Jump to content

Geocache Vigilantism


Keith Watson

Recommended Posts

I have had a watch on a few caches for quite a while waiting to see of the owner will ever fix the caches. Nothing more annoying than seeing a cache on my not found list, and not being able to go after them. A note popped up in one of the listings with a long winded story of what was going to happen to the cache if the owner did not fix up the cache.

 

The Second Ship

 

I know good intentions are one thing, but is all this really necessary? It’s nice to have a local policy on how to deal with caches but isn’t the ultimate decision and what is to be done with a cache up to Groundspeak? Personally I would have just posted a “Needs Archive” note on the listing and been done with it. The posting also mentions removing caches, sorting out their contents and making a new cache from what is deemed to be of quality. Some people would perceive this as cache piracy, I know I would. If the cache does not belong to you, and the land owner has not complained about it, leave it alone. It is the property of the person who placed it their, and theirs until they say otherwise. It is also up to the land owner as to what constitutes “extensive visitation”. If some one believes the area is being damaged, report it to the land owner.

 

Another thing I hate reading in cache logs is, “Found the cache, container was muggled, threw container in the garbage, got my smiley, sucks to be any one after me.” If it doesn’t belong to you, put it back the best you can and notify the owner. Someone took time to hide that cache for you to find, the least a finder can you is put some effort into letting others enjoy the find as well.

Link to comment

My major beef is when I go out looking for someone's cache, as I have recently done. I drove two hours to find out the cache wasn't there.

 

A local caching group with the best intentions had removed the cache for one reason or another. Because that person was not a cache-admin or the owner of the cache, they did not archive the listing. It's incredibly annoying to go out, look in vain for something and then see a note posted three days later by some self-appointed individual that removed the cache because it was wet or had a hole in it or it had no trade items.

 

So I wasted two hours of driving time, and an hour or so of my searching time looking for something that wasn't there - even though that day's Pocket Query showed it as active and available.

 

This has happened to me now over a dozen times. At least a note a week or so in advance of the cache removal would be polite but in my eyes if you can't hit that 'archive listing' button leave the thing where you found it! If the container is in poor condition, bring a new container don't just trash it and let the next few geocachers trash the area looking for it.

 

If these local groups are sanctioned by Groundspeak to be removing caches like this, then they should have an approver working hand-in-hand with them, or they should be given approver rights on gc.com.

Link to comment

I feel compelled to reply to this post as there are a few things here that need to be pointed out.

 

First of all 2nd Ship was a nasty cache. The area was horribly overgrown and that was Aug. 04. The path had long since disappeared. November 8, 2004 Logger reported that the cache was in need of maintenance and in May 24, 2005 it was reported missing. In January, 2006 BQ wrote to the cache owner "to determine if the owner was still active and still wishing to maintain this Geocache." and did not receive a reply.

 

On the profile it says:

Last Visit: Wednesday, November 16, 2005

 

Is this necessary? Yes, I believe so. It is a nice area and it's time someone refreshes it with a new cache (I don't care so much about the numbers, it's the hike around the lake that is so pleasant just as long as you don't make me go back in those thorns again - see my picture back in Aug. 04.)

 

Vigilantism? Piracy? I don't believe that for one minute. Cleaning up caches that are abandoned so that others can place them and/or allowing others to adopt the cache is a great idea! I know more than a few areas that need old moldy caches removed so that a new fresh cache (that has good coords and even a unique hide) could go in. I believe it's piracy if you remove the cache without a word. Warning the public as BQ has done that the cache(s) will be removed in the future with plenty of warning if A) no one adopts the cache or :laughing: the cache owner doesn't reply. This is an example of good stewardship.

 

Try taking a new cacher to a cache and let them find a moldy broken cache and see if they share your excitement. Been there, done that ... and have had to explain to the new person while cleaning up the cache and replacing the log book and contents. Gee, looks like fun to me too! :o

 

Long winded? Yeah I agree but rather than posting "I've contacted you, you're ignoring me, clean up your cache or I will" is a bit..er... too strong (although I must say I've been tempted). If adoptions didn't happen then we wouldn't have Deer Bait any more. Thanks to kdkk17 it is still in existance. I say Bravo to Colin for attempting to contact the owners and then posting a note so others are aware of the situation and then taking it on himself to clean up where it is needed. I too have done enough long drives to non-existant caches and it's time someone takes ownership. Sorry I can't agree with you Keith.

Link to comment

First of all 2nd Ship was a nasty cache. The area was horribly overgrown and that was Aug. 04. The path had long since disappeared.

 

The description of The 2nd Ship is a personal assessment. There is nothing in the Groundspeak placement guidelines that say the cache visit has to be pleasant for every one. If you don't like a cache, then you don't like it. Suggesting a cache be removed because you don't like it is not valid reason and not provided for in the Groundspeak guidelines. I find nothing in the guidelines that indicate a cache must not be placed in an area timid cachers may not enjoy.

 

Try taking a new cacher to a cache and let them find a moldy broken cache and see if they share your excitement. Been there, done that ... and have had to explain to the new person while cleaning up the cache and replacing the log book and contents.

 

If you take a new cacher to a cache that turns up moldy, you have yourself to blame for not reading up on the cache before you went out, or the previous cachers for not reporting the problem. There are reasons why the logs are there for you to read.

 

Vigilantism? Piracy? I don't believe that for one minute.

 

What would you call it when a cacher removes someone else's cache with out warning and with out permission? I have read logs where a well know upstanding local cacher has done this twice that I know of.

