narcissa

In practice, if you are reasonably certain that the cache is not listed elsewhere, you probably won't run into any trouble if you take the container and contact the original owner with information so they can get it back from you if it's important to them. You run a slight risk of really ticking someone off if you do that. Geocaching.com won't sanction that kind of thing, however. In the past there have been efforts to coordinate geocachers to remove archived caches - someone in my area actually created a challenge cache for this - but those things got shut down. It seems Groundspeak doesn't want to be dealing with angry cache owners who feel their stuff has been taken without permission. TL;DR - Go ahead and take people's caches, but don't expect Geocaching.com to facilitate your efforts.

A court of law has held at least one person responsible for stealing other people's caches, but a court of law isn't really relevant to what you're proposing here. This is exactly the sort of thing that you might understand better if you spend a bit of time learning about the history of these issues. You are free to organize a vigilante group to go out and do whatever it is you intend to do, but Geocaching.com won't sanction that as an official event and it won't hand other people's listings to you. That's not semantics, it's how this geocache listing site works.

😃

This! Part of the problem is that these abandoned caches are... well, trash in the woods... which is a MAJOR part of what Groundspeak, and this community in general strive (or... at one time did) to combat. As for property, sure, you're right, the terms of service say it's your property, and thus by Groundspeak's TOS, it is... And I'll leave this part of the conversation there. Again, this is just such a 101 level issue that the best course of action is for the newer forum users to fully familiarize themselves with the way this actually works. Springtime always brings with it a wave of impassioned newcomers who plan to turn the game on its head with the exact same ideas that aren't really workable because they aren't compatible with the actual operation of the game. Save yourselves the time and energy and read up on the history before you start your crusade.

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c This is so 101 level that you're going to encounter many experienced cachers repeating the same things. This is not Groundspeak's view of the issue. You really need to educate yourself on a few things: guidelines, terms of use, historical cache theft issues, cache adoption. The forum has a huge wealth of old discussions about this, and if you are unclear about what you are permitted to do officially through the site, ask a reviewer or submit a question through the help centre.

Thanks for the response, and I can completely understand that on some level. That said, if you're not maintaining your cache, and say, haven't logged in for 5 years... I think it's more than safe to say that the cache is not then being stolen, nor their listing hi-jacked (for lack of a better term). What if, rather than adopting, then, the cache was 'co-assigned', thus allowing proper maintenance and logging to be performed by an active member? If that isn't an option, perhaps the 'adopted' caches are simply replaced entirely (archived, then new one posted), but their integrity preserved in some way, by the new cache leaving an homage to the one it is replacing? Of course there are a million ways we could analyze the existing rules, etc... to find flaws in the idea, but I think ultimately, there is always a middle ground, which would allow for a fresh new way to handle things, when theres clearly a need. P.S. I found a cache today where the owner hasn't logged in for 5+ years... the cache is in dire need of maintenance, but it was a great find, and I'd happily adopt it, and take over maintenance. I reported the NM, as have several others in recent months... If a cache is archived and you choose to place another cache in that spot, there's nothing to stop you from doing that. You're not going to succeed in getting published events for the purpose of stealing other people's caches or other coordinated efforts to hound cache owners. Read the guidelines.

You are free to coordinate like-minded people to do whatever you'd like, but if you have this in mind as an actual geocaching event, your first step should be thorough reading of the cache placement guidelines. Groundspeak won't sanction the theft of other people's caches, nor will they allow geocachers to adopt other people's listings without their consent.

I'm not seeing that many preforms. I think that's because pill bottles are more accessible and much cheaper--mostly free. In Europe it's completely opposite. We see a lot of preforms, but almost no pill bottles. Not surprised Europe isn't littered with empty pill bottles turned geocache. America is the leading country hooked on pain pills so it's no surprise how many pill bottles are used as geocaches. Only one drug in the top ten prescribed medications in the USA could be considered a "pain pill", number 8 on the following list. And if you have diabetic neuropathy or shingles (the indications for Lyrica) you know this is not a drug with significant potential for abuse. Synthroid (levothyroxine), 21.5 million Crestor (rosuvastatin), 21.4 million Ventolin HFA (albuterol), 18.2 million Nexium (esomeprazole), 15.2 million Advair Diskus (fluticasone), 13.7 million Lantus Solostar (insulin glargine), 10.9 million Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine), 10.4 million Lyrica (pregabalin), 10.0 million Spiriva Handihaler (tiotropium), 9.6 million Januvia (sitagliptin), 9.1 million The leading prescription medication in this country is for a thyroid disorder. Several meds on that list are for asthma or COPD. I don't use pill bottles for caches although they are OK for a log holder inside a cache. Chances are good that you know a geocacher that takes one of these medications. They are not "hooked on pain pills" Source: WebMD Pain pills or not, you literally just reinforced my point that Americans like pills hence all the pill bottles used as geocaches. I don't think someone with COPD is taking pills because they like them.

