Carpe Cache Or?

[+jimmyreno]

Someone placed a cache 3 years ago at a scenic place near where I live and she isn't very active now. The last find was January of this year.

So she archived it.

 

I went up there recently and everything is in perfect condition.

Now that that .1 mile is up for grabs, should I just list the cache as mine now?

 

I'd give it a new name and mention in the cache listing the old name, so people

who've been there would recognize it.

It's a good location so I'd like to keep it online, even if most people are too lazy to walk .3 miles on easy terrain to it.

 

I sent an email but haven't gotten a response.

Edited November 10, 2005 by jimmyreno

[+Jamie Z]

What I would do (and have done in this situation) is adopt the existing cache.

 

In my opinion, it's much better to keep the same caches going rather than hide a new cache in the same place.

 

Contact your local reviewer.

 

Jamie

[+jimmyreno]

What I would do (and have done in this situation) is adopt the existing cache.

 

In my opinion, it's much better to keep the same caches going rather than hide a new cache in the same place.

 

Contact your local reviewer.

 

Jamie

I agree, but if the owner doesn't respond, then what?

[+Moose Mob]

What I would do (and have done in this situation) is adopt the existing cache.

 

In my opinion, it's much better to keep the same caches going rather than hide a new cache in the same place.

 

Contact your local reviewer.

 

Jamie

I agree, but if the owner doesn't respond, then what?

Then you contact your local reviewer.

 

What cache are you talking about? If it's in Nevada, send an e-mail with the GC#### or, even better, a link to it, with your reasoning and other pertinent information to RoadRunner@GeocachingAdmin.com

[+GRANPA ALEX]

Somehow, it seems to me that the original cache owner still OWNS the cache, no matter how active they might be. I would contact the cache owner asking for the cache and then do as you suggested, referencing the original data.

 

Then, do what is needed to adopt it and make it your own . . . seems the way to go to me.

[+Jamie Z]

I sent an email but haven't gotten a response.

I based my suggestion on this sentence. The OP says he's tried to contact the owner without luck. If a cache is abandoned, it can be adopted by someone else.

 

Jamie

[+Mopar]

What I would do (and have done in this situation) is adopt the existing cache.

 

In my opinion, it's much better to keep the same caches going rather than hide a new cache in the same place.

 

Contact your local reviewer.

 

Jamie

I agree, but if the owner doesn't respond, then what?

Then you contact your local reviewer.

 

What cache are you talking about? If it's in Nevada, send an e-mail with the GC#### or, even better, a link to it, with your reasoning and other pertinent information to RoadRunner@GeocachingAdmin.com

Sorry, it's still part of the original cache hider's history. If she archived it herself, and doesn't agree to an adoption, that should be the end of it. Nobody should be "stealing" my cache hides just because I no longer want a cache there.

 

If it's such a great area, I'm sure you can find some other place 50-100 feet away to hide a NEW cache, which would make it worthwhile for people who found the original one to return.

[+Sagefox]

Now that that .1 mile is up for grabs, should I just list the cache as mine now?

If the owner archived it quite some time ago and has not been back to retrieve the container then go for it. Worst that can happen is that the original owner decides to take back her container. If that happened it would only add a bit of drama to your cache's life and you would only need to provide a new container to be back up and running. Makes for interesting reading.

 

I don't see what purpose is served by adopting a cache that an owner has abandoned. Some of the old-timers are fun to see adopted and when some cachers have to move away they often have volunteers to adopt their caches. If this cacher wanted someone to adopt that cache they could have made an attempt or a local would have offered.

[+Sagefox]

If she archived it herself, and doesn't agree to an adoption, that should be the end of it. Nobody should be "stealing" my cache hides just because I no longer want a cache there.

I suspected the "stealing" concept would be put forth before the night was over. No one would steal one of your caches because you care about them and about how you play the game.

 

The OP's example is not hard to read - we've all seen it many times. Cacher becomes uninterested and abandons the container. In this case she at least archived it. When owners abandon a cache the community will either keep it alive, offer to adopt it or ignore it. OP's desire to stake a claim is one method of handling this geo-litter. I like the idea. But stealing? Definitely not!

[+Jamie Z]

Sorry, it's still part of the original cache hider's history. If she archived it herself, and doesn't agree to an adoption, that should be the end of it. Nobody should be "stealing" my cache hides just because I no longer want a cache there.

That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

 

I guess since the cache was basically left as trash, I feel it's fair game, including the listing.

 

Now I feel a little Carleenish about the issue.

 

Jamie

[+carleenp]

Now I feel a little Carleenish about the issue.

