nicolo

Good to hear. Is that a rat or kitten in your avatar?

I am guessing that people use a combination of these ways : 1) Copy a pocket query GPX file directly to the GPX directory on their Colorado 2) Create a GPX file from GSAK and copy to the GPX directory on their Colorado ( I do it this way as I have about six pocket queries for the Phoenix area and want to eliminate duplicate geocaches for overlapping pocket query areas ) 3) Load individual caches directly from the cache page

I have had a 76c, 60CS, 60CSx, and now the 400t. Definitely the 400t is the best caching GPSr that I have ever had. Before the 400t, I used to use Cachemate to hold the all-important cache information but was forever leaving my PDA/phone in my Jeep, making it a frustrating arrangement. Before the 400t, on big caching days I used to carry around a notebook, keeping track of what cache I found ( or did not find ) and when. Then I had to log them all, poring over the logbook and GSAK to lookup and log my caches. What a pain! Now that I can't help BUT carry the device that holds the cache information I am one happy camper. Throw in field notes and those big caching days, dreading all the logging, are now a joy. I am lucky and have had no hardware problems that others have had - I have never had to return my device ( I bought mine early, in mid-January ... don't know if that made a difference ).

We have a local cacher who believes that a high hide/find ratio is simply wonderful, the pinnacle of geocaching giving. He brags that he always has 200 bison tubes in his vehicle, ready to deploy. The result? As several have mentioned, crappy hides. One of his caches in particular that another local cacher noted on another board is magnetically attached to a dumpster!!! Now why would a cacher want to go there? Why would a cache hider want to put a cache there? It baffles me.

I agree Red90, opening up a "good place" because a cache "has to be" archived because the cache owner is AWOL is not necessarily a good thing. Nowadays, I am finding that a lot of new people are hiding crap : micros in trees, poor containers ( Glad containers, for example ... I've even seen zip-lock baggies as containers! ), etc. that it a shame that an excellent location, and excellent cache, has to make way for the trend of crappy, "I don't care" caches just because GS won't allow the "AWOL-cacher hider" geocache to be adopted.

Then if the cache owner moves a cache for, say, "muggled" reasons ... it is not the original cache? If he/she has to replace the cache ... it is not the original cache? If this is what you believe then it is a much stricter definition of "original cache" than mine. For me, moving a cache, replacing a cache ... that's a part of a cache's life, its history. We have a local moving cache, Stash n' Dash, that has had the container replaced at least four times. It's probably the most favorite cache of the Calgary area cachers and we don't consider it to be a different cache just because the cache container has changed. BTW, I know that you only mentioned moving a cache, not replacing it, but it seems to be the same thing ... changing it somehow. However, if needed, I am sure that I could find an example of an older cache that had to be moved and where we all still consider it the same cache.

Not exactly the answer, but thank you for your comments. In the scenario where the cache owner is present, they have the option of moving the cache to another location - archiving is NOT the only option. Now the answer that I was looking for is in the case of the absentee owner, as I asked above ... I do appreciate that "what if scenarios" are difficult to give a definitive answer to as the situation may differ from cache to cache. I just wanted CacheDrone to respond to my questions which were based on his own comments - his unwillingness to answer them is enough of an answer to me. Thanks for your comments.

The answer you seek can be found at Listing Guidelines: Cache Maintenance As it stands now, the exception has been given that a person or group might able to maintain a cache on behalf of an absentee owner but this is not always going to be a possibility. There is a limit to the exception and the factors surrounding the cache and its listing are considered based on the listing guidelines and other items. Oh brother, way to continue to avoid a direct question. Never mind, since you are unwilling to stand by what you said and answer a direct question that refers to your comments.

Then it is no longer the original cache and moving it changes the history for everyone that found it where it was at the time they found it. Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen. Hello? OK, then in your world of the absentee cache owner where ... What would happen if the original cache area can no longer support the cache? I would imagine that since the cache can't be moved because ... the cache would have to be archived. Is this correct? To affect the change you are suggesting should be done by the current cache owner. Reviewers usually only update coordinates upon request from the cache owner if they are not able to do so themselves. You didn't REALLY answer my question did you? I asked what would happen to the cache in an absentee owner scenario where the cache was being maintained by other cachers and the cache location could no longer support the cache.

Then it is no longer the original cache and moving it changes the history for everyone that found it where it was at the time they found it. Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen. Hello? OK, then in your world of the absentee cache owner where ... What would happen if the original cache area can no longer support the cache? I would imagine that since the cache can't be moved because ... the cache would have to be archived. Is this correct?

I do know what you mean. One of the caches I adopted I unfortunately ended up having to archive because the cache was located just below some very sensitive fungi. I wanted to keep the cache mostly the same ( location & cache page ) but keep the people away from the fungi. I had wanted to turn the regular cache into a multi, with a micro at the original location but an approver ( I think it was you ) noted that I can't change cache types ( it made sense ). Thus, I had to unfortunately archive the cache, resubmit a new cache with a cache page copied from the original and reference to the original cache, but as a multi. Sad to see it go but the area just wouldn't safely support a regular-sized cache.

