[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

 

Why would you never adopt a cache using your standard account? Would it be that you'd actually be responsible for it?

 

It's not a question of responsibility at all. I would never take over a cache without being willing to take care.

 

To answer your question: Because I do not want to take the credit and the quite likely existing FPs for something I have not created. I also would not want that those who log with templates thank me for placing the cache.

 

Moreover, in many cases I would like to separate the mails that come in from the mails that come in for the caches I have hidden. This becomes even more important when sharing maintenance with others (for example for very long and complex caches where everyone is in charge of some part). So it could easily happen that someone who thinks like me ends up with even more than adoption account - one for each different project.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

I'm going to take your refusal to answer the question as your acceptance that judgements about future events (also known as predictions) can be made and are made, every day in every country of the world.

 

That's wrong. I just did not want to become offtopic. I actually do not know whether I will still live in the evening though it's likely to happen.

As predictions are concerned, they need data and that's the key problem when it comes what you suggest. You would indeed need to restrict adoptions and those allowed to adopt to come up with meaningful predictions of the way you would like them to make and that's where we largely disagree upon as I do not want to restrict adoption to accounts with a record of owned caches.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

before it spirals of onto some wacky tangent

 

It's not at all my intention to deviate from the topic.

 

I do think however that it would be a very bad idea to forbid adoptions by accounts who have no hides so far - regardless of whether this happens for new team accounts or accounts created just for the adoption or

the accounts of cachers who have not yet hidden a cache. Why shouldn't be an adopted one be their first?

 

Of course almost every system can be abused. Like someone from the US can adopt a UK cache (will not happen often I guess), someone from the US can hide a cache in the UK with a new account with home coordinates close to the cache.

In order to avoid that we all would need to send documents which certify where we live which hardly could be a reasonable goal.

 

I have yet to experience a reasonable number of cases where someone adopts caches out of a addiction.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

Moreover, you cannot judge with an automatic system whether someone will maintain the caches.

 

Of course you can.

 

No, because it's something that takes place in the future.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

I've also seen cachers leave the UK, abandoning their UK caches and then start placing caches in their new country of residence.

 

Often that happens if the caches in the old home region are still ok when the owner moves away and it is in the interest of the community that they stay.

The better solutions would be adoptions though, but then it's contraproductive to make adoptions more complicated.

 

What ultimately counts is that caches are in good order and are taken care of and not so many formalities as you apparently want to introduce.

 

They weren't maintained though - they were abandoned and fell into disrepair, which renders your point largely moot.

 

Sorry, but I misunderstood abandoned as I interpreted it as a process where the condition of the caches first was ok and then degraded. Once the condition is bad, the same procedure can take place as for a cache

with an owner who still lives in the area.

 

Caches adopted by individuals who can comfortably maintain them = lovely

 

Caches adopted by individuals who cannot or will not - highly undesirable

 

Not necessarily individuals. It can also be a group of people who take care and create a joint account for that purpose.

Moreover, you cannot judge with an automatic system whether someone will maintain the caches.

 

I'm willing to take care of every cache I take responsibility for but I'm not willing to provide personal details to a reviewer - it's not their business.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

I've also seen cachers leave the UK, abandoning their UK caches and then start placing caches in their new country of residence.

 

Often that happens if the caches in the old home region are still ok when the owner moves away and it is in the interest of the community that they stay.

The better solutions would be adoptions though, but then it's contraproductive to make adoptions more complicated.

 

What ultimately counts is that caches are in good order and are taken care of and not so many formalities as you apparently want to introduce.

 

If a cache gets adopted by someone who does not take care of it, the same happens as if the original owner does not take care. In my opinion there are enough ways to deal with this scenario.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

 

Just a point of clarification - I don't believe a reviewer is currently involved in the adoption process. It is strictly between cachers.

 

Indeed and that's the key issue. What Team Microdot has in mind would involve that the system automatically blocks cachers from being allowed to adopt caches (including all cache owners who do not yet own a cache).

I would not want to have such a system not even if there existed a way to appeal against such bans where someone human would have a look at the situation and unblock the user in certain cases.

