Jump to content

Manville Possum

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    5685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Manville Possum

  1. 5 hours ago, Rebore said:

    You can ignore users, but you will still see what they wrote if somebody quotes them. Hover over the profile pic and you'll see the option.

     

    If you would allow me to respond and not answer for me,  there is the ignore users feature here in this forums and there is an option to block users from communicating in the message center.

  2. 10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

    Well that's something.  First chance I got to wrestle it away from them I'd take it.  Any idea how they got their hands on it in the first place? 

     

    I would say being one of and still connected to some of the old players in the area that once had the best of the best caches, and many are still active. 

    I'm no longer interested in geocache ownership. I'm just a casual player. It is these old caches that still interest me, and I don't mind doing community maintenance. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. 10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

    It sure dose.  Hopefully the current owner is taking care of it now and will in the future.  

     

    It's in care of our local prolific hider that has more red wrenches than I care to count, and their own caches fall to the wayside and get archived. But I still trust them to keep up this old one better than their own.

  4. 1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

     

    It's sad that the owners of some of your oldest caches did not entrust the future of those caches to the right people. 

    Very few caches are worthy of such attention but, like many things in our culture, history and longevity are prized.  Having the ability to visit a piece of geocaching history is something special and should be preserved.  

     

    Now just hold on a minute, the oldest cache in my home State deserves entitlement too.

  5. 1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

    For the most part I also agree....BUT.   There are some caches that should continue for posterity sake.  For example "First Mass" which was the first cache placed in Massachusetts should never come to the point where it has no owner and relies solely on community maintenance.  Thankfully it's had owners that have ensured it hasn't and probably never will.    In some rare cases I'd have no problem with GS stepping in and allowing ownership of certain caches to be transferred. 

     

    To whom should these old relics be transferred to? Seems the oldest cache in my home State has been adopted by a prolific hider that is slacking heavy on their own 700 hides.

    • Upvote 1
  6. 11 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

    Similar to colleda I guess, at what point does a cache become "special" enough that the normal channels for an inactive owner are disregarded?

    The OP even said (and I was sure to bold it above...) "I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site ", yet feels the cache they're interested in deserves special treatment.

    That's called entitlement...

     

    Then the reward for poor cache ownership is entitlement? :o

  7. 3 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

    Yea - control freakery - bit strong that - thanks (not) 

    However I do take your point regarding how to approach this. My main point was whether a cache could be adopted when the CO was no longer avaialble

     

     

    However your post starts with "I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site."

    • Upvote 1
  8. 29 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

    Not a desired outcome for a cache as old as this that many would want kept alive 

     

    So 

    30 minutes ago, Rebore said:

    Caches are the property of the owner, and Groundspeak will surely stick to this business model. They offer just a listing service. So no, there's no "forced adoption" without owner's consent.

     

     

    This really sounds like the Waymarking site where those left want to be in control by hijacking abandoned categories. 

  9. 28 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

    I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site.

    However if there is a really old cache (2001 for example) where the CO has not been active for many years (but the cache seems to be maintained by locals).
    Can this adoption process be done without the 'presence' of the old CO who is probably not aware that it is still active and probably doesn't care either but at the same time uncontactable due to not being involved for so long. 

    The reason for the question is that - it is acknowledged that these old caches are desirable and all cachers would like them to be preserved and continue - however without an active CO the misuse of the system is such that many could log finds on these even if they haven't been anywhere near the cache and no one can do anything about it - seems to be totally against the principle of CO maintenance. Only the CO can delete the log, though others could question spurious loggers they can't do much more than that 
    So in order to maintain integrity for these iconic ancients surely an agreed adoption protocol could be put in place for the special occasions such as this (all other adoptions to be done with the agreement of old CO) 

     

     

    So the main concern of allowing geocaches to be ownerless is the fear of armchair logging? 

    • Upvote 2
  10. 5 hours ago, Rikitan said:

    That's pretty unique approach, thank you. Most of "community maintainers" are throwing pill bottles with piece of paper when they fail to find cache within 3 minutes, no matter of actual size and D/T. Often replacing disabled, even archived caches with no interest to take responsibility for regular ownership and maintenance.

