Adopting Abandoned Cache And Cache Location

[+budd-rdc]

It is my understanding that in order to adopt a cache, there has to be consent between the previous owner and the prospective owner before the volunteer approver can finalize it.

 

What if the previous owner has left the sport, or just stopped maintaining the cache for whatever reason, and do not answer requests for adopting the cache?

 

The reason I bring up this topic is that I do not like seeing caches get ARCHIVED, especially if the location is excellent. Why not keep the ol' waypoint going and continue the history? I would think that the new owner would feel the pride in being part of it, too.

 

Feedbacks, flames, previous examples, etc. are welcome.

 

P.S. This is also to stall the occurrence of GCZZZZ as long as possible, since it's rumored this signifies the end of the world and we all go into permanent ZZZZ.

[+KoosKoos]

If you can demonstrate the you've tried to contact the owner and they're not around, an adoption will be granted.

 

I adopted one in that manner - cache was missing redirector, no owner login in for months, email bounced.

[+the hermit crabs]

If you can demonstrate the you've tried to contact the owner and they're not around, an adoption will be granted.

"will" should probably be changed to "might". I tried that, in the case of a neglected cache, but the reviewer told me that unless I posted a "Needs Archived" note first, no adoption could take place. I didn't think the cache needed to be archived, just maintained, so I didn't log an SBA. So the cache remains the responsibility of its absentee owner.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The reason I bring up this topic is that I do not like seeing caches get ARCHIVED, especially if the location is excellent. Why not keep the ol' waypoint going and continue the history? I would think that the new owner would feel the pride in being part of it, too....

There comes a point when a cache should be archived just because it's been hogging the real estate so long. When a cache has used up its life (for any reason) the area should be opened up for new cachers to make their own version of a hide in that location.

 

In my area I've found a number of caches in recycled spots. Sometimes they do a better job than the "pioneer" and sometimes they don't. Either way I like seeing the differences between how people approache the same real estate.

[+welch]

It is my understanding that in order to adopt a cache, there has to be consent between the previous owner and the prospective owner before the volunteer approver can finalize it.

 

If the owner is active yes. Otherwise your just stealing their cache...

If they're not around you still may be able to adopt that cache, but it taks a lot longer. Mostly waiting to see if the owner is actually around but hasn't visited in a while for some reason.

 

What if the previous owner has left the sport, or just stopped maintaining the cache for whatever reason, and do not answer requests for adopting the cache?

"If they're not around you still may be able to adopt that cache, but it taks a lot longer. Mostly waiting to see if the owner is actually around but hasn't visited in a while for some reason."

 

The reason I bring up this topic is that I do not like seeing caches get ARCHIVED, especially if the location is excellent. Why not keep the ol' waypoint going and continue the history? I would think that the new owner would feel the pride in being part of it, too.

New caches can be created, so we're not 'losing' the location right ?? .

If the cache will be archived and removed or just adopted and continue as is, is left to the owner(s) to decide. If the location or important parts are changed it makes sense to just create whole new cache. Doing this may also spur previous visitors to return and seek the new cache.

[SCP-173]

What happens if a cache owner hasn't logged on in almost a year, and then you find out from friends of theirs that they've moved away, no longer are on the internet and have effectively disappeared? That's the case with some caches I've been trying to adopt for months without any success. In the meantime I've been maintaining them myself, since the owner obviously cannot.

 

I don't think they're hogging real estate, either. Most of them are quite remote and have very few logs.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Vargseld? ™

[+briansnat]

The reason I bring up this topic is that I do not like seeing caches get ARCHIVED, especially if the location is excellent.

 

If the owner has abandoned it, why not just archive it. If the area is so great I'm sure someone else will fill the void eventually.

[+rusty_tlc]

The reason I bring up this topic is that I do not like seeing caches get ARCHIVED, especially if the location is excellent.

 

If the owner has abandoned it, why not just archive it. If the area is so great I'm sure someone else will fill the void eventually.

Good idea, then the locals can log the replacement as a new find.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'll agree with Brian. Unless it's a very historic cache, I see no reason for someone else to maintain it, or even adopt it. If the old one's abandoned, and not in good condition, it should be archived. If it's a good spot, put a new one there. Just my humble opinion.

[+tanisdad]

By just archiving a cache are you creating Geotrash? It is appareant that you cannot get hold of the owner and it can be assumed that the owner will not collect the existing cache. So know the cache in still in a location and a new cache can be set up near that same location.