[Ich komme mir vor als wäre heute schon der 1. April]

Ich sehe nichts, dass gegen einen Druckverschlussbeutel, eine Hütte oder einen Regenschirm spricht.

 

Ein Regenschirm ist sicher kein Container und die Huette wird im allgemeinen nicht vom Verstecker plaziert worden sein fuer den Zweck des Caches.

Die Regenschirmhuelle als Container zu sehen und den Regenschirm als Logbuch ist doch etwas weit hergeholt abgesehen davon dass die Regenschirm Caches die ich kenne

keine Huelle haben. Es gibt viele Caches, die nicht guidelinekonform sind, auch Caches bei denen man nur auf einer Mauer loggt oder vergrabene Caches.

 

Wo mag beim Reflektor der Behälter und wo das Logbuch sein?

 

Vermutlich ein Zettel innen drin oder angebracht in einer Plastikhuelle wie bei magnetischen "Hafttafeln" (die akzeptiert werden).

Die Reflektorcaches die ich bisher gefunden habe (anderer Typ) wiesen alle einen Logzettel auf.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

All adoptions do is continue to block the locals from finding and placing geocaches. Archive the cache, then allow another player to place a geocache near that same area, which will allow local cachers to have something to find.

 

Maybe that's true for some caches or maybe even some areas. It's certainly not true in the generality implied by your statement.

I know examples of superb caches which have got adopted out to rescue them for the local cachers and which have a very profitable "blocking index" (they might cover many km of distance and block much less area than much shorter caches).

 

Not every cache is a short and easy traditional so that all locals get to visit a cache very soon after it got hidden and not all local communities are static so that hardly any new cachers enter geocaching.

 

It can be quite hard to find cachers who are willing to adopt caches that are more difficult to maintain anyway. For example, I'm still trying to find cachers living close enough to a number of very nice caches at locations which are typically not easy to reach and who would be willing to take over these caches. They do not block anything - the area is not cache dense at all and if the caches get archived, there will be no new caches hidden there and it would not make much sense anyhow. For example if a cache is hidden at a hidden rock face why hide it 100m away? Why hide a new cache at exactly the same location when the old one is ok and by far not all cachers have found the old cache?

[Ich komme mir vor als wäre heute schon der 1. April]

Falls das erlaubt ist, ist dann auch weiterhin der Regenschirm (die Innenfläche ist das Logbuch) möglich?

 

Fuer einen solchen Cache musste man schon bisher im richtigen Land wohnen.

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

So let's also allow adoptions only by cachers who have a proven track record of being able to maintain their caches to a high standard using their known player account.

 

Then I guess not many cachers will adopt a cache at all.

 

I never ever would use my own account because I do not want to sell a cache as mine which isn't and I would not want to take over the FPs awarded to someone else's cache. I know many others who feel the same way.

 

There can also be many other reasons which provide an argument to use different accounts - e.g. team hides, team adoptions of large cache projects, the wish to separate incoming mails etc

 

I cannot see any reason to restrict the flexibility of the majority to solve some local problems which can be solved also in another way.

 

Moreover, I have an issue with your "to a high standard". That's subjective and also depends on the type of cache in my opinion. If the log book of a cache that gets found when it is raining is damp, I would not see this as a lower standard, others might disagree. Who is going to define which standard is required?

[Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers]

Someone I've identified? I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.

 

That's why another option afforded by this suggested measure is to allow the caches to be adopted by someone else, someone who can cope comfortably with their maintenance, so that those caches have a better chance of remaining in good order

 

First, quite often caches are adopted by cachers with already many caches because no one else wants to take them over. Many newer cachers prefer to own no caches.

Second, one always can adopt caches with a new account and many will actually do that regardless of their maintenance policy. I would never adopt a cache using my standard account.

[Caches mit inaktivem Owner]

Wenn man einen Multi inklusive der Route und der Stationen ohne ok des Versteckers uebernimmt, geht das nicht in Ordnung fuer mich, egal ob man den Text etwas abaendert oder nicht und egal ob man das Versteck ein paar m verschiebt oder nicht....

