elmuyloco5

With your example I can now see where you are thinking differently than Fizzy on the math. If 1/3rd of all caches are missing and you have 100, Traditional and 100 Multi caches. You are saying there are 67 of each to find. You are counting a listing as a cache. However what Fizzy is saying is that if it's 1/3 of all cache containers are missing. Then that would mean that 67% of all 3 part multis are broken. That means 67 traditional that can be found, but only 33 Multi's. This reality doesn't change if there are 99 traditionals for every multi. Proportionally more multi's will have issues than traditionals. It's going to work out to be 67% and 33% in regardless of how many of each there are to start. The bottom line though is that Fizzy has said with Math what others have said without it. Multi's having legs creates more potential problems and problems do crop up more often and that takes some of the fun out of working on multi caches. Murphey's law applies to multi caches more often because they have more legs to have things go wrong with. But the problem is Fizzy isn't taking into account the multi caches that don't have physical stages. The problem with the logic is overall picture of it. If I say that I don't like multis because they are more likely to go missing, but then I've been to more traditional caches than I have multis and therefore have come across more missing traditionals than I have missing multis, where is my argument? It's fine to say that a multi can have more problems because it has more parts, but it doesn't take away the fact that these cachers aren't experiencing more problems with multis than they are with the average traditional cache. So why the mentality that the multis are somehow worse? The only truthful explanations that fit are the ones I gave. Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but it certainly can't be because they've been to more missing multis, unless all they are doing are mulits. And it all has an easy fix, read the logs. Then you are no more likely to look for a multi cache that is missing than you are a tradtional, as all physical caches have an equal opportunity to be muggled or detroyed as the next.

You don't have to count them seperately when looking at the whole picture. You don't even have to get in to statistical math. There are more traditionals.....LOTS more....more of them will be missing. It doesn't matter that multis have more stages, the facts are that more tradtionals out there are missing. Which means, you have a greater chance of going to a tradtional and having it gone than if you go to a multi. No one is complaining that multis have more than one stage missing, this is the only time that you would use your formula. One missing stage ruins the cache so it doesn't matter how many stages there are in them. And multis are so varied in their design, that no one formula will fit the problem. One would have to look at many factors to determine the true probability of missing caches or stages. The point is a simple one though, the reasons something goes missing are the same. So you can guess the same percentage will be gone from both. Actually, maybe less of a percentage on the part of the traditionals as Miragee mentioned that many mutis don't contain more than one physical cache. That's like someone saying a virtual would go missing, just not going to happen. Every time you set out to do a cache there is a chance that it is gone. Even if that cache was there yesterday, someone could have taken it 10 minutes after the finder left. It's a chance we all take when we cache. But so is the chance that we'll die or get injured just stepping out of our front door.....or getting out of bed for that matter. These are silly things to worry about. You take measures in life to help ensure your safety, and you can do the same thing to increase your odds of the cache being there. Read the logs. If it hasn't been reported missing, there's a good chance it isn't. Will it be 100%? Of course not, but what is in life besides taxes? The whole point of this argument is, it may "feel" like more multis are missing, but in reality they're not. And either way, if a missing multi bothers you, why wouldn't a missing tradtional, or puzzle? For those of you who use this reason, have you stopped caching altogether? Of course you haven't because you're on here talking about your caching. So then the reason must be different. It must be one of the ones I gave in my last post. If I'm missing one, let me know.