 

I say Bravo to Colin for attempting to contact the owners and then posting a note so others are aware of the situation and then taking it on himself to clean up where it is needed.

 

Groundspeak already has a system for dealing with problem caches. Why add yet another redundant local level of bureaucracy on top of that. Follow the guidelines, and let Groundspeak handle it. That's what they do.

 

From the posting on The 2nd Ship

 

"Hopefully the Geocache will already be archived through the proper channels of Groundspeak, and we would be ensuring proper handling of an abandoned Geocache."

 

I would hope the cache was archived though proper channels.

Link to comment

Vigilantism? Piracy? I don't believe that for one minute. Cleaning up caches that are abandoned so that others can place them and/or allowing others to adopt the cache is a great idea! I know more than a few areas that need old moldy caches removed so that a new fresh cache (that has good coords and even a unique hide) could go in. I believe it's piracy if you remove the cache without a word. Warning the public as BQ has done that the cache(s) will be removed in the future with plenty of warning if A) no one adopts the cache or :laughing: the cache owner doesn't reply. This is an example of good stewardship.

 

I think the key thing that has to happen here is that the person planning to remove the cache must co-ordinate this with the local approver - cache-tech in this cache and have the listing archived BEFORE it is removed. Otherwise you inflict the cache-missing log your DNF here dilemma on that geocaching team coming up the trail behind you.

 

I don't have a problem with removing a derelict cache when the owner has gone AWOL. I can think of a few in that have met that fate and the owner has moved away or given up geocaching.

 

Where I get my back up is when the listing is published as active on gc.com when it is removed. Co-ordinating the removal with the cache approver also ensures that the gc.com procedure for archiving a cache or adopting a cache is followed.

 

I am one of those cachers that does not like to read thru all the logs and have the fun ruined by the overly descriptive posting, so I tend to be reading the logs and the 'notes' posted by the would be samaritan at the trail side.

 

I have on the other hand, set GSAK to ignore temporarily unavailable, archived and *should be archived* listings which would save me some of the grief.

 

All I ask is that the archiving of a dead cache occurs before the physical cache is removed. Saves us all a little bit of grief.

Link to comment

The system as envisioned by Groundspeak requires active participation from geocachers. The least used log is the SBA log, Needs Archived.

A cache has to be pretty far gone before most geocachers will offer an SBA log. Most people want to be absolutely certain the owner is gone and never coming back and the cache has disappeared completely before they will log an SBA, actually most people will NEVER file an SBA. As soon as you see an out of town geocacher looking for a geocache in your area that you know is MIA, file that SBA, it is your duty.

 

Participation includes ensuring a geocache is not geotrash but the SBA log has not been too effective in addressing that aspect. A landscape littered with geotrash is the last thing anyone wants, I filed an SBA on a local geocache almost as soon as I started geocaching, ignorance is bliss, I didn't know any better and it was obviously unmaintained trash. I did as Keith suggested and gathered the remains of the cache together and left it at the coordinates, I wasn't sure the owner was gone. I went home, filed the SBA log, saw the absent owner and returned with a trash bag, I picked up the remains of the cache, photographed it and threw it out, a few days later the cache was permanently archived. I have filed many SBA logs since and have even received emails from geocachers agreeing that their cache needed to be archived.

 

The whole maintenance/archive situation is further complicated by geocachers who disable yet refuse to archive a geocache, in effect holding the location for a geocache that is no longer there. There are also geocachers who hide a geocache under a different account, evading responsibility for the cache maintenance. Every geocacher should recognize that unmaintained caches are trash. Geocaches in your area that are unmaintained create negative impressions for new participants and for visiting geocachers. File SBA logs, talk about it with other local geocachers, go for it, clean up the geocaching landscape in your community.

 

The new Needs Maintenance log should automatically turn to a CITO icon after 3 months. B) , seriously, the Needs Maintenance log will be a big help, mostly in identifying caches that are not being maintained. I think TPTB are going to allow a log type called Visitor Maintenance in addition to Owner Maintenance, this will allow Cache Fairies to continue keeping caches in good shape.

Link to comment

The problem with leaving it up to Groundspeak, is they can't possibly be on the scene everywhere. There are some caches which really *should* be archived, but its very hard for someone not on the scene to be the judge. I recently visited a cache I hadn't been to in ages, "Train Trestle Treasure". The cache had apparently been filled with mud since last June, the contents were pretty much destroyed, and the log book was covered in mold. Looking through the logs, this cache has had moisture problems since it was first placed 3 years ago.

 

The cache owner, while he has visited the web site, hasn't done anything about this cache since 2004, when he added a zip-lock bag to try to keep the moisture out (the ziplock is long gone now). Looking over the logs, it seems to be a common 'first' cache for a lot of people. *not* a good way to get started with geocaching.

 

I've done my best to clean up the cache, and have made an offer to adopt it (both to the owner, and the local reviewer), but I'd be surprised if anything actually happend with it. Besides that, pretty much everything needs replacing, the container is inherently not waterproof (its a cheap plastic tool box), and the cache will probably continue to have moisture problems.

Link to comment

I have been doing some research and have discovered quite a few caches with “Needs Archived” notices on them. They all have the same non-specific explanation that there may be one of many things wrong with the cache. After reviewing each cache and their logs, I can see no reason why they should be archived. The author of the postings seem to be on a mission to remove these caches for some unknown reason that I can see. I have visited most of these and one I did less than two weeks ago and it was perfectly fine. All of these caches are being visited regularly, and the visitors are enjoying the caches. Why should future visitors enjoyment be eliminated?