Nun, eine Adoption ist ja auch nix anderes - der alte Cache mit nem neuen Besitzer.

 

Es ist derselbe Cache und kein neuer (nachtraegliche Aenderungen des neuen Betreuers, die nicht nur marginal und erzwungen sind, sind nicht in Ordnung aus meiner Sicht).

Wenn ein neues Listing eingereicht wird, dann kommt die Mehrheit, die schon mal da war, nochmals um die Karte leerzuraeumen und der Hauptteil des Logs ist dann die Feststellung dass sie schon da waren.

Wenn ein Cache uebernommen wird, wird das vermieden. Auch die FPs bleiben erhalten.

 

Und ohne ok des Versteckers? Ist ein Weg zur Burg incl. dort liegender Dose und hinführendem Listing/Stationen für immer tabu, nur weil ein ehemals Aktiver das vorgemacht hat? Eher nicht. Da gibts gaaaanz andere Dinge, die ich als unhöflich und unstatthaft empfinde....

 

Ohne ok des Versteckers bezieht sich auf das Uebernehmen einer nicht 0815 Cachebeschreibung von der Art "mein erster Cache" und einer sich nicht kanonisch ergebenden Routenfuehrung.

Fuer keinen meiner Caches ist es wahrscheinlich dass jemand genau mit diesen Stationen und Aufgaben und genau dieser Routenfuehrung daherkaeme und erst recht nicht mit meiner Beschreibung.

Copy&paste Uebernahmen in solchen Faellen sehe ich als Affront.

 

 

Ohne Owner zu sein kann man weder eine Archivierung verhindern noch den NM-Schraubenschlüssel loswerden. Und da tut es nichts zur Sache, daß das Letztere weniger einen Beinbruch darstellt.

Und ohne Zustimmung eines inaktiven Owners gibts keine Adoption - also bleibt einem, wenn einem das Ding am Herzen liegt, nur die Archivierung abzuwarten und dann einzuspringen. Mit den schon erwähnten Schönheitsfehlern.

 

Ich schrieb ja schon, dass es oft klappt einen Verstecker, der nicht mehr cacht, dennoch zu kontaktieren.

Ferner ist es ja die lokale Community, die Archivierungen betreibt oder nicht betreibt. Es gibt keinen Grund NA zu posten oder mehrfach NM wenn ohnedies alles in Ordnung ist - Owner hin oder her.

[Caches mit inaktivem Owner]

schade, dass man sich archivierte Dosen nicht anzeigen lassen kann (nur wenn man den GC-Code kennt).

Mich würde oft interessieren, ob es an einer bestimmten Stelle (zB 500m Radius) schon mal einen Cache gab und welche Erfahrungen die Logger gemacht haben (Routenwahl, Probleme mit Anrainer, Wildtiere, ...).

ZB: Bauer (mit Fackel und Heugabel) vertreibt Wanderer von seinem Feldweg.

Oder Dose wird regelmässig von Unbekannten entfernt.

 

Fuer Traditionals ist das moeglich (siehe zB die 2 unten vorgeschlagenen Varianten oder nur fuer Oesterreich ueber aj-gps.net). Die Systeme kennen jedoch nur die Headerkoordinaten und somit ist die Brauchbarkeit

eingeschraenkt fuer andere Cachetypen.

[Caches mit inaktivem Owner]

Zum einen ist nicht jeder Cache ein Traditional (der Beispielscache schon) und dann kommt oft auch noch die Route ins Spiel......

Ändert das etwas? Auch nen Multi kann man "wiederherstellen" - da seh ich jetzt keinen Bezug.....

 

Wenn man einen Multi inklusive der Route und der Stationen ohne ok des Versteckers uebernimmt, geht das nicht in Ordnung fuer mich, egal ob man den Text etwas abaendert oder nicht und egal ob man das Versteck ein paar m verschiebt oder nicht.

Es bleibt derselbe Cache.

 

...Zum anderen ist fuer mich gerade bei alten Caches die Loghistorie ein Wert an sich.....

