiding places? Does the area feel sketchy? (too public or private property) How hard was it for me to get to the posted coords? How accurate is my GPS at the moment? What is my mood? Honestly, there's too many variables. I was doing the series mentioned above the other day, (which I only attempted 6/9) and searched for 30ish minutes on 2 that I didn't wind up finding. I was also in a preserve, very naturey, and there was a lot of poison ivy around, that I was trying to avoid. I also left that stinkin' trail with 7+ ticks

Very true - GS has a solution to the inactive CO / abandoned cache as far as the NM - NA etc... The argument here is what to do about the geotrash that's left behind. Sure, it's no longer on the GC site, but it's still there with MOLD growing in it. I'd like to ASSume that if once it becomes archived, it's no longer considered a "cache." If that's the case, then it's just an object that someone stuffed in a tree trunk while hiking... if we consider it _no longer_ a cache, then any Good Samaritan could pick up the trash... Now I'm sure that some here will scream "Thief!" But I'm by no means advocating picking up and throwing away a perfectly good container. Only geotrash. The problem isn't what to do with the listing. I believe it's what to do with the piece of plastic / metal... #WearyTravelerForPresident Nahhh... I'm too much of a cachehole! If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve... Send your campaign contributions to this address.. Welp... You've got my vote! Shut up and take my money! Remember it's the same company that allows power trails of pill bottles tossed out along busy highways. That is just litter and creating a traffic hazard as I see it. As for you abandoned cache event idea, it sounds feasible that you host a CITO event and go out and gather up all these owner-less caches and remove them from the environment and post your NA's accordingly. Thank you. I appreciate your contribution to the topic.

P.S. I'm not busy at work, so I decided to thoroughly read through the Terms of Use Agreement. Section 3, Subsection B does indeed state: "Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache. Geocache listings published through our services are owned by the person who submitted the geocache listing for publication." However Subsections C. and D. of the same section tell a slightly different tale... "C. Your Content. All content you submit through our services remains yours; this includes your geocache logs and pictures, your comments and anything you post to our discussion forums. You and not Groundspeak are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via our services. You represent and warrant that you have all necessary rights and permissions required for all content you post and for the rights you grant to us below, and that your content does not violate this this Agreement, other Groundspeak terms, policies or guidelines, the rights of any other party or applicable law. " "D. The Rights You Grant Us to Your Content. By submitting content to our services, you grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully transferable and sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content in any media now known or created in the future for any purpose. You agree that we have no obligation to monitor or protect your rights in any content that you may submit to us, but in the event that someone else takes content you have submitted through our services without either of our permission, you give us the right to request that they take the content off of their website or otherwise stop using it. " Now, I'm no lawyer, and I'd like Keystone's opinion, given that Keystone is indeed a lawyer (at least, based on what they've posted)... BUT... If I read this correctly, under the ToU Agreement: Content (posted to GS services) Is not owned by GS Is subject to applicable law Your Geocache listing Is Content Is owned by you Assuming this information is true, and looking at Subsection D., one could ascertain that, while GS is not liable or responsible for any of your content, you have granted GS "a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully transferable and sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content in any media now known or created in the future for any purpose" If I am to understand that correctly... GS has the complete right to transfer those same rights to any person(s) (including users/members of their services) in regards to a cache listing. -- End tirade... Again, this isn't even really what this is about, so much as, I'm annoyed that it's been harped on repeatedly, and if I'm not mistaken (which I may be) then that harping was for nought.

Very true - GS has a solution to the inactive CO / abandoned cache as far as the NM - NA etc... The argument here is what to do about the geotrash that's left behind. Sure, it's no longer on the GC site, but it's still there with MOLD growing in it. I'd like to ASSume that if once it becomes archived, it's no longer considered a "cache." If that's the case, then it's just an object that someone stuffed in a tree trunk while hiking... if we consider it _no longer_ a cache, then any Good Samaritan could pick up the trash... Now I'm sure that some here will scream "Thief!" But I'm by no means advocating picking up and throwing away a perfectly good container. Only geotrash. The problem isn't what to do with the listing. I believe it's what to do with the piece of plastic / metal... #WearyTravelerForPresident

Yeah, exactly. Geocaching.com already has a system in place, that eventually, if COs let their caches go long enough a reviewer will step in and either 1) disable it or 2) archive it after no CO response. There doesn't need to be anymore to it. Eventually... that is the point though. You have argued how long is long enough before a cache qualifies for... whatever it is this discussion is about at this point... well, how long before eventually is too long? As previously stated, if something isn't being maintained, it becomes trash in the woods (or wherever...). One of the key core-values of Groundspeak that kept me interested, and even following the news on Geocaching when I wasn't participating, is the devotion to cleaning up the environment.