 

The fact that the destruction of these caches is planned for the upcoming CITO event where the caches will be disemboweled and combined into a new cache I personally find awful.

 

Take a look at the list and see if you can find out why these caches should be archived. Please try to be objective in your analysis. Just because you personally don’t like the location, is not a valid reason. Don’t be fooled if you don’t see the long winded notice, he has removed some of them, but I archive all the logs I receive.

 

Geocache

BooTz's Bounty

Geocache

Powerslave's First

Canel Lock Box

River View Cache

Ultimate Chicks Survival Cache

A Trip into Port

Battle of Short Hills, the Waterfall that wasn't

Canada Island

Bruce Trail or Land of the Lost?

west nile

The StIcKs

DANCE HALL CACHE

Link to comment

From a quick look, it seems like its hiders that are 1 hit wonders.

 

I don't think the point is that all of these caches are going to necessarily be removed, but they need to have someone who is responsible for them. If the owner doesn't respond, then they probably aren't going to be maintaining their cache.

Link to comment

From a quick look, it seems like its hiders that are 1 hit wonders.

 

 

One hit wonder of otherwise. I can't say I'm a huge fan of seeing a bunch of caches that seem to be in good condition, with happy logs get whacked en-masse so somebody can hold a CITO event.

 

I also don't recall the section in my cache listings where I agreed that I would maintain the cache spot unless another cacher wanted the spot. What's next? Are my caches going to start getting archived because the local cachers have been to them already and I go on vacation for two weeks?

 

I seem to recall that "Should be archived" logs are meant for caches that have observed problems, not caches that don't have the owner log into their gc.com account everyday. At least be specific -

 

Something like "We're going to archive your cache because you have not been to geocaching.com since Oct 2004" is better than "One of the following reasons *may* apply to your cache, you won't know which one until you email us immediately. Geez talk about lack of respect for others.

 

You're getting a form letter from someone that does not represent geocaching.com in any official sense, that you have not signed or clicked to agree to any form of an agreement with that seems to think they own your geocache listing now for some arbitrary reason that THEY dreamed up.

 

If this caching group wants to create their own rules, they need to get the owners of the geocaches to agree to these new rules and list it with their site. Otherwise the standard geocaching.com rules apply - which means a cache gets archived if it's found to be against the landowner's wishes or in violation of geocaching.com rules, or not maintained.

 

The fact that a geocache is sitting there, perfectly OK but we haven't heard from the owner this week does not constitute a valid reason to archive in my eyes. The crusty moldy ones with the holes in it and broken trinkets are another story but hands off the perfectly good caches owned by people that geocache less often than you do.

Link to comment

I think you're taking things a little far here.

 

The way I read the note is, there are lots of deteriorating caches in the Niagara region (may or may not be the case, I'm in Calgary, so I have no idea). These caches for the most part are essentially abandoned.

 

There may be some good caches as well that don't really have an owner (i.e. the owner has long since left the game, and their game pieces are left out in the wild). These caches without an owner who is maintaining them really should be adopted by an active cacher (regardless of the condition of the cache). The argument that 'I go on vacation for 2 weeks and my cache is CITO'd" doesn't seem to apply. Remember, the owners were all sent an e-mail at the begining of January, the caches aren't going to be removed until April. If you get 4 months vacation a year, then I want your job :o.

 

Now I don't know if I'd go so far as to remove good, active caches that just don't have an active owner, I think it would depend on the extent of the problem (might end up adopting a bunch of them myself, rather than remove them). Not living in the area, I really have no idea.

 

As far as them not having agreed to any rules that were set by the local geocaching org, well no they haven't but they have agreed to maintain their cache, and if they haven't even visited the site in 6 months, then I really have my doubts that they are filling their part of the bargain.

Link to comment

I have to admit that I don't like the part about a CITO to remove them. I don't see the justification for that. Most of them seem to still be getting visits, many within 1 week of the notice, and therefor they don't need maintenance and are still active caches. If so, they are OK.

 

A project to see if caches need adopting is one thing but then deciding you have the authority to remove them seems to be a bit much. I see nothing in the rules that lets any of us take this on ourselves. I think cache cleanup is something that should be referred to the reviewers and their forum rather than individual cachers (even well-intentioned) taking that on themselves.

 

If the reviewers think a cache should be archived they will do it and they are the one's who should do that. If they decide not archive it, then it gets left in place, period! That is part of their job and should be left that way.

 

Although I agree with the motives stated, there are some areas that we should follow processes. If we allow what this group is advocating then what stops anyone from saying "I want to put a cache where this one is so I'll put a note on the cache and if I don't hear in 1 week then I'll feel free to move it". Anyone else see the problem.

 

JDandDD

Link to comment

I seem to recall that "Should be archived" logs are meant for caches that have observed problems, not caches that don't have the owner log into their gc.com account everyday. At least be specific -

 

Its hardly every day, we're talking 6 months here. If they are still active, then getting that e-mail would probably prompt them to at the very least sign back in to the site.

 

Something like "We're going to archive your cache because you have not been to geocaching.com since Oct 2004" is better than "One of the following reasons *may* apply to your cache, you won't know which one until you email us immediately. Geez talk about lack of respect for others.

 

I think you'd know if you were the owner of the cache which applied. I'm not sure how many caches are involved here, but a detailed note explaining individually to each one is a heck of a lot of work, for very little real gain.