Nun, irgendwie hatte ich den Eindruck, es ging darum, ob es den Cache gibt - oder nicht. Wenn der Owner nix mehr tut, das Ding verfallen lässt und das Ganze droht, ins Archiv zu wandern, ist eine "relaoded" Dose (muß ja nicht so heißen) oder etwas Neues an der Stelle denn doch besser als nix.

 

Weil "nix" ist dann die Alternative. Ne andere seh ich gerade nicht. Du?

 

Zur Zeit sehe ich keine echte Archivierungsgefahr wenn der Cache ohnedies jetzt in gutem Zustand ist. Eine Archivierung waere zur Zeit eine reine pro forma Aktion.

Das wuerde auch Zeit lassen zu versuchen den Verstecker ueber andere Wege zu kontaktieren - oft klappt das.

[Mission 9 APE cache to be returned/reactivated]

The reason this APE cache is being reactivated is because people want the icon for their stats, and they consider this location relatively easy to get to (and it is).

 

Writing as a player here, I'm not so sure that this is true. For many geocachers this (and any other APE cache) is pretty hard to get to - because it's on another continent.

 

I also voted for "bring it back". But surely not because I'm interested so much in that (or any other) icon. A look at my rather icon-sparse stats should be proof enough. No, I voted for this option because it's a nice story to have back a cache tought lost forever. A bit like the Parable of the Prodigal Son. And the other options essentially would have made a trophy out of the box, which I don't find very appealing.

 

I think it's a different question why people voted for the return of the APE cache than why they people from far away travel to an APE cache. It's very easy to vote for something - it costs nothing. I did not vote but I have to agree with you that the other three options were not attractive at all.

[Mission 9 APE cache to be returned/reactivated]

And the only reason why it is special and of interest to the whole community is that rare icon/cache type.

A reason why it is special and of interest? Definitely. The main reason? Perhaps.

 

But the only reason? I don't think so. The Mission 9 tribute cache in Washington has received a fair bit of attention, and it offers no icon or unusual cache type. There is something going on besides the Project APE icon and cache type.

 

I also do not think that it is the only reason. That's why I wrote key reason.

 

The tribute cache has indeed received a fair bit of attention. However there are not many people who travelled from a different continent to the tribute cache only for the tribute cache (of course Washington has more to offer to them and other rare icons). The fact that many cachers are willing to invest a lot of money into a single cache is what makes caches with a rare icon or a rare placed date special.

[Mission 9 APE cache to be returned/reactivated]

Yes, the APE cache is special, and is being treated with "special" status, but I think it's the Geo-community as a whole that made it this way, Groundspeak just recognized that it was special.

 

Of course there are different ways of looking at things as usual. In my opinion, it's Groundspeak who made APE caches special by assigning them their own type and this separate type is also the key reason why people from all over the world invest a lot of money to travel to APE caches.

[Caches mit inaktivem Owner]

 

Die Hilfe findet Grenzen im Falle von tatsächlichen Ownerpflichten - wie hier einem NM-Eintrag.

 

Ein NM Eintrag wenn er sich auf den alten Zustand der Dose bezieht ist in meinen Augen nicht so schlimm.

Gut 50% der Verstecker in meiner Gegend entfernen das NM Attribut auch nicht wenn sie selbst eine Wartung durchfuehren.

 

Wenn man etwas im Text aendern muesste, sieht es anders aus.

 

Daß das dann nicht mehr der originale "alte" Cache ist, ist m.E. völlig vernachlässigbar. Ein Cache besteht ja aus Location, Listing, Dose und evtl. Gebastel. Das kann man ja - wenn einem die Originalität am Herzen liegt - im großen und ganzen nachempfinden. Listing sollte man m.E. nicht 1:1 übernehmen, aber die Location bleibt, ne Dose ist ne Dose und wenn das Ding dann eben "Ursprungscache reloaded" o.ä. heißt - wen juckts?

 

Zum einen ist nicht jeder Cache ein Traditional (der Beispielscache schon) und dann kommt oft auch noch die Route ins Spiel.