Fizzy nailed it. You are also right in your assertion that the math applies to traditional caches as well. However you have missed the larger point on the "problem". Lets say 1 in 10 caches is missing from a sample of 100 cache containers. Every 10th cache for the sake of simplicity. The containers are 50 Traditional and 5, 10 leg multi caches. 100 containers total. Given the math, I can complete 45 traditional caches, have 5 DNF's and a lot of success. However if I attempt the multi caches. Each of the 5 will have a missing stage and that's zero finds. No completion and less fun. I understand the frustration in a missing stage, and I can see how it might be more frustrating that a missing traditional (but I think that depends on how quickly you can reach that tradtional, for instance a 5 mile hike to a missing cache might be considered just as frustrating as a missing stage....especially if the hike wasn't to somewhere nice). But, what I was getting at is the probability of a missing cache period. When you sit and compare a traditional to a multi cache, sure the multi is more likely to be missing one of it's parts. But the logic fails when you look at the entire group of traditionals vs. the multis. Look at this way.... Let's say we take a sample of 1000 caches (no puzzles included), a percentage of them will be multicaches (let's say 25%....that may be high or low compared to reality, but the idea is still the same). So that would make 750 caches traditional and 250 caches multi. The reasons for a cache to be missing, whether it's the main cache or a stage of one are pretty much the same, muggles or environmental issues. So we can then guess that the percentage of each type of cache are pretty much the same. Let's use 10% to make things easy. That would make 75 caches of the traditional type missing and 25 of the multicaches. Even if you want to include multiple stages of the multicaches as seperate caches, you wouldn't come up with multicaches being missing more often than traditional ones ( I didn't include it in my math as they have different numbers of stages and I couldn't even venture a good guess as to an average number of stages across all multis. For this to equal out, each stage of that 250 would have to 3 stages, and then it would only be equal, not more). I sure wish that I had exact numbers, but GC.com doesn't track that sort of thing. I'm not trying to say that it's not more frustrating, just simply that multicaches are not more likely to be missing than tradtional ones. There are far too many more traditionals for that to be true. If it's not true, then the reason isn't valid. They are only more likely if you compare only one traditional to one multi. But that wouldn't be representative of the whole lot. I get that people want the smiley, but just say it then. Just say "because it takes more work to get the smiley, it makes me mad when I work harder to get one and something is missing", and be done with it. But don't say it's all about the hunt and not the smiley when the reasons are clear that the statement isn't true (not aimed directly at you Renegade, people answering in general). A missing cache is a missing cache. The environment (animals, weather,etc) and muggles aren't targeting multis more than they are traditionals. Bad owners who don't perform proper maintenance on their caches aren't more likely to own multis, nor are they only failing to take care of their multi caches. It's plain and simple, the people who don't do multis, either just don't like them, they get more frustrated when the cache is missing because they had to put forth more work, or they are all about the numbers. But, it's not because they are more likely to be missing, because until the numbers of multis rise to meet that of traditionals, they can't be.

Maybe I'm missing something. Are you saying that no one shies away from multis because of the higher possibility of hidden maintenance issues? Or are you saying it's not the reason? I know of folks who won't go on a hunt where a traditional has not been found in a couple of years without asking for the owner to go check on it to see if it's still there. Plenty of folks must have a guaranteed find. I'm sure the higher possibility of failure dues to maintenance issues with a multi than a traditional comes into play when these folks are making there lists. Personally, I still think the major component of all the reasons boils down to convenience. Out of the way, yet easy, traditionals get visited less often than harder multis that are nearby. Another component is popularity or reputation. Sissy's Snarky Walk #1 gets found more often than #2 even though #1 is a 5/5, takes some gear to complete, takes longer to complete, makes you face some fears, you're likely to get wet, and both start from the same parking lot. The thing is #1 gets talked up more and gives folks the opportunity to bag a 5/5. What I was trying to get at is that people were commenting that they didn't want to do multis because they are more likely to be missing (in their opinion). If you look at the overall numbers of traditionals vs. the much smaller number of multis, the traditionals are much more likely to be missing (simply because there's so many more traditionals out there). But, this fact doesn't deter anyone from going to traditionals. I'm not saying that multis don't go missing, I'm just saying that the logic that multis are some how more likely to have be missing is incorrect when looking at the big picture. And I doubt anyone would ever have an issue with multis being missing if the first stage was always the missing item, as then it would be no different than a traditional gone missing. IMHO, it sounds more like the people who don't like multis don't want to put forth the extra effort it takes to do multiple stages. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's more honest and realistic than the previous reason.