 

You're getting a form letter from someone that does not represent geocaching.com in any official sense,

 

No, but they do represent the community that you live in, and they are telling you that the local community is concerned about the status of your cache.

 

that you have not signed or clicked to agree to any form of an agreement with that seems to think they own your geocache listing now for some arbitrary reason that THEY dreamed up.

 

I don't read it that they think they own the listing. They seem to think that it is their responsibility as a group to ensure that the area doesn't get filled with Geo-Trash. This is a definite point of concern for a lot of parks officials, and I think doing something pro-active about it is a good idea.

 

If this caching group wants to create their own rules, they need to get the owners of the geocaches to agree to these new rules and list it with their site. Otherwise the standard geocaching.com rules apply - which means a cache gets archived if it's found to be against the landowner's wishes or in violation of geocaching.com rules, or not maintained.

 

That's the point, they aren't being maintained. I know many of them might not have needed maintenance, but that doesn't change the fact that should a maintenance issue come up, there is a VERY high chance that the maintenance issues *wouldn't* be addressed.

 

The fact that a geocache is sitting there, perfectly OK but we haven't heard from the owner this week does not constitute a valid reason to archive in my eyes.

 

Remember isn't 'this week' its 6 months since *any* activity on gc.com, and then another 4 months of not having heard a peep from them. That is 10 months with no contact with anyone in the community. They aren't maintaining their cache. The cache listing at a minimum shouldn't stay in their name. If its a perfectly good cache, then someone should probably adopt it. If no one is willing to adopt it, then there are more caches in the area than the locals can maintain, and perhaps it should be archived.

 

The crusty moldy ones with the holes in it and broken trinkets are another story but hands off the perfectly good caches owned by people that geocache less often than you do.

 

I think the thing is, they want to take care of what they perceive as a problem quickly. If they do it all at once, there is a much better chance of something getting done about it. An individual cache with a problem on it can take months to get away from an absentee owner, and archived off the site. Address all the caches with 'issues' at once, and you save yourself some major headaches down the road.

Link to comment

A project to see if caches need adopting is one thing but then deciding you have the authority to remove them seems to be a bit much. I see nothing in the rules that lets any of us take this on ourselves. I think cache cleanup is something that should be referred to the reviewers and their forum rather than individual cachers (even well-intentioned) taking that on themselves.

 

The problem is, the reviewers aren't on scene. I think the community needs to take responsibility for caches that have been abandoned by their owners. Ideally this means they should be adopted. Sub optimal mean they should be archived.

 

If the reviewers think a cache should be archived they will do it and they are the one's who should do that.

 

Often reviewers won't archive a cache, even if its reduced to essentially a big ol' pile of dirt. Why? Because once its off the site, it turns in to geotrash. No one is going to see it, or find it. Its just going to stay there. So they leave it until there are a number of no finds in a row, and normally require someone who has found the cache to come out and say 'yep its not there'.

I have yet to see a cache archived by a reviewer that was in fact still in place, but not being maintained (probably for this reason).

 

If they decide not archive it, then it gets left in place, period!

 

and if the owner has abandoned it, but the cache stays around? This is the kind of thing a lot of parks authorities are concerned about. We are so quick to call our caches different from litter, because it hasn't been abandoned, but then we turn around and say that an abandoned cache should be left in place. It seems contradictory to me.

 

Although I agree with the motives stated, there are some areas that we should follow processes. If we allow what this group is advocating then what stops anyone from saying "I want to put a cache where this one is so I'll put a note on the cache and if I don't hear in 1 week then I'll feel free to move it". Anyone else see the problem.

 

JDandDD

 

Againi, if you read what is going on, the whole thing revolves around a period of 10 months. Not one week, or 6 weeks. 10 months. If the owner of a cache is inactive for 10 months, I think we can safely say they don't care one iota what happens to their cache.

Link to comment

What really irks me is how this seems to be going AROUND geocaching.com instead of with them. I still think that geocaches - the nature of what they are - should be able to stay put and be left alone if they are still getting happy visitors.

 

If a person wants to adopt, there should be a set procedure that involves cache approvers.

 

I also still do not like the form letter. At least take the time to identify the reason - if you're going to take the time to destroy someone's hide, at least take the time to make it more than a mailing to a GSAK filter.

Link to comment

The problem is, the reviewers aren't on scene. I think the community needs to take responsibility for caches that have been abandoned by their owners. Ideally this means they should be adopted. Sub optimal mean they should be archived.

Ideally adopted sure. But the why automatically,archived if people are finding them and there is no apparent problem with the cache?

 

Often reviewers won't archive a cache, even if its reduced to essentially a big ol' pile of dirt. Why? Because once its off the site, it turns in to geotrash. No one is going to see it, or find it. Its just going to stay there. So they leave it until there are a number of no finds in a row, and normally require someone who has found the cache to come out and say 'yep its not there'.

Yes, but in this case almost all of these caches have been found just days prior to the needs archiving note. So these caches are physically fine. The guidelines do say that the owner has a responsibility to periodically visit the site. But not using geocaching.com is NOT proof that they are not doing that. That's why the reviewers should make the call rather than individuals or groups taking it on themselves. It is the CITO I object to not the management of geotrash. It is the process that must be an agreed part of the game and not people just deciding to do it cause they feel its a good idea (which it may be). That's where the reviewers and the reviewers' forum comes in.