Zum anderen ist fuer mich gerade bei alten Caches die Loghistorie ein Wert an sich und ich habe es lieber wenn in den naechsten Jahren nur die Fundogs jener dazukommen, die noch nicht da waren, und die alten Logs und Fotos weiterhin ueber die aktive Cacheseite zugaenglich sind. Beim neuen Cache wuerde die Mehrheit der Logs darauf hinauslaufen "Da gab es schon mal einen Cache". Wann immer sich reloaded Caches vermeiden lassen, bin ich froh darueber.

[Mission 9 APE cache to be returned/reactivated]

Of course a guard rail micro will not attract the same attention than a cache at a more interesting location. Note I wrote a normal old cache at this location - so except the ape cache type everything else stayed the same.

No, it didn't.

 

Apparently you misunderstood what I meant which most probably was my fault. I was not talking about Groundspeak's alternatives but referred to my omparison in the post to which narcissa replied. I meant let's compare the situation of everything else be the same just leave out the ape cache type.

 

What I meant was this:

If there happened to be an old cache at a phantastic location that people loved to visit for many years but which then disappeared and got archived, the cache would not get unarchived and reinstalled when the container shows up again and no vote would be organized whether this should be done and the big majority of cachers would not care at all (if it were not something some people needed again for some statistics oriented type of thing, so let's assume that this is not the case).

 

 

First, let's be clear: the Project APE caches have always been given special treatment. It shouldn't be a surprise that this continues to be the case.

 

I agree and it did not surprise me.

 

I do not have an issue if someone visits an ape cache just for the icon - it does not harm me at all and I do not see how it harms the geocaching community. (In this concrete case it will only harm Brazil in a way, but the same effect were true if the other ape cache would never have disappeared.)

 

I do have an issue however if someone who just says the truth that what happened happened due to the special status of ape caches gets blamed for being negative, harsh, derisive etc

 

In my opinion this thread has stayed very civil.

 

Keeping the above policy in mind, wouldn't it naturally make sense that if the original container was found, the cache should be reactivated? Again, these caches have always been in their own category separate from all other caches, so comparisons with any other old cache are pointless.

 

The comparisons are not pointless in a discussion when people start to argue about the nice experience offered by this ape cache as central element in the decision process. Let's stay sincere. What happened happened because it was an ape cache after all and not due to the location and other experience related stuff and not due to the age of the cache.

 

Even if you may have voted differently, did anyone here seriously expect any if the other options to be selected?

 

No and I do not have a problem with the outcome of the vote either. I mentioned above with what I have a problem.

[GC little helper II]

Wenn man teils fast 15 Jahre hier zusammen rumhängt, dann kann man sich ja schon auf die Teile gehen.

 

Es ging mir um nichts Persoenliches. Ich bin nachwievor der Meinung, dass es nicht berechtigt ist die Behauptung aufzustellen, dass die meisten Cacheverstecker sich keine Muehe geben und damit ohnehin

keinen ordentlichen Log verdienen.

 

Ich glaube wir waren hier:

... Ich möchte mich ungerne mit meiner Mail-Adresse auf einer Webseite anmelden, von der ich nicht weiß, was es ist!? github? Sorry, muss echt nicht sein, angemeldet bin ich schon an zu vielen Stellen. :-( Kann jemand, der da schon einen Account hat und dem das Gesamtthema auch wichtig ist - z.B. meinen Satz, gerne ohne den Dank am Ende, wichtiger Hinweis von Abendsegler, danke - ein Ticket für GCLH2 schreiben? Ich formuliere auch gerne um, kürzer, ..., wenn das gewünscht ist. Die Arbeit mache ich mir gerne. ...

 

Ich sehe keine grossen Chancen dafuer. hynz und frostengel wollen es nicht tun (aus unterschiedlichen Gruenden).

Ich glaube nicht dass der Satz (oder ein aehnlicher) etwas bewirkt.

 

Nochmals im Logfenster bei gc.com steht seit einiger Zeit "Share your story with the geocache owner and community. Try not to leave any spoilers!"

 

Logs, die etwas erzaehlen zum Cache wurden nicht haeufiger und Spoiler nicht seltener, sondern tendenziell sogar noch haeufiger.