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens. I don't think there is anything wrong with being 'less than active', or even inactive. I just believe that if you're choosing to step away from it, the responsible thing to do, is to arrange for your caches to be maintained by someone else. Since Geocaching allows for adoption, etc... I don't see that as really asking too much. Nah. I think people are free to do whatever they want with their cache. If a cache goes missing, and the CO wants to replace it six months later, there shouldn't be any issues with that. How is that not an issue? So for six months of it being reported as missing, people should just waste their time? No a cache owner shouldn't go out after 1 or 2 DNFs. After 3-4, they should probably, at the very least, open a dialog with one of the most recent cachers to report it, and see if they can establish that it is actually missing. -- I digress -- But we're not talking about members who are maintaining their caches, and simply giving some leeway for people just not finding it, etc... We're talking about members who have been inactive for a long time, and just are not maintaining their caches. When I joined Geocaching back in 2003, the community, obviously, was much smaller, but people actually used the tools presented to them. And when a cache was in dire need of maintenance, it would get the reviewer attention it needed, because cachers would use those functions to make them aware.

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens. I don't think there is anything wrong with being 'less than active', or even inactive. I just believe that if you're choosing to step away from it, the responsible thing to do, is to arrange for your caches to be maintained by someone else. Since Geocaching allows for adoption, etc... I don't see that as really asking too much. That's grand, but I personally wouldn't be terribly keen on being on the receiving end of a complaint against my user account because I decided to march around taking over, or removing, other people's caches without their consent. YMMV. Geocaching.com allows for cache adoption, but doesn't require it, and certainly doesn't inflict it on anyone without their express permission. Just amazing... Unbelievable, is it not? I think most people probably intend to return at some point, though, that doesn't mean they will. And if they do, I think it is reasonable to assume that after a long period of time (say, over a year?) of non-maintenance, and reports of a worn-out, shoddy cache, or a missing cache, that it will be, at the very least disabled, if not archived.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, your idea runs afoul of the guidelines AND the terms of use of the site. It also ignores more than 15 years of geocaching history and discussion, much of which is literally at your fingertips. This makes it unworkable, unless you intend to engage in these activities outside of official parameters. If you don't mean to engage in vigilantism, you really should spend some time educating yourself about the way the game operates and the past history of these issues so you can formulate a more workable plan. While I was away from Geocaching as a whole for several years, I came into it while I, myself, and the game were both still pretty young, and have a pretty strong understanding of how 'the game operates'. Am I going to read through (maybe) dozens or more forum discussions about the topic from years ago, before opening a new dialog about it? No, I'm not. If the discussions are in the past, and the issue in question is still an issue, then, for all intents and purposes, those discussions stand to present nothing more than banter. Times change, people change, rules change.. That is life. Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens. I don't think there is anything wrong with being 'less than active', or even inactive. I just believe that if you're choosing to step away from it, the responsible thing to do, is to arrange for your caches to be maintained by someone else. Since Geocaching allows for adoption, etc... I don't see that as really asking too much. That's grand, but I personally wouldn't be terribly keen on being on the receiving end of a complaint against my user account because I decided to march around taking over, or removing, other people's caches without their consent. YMMV. Geocaching.com allows for cache adoption, but doesn't require it, and certainly doesn't inflict it on anyone without their express permission. Again, never said that I would do that, nor did I suggest that anyone else did. You seem to have in your mind that I am suggesting such things, and continue to perpetuate the idea that I am, despite being directly corrected on multiple occasions. I'd suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Forum Guidelines: At this point, I don't feel any of your responses are constructive, and find that, nearly all of them in response to this topic have been inflammatory, in that they seem to have no purpose other than to arouse hostility or anger.

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5654074 But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?" (I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... ) You definitely run a risk, however small, of really ticking off a cache owner if you steal their caches. So it's up to you to weigh the risk and the potential consequences of this unsanctioned vigilante cache clean-up. I've been around the geocaching scene in my community long enough to know there are some seemingly quiet cache owners who don't participate much anymore, but who would react very strongly to another cacher removing their cache without permission. And it ain't pretty when that happens. I don't think there is anything wrong with being 'less than active', or even inactive. I just believe that if you're choosing to step away from it, the responsible thing to do, is to arrange for your caches to be maintained by someone else. Since Geocaching allows for adoption, etc... I don't see that as really asking too much.