Me neither. Very good example of what could happen when a cache is adopted. That can happen whether a cache is adopted or retained by the original owner.

Hmmm, this sounds interesting. I'll have to give it a try, thanks!

You can do this with GSAK by simply not deleting caches that exist in your GSAK database. Just reload your pocket queries and the new logs in your PQ get added to the existing ones in your GSAK database. The problem with doing it that way is your found caches and inactive caches stay in your database and get transfered to the GPS. Here is how I figured out how to accumulative the logs and only have active caches I have not found. http://gsak.net/board/index.php?showtopic=8136 Yeah, found caches is a problem. "Fortunately" my caching has been so small over the last few months that I am able to easily "mark found" in GSAK the caches that I have found. But it doesn't cover the disabled caches, as you have noted.

Yes, leading to Geotrash, which apparently Groundspeak does not care about. Of couse they don't ...

Manually download the 2.4 firmware and then install ( i.e. don't use Web Updater )? I think that you can do that. ... hmm, maybe not. It appears as if only the beta f/w is downloadable. The rest is via Web Updater. I could have sworn that the previous "production" firmware was downloadable. A link anyone?

You can do this with GSAK by simply not deleting caches that exist in your GSAK database. Just reload your pocket queries and the new logs in your PQ get added to the existing ones in your GSAK database.

Groundspeak may think the container remains the property of the owner forevermore, but I have no qualms about stumbling across an archived cache and removing it. I'll even post a note on the cache page saying what I have done -- heck, if i haven't found the cache before I'll even log it as a Find. As for the original container, unless it is mentioned in the cache listing that "This is the original container from GCxxxx", I don't think Groundspeak would ever know if the container was recycled from the original cache or not so I don't see it being an issue. What they've done is covered their collective butts because they could then say to the AWOL owner who returns to the game "Don't look at me, I didn't do it!" I don't even know why Groundspeak is suddenly caring about who owns the physical container. Isn't their mind-numbing, drone-like mantra : "We are only a listing service" ...?

Yes and I believe that most parks consider it a form of littering ( that they nicely ignore ... sometimes ). Exactly. So why are we getting this lame "the cache owner owns the container" mantra? As I said previously, when a person adopted an old, abandoned cache in the past, most often the old container wasn't used anyway, the new owner replaced it. That way the history ( cache page and logs ) of the original cache are retained for all cachers to enjoy. A much better solution than trying to find an archived cache to determine the "history" of the new cache.

If a reasonable amount of effort was taken to contact the AWOL cache owner ( I usually go through a 3 month process myself ) there should be no surprise. I e-mail the cache owner via their profile so don't see how the AWOL paying customer would even know about having the cache "taken" from them once it is done. What are you talking about man? I am not faulting Groundspeak for an owner abandoning a cache, I am faulting Groundspeak for introducing policy that prevents a historical cache, with cache page and that history, from continuing on as an active cache once the original cache owner disappears from geocaching. You have been in geocaching long enough to know that every area has favorite caches that have been around for years where the cache owner is out of the game or eventually leaves the game. Active cachers eventually want to adopt that cache, replacing the container ( which they don't own ) yet retaining the history of the cache page. What is the problem with this? By the way, and this is not a question just for CT ... doesn't Groundspeak claim ownership of cache pages? Wasn't this claimed years ago as a result of data-scraping by third party entities?

Same here. Caching history ( or any history for that matter ) is important and it's sad that Groundspeak does not respect that. Yet another change that was not requested by the paying customer.

Incorrect CD. I don't have to spend hours per month studying Broccoli so I can ignore it. It is true however, that it's mere existence offends me. It' spinach for me, brrr!

Sure it can. I personally would have no moral issue removing a cache that is known to have been abandoned. What Groundspeak will not do is say "okay, that container is now your property." Makes sense to me and it doesn't go beyond that simple statement. Then all that Groundspeak has to do is allow the cache to be adopted ( in the absence of the AWOL cache owner and after the standard attempts to contact them ) and say to the adoptee "ok, the container is not your property, replace it"

And if the cache owner is no longer around ... ??? Who wins with this decision? What was the reason for the change? The reason for the change is that Groundspeak does not own the geocache container. Since the cache owner retains ownership of the container they would have to grant permission for it to be transferred. That is done with the adoption tool provided in post #1. But if the cache owner is gone, AWOL, that can't happen can it? It would be nice if the existing cache page, with place date, history, and logs, could continue on as an active cache via adoption even when the original cache owner is gone. In many cases such as this, the cache container is replaced. Why is this a problem?

And if the cache owner is no longer around ... ??? Who wins with this decision? What was the reason for the change?