No, I didn't miss your post. I looked on the site though and only found two things, the adopt a highway and adopt a forest programs. Is that what you're talking about? Our group actually already adopted highway land, but we can't help with their CITO programs on it as we have 3 little kids (not appropriate for the highway, and they ask you not to bring children). As for the forest program, that's something that needs to get approval and funding through the forest service. I'm not sure how much it would serve to clean up geotrash though. But, we personally CITO while were caching and when we place caches as well. We have one currently that is just on the outskirts of a very popular hot springs where trash tends to accumulate. Although the trash isn't near our cache, there's quite a bit on the way to it. We are planning to host an event this Spring after the snow melt to clean up. We also disabled it for a few weeks so we can go up and clean up now as the trash is a pretty continual thing and we don't like people seeing trash on the way to our cache. We always try to make sure we clean up as much as we can. That's why I suggested my plan to begin with. It helps keep the environment cleaned up of unwanted caches. If I'm missing what you're talking about, please let me know as I would be very interested in introducing a geotrash cleaning idea to our statewide group.

You might want to try using one of those Mr. Clean magic erasers. Those things can clean off all sorts of stuff you'd think will be stuck forever. I have three kids, and they have put that spongy thing to the test, for sure!

Neither. I don't think your dense, just misunderstanding me.....and I might not have clarified myself well enough. You could look at a "topic" as being two different things. First you have the Title of the thread being the topic, for which I was not off of. My idea deals with a form of mandatory archiving, one which is done ONLY to caches whose owners have chosen to no longer be active in the geocaching community. This doesn't matter whether they have an old or new cache (new meaning only a year as compared to old being more than a year). It's simply a way to make sure there is a clean up of online info as well as a clean up of those caches out there that no longer have an owner attached to them. Or, if the cache is loved by someone, it can be adopted. Next, you can look at the topic as being the content of the OP, who also dealt with mandatory archiving, but a method and reason much different than the one I proposed. It depends on how you look at what "off topic" is. In one way, I would be, and another not. My intentions were not to derail the thread. My original post just said simply that I didn't agree with the idea the OP had, and suggested where I thought a mandatory archive would help. From there most of the discussion has been about my post, so I'm not sure one could say that my continuance to answer and clarify my ideas to be "off topic"

Exactly why the idea was suggested! People are lazy and not picking up when they need to. And the first comment you made was directly quoting me.....don't know how I was off on that one. Look, I already stated a few pages back that I never expected my idea to take off into a tangent in this thread. I can't move the subject matter, but the moderators can. And if you go by the title of the thread.....it was never off topic.....just not having to do with what the OP suggested. No use on starting a new a thread at this point.....it's already been hashed over here for 4 pages.

The people who are posting at the end of the thread are clearly not reading the idea I put forth and are somehow thinking that it's a part of the OP thread. My idea had nothing to do with old caches, and so this is a dumb thing to keep arguing about. Cleaning up geotrash that has been left behind due to negligence has nothing to do with being a newb. And if it does, I certainly hope that I never stop being new. Cleaning up the world is something we all should be doing to give back to the community. Please actually read the thread before you respond thinking your know what your talking about.

What he also forgot was that there are many many more traditional caches out there than multis in the first place. Now if you take all the traditionals and all of the multis and compare the percentages of missing caches within each type, I'm pretty sure that you'll find there are many more tradtionals missing. So that brings me back to my comment that I don't understand the "reason" used that most multis are missing stages, as a reason not to like multis. The reason is just incorrect. And the missing tradtionals never stopped people from caching....seems like a weak excuse to me.

There are ways to work around all of the issues you listed. I would go into them all, but honestly, I'm just tired. It was a suggestion. I will be more than happy to expand upon the idea if someone at Groundspeak would like to hear more of my idea. But, this is getting to be a long back and forth and I've had to repeat myself so many times at this point, it seems useless to keep it up. I respect that you don't like the idea, thank you for your opinion. It's out there now, and for the "people in power" to decide on.

Oh good grief. I'm sorry you can't see how you can statically compare the two. I'm not going to lower myself to your level and insult you. I find it helps no one to be rude, and this argument will serve no one in any way caching. Have fun doing math the way you'd like to.

Answered many, many times. There simply does not appear to be a problem that constitues implementing a rule that would cause more work for any of the volunteer reviewers or cachers.. Can you please explain how this is any extra work for the reviewers? It would all be automated. And extra work for cachers? Only people who WANT to go out and retrieve them would. How is this extra work? Actually, if you really think about it, it would make LESS work for reviewers.