 

IMHO it would appear to be better to allow someone who wants to adapt the cache the chance to adopt it. It is my understanding that caches are often moved a small distance and the coordinates updated for various reasons ( geotrail being created etc.) If the new owner believes the cache needs to be modified couldn't he do something along these lines?

[+Sagefox]

By just archiving a cache are you creating Geotrash?

Not if a local goes out and retrieves it.

 

If someone wants to adopt an abandoned cache they can simply post an SBA and then cleanup and reuse the original container or replace it with one of their own and then submit a new cache request for that location.

 

If the cache is historically important then local cachers can and often do keep it alive by occasionally cleaning it up. But most of the abandoned or poorly or non-maintained caches I come across are not all that interesting to begin with. No harm in archiving those and starting over.

 

I happen to like the challenge of keeping the vacation caches in our area alive and relatively cleaned up but I don't want to adopt them. I do this as a service to visiting cachers. We are a visitor destination and have very few, if any, other local cachers. When I lose interest in maintaining these caches I will post SBA's.

[+Renegade Knight]

By just archiving a cache are you creating Geotrash?

Not if a local goes out and retrieves it.

 

If someone wants to adopt an abandoned cache they can simply post an SBA and then cleanup and reuse the original container or replace it with one of their own and then submit a new cache request for that location. ...

There is no universal and systematic method of dealing with this. The implementations I've seen do remove the cache but they don't cover all the bases to ensure they are not merely stealing a cache they think is abandoned.

 

There is room to make this systematic and so remove all doubt about the cache status.

 

The last thing I want is a SBA Log and my cache taken just because I have been fishing and not caching lately.

[+Red90]

I'll bring this back up.

 

Can the approval team please come up with a policy and procedure for dealing with this? It shouldn't be that complex. Send an email. No reponse within 2 months and allow for a transfer.

 

I think there are lots of pluses for allowing an abandoned cache to be transfered instead of archived and re-created. The history is kept. Everyone does not have to waste their time doing the same cache twice........

 

This also gets the community out of allowing geogarbage to exist. An abandoned cache is technically garbage.

[+Markwell]

I think there are lots of pluses for allowing an abandoned cache to be transfered instead of archived and re-created.  The history is kept.  Everyone does not have to waste their time doing the same cache twice.

The history is still kept. Archived caches aren't deleted - just archived. If there is such an need, post a link to the original cache on the new cache page.

 

As far as having people "waste their time doing the same cache twice", why would anyone be wasting their time. If the cache location is that great, what's so bad about finding another cache there again? And if someone doesn't WANT to go back again, which not just click -

 

There's no reason for wasting anyone's time.

 

Preserving waypoints?

 

Jeremy's already provided a solution

[+Red90]

That is YOUR opinion and it is fine, but it is not the same as everyone else. Many people would like to see caches kept and not archived. I really can not see why the approval team can not easily come up with a simple procedure and allow it to happen.

[Keystone]

You bumped an old thread that doesn't capture current practices and site features for adoptions. What specifically would you change? Or are you asking what the current practices and features are?

[+welch]

That is YOUR opinion and it is fine, but it is not the same as everyone else. Many people would like to see caches kept and not archived. I really can not see why the approval team can not easily come up with a simple procedure and allow it to happen.

Nothing specifically prevents a cache from being adopted, this is the same today as it was back in June.

 

If you want to adopt a cache, go for it.

But you'd need to explain why the limit of 2 months is better than say six?

What about adopting caches that have gone missing? (what is being adopted?)

 

(and whats lost, not kept, when a cache is archived? The logs don't change, The page doesn't change? the actual cache itself is hopefully either removed, or reused, but not lost.)

[+Red90]

Nothing specifically prevents a cache from being adopted, this is the same today as it was back in June.

I know people that have tried. The cache approvers (at least ours) will not transfer ownership of a cache if the owner does not approve the transfer. If the owner does not respond to email, it can not be transfered.

[+Red90]

You bumped an old thread that doesn't capture current practices and site features for adoptions. What specifically would you change? Or are you asking what the current practices and features are?

I would like a standard procedure to be developed for the approvers to enable the adoption caches that are "abandoned". Caches that the owners are not maintaining and who do not respond to email queries.

 

If there is a newer prcatice than what is stated in this thread, please direct me to that thread. This was the newest discussion of the issue I could find.

[Keystone]

I'll try to summarize what I believe are the "adoption procedures."