 

and if the owner has abandoned it, but the cache stays around? This is the kind of thing a lot of parks authorities are concerned about. We are so quick to call our caches different from litter, because it hasn't been abandoned, but then we turn around and say that an abandoned cache should be left in place. It seems contradictory to me.

Sure it is but none of these has a note from parks authorities or others, and people are finding them. Again not using geocaching.com is not an indicator of abandonment, just an indicator of not using this site under that name (how do you know they don't have another cache name now). Some people cache without ever logging their finds. Its also possible that people are still checking but not an active cache site member. Again, this is a process issue where there are yet to be written guidelines I can find. The site through its reviewers should make those decisions and create written rules before people start deciding for themselves.

 

Againi, if you read what is going on, the whole thing revolves around a period of 10 months. Not one week, or 6 weeks. 10 months. If the owner of a cache is inactive for 10 months, I think we can safely say they don't care one iota what happens to their cache.

Why assume I didn't read what was going on? I was giving a hypothetical example not commenting directly on this issue. By the way, I looked at all the profiles for each of the sites mentioned so I knew that issue. By my hypothetical example was making this point. What's magical about 10 months. Why not 12 months, 6 months, 3 months or even 1 week? What stops someone from making it one week and they swipe a cache. At this point there is nothing in the guidelines about length of time. So, setting anytime frame is arbitray.

 

And, the needs archive note, posted on February 6, says that the intention is to have a CITO to remove them on April 22. 2006. That would be in less thatn 3 months. That seems pretty arbitrary. Who says that's long enough, or too long. My post asked the hypothetical question. What if someone made an arbitrary time frame of only waiting a week to hear from the owner and then removed a cache? What would be wrong with that? By the current rules/guidelines, nothing. That situation would turn chaotic.

 

I don't think any of us would object to the idea of archiving and removing geotrash. But where this group has gone too far, in my opinion, is setting arbitrary rules about what is considered abandoned, an arbitrary length of time a person hasn't logged in, and an arbitrary time before they will remove it.

 

Without that being negotiated with the reviewers, and with the geocaching community at large the whhole process is completely arbitrary. If we don't insist on process in making such rules/guidelines then we can all become our own police and make up our own rules for removing caches and that will do no good for the sport.

 

JDandDD

Link to comment

What really irks me is how this seems to be going AROUND geocaching.com instead of with them. I still think that geocaches - the nature of what they are - should be able to stay put and be left alone if they are still getting happy visitors.

 

If a person wants to adopt, there should be a set procedure that involves cache approvers.

 

I also still do not like the form letter. At least take the time to identify the reason - if you're going to take the time to destroy someone's hide, at least take the time to make it more than a mailing to a GSAK filter.

 

You put quite eloquently what I was trying to say in my longer more rambling reply.

 

JDandDD

Link to comment

Here is something to think about. Just because the cache has been archived on geocaching.com, it may be listed in another cache listing site. A local caching association has no authority over geocaching in their area. They can only make suggestions. Geocaching.com only has control over the cache listing. Anyone can hide a geocache, and no one has the right to tell them other wise , unless they are trespassing or in violation of local laws. Geocaching.com can archive a listing, or refuse to list a cache, but they nor any local group has the right to touch that cache without the permission of the owner.

 

How would you feel if you listed a cache for fun on another geocaching site and gave up on that site, then one day they decide your cache did not meet their standards, and they removed the cache with out warning?

Link to comment

From the outside looking in this seems to be way over the top. Looking at the 1st cache on ths list I see the that the owner logged in on Feb 6th.

One day after the sba note is posted a found log reads

 

Trail was nicely frozen so an easy but long walk. Spooked six deer along the trail. Braved the climb up Mt. Everest and found the cache in good shape as well as the nearby clue. Took scratch ticket and left a F.D. Flash and a Lanyard. TFTC

They need to SBA this cache why??

 

On another cache this note is the 1st sign of problems after an endless string of finds and take note of the writer stating he would look in on it when in the area.

 

Went back to this cache to get the Combination for Blue Box #4 and noticed it had been tampered with. It was kinda out in the open, open, with alot of the contents spread around.

Put the cache back together and tried to conceal it's location better.

I'll check on it from time to time as I go hiking in the area.

Perhaps some people would like to adopt some of these caches if in fact there is a need

 

IMHO this CITO group needs to rethink their course of action :blink:

Edited by Geo-Explorer
Link to comment

There is a story about a new employee being taken on tour of the office. When they get to the lunch room, he goes to put his lunch in the fridge and finds a mold covered doughnut. "Why is that in there?" he asks... "Oh, that's Carol's... she quit 6 months ago, but since it's hers, we won't throw it away. She might come back"

 

-Anon

Link to comment

So this person hasn't logged on in along time; MAYBE said person is in the hospital or something and has NO WAY of using a puter to logon. Just my thoughts. Oh, sometimes I can't logon for 28 days or more when I'm on-shift as the ship isn't in a secured port where we have access to internet. :blink:

Link to comment

Warning the public as BQ has done that the cache(s) will be removed in the future with plenty of warning if A) no one adopts the cache or :blink: the cache owner doesn't reply.

Who decided that was plenty of warning? There are no guidelines about this on geocaching.com. You are in effect saying its plenty of warning because we say its plenty of warning. That's a tautology and as such fatally flawed logic.