 

Wow! I feel that way too!

[+briansnat]

Nobody should be "stealing" my cache hides just because I no longer want a cache there.

 

Owner hasn't logged on since? If its been a long time and you are not getting responses from your e-mails, and it has been archived it appears that the owner has abandoned it, which makes it litter.

 

So remove the litter and place your own cache there. No need to adopt anything.

Edited November 10, 2005 by briansnat

[+jimmyreno]

So remove the litter and place your own cache there. No need to adopt anything.

The cache container etc. is in fine condition, no reason not to keep using it.

[+Jamie Z]

The cache container etc. is in fine condition, no reason not to keep using it.

And that, to me, would make it the same cache.

 

Jamie

[+IV_Warrior]

My only thought would be to first make sure it's abandoned, not just archived on gc.com, and still listed on another listing service. If it's completely abandoned (not listed anywhere) e-mail your local volunteer reviewer about adopting it. If it's still listed elsewhere and you want a cache listed on gc.com at the site, hide your own a couple hundred feet away.

[+Sagefox]

Come on guys, why complicate the matter?

 

And that, to me, would make it the same cache.

 

O.K... but how about the inverse: If a container goes missing and we replace it does that mean we archive that cache because the original container is no longer there?

 

Its no longer the original cache because it was abandoned and the container will be used by the new owner. People reuse containers all the time. When I archive an active cache I will reuse that container at a new location as a new cache. Sometimes I archive a cache and let the last visitor have the container to either use at that same location or another of their choice.

 

Its just a container, its nothing special, and the owner doesn't care about it.

 

...first make sure it's abandoned, not just archived on gc.com, and still listed on another listing service. If it's completely abandoned (not listed anywhere) e-mail your local volunteer reviewer about adopting it...

 

But OP has saved time and trouble by simply staking claim to this abandoned container. If I felt the location was appropriate I would do exactly as OP wants to do. If the new owner wants to take your suggestion and move it 100' thats o.k. too. Net result is a new listing at this site.

 

If it was cross-listed, which I seriously doubt, then by being left in place it will still serve that purpose much the same as abandoned gc.com caches that the caching community keep alive and maintained. For the abandoned vacation caches that I maintain I have never thought to check if they are cross-listed. Pretty sure I'm not going to do that.

 

If it were special to the owner they would have handled it differently. But they did not so its up for grabs.

 

A tip of the hat to jimmyreno for taking charge.

[+jimmyreno]

My only thought would be to first make sure it's abandoned, not just archived on gc.com, and still listed on another listing service.

If it's listed on another site, those people aren't coming to it.

All log entries match what is at geocaching.com

[MapheadMike]

First, log your find. You found it, didn't you? I think there are several reasons to do this.

 

One, it'll give the curious out-of-towners a link though your stats page to see the cache in question.

 

Two, there are some cache owners who would ignore a random email but would react to a find log on the cache page. If they don't react to a find made several months after they archived the cache, then that's more evidence that they are really gone and the cache was abandoned to rot.

 

Three, you found it and you really do deserve +1 for doing so.

 

All geocache containers placed in the field are either listed (somewhere), being processed for listing (somewhere), or litter. There is no gray area in this. Unless someone produces a link to the relevant listing on some other site (unlikely, someone would have done it already if such a listing existed), you can safely presume that this one is litter. Whether you remove the litter by carrying the container out of the field or convert it from litter to a valid listing is up to you.

 

If you think Jamie Z has a valid concern about the same container implying it's the same cache, then carry a fresh container to the location and recycle the abandoned container as a new cache in a different park. Otherwise, you can use the original container, if you want to. In the overall scheme, this is an incredibly minor point.

 

Adopting the previous listing or creating a new listing is also your choice and another minor one at that. With the original listing archived, it does seem easier go with a new listing.

 

IMO, leaving geo-litter is as big a foul as stealing caches. We huff and puff about CITO, but some of us can't pick up our own toys after we've finished playing with them. Sooner or later, some ranger is going to find a cache that someone left to rot in a circumstance similar to this and we are going to lose access somewhere because of it. You had the good fortune/misfortune of finding this piece of geo-litter and seem willing to do something about it. Presuming you follow through, please accept my thanks for handling this piece of geo-litter, one way or the other.

[+Yamahammer]

It's semantics. "Pick it up" as trash, - Then 'Place a new cache' as your own. Simple!

 

[+briansnat]

If you think Jamie Z has a valid concern about the same container implying it's the same cache, then carry a fresh container to the location and recycle the abandoned container as a new cache in a different park. Otherwise, you can use the original container, if you want to. In the overall scheme, this is an incredibly minor point.