The thing about numbers??? Each person measures their caching by numbers in black and white (or is that yellow), it is the way the system was created, it is the system that we choose to take part in, and many of us not only choose to take part in it, but truly love and enjoy our passions. So assuming you are truly interested and not just attempting to stir the pot.. here is our individual reason for keeping track of numbers/stats. Each one of those numbers for us represents an adventure, an experience, and a part of our life. It doesn't matter if it was a park n grab on a guardrail that took 15 seconds to find, or a 5/5 multi that took 5 hours to complete... they are personal achievements for us, and it don't really matter if someone else approves or disapproves, because they are personal.. if somebody else is interested in our numbers then we are happy to share the joy and serenity of them with anyone The important thing here is to not assume to know things about another cacher simply based on their numbers.. just enjoy Geocaching in the way you want to(within the rules that Groundspeak has set) and let others do the same thing. Honestly, if you want to strive for high numbers, go for it. I just think there are better suited hobbies for that type of thing. What you're describing, is not the competitive mentality. Of course I understand the psychology of 'The Highest Score'. I just feel that geocaching is something that is so much more than numbers, and as I have said before: When I see that super high count, well, I'm not impressed with their high number - so much as the incredible adventure(s) that were cultivated to reach it. The number of different places, etc... But, what 'adventure' is there to pulling up to a guard rail in a parking lot? I don't care what size the cache is, or what is inside, so much as - was it more than just another magnet stuck to a lamp post? I do, however, enjoy the creativity of some of the camouflage of caches in parking lots... I suppose I just think that 'boosting' as I would call it (based on experience with games that are highly stat-oriented) is pointless, and generally, with anything, takes away from whatever it is when you take away the numbers. I'm not interested in impressing anyone with how many Finds I have. There's nothing special about a guard rail cache or a lamp post cache or a plastic bowl in a rock wall. But I don't know that those are the types of caches I will be finding until I arrive at GZ. When I go out caching, I pull up the map, I pick a route of some caches I would like to find and set out. Some times they are predetermined routes with a certain number of caches I hope to find, other days I just hit the road and drive into a nearby city, park the car and start walking. The point of the game for me is to find as many caches as I possibly can. I don't know how else to explain it. Fair enough. I suppose the evolving demographic has created space for those who are less in it for the adventure, than the find. I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to find as many as you can, I just feel that if you're obsessed with those numbers - enough so that, in the even of a DNF, you just throw down another cache and say you found it... well... that, to me, is an issue with integrity.

Why the assumption that the CO doesn't care anymore? Just because CO won't stop immediately and tend to the cache as you see fit? Come on. People have lives outside of their hobbies. Maybe CO has a sick family member or work has been consuming all their time. Except for the time they found to log in but not post a note, presumably. Come on - I'm not talking about a 2 week old "damp log" post an screaming "let's archive that bastiage!" Immediately ? No - last log was in 2013 - several mentioned the damage over several months. So it wasn't an isolated log. I think that caches like this are what's central to the active / inactive good condition / bad condition discussion. I'm just positing now, but there are several caches close to this one, both easier and harder. They're getting found and looked for. This one is not. I again - just positing... but I think that this one is in its own death spiral. People researching a cache trip see that it's in lousy shape and that there's no proactive, well - reactive, CO action. Why should they make the trek to find a wet - broken cache in the woods when there are others on both sides of it that are in just as pretty a spot (to allay other posters' response to this) that are fun to find and log? I'll wager (after talking to the last 2012 finder) that when I get there there will be nothing more than a PVC pipe and maybe some trinkets on the ground. WearyTraveler, you have put this so perfectly... These are the types of caches that caused me to start this thread to begin with... Thank you for having some semblance of understanding what it is I'm talking about... I think I need to go back to school for English or something, because clearly, my communication skills could use some work. Narcissa.. I am not sure why you think that I want to just go steal people's caches, or do anything that involves going against the Rules or TOS... The point of starting this thread was to present my own thought process, on -- what I thought was a half decent, albeit expeditious, idea -- and hopefully bring together other cachers who have seen this same pattern, to create some sort of collective ideal as to how to address these things within the bounds of the rules (hence the suggestion of a reviewer's participation). The intent is to clean up after those who've either lost interest, passed on, or simply become to busy to take care of their caches. This creates opportunity for cachers to get out there, place new caches, adopt old ones, and to see first hand how much of a mess an abandoned cache can become. All - I understand that people own their caches, and that ultimately, withing the bounds of the rules at least, they will never be forfeited to someone else without consent. This is a forum for members of this community to discuss this amazing, Ecocentric hobby that we are all a part of. When someone brings an idea here, rather than chastise, and berate them for their ideas, and tell them to 'inform themselves', perhaps aid in doing so, and keep the condescension to a minimum? I do enjoy taking part in a community, offering suggestions, and going beyond the call to assist others, though I feel it's completely unnecessary to lambaste someone for having an idea. Regardless of how ridiculous you may find the idea to be, generally speaking, most of us who take the time out of our day to open discussion on a community forum, with an idea like this one, have nothing but the best intentions.