 

None of us should decide these things for ourselves and neither should a group. The issue is a good one, but rather than deciding this locally, not consulting the rest of the OGA members, and not getting this established in the geocaching.com guidelines is arbitrary. This should be referred to geocaching.com and get the reviewers and the site to agree. Anything else is being arbitrary and if that is considered right what is to stop anyone locally from creating an arbitrary rule.

 

Here's one, I don't like micros in parking lots so I don't think they should be allowed in my local area so I'll give what I think is plenty of warning and then remove them. Or, how about, I don't agree with camoed containers so I'll give plenty of warning and remove them. Ridiculous, yeah of course, but if one local group can make up arbitrary criteria why can't everyone else. Except for the fact that the game would fall into chaos of everyone enforcing their own likes and dislikes.

 

Just get geocaching.com involved before you set out on your own rules. Good stewardship, sure and I agree, but let's do this by some consistent game wide criteria rather than setting this precident.

 

JDandDD

Link to comment

After reviewing the input of the valued members of this forum, the Needs Archived Requests will be retracted.

 

So back to the previous method of abandoned caches slowly degrading, until at some point in the future the Geocache is Archived via a local Reviewer.

 

However, when that happens, I ask this. Who exactly is going back out to pick up the discarded and abandoned Geocache?

 

And with respect to the caches that were Archived during this time, seems Cache-Tech based his/her opinion on the recent logs AND lack of activity of the owner.

 

Funny how not one person actually came forward and said "I would like to adopt that cache". Some people want to stand up for the absentee cacher, but not really make an effort to assist them physically.

 

 

From the Groundspeak Guidelines

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

 

Note the last line. Certainly "Not being maintained" is an objective statement. The effort was to bring awareness of the issues to the local Reviewer. One cannot expect them to be "all seeing"

 

 

Regardless, the concept of addressing the lack of ownership has been cancelled.

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

Link to comment

After reviewing the input of the valued members of this forum, the Needs Archived Requests will be retracted.

 

So back to the previous method of abandoned caches slowly degrading, until at some point in the future the Geocache is Archived via a local Reviewer.

 

However, when that happens, I ask this. Who exactly is going back out to pick up the discarded and abandoned Geocache?

 

And with respect to the caches that were Archived during this time, seems Cache-Tech based his/her opinion on the recent logs AND lack of activity of the owner.

 

Funny how not one person actually came forward and said "I would like to adopt that cache". Some people want to stand up for the absentee cacher, but not really make an effort to assist them physically.

 

Regardless, the concept of addressing the lack of ownership has been cancelled.

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

Actually, I think simply stopping the idea is not the right thing and I for one was not advocating that. I think this should be raised through the Site forum and directly with the reviewers. As I think I said in my posts, the idea is a good one and I believe that. What people were reacting to was not the idea of taking some action on these caches but on the CITO and the determination to remove them without going through the site. I would support a further pursual of this through the site whole heartedly.

 

I am not surprised that no one came forward to adopt, or at least that you don't know about it (unless you or someone in your group is Cache-Tech). There is no reason to have contacted you directly about that since to adopt you would have to do that through the reviewer regardless and also people would be more likely to react if Cache-Tech made the request because they would know for sure that the request came from the site.

 

So, don't give up on the idea, just create a proposal and then put it through the site and I think you will find lots of support.

 

JDandDD

Link to comment

Ok, not enough time to give a fully fledge reply, but a few comments....

 

How should absentee cache owners be dealt with? There is a process right now in place for adopting caches from users who aren't maintaining them, it involves AFAIK pretty much what BQ is doing, e-mail to the cache owner, notes on the page, etc etc.

This whole process takes several months to complete, guess what, several months are being allowed to elapse for this.

 

If the cache owner can't even be bothered to confirm that they are still alive, my guess is that their interest in the sport is pretty much nil.

 

Yeah, the hypothetical cacher who never logs in, never checks their e-mail, but visits the cache every 3rd day, and never checks their listing on the site might exist, but personally I have my doubts.

 

As far as my assuming that the individual I was replying to hadn't properly read what was going on, well mia culpa. I just assumed that you were looking at the first listing presented, and saw that the cache was DNF'd and then archived within days of the SBA note. Also while there is nothing special about 6 months inactivity followed by 4 months of trying to contact the cache owner, there is something fundamentally different about saying, 'well a week is up, I think I'll go remove that cache'.

 

While none of the people complaining were parks officials, they shouldn't have to be. We should as a group be responsible for at the very least cleaning up after ourselves.

Link to comment

There is a story about a new employee being taken on tour of the office. When they get to the lunch room, he goes to put his lunch in the fridge and finds a mold covered doughnut. "Why is that in there?" he asks... "Oh, that's Carol's... she quit 6 months ago, but since it's hers, we won't throw it away. She might come back"

 

-Anon

 

Which one of the caches in the list above is moldy?

 

 

From the Groundspeak Guidelines

 

Cache Maintenance

 

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

 

Note the last line. Certainly "Not being maintained" is an objective statement. The effort was to bring awareness of the issues to the local Reviewer. One cannot expect them to be "all seeing"

 

 

Regardless, the concept of addressing the lack of ownership has been cancelled.

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

 

This only deals with the listing, not the cache.

Link to comment

I have been doing some research and have discovered quite a few caches with “Needs Archived” notices on them. They all have the same non-specific explanation that there may be one of many things wrong with the cache. After reviewing each cache and their logs, I can see no reason why they should be archived. The author of the postings seem to be on a mission to remove these caches for some unknown reason that I can see. I have visited most of these and one I did less than two weeks ago and it was perfectly fine. All of these caches are being visited regularly, and the visitors are enjoying the caches. Why should future visitors enjoyment be eliminated?