Any type of cache can be set up as a night cache, so it makes more sense to have an attribute that can be applied as needed.

Spoiling other people's puzzles is a pretty big no-no. Not talking about spoiling anything... While I've never placed a puzzle and used a puzzle checker to provide cachers with a place to check, my suggestion was the if the CO hasn't provided a puzzle checker option, that a finder, who's determined the correct cords, went to the puzzle checking site and created an entry (or whatever they're called) where future finders can input the cords and get a yea or nay. I'm not suggesting that anyone publish the cords. I'm asking if someone other than the CO can create the coord checker. It should be up to the cache owner to use or not use one of these third-party checking sites. If the cache owner has opted not to, respect his/her choice.

Spoiling other people's puzzles is a pretty big no-no.

heh, well I must be not exist then if I don't find a cache on a power trail, I will indeed post a DNF, or if I find it and it's really bad (that is, an outlier from the quality of the rest) then I'll post a NM. Another way to look at it is that in the case of uncared-for powertrails, having a cache or few with a NM may be what's required to get the CO out for a maintenance trek, otherwise holes will pop up in their power trail from archivals. But yes, I'd say that because "true" powertrail (that is, one or two owners following a 'theme', as it were, along a trail with easy finds and repetitive containers) are generally considered full experiences, one powertrail series finding experience rather than say 100 cache finding experiences, then "minor" individual cache issues aren't much of a concern to the CO or finders because little bumps in that whole experience are evened out by the end. Many will take replacement containers (for illegitimate throwdown or legitimate proxy maintenance) not because they're replacing "a damaged cache", they're just smoothing out some bumps in one finding experience. Powertrails are certainly a different beast these days, and controversially so. It's sad when this happens. My region is littered with powertrails, many in good condition, many in rough shape. But I know plenty of power cachers who do them and don't attempt to perpetuate sub-par powertrail experiences. So I'd say this is a regional thing as well. I was very careful to specify poorly-maintained power trails, not all power trails. Some do have conscientious owners, but there are some that do not.

The point of NMs is to prevent bad caches. The point of NAs is to get rid of bad caches. 1. A good cache with a NM will be addressed by a good CO and remain. (yay!) 1b. A bad cache with a NM will be subject to potential archival by a reviewer, depending on the CO response (or lack). 2. A good cache with a NA will be reviewed with due process and be subject to potential archival. (if so, then it's not actually 'good') 2b. A bad cache with a NA will likely swiftly be archived. (yay!) And the very worst caches will never be subject to any of these actions, because the worst caches don't attract people who are thoughtful enough to use NM or NA. heh, those are the ones that attract the couch-cache-police. Looking for caches to find, spotting a 1/1 with 50 DNFs and no owner response or NM or NA, and then posting one. Probably a reasonable judgement call I find such "very worst caches" that never get a call to action extremely rare. But that may vary depending on region of course. My region has a number of people who are fully willing to log a NM after logging their DNF even after a string of DNFs with good a description of the location and why. People around here are pretty quick to deal with those poorly placed 1/1 junk caches that some 14-year-old puts out and promptly forgets about. I don't even worry about that sort of thing, because they don't stick around long enough to be a problem. But I'm thinking of the poorly-maintained power trails. Nobody who cares about cache integrity is looking at those caches, but we all know that many of them are extremely leaky, missing, or completely littered with throw-downs. When you look at the logs, the finders are never logging DNFs or NMs, and often state in their copy-paste logs that the caches were in good condition. In all of the conversations I've had about geocaching with non-geocachers, the only time I've ever heard someone say anything truly disparaging about the game was a friend who tried a PT by bicycle and was just disgusted with what he saw. But that's something that will never be addressed by the cache health system, because the PT people are actively helping each other to avoid being detected by it. Even when someone tries to blow the whistle on this, another dozen people go by and claim that the cache is fine, and nothing happens.

There are several forum users who specifically advocate this behaviour. They believe that individual geocachers have a responsibility to scour the database for problems and NM or NA caches that other people didn't. There are obviously going to be rare situations where someone, in the course of their regular cache planning, comes across a cache that has a serious issue that is obvious by looking at the cache page, but that's pretty unusual (and I would still be inclined to have a peek myself before hitting NM).