Simply, like I said, if the owner chooses to archive the cache themselves they can note whether or not they have retrieved it. If not, the cache goes on the same archival list. It leaves you no worse off then before since we are all hoping that these people are collecting their caches now. Not seeing your point as to how this won't work, sorry. Not sure how I put words in your mouth. I didn't say that you had stated anything, I only asked you questions. Where did I make a comment that you had said something? It honestly seems to me that you are working really hard to find a reason that this wouldn't work, but can't give a good one besides that Groundspeak has to approve it. If you have a reason I'm not seeing, please let know and I'll see what I could think of to work around it.

This keeps being brought up and it's a non-issue. You wouldn't need archived data to accomodate it. Markwell did a pretty good job of answering this. It is NOT a non-issue: archived cache = archived data, you can't make a list of "recently archived caches" without using archived cache data. Of course, I'm talking about making a list on GC.com, if you want to get a group together to monitor all caches in your state and maintain a list of archived caches, go ahead. But it won't be an "official" GC.com list. No one way saying that you could currently do this. Groundspeak would have to allow the archived data to be accessed for the duration of time it took for someone to remove the physical cache. Edited to add: Groundspeak would also have to include the form letter and such in their programing. This suggestion was made with the understanding that improvements would have to be made by Groundspeak in order for it to work.

Um, no. Maybe you haven't done any multi-caches. Typically, each stage of a multi will have the coordinates of the next stage. If any of the stages is missing, the cache is un-doable. As I showed, the probability that a multi-cache will have all stages working is less than is the case for a single-stage cache. It's very basic math. And it's also basic math that there are exponentially more traditional caches than there are multis, which makes your point moot. There is a greater probability of traditional caches being missing altogether than there is just a stage of a multi. How exactly are people who place multis being punished? If someone doesn't care for a type of hide and doesn't go look for it, they are not "punishing" anyone. Not all caches can or will be found by everyone. And if I don't look for your cache it shouldn't be looked at as either punishment nor an insult. There does seem to be an undercurrent of elitism on this forum. Not intentional, but there non the less. People who like Multis tend to sound like they think people that don't, just don't get it. People who like puzzles can not relate to those who don't. Many who like to, (and are still healthy enough to) hike five or ten miles for a cache, sound like they think they are superior to those that like a quick local park cache. I know without a doubt, the numbers have nothing to do with why I don't do a lot of Multis, but I somehow feel insulted when some say that's the reason. I believe for some that is the reason, and for them it is a very good reason. It is the way they want to play the game. I think you misunderstood why I was saying people who place multis are being punished. It had nothing to do with them not being visited as much or people disliking them in general. It was in reference to the comment about multi-stages being missing. I said that there is a good chance that the owner of a cache of a missing multi probably has traditional caches that are missing or in need of significant repair as well. I don't think it's fair to the average multi cache owner to be viewed in the same light as owners who don't take of their caches. People either take care of them or they don't, irregardless of the type of cache they place.

The other aspect that has not been addressed is how you know that the cache isn't listed on another site. However, there are individuals who have caches listed on other sites that have had their accounts banned from Geocaching.com. If they can't log in to Geocaching.com to update an e-mail address, and they are still out there placing caches, but CAN'T log on to Geocaching.com, how is Groundspeak supposed to contact them? I see your side of the issue, and I certainly hope that the case is that people are cleaning these up. I don't see the same scenario in my state, so not sure where to view the whole think from. I would think that my idea, or maybe some twisted and configured rendition of my idea would just be a good program to ensure that the caches are taken care of. Instead of just supposing they are, and hoping we are right, my plan would ensure that they are. I don't like to assume things, and the current method forces us to assume that each owner has been ethically sound and taking care of their litter. However, it seems by the simple fact that people do neglect caches, and do leave items that are against the guidelines, etc., that we can't assume that people will take care of their litter either. I know life would be nicer if everyone just picked up after themselves and did the right thing, but really, is it realistic to assume that they will?

The other aspect that has not been addressed is how you know that the cache isn't listed on another site. That would have to rely on the individual to answer their email. I'm not sure why it's too much to ask the owner to clarify their intent. The result is a cleaner planet, and isn't that the point of the Groundspeak charity? To answer your second question, they would no longer be listed as an active user when they are banned. At that point, the owner would be asked if they intend to keep up their cache regardless of their banning. If the answer is yes, then the cache can be archived from GC.com and you don't have to worry about it. If they have been banned from GC.com, why are there caches still listed here?