     

    It's really not about the numbers to me, it's all the adventure. So when I planned a weekend getaway ATV ride I checked out all of the caches that I could likely fit into my adventure to find the oldest cache in West Virginia. These were all lonely caches in remote places and the owners are much less than active geocachers. So I packed up some nice clearly marked geocaches to replace old wet ones, and it's good that I did. All but one, which is a community maintained cache because it's the oldest one in the State was nothing more than trash that needed picked up.

    I don't see no harm or foul in propping up an old cache where the owner is no longer active and I'm not returning to baby sit it. And what kind of stink head would post a NM or NA on a cache like that from back in 2002? It's easier to just bring a nice replacement that YOU would enjoy finding to leave for the next geocachers.:)

    • Upvote 1
  11. 3 hours ago, The A-Team said:

    I assume you have them on your watchlist and are willing and able to go out and perform maintenance on these caches if necessary? :ph34r:

     

    Why would you assume that? That is not how community maintenance works. I just hauled out some busted old containers and left new lock n locks and a few ammo cans stocked with about $10 geocaching SWAG and log books. I have no intention of ever revisiting any of them. That is up to the next community cache maintainer. :D

  12. 21 hours ago, GPS-Hermit said:

    I agree that an archived cache should be up for adoption and have not heard a good reason for not doing so! I am one who reads the logs of great caches and likes to see them continue!

     

    I have reused the area and recreated a new geocache, but it just don't appeal to the community to do so it seems. 

  13. 40 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

    Would you even add a link in the waymarks long description, if the findagrave memorial doesn't provide any further Information?

     

    I likely would, kinda like back up support for my information. Their site has improved in recent months. 

  14. 45 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

     

    • Is it a good idea to add links from my waymark to my memorial and/or vice-versa? From waymark to memorial has no significant benefit for the user, but from the findagrave memorial to the waymark would provide a lot more information for the findagrave user. However, I couldn't find any opportunity to add a link the memorial.
    • Is it enough to list the original (German) inscription or do findagrave-users expect to see an English translation? And if so, how should it be added (in brackets right behind the German text)?

     

    One of my main interests in Waymarking was old cemeteries, so the find a grave site appealed to me and I have been listing my photos there. As a user from both sites, I do like seeing a link to find a grave on waymarks, but I would not enjoy seeing a waymark linked to a memorial on find a grave. 

  15. 45 minutes ago, GPS-Hermit said:

    The reason I adopt without permission is to preserve the great logs and fun times had with a very worthy cache! I can't be the only one out there that is entertained with others experiences and especially with highly expressive logs! Some are just great! A good cache should have a life of it own and if abandoned there should be a way to adopt it thru the reviewer and preserve the great logs and history of the cache! The Box is not near as important as the experiences we all share playing this game. It is  just totally great!

     

    I unofficially adopted and replaced several caches for absent owners without their permission while geocaching in your State while on vacation. :D

  16. 13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

    Seems overly sentimental.

    No, not sentimental. I was thinking about a recent archival where a noob posted NA on a community cache from 2002 and slowly it was archived due to no response from a inactive CO. I would have hated to have been that noob because of some comments on the cache page and social media. That's all I meant by not wanting to be THAT cacher that upsets the local geocaching community by causin' the death of an oldie.

  17. 38 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

    Honestly, I wouldn't want to be that guy either. There are Virtual Caches in my area that belong to CO's who haven't Cached in years, and haven't logged into the website in years as well. Their cache description requires Cachers to send them emails to claim a find. There isn't an active CO to maintain the cache page or the logs. If someone posted a NA on those Virtuals based on non-existent COs , I don't think I'd like to be the reviewer to archive said caches.

     

    I'd feel worse being the cacher that posted an NA on one of these old community caches. :( Imagine if we as cache owners had to check in once a year or our hides would be set in motion for archival due to inactivity. :ph34r: I love these old community caches too, but maybe a shelf life on cache placements would make the game more interesting and create more active members.

    • Upvote 2
  18. 17 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

    The only reason I keep my categories active and continue to review and publish waymarks is so that someone else cannot come along and fundamentally alter my original vision for those categories.

     

    Rouge leadership is the term used for what is happening. I don't believe there are any stops in place that protect our ideas and the categories that we created. When we leave it's open season on our categories, and I am finished supporting a few members here that want to continue playing Waymarking.

×
×
  • Create New...