 

The fact that the destruction of these caches is planned for the upcoming CITO event where the caches will be disemboweled and combined into a new cache I personally find awful.

 

Take a look at the list and see if you can find out why these caches should be archived. Please try to be objective in your analysis. Just because you personally don’t like the location, is not a valid reason. Don’t be fooled if you don’t see the long winded notice, he has removed some of them, but I archive all the logs I receive.

 

Geocache

BooTz's Bounty

Geocache

Powerslave's First

Canel Lock Box

River View Cache

Ultimate Chicks Survival Cache

A Trip into Port

Battle of Short Hills, the Waterfall that wasn't

Canada Island

Bruce Trail or Land of the Lost?

west nile

The StIcKs

DANCE HALL CACHE

 

Well if it is just a matter of people adopting Caches to keep these alive I would volunteer to adopt Canal lock box since I am in the falls vicinity very frequently. Can some one guide me to the propose to adopting the cache if the current owner is MIA?

Link to comment

 

So, don't give up on the idea, just create a proposal and then put it through the site and I think you will find lots of support.

 

JDandDD

 

Agreed. While the CITO was the wrong way to approach this, I would like to see this topic active for discussion, as the caches will eventually fail if the owners are indeed MIA. There should be an official process thru geocaching.com to deal with MIA cachers.

 

Some of the issues I see are

 

- Geocaching.com should consider allowing multiple ownership of a geocache listing, for those listings that are hidden by groups or teams. This would also make adopting a cache a little easier, as another cacher's name could be 'tacked onto' the cache and the original owner doesn't lose a 'hidden' count. But this would be more for the team cachers - settles the argument over who 'gets the listing' when maintaining the cache as a group.

 

- Geocaching.com might want to consider a button on a cache listing page that allows the owner to "Transfer listing to new owner...".

 

- Geocaching.com, while the largest site by far is not the only cache listing service available. If action is taken to a physical cache, we must take care to check that other cache sites like Navicache or Letterboxing to ensure we are not hurting those services. A fair number of us cross-post our geocaches from time-to-time. This becomes less important if we are affecting the listing itself, but removal/changing of the physical cache will affect those listings.

 

- Local caching groups want to and should be able to perform maintenance on geocaches, when co-ordinated through geocaching.com. Maybe the "Cache needs maintenance" log entry could be useful for this.

 

- One of the issues raised is 'what constitutes fair warning'. I have been to great geocaches that are normally untouched for 8 months at a time. I have also seen caches a week old that were decrepit. Before we can run off declaring a geocache unfit or untended, geocaching.com has to establish what these rules are. Once there is a policy, then we can adopt a position like the one the CITO considered. I would like to see the cache listing form state something like "your geocache may be deemed unmaintained if you do not login to geocaching.com during a (12) month period" or something like that. At that point we've given the cache owners some warning that their listing may be taken over if they leave geocaching.com.

 

This topic must be up for discussion. It goes way beyond one person's CITO listing and represents a growing on a problems. BQ, please keep this topic going for discussion. The OGA should use it's voice to get geocaching.com discussing this topic. Thank you for retracting the CITO portion of this until there is an official geocaching.com position on the handling of these caches.

 

If geocaching.com does put a time-to-live policy on cache listings or listing owners, they will probably have to grandfather existing listings. Other services like hotmail or yahoo groups for example will take sanctions on an individual's account, like deletion or inactive status after a set time period expires. But this time period will have to be a long one given the nature of a geocache.

Link to comment

I spent the day trying to determine if or how to continue this effectively.

 

I want to take the evening to get my thoughts in order, as firing off a hasty reply does not serve anyone.

 

But some content within this thread needs to be addressed, or clarified and for that, it will take time.

 

Unlike some people, I like to be thorough when I comment on concerns.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Link to comment

I spent the day trying to determine if or how to continue this effectively.

 

I want to take the evening to get my thoughts in order, as firing off a hasty reply does not serve anyone.

 

But some content within this thread needs to be addressed, or clarified and for that, it will take time.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

 

Take your time BQ, and don't forget to leave some time for caching. This is the weekend after all.

Link to comment

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Please don't make me ask again.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

If you want to know how to adopt a cache, contact your local approver. They will be able to help. Good work Jimmy on volunteering to adopt a cache.

Edited by Keith Watson
Link to comment

Just because an "owner" isn't around to "maintain" a cache doesn't mean its inactive. If anything, because the cache is visited, you could say it is being maintained by the caching community.

 

Extrapolating on that and you could also see how every visit to a cache is also a maintenance - make sure it hasn't been muggled, that the contents are dry, that it hasn't been removed by parks or police...

 

But yes, there should be a way to switch ownership, including a way to open the ownership so that you don't have to ask the original owner permission to adopt because it has already been given.

Link to comment
Keith Watson Posted Yesterday, 02:38 PM

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Keep on topic: Responses to a particular thread should be on-topic and pertain to the discussion. Users should use the New Topic button to start a new discussion which would otherwise be off-topic in the current thread. Threads that are off topic may be closed by the moderator.

 

Please don't make me ask again.

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

If you want to know how to adopt a cache, contact your local approver. They will be able to help. Good work Jimmy on volunteering to adopt a cache.

 

Despite your claims, I have not said anything of a Personal Attack or Flame. However, it has been implied that I am a "Vigilante", "Long Winded", and a "Pirate" by the OP and the Title of the topic.