I'm not sure you'd win that bet. No I don't have any numbers in front of me (any more than you do), but from monitoring my finds (weekly PQs) and the local area of unfound (by me) caches (close to 3000 caches overall) - what I've seen is that the majority of TPTB archivals are for missing caches, not unmaintained caches. So what is there to retrieve? You keep repeating that a cache with a missing owner will need maintainence, that after a year of not logging in their caches are trash. I'll dispute that. I have some caches that I've not been to in more that a year - none of the logs have indicated any problems, so where is the maintainence issue? Why can't someone who isn't finding caches (or using a different account for finding) be tracking their caches by the email logs? This idea - in this form - is not new. Almost identical preposals have been discussed before. And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data. It took a lot of talk just to get the "All Finds PQ" to include archived caches. So, suggesting a "recently archived list" is the real breaking point of the idea. You truly are misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth that I never said. Not liking my idea is one thing, and honestly, just fine with me. But, please don't misrepresent what I have said, it does nothing for either side of this discussion for the facts to keep being muddled. I never said I had numbers infront of me, I said I was willing to bet that I'm correct. I didn't say that the majority of archived caches are from maintenance issues. What I said was out all of the archived caches out there (for whatever reason) I would like to see the percentage of caches that have been removed properly after archival. I thought what I said was clear about this, I'm talking about the removal of the physical cache. Are you searching for your 3000 caches after they have been archived? I'm confused as to how you would know that the physical cache has been picked up then? Is there a group that does this, if so please let me know. I also NEVER said that after a year the cache of an unactive, or active owner would need to be maintenanced. Please go re-read what I have said. I thought I made it clear that EVERY cache at some point will need maintenance, even the best prepared cache on earth. If there is not an active owner, the cache must rely on others to maintain it. Maybe a particular cache you can recall will last for 40 years out there without help, but it doesn't matter as at some point to infinity, it will need to have maintenance. And an inactive owner means a cache that can have issues. The current plan waits for those issues to come up. AGAIN, my plan works towards prevention. I also NEVER said that they can't be tracking their cache without coming online. If you would please refer to my plan again, you will see this. The form letter is sent out to the owner to ask if they PLAN to keep the cache active. How is this a problem with what you are asking???? You see, as long as they respond to the letter, the cache remains as it is. I also never said my idea is unique. It is simply the first I've read of it since I have joined. I DO have the right to suggest items, just as you have the right to disagree with them. But, AGAIN, please stop misrepresenting what I have suggested. Yes, it might mean a change to some of Groundspeak's policy regarding archived caches. They would be listed online for all to see for a limited time. But, policies change in life, just as all things change in life in one way or another. It's up to them to decide that, not you, and not I. But again, a suggestion is allowed, no matter how much it would require policy changes. Unless there's a policy that states we are not allowed to make suggestions that would alter their policy, if so, I haven't seen it.

You don't have my "ire" up at all. I had stopped posting because I felt I had said my peace, but was asked by Markwell to please restate my idea, so I did. I only wanted to clarify how my plan would not adversely effect military members any more than the current plan does. I have personally seen alot of trash when we go out, and spent quite a bit of our time cleaning up. I also have skipped over plenty of caches in our state that clearly show by the logs that they are poorly maintained. When I go to see if the individual is active, I find they are not. I personally subscribe to the belief that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My idea works along those lines. I'm not hurt or offended by those who disagree with me. I am only shocked that so few people seem open to the idea of change to make things better, whether using my plan or not. The general response to anyone's ideas on here is that no one wants change. There are some truly creative ideas that have been presented over the short period of time I've been a member, and very few seem to get any positive response on this forum. I can't tell you the amount of posts I've seen with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" remark. I'm truly glad that the world's inventors don't subsrcibe to this way of thinking or we'd never have all the wonderful new products and the improvements to those products that we have today. Something doesn't have to be broken to benefit from improvement. I read a post by Jeremy on this site about how he doesn't care for the argumentative attitude on the forums either. And where suggestions for something had been shot down by the forum users, moderators, and reviewers, Jeremy was considering implimenting some of them. Thank you, Jeremy, for keeping an open mind about site and game improvements. Edited to add: As far as the geotrash not being a problem, I ask you, have you been to many archived caches to check the numbers of them that have been cleaned up? Has anyone? I would love to see those numbers., what are you basing your opinion of this situation on? I doubt many people are caching for archived caches, and if they were, I'm willing to bet there are a large percentage not being picked up.

