Jump to content

knowschad

Members
  • Posts

    18989
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by knowschad

  1. As others have said above me, yes. That is allowable. Not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't, but there are cross-listed caches although at least some alternate sites do try to encourage folks to not do that. By the way, there is nothing stopping you from creating accounts on those other sites for the purpose of checking for f the archived cache that you want to remove. Not a bad idea at all, really Thanks. Searching other listing sites is certainly doable. Was just trying to streamline the process. You will not be able to streamline that part of the process.
  2. As others have said above me, yes. That is allowable. Not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't, but there are cross-listed caches although at least some alternate sites do try to encourage folks to not do that. By the way, there is nothing stopping you from creating accounts on those other sites for the purpose of checking for f the archived cache that you want to remove. Not a bad idea at all, really
  3. ??????? Why would I be in the UK? Going by memory. I was wrong. But same question applies to Belgium. Seeing how much trash there is abandoned caches are not really a problem. Want to do something for the environment have a CITO, you'll clean up more in an hour than you can by collecting abandoned caches in a year. Abandoned (on gc) caches are a non-issue relative to all other trash. <OT>We see full bags of trash in nature reserves, how they get there I don't understand. We can just put our trash in front of the house to be collected weekly and yet people go through the trouble of putting such a bag in their car, drive a certain distance, carry the bag into the woods to dump them. </OT> Sorry, but in my parks, any trash is trash.
  4. ??????? Why would I be in the UK? Going by memory. I was wrong. But same question applies to Belgium. PS: I am aware that one of the alternative sites is much more active in Europe than it is here, therefore, that may be influencing your opinion about this as well. Here, they are barely a ripple on the sea.
  5. Ironically, this could be true either way the cookie crumbles Exactly.
  6. Why would you do that? Frankly, it's none of your business. Not your property, not your land. I wonder if your attitude has something to do with you being in the U.K. perhaps? Because here, our public parks ARE our responsibility. As I said earlier, our land managers would frankly be appalled to see some of us advocating that we ignore (apparently) abandoned caches. They may not understand the nuances of the possibilities of caches being listed on some other site, but they most definitely understand litter.
  7. The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game. Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions. It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping. You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences. If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing. Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't. I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues. So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it. Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party. Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself. That, of course, would be theft. Geocaching.com is not the only cache listing service out there, and the cache itself belongs not to you, not to Groundspeak, not to anyone but the CO. When it comes down to a 98% chance of it being litter vs a 2% chance of it being an archived cache that is still viable on another listing site (and I do have a few cross-listed caches myself. None have ever been logged) I would opt in favor of removing the litter and being guilty of an extremely petty case of larceny. My vote goes to a clean environment.
  8. I don't see what the fuss is about then. If, in your best judgment, the container should be removed for a reason like that, just remove it and post a note on the cache page. This doesn't need to be as complicated as this thread is making it. My point isn't that individual cachers shouldn't care about abandoned caches, it's that it isn't reasonable to expect Groundspeak to redesign their entire approach to the game over it. All of these extreme, punitive solutions are so out of proportion to the problem and each one is its own can of worms. I think that Groundspeak is completely capable of discarding suggestions that they deem unworkable, but I'm sure they thank you for your assistance.
  9. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be without cell signal when the announcement is made. Unfortunate, because I'm interested in what the decision will be. Fortunate, because I'll be out in the forest. We might have a cell signal in some places, since we have a different cell carrier now than the last time we were out there. Just be very quiet and listen for the inevitable uproar.
  10. So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on. Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon. So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve? If it is on your land, go ahead and remove it. If it isn't on your land, it isn't your business. If the cache owner explicitly wants to leave it there, then it's between the cache owner and the land manager who gave him/her permission to put the cache there in the first place. Its status on a geocache listing site is not relevant. If it is on public land, it is all of our business. The land manager would certainly agree. They don't want junk left lying around in their park, and letting them discover it (or for that matter, even just seeing the opinion represented by your posts) could get caching banned.
  11. So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on. Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon. So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve? Don't listen to only one opinion. If the container was an ammo can, I would surely make every effort to notify the cache owner and to try to get their property back to them. But a peanut butter jar or pill bottle or key hide? Gone.