 

Also, when I asked for people to come forward to adopt these caches that appear to have been abandoned by their owner, the OP suggested that it this was an incorrect method and that the caches in question were fine. Why then would you praise Jiminie Crickets for offering to adopt a cache that has no need to be addressed?

 

I on the otherhand applaud Jimine Crickets for realizing that the cache he is offering to adopt is worth having effective management and for stepping up to properly take over for the apparently absent owner. That is exactly what I had suggested from the beginning. To date, the OP has not actually provided any solutions for the issue... just that he doesn't like it.

 

If I had simply posted an Archive Request stating "The owner appears to be inactive"... some people would have pointed out that I should have provided options and alternatives.

 

From Merriam-Webster's online Dictionary

 

vigilante

One entry found for vigilante.

Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te

Pronunciation: "vi-j&-'lan-tE

Function: noun

Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

- vig·i·lan·tism /-'lan-"ti-z&m/ noun

 

Seems that the OP should consider himself a Vigilante, takes one to know one. By attacking my actions, and the thinly veiled comments about myself, you are in violation of the Forum Guidelines and illustrating vigilanteism.

 

One person in this discussion is concerned with the active cacher, the land owner that may feel they have nowhere to turn.

One person in this dissussion is concerned with the absent cacher.

 

Most people in this thread, even when they disagreed with the intentions, presented their thoughts with eloquence and tact. That is how discussions should take place.

 

I have started a new thread for a more effective discussion, that is not titled to intice aggression or hostility. Hopefully that thread can be a positive discussion, and not be used as a vendetta engine.

 

P.S. I have brought my concerns regarding the content of this thread to Cache-Tech. I had informed the Reviewer at the beginning of January about my intentions as well.

 

:o The Blue Quasar

Link to comment

:o I remember the first time we went caching, it was in a tract of land with real trails, only problem is we didn't know where they were. Only one of our group of seven had a gps, and this person only ever found one cache. We walked through the bush for over an hour in rain, sleet, snow and rain again. We were really apprehensive about what he was telling us we were going to find, and thought this all better be worth it. We did eventually find the cache. It was an ammo box hidden in the old ruins of an abandoned farm house. I remember the contents of this cache perfectly as they were very nice, like real treasures. Our gps owner walked away with a nice marble gobblet and we walk away hooked.

 

It is still the ammo boxes that are so exciting and the really nice places that they are hidden. You can't hide an ammo box under a street lamp. If our first cache was a ruddy old margarine container with a few inches of icky water in the bottom and a log book so stinky and wet you couldn't sign it, I doubt we would have enjoyed the sport so much.

 

If you look at our profile page you will see that we have a lot of varying hides, and use a lot of different areas to hide them in. I will admit there are a few that are not the greatest, and if you have ever been to one of our caches while it is still fresh...and I quote "Fresh", you will see that we always try to make your find worthwhile and that the cache is well stocked. We get notices everytime someone vists one of our caches, and if any of these cachers reports a problem we pay close attention and act on it immediately. We, as cache owners all get these notices for caches we own. It is our responsibility to keep a close watch on our geocache as we do not own the land that we have placed it on. We want to make the find for the next cacher as enjoyable as we would like it to be for ourselves. It is when these caches do not get the visits, the containers breakdown, or the land that these caches have been placed in, need a refresher cache, this is then that we need to archive them.

 

I think there is a lot more interest in the sport since we have become involved and I feel it is only right to open the door when needed to make room for these new cachers to hide in a different place in the same track of land. I applaud those who are giving up their spare time to see that this is being done in a polite as possible way. Lets face it, no one likes to be told they have to do something, and worse, no one likes to be the teller.

 

Instead of dictating to each other how we should, and who should take care of the caches that need to be archived lets all help to keep a positive interest in this sport for all the new cachers that are getting involved. I really think this getting to be a mountain from a mole hill.

Link to comment
Just because an "owner" isn't around to "maintain" a cache doesn't mean its inactive.

 

Every cache that has been abandoned by an inactive owner is geotrash, even if it was visited yesterday and it is a clean dry ammo box full of good stuff. When a cache owner needs to be contacted and this is attempted using the tools provided by this listing site and no response is received that cache is geotrash.

People can and do maintain caches that they do not own, I maintain several older caches on a strictly volunteer basis. These geocaches are in good shape but they are geotrash, the owner cannot be contacted through this listing service. If a problem was to arise with any of these caches they would be archived even though they are maintained, since I am not the owner of the cache I cannot address concerns that might be put to the owner, I would not even be aware of the problem.

Groundspeak is not going to come to your town and clean up the geotrash, that would be the responsibility of those who care for the geocaching landscape in the area where they geocache. The system will not work at all if SBA logs result in acrimony or accusations of ill intent. The new Needs Maintenance log is going to help identify caches that have maintenance issues and should result in many caches being archived. As I pointed out, maintenance is not the only criterion that applies. Geocaching has an extremely high attrition rate and one of the main reasons is the demonstrable lack of care evident in many caches, after a while it gets to people and they quit.

 

If a cache needs maintenance, do it.

If a cache needs an owner, adopt it.

If a cache has no active owner and you do not want to do the above, it is only a matter of time before you will be filing an SBA.

 

Pick up geotrash and get rid of it, it is bad for geocaching and bad for geocachers.

Identify the unmaintained geotrash in your area and get rid of it, it will become a liability if it isn't already.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...