I understand what you are trying to do, however this is already taking place as pointed out by my area reviewer, IL Reviewer, earlier in this thread. The point I think most are trying to make is, if the cache is active, in good shape and still at the posted coords it does not matter if the owner shows as active. Not to mention with our (the US) current occupation overseas, there are a good many cachers that may just not be able to be contacted quickly enough to make it work. They may be not interested anymore, or they may just be monitoring the emails and maintaining it that way. There are a number of people who have an account set up for placing caches and another one for finding, the latter would be the active one. Even if something like you are suggesting was adopted, which is highly unlikely, it would require even more intervention by the volunteers for a issue, that quite frankly, has such a low occurrence the trade off in time is just not worth it. Encourage cachers to keep being self policing and newbies to adopt the same attitude and things will stay cleaned up. If this becomes an issue, land managers will let the different caches listing services know and they will jump on it. All the sites seem to be very responsive when there is an issue, especially with land owners/managers. W Military members would be affected no differently with my plan. If they leave for a year's time and their cache falls to disrepair, their reviewer would contact them anyway. If they don't respond to that contact, their cache will still be archived. How is this different? I was in the military myself, as was my husband for 10 years. A responsible military member would employ someone to take care of their cache or at least the reviewer to let them know about their deployment. It's really no different than notifying your bill holders. They don't wait for you to get back either. I'm not trying to get military members to lose their caches. I have the utmost respect for them and their service to our country. I can't say whether or not my idea will be utilized. That's for Groundspeak to decide. It was just a suggestion. More volunteers seems to be an issue with everyone. I don't see how this is a problem. Plenty of people would be happy to go remove items to earn their green smiley. People CITO now for no smiley at all. You can't just encourage people to clean up. It's already being "encouraged" on this site, and we can see where that is going. Look, you don't have to agree with my idea. It doesn't have to be implimented. It was a suggestion. And, while maybe not perfect (but then again nothing is), it's better than what is in place alone. I must say, I'm truly surprised that people who claim to promote CITO and removal of geotrash, aren't more open to finding ways to help control it, whether it's my idea or someone elses. Seems to me the consensus on the site is to ignore the trash issue and keep things the way they're going because they don't like change. We're more likely to lose the cooperation of land managers this way. I would hope that the cachers on this forum can see why something needs to be done to clean up these abandoned caches, no matter what method is utilized to do so.

I was thinking that one could make a tiny lamp for his/her Christmas Story diorama. Too funny! I would definitely grab that one up! Like I said, it's all in the presentation of the object!