  12. So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on. I disagree. Get rid of the garbage. It is no different from a plastic water bottle dropped on the ground.
  13. Look at it this way, the (abandoned?) cache is not yours to begin with, it's not your responsibility and there's no way to be sure it's not in use elsewhere. Why do you want to remove it? As for contacting the CO, they won't see MC messages and if they, like me, use a unique address for gc then it will be out of use when they quit GC (I would just dev/null any mails to an unused e-mail address). At that point I consider them trash and would like to see them disposed of. We have CITO events to promote picking up and disposing of other people's trash yet we ignore our own. I am strongly on your side. On4bam and others here that assert that it is not your property to remove are correct from a very strict sense, but the odds that the cache was archived here and listed on another site is so unusual as to be almost non-existent, at least here in the U.S. That might be different in some parts of Europe, and maybe even the UK. I personally would make an attempt to notify the cache owner, but would not lose any sleep over having removed an apparently abandoned game piece. In my area, even if it IS listed on another site, the odds of it ever being logged from one of those sites are quite remote.
  14. You are aware that you can't even name any other listing sites here, are you? The fact remains that you don't touch other people's property. Just look at other threads were the disappearance of (non-archived) caches and trackables are discussed. The only time a third party can remove an archived cache is AFTER the CO is contacted and his/her OK is given. You can mention other sites in your cache listing. You are being way too hard & fast about this.
  15. And if it's listed elsewhere you just stole someone's cache. As it is, I have founds on GC that I also logged elsewhere as they were on several sites and they may be archived here but not there. What if it was the other way around? Some caches on opencaching where also listed on GC so what if someone took it upon them to clean up the containers as the listing/site was gone. Not your choice to make. EXTREMELY rare. There are few enough that are x-listed, and even fewer that are only on the other sites. Yes, technically, you are correct. But in reality, you are almost certainly removing litter. And if not... well, caches go missing all the time. That's life as a cache owner.
  16. I had two of those. Reported.
  17. It's an old story, repeated often. The cache listing is archived. The CO is *supposed* to retrieve the container after archival. CO does not retrieve it. Container is physically still there. Cacher finds it, signs log, logs the find online, because the cache listing is not locked. Happens all the time. Nothing new here. B. But why dose Groundspeak even allow it to be found when the rules state that it's suppose to be removed? Which rule states that a privately owned geocache is supposed to be removed just because it's not longer listed on Geocaching.com? Or, to put it a bit more politely, Groundspeak has no control over whether or not a cache owner actually retrieves an archived cache. I wish that weren't the case, but there is no denying that it is a fact of life. Cache owners lose interest, cache owners get sick or even die.... I'm not a big fan of the "privately owned" thing when it comes to clearly abandoned geo-junk. If you can, go back and retrieve the littler. If it makes you feel better, email the CO and let them know that you have it.
  18. I hear you, and I wouldn't want to be that guy, either. But let's not lose sight of the fact that an ugly baby is something that is not under the control of the parents. Ugly caches are. I think that most power trail hiders are deliberately placing a power trail, and are doing it because they want to attract power cachers. I really don't think that it would be difficult at all to get them to use an attribute. I think they'd relish it. Ditto with geo-art cache series.
  19. Fair suggestions, but of course, the first is extremely labor intensive, and the second relies on 3rd party software that only runs on PCs. A website solution is what the OP and many others are asking for, and that does not seem unreasonable to me. Instead, we continually get what many of us consider "fluff" changes instead of real changes that can positively affect the way we geocache. I realize that you're not a programmer or any other part of the Groundspeak crew, and are only helpfully offering what suggestions you can, but I hope that the powers that be don't take the approach that the problem is solved because we have ignore lists and GSAK.
  20. (source: http://imgur.com/a/SYH2J with more pictures )
  21. We haven't heard from the OP in a couple of days. Think we should call 911?
  22. How will you attach the magnet that goes on the attachment point... with velcro?
  23. How is it an embarrassment to the company? If they fully intended to scam the members and they succeeded how is that an embarrassment? The fact that the caches are not archived, or locked, and can still be logged says to me they fully expected the members to log the caches and they fully intend for the members to clean up after themselves the best they can. I think it is the members that should feel embarrassed. Its either that or they are still working on better mistakes tomorrow, in which case they have made great strides. I am really surprised that Groundspeak hasn't spoken up about this yet. They did, in the blog. Miss Jenn pointed out how you can hide the souvenirs on Groundspeak, but your out of luck on Project-GC. If you don't want the find counts, delete your logs. Well, as I said, I didn't see my find count go down when I deleted a log. And even if it had, I still have Alabama as a state that is lit up, although I have never cached there, and I have Favorite points that I didn't earn. And hiding a souvenir is not the same as not having it.
×
×
  • Create New...