 

You could also move it to a new hiding place nearby. Then you can create a new cache page and it will give locals an entirely new cache to go after.

[+Jeep_Dog]

I agree with Mopar in that the original hider "owns" the listing, and if she has not agreed to give it up, then, well, do not take it.

 

However, she has left the cache as geotrash. I see no harm in re-rolling the cache container and contents into a new listing with an owner who maintains the cache.

 

Assuming the cache is still within the guidelines, re-list it with the same name as before and tack on a II (e.g. "Carpe Cache" becomes "Carpe Cache II"). You could even link to the old listing from the new, providing continuity and history to the cache. At the same time, you have not "stolen" the cache listing from the previous owner.

 

Problems solved.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Jeep_Dog

[+Wacka]

There was a cache that I was last to find on. I told the guy it was about 80 ft off. He archived it and stopped visiting the site. About a year later, I was caching very nearby (there was a new cache within 0.1 miles of the cache) and went to see if the cache was still there. It was and the logbook was total mush, so I took it-it was geolitter. I cleaned it up and it is now one of mine. I have found out that he moved out of the area.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Wacka

[+RoadRunner]

All of the above concerns are addressed whenever a cache is archived or adopted out. The situation is looked at on a case by case basis.

 

At the moment, the OP needs to contact the reviewer and see what the situation is and what (if anything) can be done. Knowing what cache will help.

 

Thanks

RoadRunner

Nevada Reviewer

[+dogbreathcanada]

I agree with Mopar in that the original hider "owns" the listing, and if she has not agreed to give it up, then, well, do not take it.

Mopar is wrong. By archiving the cache, the original owner has given up her right of ownership. The cache is nothing more than trash, and whoever finds the trash can do with it as they please.

 

Are we now supporting the right of geolitter to exist?

[+The Leprechauns]

I think it's easy to distinguish between the cache listing page, addressed by Mopar's post, and the abandoned container rotting out in the woods. They are two different issues.

[+jimmyreno]

I agree with Mopar in that the original hider "owns" the listing, and if she has not agreed to give it up, then, well, do not take it.

I'm not sure what you mean, if I list it, it'll be with a new name, so the archived records will still show her as the original and final owner of the old listing.

[+Jeep_Dog]

I agree with Mopar in that the original hider "owns" the listing, and if she has not agreed to give it up, then, well, do not take it.

I'm not sure what you mean, if I list it, it'll be with a new name, so the archived records will still show her as the original and final owner of the old listing.

Perhaps I am shooting in the dark, since I have no idea what happens when an archived cache gets unarchived and placed under new ownership, then that cache is linked to the new owner, not to the original. One could easily not edit the name to indicate the first owner, or include something like "Originally placed by XXXX, now maintained by jimmyreno." My guess would be that the placed cache stat would drop off her account if the cache was re-rolled to yours.

 

In this case, the listing has been "removed" from her. Again, I am guessing, so I suppose it would be nice for one of our resident reviewers or admins to highlight who the cache is linked to when it changes ownership.

 

Also, thanks Lep. Making the distinction between the web listing and the actual remains of the cache is exactly what I was doing in my first post. In my opinion, she has given up "ownership" of the trash she left behind in the formal cache (unless the original cache is located on her private property), but ownership of the listing is a different matter. Hence, my suggestion, which is a quick and easy work-around of the situation. Even on the new listing I suggested, the owner could reflect the "date placed" as the original's, so the only discernable difference between the original and the second would be the "II" included in the name, and the owner.

 

Edit: Added "unless the original cache is located on her private property."

Edited November 10, 2005 by Jeep_Dog

[+Mopar]

I agree with Mopar in that the original hider "owns" the listing, and if she has not agreed to give it up, then, well, do not take it.

Mopar is wrong. By archiving the cache, the original owner has given up her right of ownership. The cache is nothing more than trash, and whoever finds the trash can do with it as they please.

 

Are we now supporting the right of geolitter to exist?

Well. I'm only gonna 1/4 agree with you. I was talking about the aspect of a forced adoption of the archived cache. I've adopted a cache listing myself, as well as had someone try to take a cache listing from me. Yes, if the OP adopted the cache, the hider would lose the hide in her stats. As far as the site is concerned, it would look like the OP hid the cache, and the original hider never existed.

It's one thing to adopt a cache when the OP has left the cache active and abandoned it or there is agreement between both parties to adopt. Once the cache listing is archived on GC.com, it's just that, archived. No longer there. Only left in the database for historical reasons. Adopting it should no longer be an option.