The container might be fine but abandoned caches and listings are bad for the quality and integrity of the game. So why not come up with ideas that actually deal with the vast majority of abandoned caches that will never be addressed by the system we have?

I disagree, up to a point. There's no guarantee that a PM cache will be better. There's no way I'm going to make that claim because I've seen some PM caches that weren't any "better" than the non-PM caches nearby. However, at least in my area, PM caches are more likely to be better maintained as well as better caches, subjectively speaking of course. That doesn't mean that non-PM caches aren't maintained or nice caches. They certainly can be. It all boils down to the mentality of the CO regarding Premium-Only, why they chose to set it as such to begin with, etc... I mean, as an example, if I were going to place a really difficult 5/5 cache, with a very expensive FTF prize inside... I would make it premium only... That's the cache that is least in need of being made premium only. If it's truly difficult to access, and truly difficult to find/solve, you don't need to worry about the shenanigans.

The point of NMs is to prevent bad caches. The point of NAs is to get rid of bad caches. 1. A good cache with a NM will be addressed by a good CO and remain. (yay!) 1b. A bad cache with a NM will be subject to potential archival by a reviewer, depending on the CO response (or lack). 2. A good cache with a NA will be reviewed with due process and be subject to potential archival. (if so, then it's not actually 'good') 2b. A bad cache with a NA will likely swiftly be archived. (yay!) And the very worst caches will never be subject to any of these actions, because the worst caches don't attract people who are thoughtful enough to use NM or NA.

The point of NM is to alert the cache owner and fellow geocachers to a problem that exists. It should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action. The point of NA is to alert the cache, fellow geocachers, and a reviewer that a cache has a serious problem that has not been fixed, or requires immediate attention. Again, it should not condemn the cache to this "bad cache" status. It's an informative call for action with a higher alert level than NM. Neither of these actions is particularly useful for dealing with bad caches or bad cache owners. The truly bad caches don't elicit detailed information from finders, so they rarely acquire these logs. The caches that do acquire these logs are the ones that attract people who are thoughtful enough to leave these informative logs. They aren't generally bad caches, they're just caches in need of care. Sure, if the cache owner never responds, the system needs to follow through on archiving them, but picking on these types of caches exclusively is not going to make the game better when bad power trails with hundreds or thousands of caches are left untouched because nobody will blow the whistle on them. Additionally, bad cachers have learned to cover for each other, particularly where power trails and massive group logging are concerned, which makes it even more difficult to deal with truly bad caches.

We see things the way we want to see them..... Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game. COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood. If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period. I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do. If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly. Without one, the other is useless and the game stops... As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment. And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it. And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions... Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood. If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period. Without one, the other is useless and the game stops... One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find. Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site. Seriously, the game did not start with someone looking for a cache, it started with someone hiding a cache and inviting others to look for it. The sense of entitlement is really disheartening. I honestly don't know how someone can come into this game and treat cache owners as though they're an imposition. It's so illogical. Very true - without one, the other is useless... You can hide a thousand caches, but if no one looks, they just sit. You can hide 0 caches, and you get seekers bumping into each other but finding nothing. Cachers - both COs and seekers - are the lifeblood. It's a symbiotic relationship. We all try (or should) to be responsible cachers... More specifically, it's commensalism. Cache finders benefit, cache owners are not really harmed by finders, but they don't specifically benefit either. As a cache finder, it would never occur to me to demand gratitude from a cache hider. The cache hider is the one who spent money, time, and effort to create something for me to enjoy. It's my choice to find a cache and my experience at the cache is my responsibility, not the cache owner's. If I go to the cache in a sour mood and a dirty golf ball ruins my day, that's on me and nobody else. When I log an NM or an NA on a cache, it's not in this vindictive spirit of "cleaning the database" and I don't cheer - or, like some, keep personal statistics - when that leads to archival. I mean for my cache logs to be informative, not destructive. But the logging system is no longer built to accommodate a helpful, community view of the game. They have caved into this atrocious attitude that a cache is a product that must be delivered in perfect shape. That's unreasonable, both practically and philosophically.

Curious, what do you believe you're stopping with an NA? If a throwdowner is hitting many, dropping pill bottles all over, they could be reported to Groundspeak if it's a bother. Why NA the cache (without knowing whether it's gonna be fixed first...) simply because someone dropped a throwdown? I NM throwdowns with a note that says "Not sure if we found the actual cache, could cache owner confirm?" and that way it gets the ball rolling if it's a negligent cache owner, or otherwise alerts a good cache owner to the shenanigans.