OK, I'll bite. Since this discussion is now on three pages, and since your responses are on various pages, and since your suggested improvements are on multiple posts, and since your suggestion evidently has nothing to do with the system automatically archiving caches (or even madatory archving for that matter)... What is your current suggestion again? My idea, the one that Egami is talking about, has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the OP's idea. It is however another idea about mandatory archiving. I want to make sure that it is understood that I never suggested that the current procedures stop. They would still need to be in place to ensure poorly maintained caches or improperly placed caches owned by active members are handled appropriately. Here is what I suggested: Every person is tracked by their visits to GC.com (found in the profile page). What I suggested was that there is a number of caches that are owned by GC.com members that have not visited the site for a year or longer. These caches are most likely now owned by non-active members. I feel that EVERY cache should be owned by an active member so that they can answer cachers' questions as well as maintain their caches. To ensure that these caches have not been abandoned, I have proposed the following plan: Once a member of GC.com has been absent from the site for one year's time (easily implemented with an "if than" statement in programming), a form letter would be sent off to the email account they registered with GC.com. The letter would inquire about their status geocaching and their intentions for the caches they own. If the member responded that they intend to keep their cache, then nothing would happen to their cache listing. If a member responds that they are no longer caching, or no response is received from the owner, the cache is placed on a "to be adopted" list. This list is available to all members for viewing. Within a set period of time, I suggested 30 days, if the cache has not been adopted, it is to be archived and set on a "recently archived" list. By allowing all caches up for adoption, the caches that are "loved" by all, would remain as someone is bound to take them over. The "recently archived" list would be available for all GC members to look at. For caches that the owner has expressed that they have removed the physical cache (something that would be asked in the form letter described above), they would not be included on the "recently archived" list. For caches that have not been determined to be removed, they would placed on this list for other cachers to remove. Egami suggested a "green smiley" to be awarded to those who have removed the cache as a way of motivation. Once the cache has been physically removed, it is taken off the list. This method does not attack old caches, or caches that have not been visited frequently. It only takes care of the geotrash that no one is interested in (shown by the fact that the owner no longer wants it, and that no other cacher wants to adopt it). It's simply a way to maintain a cleaner environment and prevent future maintenance issues, as any cache that is ownerless will eventually need to be maintenanced. Does it solve a problem of saturation? Eh, maybe a bit, but not it's intent. This subject would be better served by being placed in a different thread. When I made the suggestion it was because of the idea of mandatory archiving and not the bit about saturation. I had no idea the thread would go this far, and appears to be getting alot of comments from people who aren't reading everything involved in the discussion. Edited to add: I am NO WAY trying to eliminate caches that are interesting, old, or barely visited. My caches are along hikes, and don't get many visits. I certainly don't want my caches to be taken away, or the other similar caches that we love so much. My intent is not to make more room for me to place caches either. We're getting ready to publish a 20 cache series and will likely not place many more. We feel it's enough to handle. This suggestion is just a way to keep the environment clean, help keep caches in better condition (by ensuring someone is actively owning them), and improve the geocaching sport/game/etc. There is no devious design behind the idea, just a desire to make things better for all.

But what if the email gets throttled or sent to junkmail or gets overlooked, etc...... I hate the idea that I might be overlooking something and have to fear that one of my caches may be taken away from me without notice by some automated system. Sounds like big brother to me! (that wasn't invoking godwin's law...right? ) How would this be any different than if one of your caches requires maintenance? You would be notified of that as well through email. Or you would have to look online, which again would make you an active member. Are you frequently gone for more than a year from GC.com? How can this affect your caches then? If one of your caches had a serious issue, your reviewer would contact you through your email. If you don't receive that email and contact them back, your cache will be archived after a certain amount of time anyway.......see no difference. Again, this plan is such that the only caches that it would archive (again the current procedure is still in place as well to maintain problem caches with active owners) are those from a member who hasn't been active for at least a year.

If you go back and read the proposal I added to elmuyloco's you can see that. I responded to StarBrand's similar inquiry just up the page. But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info. How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows). How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking? All these questions (which have been discussed before) all go into my thoughts that any auto-archive system will NOT help with the abandoned cache/geo-litter "problem". I'll try to address each of your questions. 1.But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info. You would "find" these listings easily because they would be placed on a "Recently Archived" list available for all members to look at. The cache would remain on the list until the cache is removed from it's physical position and logged as such (for the green smiley) by another cacher, or it will be removed once a member finds that no cache is in place either because it went missing or was removed by the owner, and lastly it would be removed from the list if the owner had commented that they had removed the cache themselves. 2. How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows). Distinction between non-active and acitve is simple. Look at your profile page, it will show when you last visited the site (no matter why you came online). This date would start the "one year point" at which the plan would use. One year since the last time you visited online the letter would be sent out so that owners who still want to participate but have not been online for a year, can still keep their cache. The second part to your question is addressed by other cachers going to look to see if the archived cache is still in place to properly remove it. There are plenty of us on here who are self-motivated to CITO without an event. I'm sure the motivation of a green smiley will work for some, while others will be motivated to obtain a free container, while some will just be motivated because it's cleaning up. 3. How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking? The "notification" will be the fact that the cache is removed from the archived list as explained in answer #1. Once it's removed from the list, it's been verified that the cache is no longer in place and properly cleaned up. The current procedures do nothing to ensure the cache is removed.