 

As for the geolitter. If you know it's litter, by all means remove it. The problem is in knowing. There are at least 3 other listing sites I can think of off the top of my head. No, none of them is even remotely close in popularity to GC.com. That doesn't mean there are not caches listed there that aren't listed here. It does mean in areas where those other sites are not as popular a cache can go a long time between finds. I've looked at a few caches on Navicache that have not had logs in over a year. GC.com caches nearby have been found a dozen times in the last few months. That's doesn't make the Navicache geolitter.

 

Personally, if the cache is still in good shape, I would try emailing the hider and offer to remove it for her, and hide your own cache 100ft away. This way you give people a new cache to find.

[+Jamie Z]

This way you give people a new cache to find.

That's exactly what I was trying to avoid by suggesting he adopt the original listing. Having a "new" cache placed in the same place as an old cache is not very interesting. For those circumstances, I'd rather the old cache be re-activated.

 

A long while ago a cache was hidden in my area, and then after a while it went missing so the cache owner archived it. About a year later, another cacher hid a cache in almost exactly the same spot. I found that one, too. What did I get out of that extra find? Not a whole lot.

 

Jamie

[+Mopar]

This way you give people a new cache to find.

That's exactly what I was trying to avoid by suggesting he adopt the original listing. Having a "new" cache placed in the same place as an old cache is not very interesting. For those circumstances, I'd rather the old cache be re-activated.

 

A long while ago a cache was hidden in my area, and then after a while it went missing so the cache owner archived it. About a year later, another cacher hid a cache in almost exactly the same spot. I found that one, too. What did I get out of that extra find? Not a whole lot.

 

Jamie

Jamie, try reading the sentence BEFORE the one you quoted:

 

Personally, if the cache is still in good shape, I would try emailing the hider and offer to remove it for her, and hide your own cache 100ft away. This way you give people a new cache to find.

I never said to place the new cache in the same place as the old one. To me, that really wouldnt equal a new cache. I suggested at least 100ft from where the old cache was so you can still bring people to the same area (assuming there's something about the area worth bringing people to) AND give them a (truly) new cache to hunt.

[+Sagefox]

At the moment, the OP needs to contact the reviewer and see what the situation is and what (if anything) can be done. Knowing what cache will help.

I'm not sure this is necessary and I would not be inclined to do so given the following assumptions:

 

The owner archived the cache some time ago and that the owner has not returned OP's email and the owner is no longer active. She may become again in the future but in any event the cache appears to have been abandoned. If some of this is not true then we would be posting a different set of suggestions.

 

If the cache has been archived and the container left out for several months then OP should feel free to use that container where it is or move it as he sees fit or bring a new container at his option.

 

There are some interesting points made here about moving the container so previous finders could have a new "hunt". I wouldn't care if it was in the same place or moved 100' but I can see where it might prevent future yapping on the cache page if it was moved.

 

But all this concern voiced about needing additional attempts to contact the former owner, who's property the container is now, adopting (an archived cache? why?), replacing the original container with another, the original container shouldn't be used, it might be a cross-listed container (in which case it is an abandoned cross-listed cache) (though if it was a crosser wouldn't it be better to have the new cache in exactly the same place as the abandoned one?), etc., is an intellectual exercise that doesn't have much real-geoworld benefit.

 

OP found an abandoned cache and wants to keep the location and possibly the essence of the original cache alive. Wants to give credit to the former owner on the cache page. Wants to use the same container. And is attempting to resurrect geo-litter into an active cache. It’s the way he wants to do it, it is a real-geoworld action and it sounds like an excellent idea to me.

 

Bravo jimmyreno!

[+BlueDeuce]

The cache container etc. is in fine condition, no reason not to keep using it.

And that, to me, would make it the same cache.

 

Jamie

Yeah, and when my sister wants the last doughnut I lick it and hand it over.

 

For some reason that makes it mine.

[+RoadRunner]

I just read an e-mail from the previous owner. It turns out that there are some significant differences between what the situation was like when the cache was originaly placed and what it's like now. Even if the container and the location are the same, the overall experience does change due to new limitations in access. This also could possibly effect terrain and difficulty.

 

My recommendation to the previous owner was that they could offer ownership of the container to another cacher and the new owner could replace the log book and list the cache as new listing.

 

RR

[+jimmyreno]

I just read an e-mail from the previous owner. It turns out that there are some significant differences between what the situation was like when the cache was originaly placed and what it's like now.

The significant difference is that the old road to the area is closed but another way in is available.