We see things the way we want to see them..... Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game. COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood. If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period. I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do. If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly. Without one, the other is useless and the game stops... As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment. And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it. And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions... Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood. If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period. Without one, the other is useless and the game stops... One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find. Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site. Seriously, the game did not start with someone looking for a cache, it started with someone hiding a cache and inviting others to look for it. The sense of entitlement is really disheartening. I honestly don't know how someone can come into this game and treat cache owners as though they're an imposition. It's so illogical.

Nothing has changed in the ability to leave long and detailed found logs. We can leave a paragraph or TFTC depending on how we feel at the time (or when we get home and upload). The primary change to logging is the consolidation (for lack of a better word) of the found, NM, NA , may be missing log type. I plan to continue logging NM as needed. Fortunately my app allows me to create a separate NM log and fill in as much text as I want. I try to put detailed information so that CO and subsequent finders have a clue about my reasoning. If I ever log from home on the laptop I'll have to remember to make a conscious effort to remember to go back and edit my NM... Again - there's no autoarchive - so mentioning trouble or mold or fubar in the log may get a reviewer's attention, but I'd doubt we'll have an epidemic of caches incorrectly archived because my log mentions that "I had trouble finding my car in the way back." Maybe a few overzealous reviewers, but a CO can easily fix that... I didn't ever say anything about auto-archive. I just get the distinct impression that any kind of log that isn't a cheerful Found It! is likely to result in hassle for the cache owner. I am less concerned about truly absent cachers than I am about good cache owners being nagged and not permitted to apply their own expertise and knowledge in the maintenance of their own caches. Cache owners and watchers receive a notification when the cache is logged. The new system that requires separately editing to add detail to an NM means that anything I add is obviously unimportant to the new system, and essentially lost in the ether.

I don't know where the "probably" comes from: we know exactly what the reviewer did because he said so in his log: he searched for "mold" and found it, then disabled the cache and archived it later. The disable log says he read the log, so I believe him, but we can all see for ourselves that there was nothing else in the log except the one word to support taking action, so the effect is pretty automated even if the actual process was not. Anyway, it's an example of precisely what you asked for. - I said "probably" because neither you nor I watched over the shoulder. And I've got to assume that there's no automated (meaning without human intervention) process going out and archiving caches. If he did archive the cache incorrectly, then he made a mistake. If he made that mistake with good intentions, well, we all make mistakes. But again, there's no automated search and archive process going on. A reviewer has to take action. The CO, if he reads the notification emails, and doesn't throw a "wait - don't archive" note, then he's at fault toot. He let something happen that he could have prevented. If he's inactive and has been offline for years, well, it was a cache waiting to die... If there are caches that are trash, they have no impact on anyone until someone discovers the problem, at which point it can be dealt with without impacting all the other caches that have no problem. - they have an impact. They're trash in the environment and should be picked up. One of the things we're supposed to be mindful of is not to trash the environment - you know, that whole CITO thing they keep mentioning... I'm not talking about caches in good shape, I'm again referring to trash caches... they're nothing more than litter now... I'm not even convinced fewer caches are wrongly archived, but what's more important is that as we continue down this road where we accept caches being deleted based on nothing but "might" and "probably", more and more caches with no problem at all will be archived. The annual visit approach suggested in the mold thread specifically calls for archiving caches that have no known problem. Even if you imagine a lax CO, they'll still almost certainly have more good caches than bad. I'm certain that if there was an epidemic of wrongfully archived caches, there'd be a lot more forum discussion about it. It's not a regularly occurring problem, let alone an emidemic requiring all this teeth gnashing. Obviously, the forum is not a representative sample of the geocaching population, so it would be unwise to make any calculations or projections about the prevalence of these issues based on their presence here. But for what it's worth, there is often discussion of archived and threatened caches in the forum, on community Facebook groups, and other places where geocachers converge to discuss these issues.

Did you talk to the owner? Anyway, obviously it's a puzzle cache, so approach it that way and solve the puzzle, or ignore it if that's what you normally do with puzzle caches. This does sound really strange. Any chance it's an old cache? Puzzle caches were a later addition, and I've run into one or maybe two traditional caches which were really puzzle caches but published before the puzzle cache type was invented. Oh, this is a good point. I was thinking it was a new cache, but it makes more sense if it's old and pre-dates the different cache types.

That should not be a traditional. It may have been changed after publication. Post a note on it and use the "Cache should be archived" flag to get a reviewer's attention. Just say "this cache shouldn't be listed as a traditional" or something like that. The reviewer can help the cache owner change it to the correct type.