 

First and foremost, the preferred solution is for old cache owner and adopting cache owner to work out the transfer between themselves by consent. No involvement by Geocaching.com employees or volunteers is needed, because of the do it yourself adoption tool provided at http://www.geocaching.com/adopt . This is a "consensual adoption."

 

A "non-consensual adoption" is one where the existing cache owner is not responsive. Some guidance for non-consensual adoptions:

 

1. Archived caches don't typically get adopted. Adoption is meant to continue the life of an existing cache. In such cases, hide a new cache. Why make the prior owner's "hide count" go down?

 

2. Missing caches don't typically get adopted. There's nothing there to adopt. Again, hide a new cache.

 

3. Caches that don't have any reported problems (full logbook, wet contents, broken container, etc.) don't typically get adopted. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In fact, the owner may be monitoring the logs via the owner e-mail notifications, even if they aren't logging into the website frequently.

 

4. In other cases, follow the published procedure for non-consensual adoptions, found here in the Groundspeak Help Knowledgebase:

 

In some rare situations, a cache is no longer able to be maintained by the owner. In these cases, Geocaching.com will transfer ownership of the cache listing to a geocacher that is willing to take on the responsibility of maintaining it. Every effort needs to be made to try and contact the owner before this happens.

 

In a situation where the cache owner does not respond in an adequate amount of time (within 4 weeks, but your mileage may vary), contact your local cache reviewer with:

 

The waypoint name for the cache (GCXXX), and

 

any history you have in your attempts to contact the owner, or

 

any history of the reason for adoption

 

In these cases, the reviewer sort of "stands in" for the absent owner, and makes certain that adequate efforts have been made to contact the owner. Often the reviewer will write an e-mail or leave a note on the cache page to warn the owner that the cache may be adopted over to someone else if they do not respond. If the reviewer concludes that an adoption is appropriate, he or she forwards the recommendation to Groundspeak, who then transfer ownership in the cache database.

 

As noted, adoptions are for "rare situations." Until you've been burned by a situation where the original owner resurfaces following the adoption, and is outraged that their listing has been "stolen," the reason for being cautious may not be readily apparent. That's happened to me, so I'm cautious.

 

As an alternative to adopting a cache, if there's a problem then the interested geocacher can log a "should be archived" note and free up the area for a new hide after the cache is archived due to the problem not being addressed.

 

I hope that this summary is helpful.

[+Red90]

Thank you, that's what I think is a fair way to work. Are all approvers following this guidleline? Do they all know about it? I know people who have tried that route and the approver still will not do anything.

[Keystone]

Thanks, I'm glad you found that summary useful.

 

In the past two months, adoption procedures have been discussed at least three times by the reviewers in their separate forum. I believe my summary is consistent with those discussions. We do try very hard to stay on the same page. Perhaps the volunteer reviewer for your area didn't follow those discussions, or takes a more conservative view on the "judgment call" portion of the procedures I outlined. Or maybe the individual situations you're aware of were properly turned down as adoption candidates, while the same reviewer processed many others elsewhere. I don't know without looking at each individual cache.

 

I do think that the reviewers are aware of things like the published material in the Groundspeak Knowledgebase, which I quoted above. But I can't force everyone to read it or to interpret it the same way. Many reviewers refuse to read anything I write because it puts them to sleep. The rest refuse to follow my advice, just on principle. Except Quiggle, who will do anything I ask, 'cause Quiggle's my sock puppet.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Keystone

[+timbofl]

Whom should I contact about adopting an abandoned cache? I have tried contacting the owner, but received no response. The owner has not logged in in 11 months.

[+CO Admin]

Whom should I contact about adopting an abandoned cache? I have tried contacting the owner, but received no response. The owner has not logged in in 11 months.

contact your local cache reviewer with:

 

The waypoint name for the cache (GCXXX), and

 

any history you have in your attempts to contact the owner, or

 

any history of the reason for adoption

[+TMAACA]

I just adopted four caches yesterday from a cacher who has been very active in the area and is now moving out of state. The process was incredibly easy using the website feature!

 

Two of the caches are ones that I have found in the last month and two are ones that I have never found but plan to go out this weekend to find and fix up if needed. Would it be poor form to log them as finds post-adoption???

[+Jamie Z]

Would it be poor form to log them as finds post-adoption???

In this case, I would say it's just fine. As you said, you've never found them, so even though you now own the listing, you still have to find it.

 

Jamie

Edited December 2, 2005 by Jamie Z