 

Ich bin nachwievor der Meinung, dass der typische Verwender von Logtemplates ganz genau weiss, was er macht, und es bewusst macht.

[Mission 9 APE cache to be returned/reactivated]

I don't see anything anyone has said here as being harsh or cruel - there is no need to be emotive and dramatic about it.

 

It's just the truth - if it wasn't for the special icon, and the relative ease of getting to this location, the cache would be gone for good.

 

If you're not saying this out of spite and negativity, please clarify what your larger point is.

 

 

Maybe just an expression of opinion which by the way I share and even more so when it comes to Groundspeak investing the time and effort to create the poll and then to reinstall the cache.

I'm quite sure that they would not have done so if it were not a special icon cache but just a normal old cache at this location.

 

BTW: I did not vote at all.

 

Again, what is the larger significance of this point? It seems rather obvious that interest in reviving a long-lost guardrail micro is going to be less than interest in reviving an Ape cache.

 

I am trying to have faith that forum users have something more substantial behind their comments than "the sky is blue" obvious observations. If the point of your observation isn't derisive, what is it?

 

My post above was my first in the thread. I just offered you a likely interpretation that does not involve being harsh, derisive etc.

 

Let's not mix apples and oranges. Of course a guard rail micro will not attract the same attention than a cache at a more interesting location. Note I wrote a normal old cache at this location - so except the ape cache type everything else stayed the same. I'm sure that what's of the key importance here is that the cache has its own very rare icon - without the icon they would not have created the poll and also the interest would have been much lower. This is not the same as saying that everyone who visits the cache visits it for the icon or only for the icon.

 

What you call obvious is by the way something I had to learn painfully over time. Many years ago I could not have imagined e.g. someone saying that they eventually would end up to go for their first trip to Europe in order to get the Giga event icon. I just would not have believed it and would have thought someone was pulling my leg (forget for the moment that giga events were unthinkable back then and just think of a different icon which could be the only missing one). Note that I try to do my best not to use any terms of judgement (good, bad etc).

[Mission 9 APE cache to be returned/reactivated]

I don't see anything anyone has said here as being harsh or cruel - there is no need to be emotive and dramatic about it.

 

It's just the truth - if it wasn't for the special icon, and the relative ease of getting to this location, the cache would be gone for good.

 

If you're not saying this out of spite and negativity, please clarify what your larger point is.

 

 

Maybe just an expression of opinion which by the way I share and even more so when it comes to Groundspeak investing the time and effort to create the poll and then to reinstall the cache.

I'm quite sure that they would not have done so if it were not a special icon cache but just a normal old cache at this location.

 

BTW: I did not vote at all.

[GC little helper II]

Du lieferst uns ja wieder mal ein leuchtendes Beispiel mit einem aktiven Cache und der virtuell.

Ich kann gerne aushelfen.

frostengel war letzte Woche (oder schon vorletzte) bei der Vogelhochzeit und hat einen wirklich vielsagenden Logeintrag bei Grounsspeak hinterlassen, unter anderem auch beim Vogelhochzeit #2:

 

Ich bezog mich auf radioscout, der unterstellt die meisten Caches seien keinen Log ueber TFTC hinaus wert und die meisten Cacheverstecker wuerden sich keine Muehe geben. Wenn das jemand schreibt der selbst nur einen aktiven Cache erhaelt und der virtuell ist, spricht es fuer sich. Es ist ein Unterschied, ob man betreff Logverhalten unterschiedlicher Ansicht ist oder ob man eine Behauptung aufstellt, wie radioscout die ich fuer voellig ueberzogen halte.

[GC little helper II]

Die Log-Welt ist traurig genug und leider geben sich sehr viele Cacher keinerlei Mühe mehr.

Das trifft auch (oder vor allem?) auf die Owner zu, wodurch noch mehr Kurzlogs entstehen. Manch ein "Owner" sollte froh sein, wenn im Log nur "TFTC" steht denn ein ehrliches Log würde ihm sicherlich noch weniger gefallen.

 

Du lieferst uns ja wieder mal ein leuchtendes Beispiel mit einem aktiven Cache und der virtuell.