Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
The Blue Quasar

Should The Issue Of Abandoned Caches Be Addressed?

Recommended Posts

Would it be acceptible for ME to post a NEEDS MAINTENANCE log? I found this cache over two years ago, the owner is active still... but not one person actually posted a NM note. I think it would be the responsible thing to do, for future seekers, but what do you think.

 

Link to the cache Ball's Falls

 

:huh: The Blue Quasar

 

I think this is an excellent example of where you should indeed post a Needs Maintenance log on this cache, especially as you have shown in the examples of the log entries that there is in fact a problem with this cache.

 

Now I am curious, does posting a Needs Maintenance log do anything different or raise a flag somewhere on the cache page, that is different than a Found It or Note that basically says the same thing in that the cache has an actual problem? Is there some sort of Maintenance icon that shows up when looking at a list of nearest caches?

Share this post


Link to post

Now I am curious, does posting a Needs Maintenance log do anything different or raise a flag somewhere on the cache page, that is different than a Found It or Note that basically says the same thing in that the cache has an actual problem? Is there some sort of Maintenance icon that shows up when looking at a list of nearest caches?

It gives the cache a special "Needs Maintenance" attribute icon. Nothing shows up anywhere else, other than on the cache page itself.

Share this post


Link to post

 

So to me there is only ONE thing left.... is it okay for a cacher to log a "Needs Maintenance" request based upon the comments of another Geocacher's FIND log?

 

As an example... and for this cache, as I know the owner I would just email them... but here is the example

 

<snip>

 

Would it be acceptible for ME to post a NEEDS MAINTENANCE log? I found this cache over two years ago, the owner is active still... but not one person actually posted a NM note. I think it would be the responsible thing to do, for future seekers, but what do you think.

 

 

I don't see why that would be a problem. The logs clearly indicate it needs maintenance, and your log would set the NM attribute to 'on'. Some cache owners might complain but I'd say go ahead.

 

Just My .02

Share this post


Link to post

Yes Res it does.

 

Posting a Needs Maintenance FORCES ON the associated Attribute Icon.

 

So in the Attributes area, the RED CROSS like icon would be displayed UNTIL the Owner posts a OWNER MAINTENANCE log. I don't know if they can simply go in and remove the attribute without the OM log or not.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if they can simply go in and remove the attribute without the OM log or not.

 

 

I believe the owner can toggle the attribute off without the OM log. It can also be toggled 'on' without the Needs Maintenance log. But even that action is at least an acknowledgement from the owner.

 

- Northernpenguin

Share this post


Link to post

Then let try it!

 

My cache QUASY TRAIN needs maintenance (like I indicated on the page already), but I cannot turn on the NM ICON.

 

I tried, it is not in the list (there is a thread about this issue already, it is available in some and not in others)

 

Anyone willing to post a NM on my cache? I'll post a note to let you know if I can turn it off. I won't actually turn it off, just find out if I can or not.

 

Quasy Train

 

I really do want the ICON displayed...

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Continuing on the topic:

 

Assuming that Geocachers begin to post Needs Maintenance request logs.... what should happen if nothing gets done by the Owner?

 

Should we suggest to local reviewers that they react after a certain time to the NM? Should the cache become Disabled in the same way that after a few DNF's causes that response now?

 

It is still my belief that the person that posts the NM request should be the one to respond in the future IF the cache ends up getting Archived by a Reviewer. A Reviewer could track this I think... but if someone posts a NR then deleted their log, the log must be still around (they don't delete logs, just archive the note)

 

So, that's what I favour.... anyone else concur or offer a different scenario?

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

My cache QUASY TRAIN needs maintenance (like I indicated on the page already), but I cannot turn on the NM ICON.

The "Needs Maintenance" log type is not an available option on disabled caches.

Share this post


Link to post

 

It is still my belief that the person that posts the NM request should be the one to respond in the future IF the cache ends up getting Archived by a Reviewer. A Reviewer could track this I think... but if someone posts a NR then deleted their log, the log must be still around (they don't delete logs, just archive the note)

 

 

Problem with this is that people often go seeking geocaches outside their 'maintainable' range. Think about the vacation cacher that pulls a completely waterlogged geocache out of a mangrove swamp in Florida while visiting the state with a all-but-destroyed logbook while they are visiting from Toronto. Surely we want this person to post a Needs Maintenance log, and we can't expect them to go back and pull the cache three months later?

 

No, I think the OGA is setup right for this - there are regional reps that can respond and (I believe) have volunteered to do such a thing. The OGA reps *should* be running Pocket Queries against that NM attribute and then they can do clever and fun things like GSAK filters for NM log older than 3 months. That should produce a nice easy to manage list of the caches in trouble in their area. Combine that with an arc filter in GSAK for their region and you should have a nice little 'cache in trouble' monitor for each local rep. Keith's arc builder on the GH site would make this short work for most of them.

 

Now, for regions OUTSIDE the territory of the OGA, I hope they can setup a similar system. Northern Ontario and (the) more remote regions may be a bit harder to establish a system.

 

Take for example the archiving I saw today -- GCP9XH

this one clearly demonstrates why we'll need the volunteer-to-grab the cache system. The owner could not be bothered to check on the cache, and archived it instead. It will clearly be a while before the owner comes to collect their geotrash - if at all.

Share this post


Link to post

No, I think the OGA is setup right for this - there are regional reps that can respond and (I believe) have volunteered to do such a thing. The OGA reps *should* be running Pocket Queries against that NM attribute and then they can do clever and fun things like GSAK filters for NM log older than 3 months. That should produce a nice easy to manage list of the caches in trouble in their area. Combine that with an arc filter in GSAK for their region and you should have a nice little 'cache in trouble' monitor for each local rep. Keith's arc builder on the GH site would make this short work for most of them.

 

Certainly in Ontario we seem to have a reasonably good structure for doing this through the OGA. The regional reps could ask people nearby a cache to check on the cache and under defined rules remove it.

 

Now, for regions OUTSIDE the territory of the OGA, I hope they can setup a similar system. Northern Ontario and (the) more remote regions may be a bit harder to establish a system.

 

Take for example the archiving I saw today -- GCP9XH

this one clearly demonstrates why we'll need the volunteer-to-grab the cache system. The owner could not be bothered to check on the cache, and archived it instead. It will clearly be a while before the owner comes to collect their geotrash - if at all.

That is an excellent example of why some procedures have to be created. At that point it is clearly geotrash and overtime we will have more of these which willl give the sport a blackeye. I agree that there are difficulites with NM issues. We have had DNFs that aren't within our maintainable areas. That is probably why as a general statement, for areas without an OGA type structure a combination of NM and Needs Adoption notes monitored by the volunteer reviewers maybe the only solution.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post
northernpenguin Posted Yesterday, 09:40 PM

 

Problem with this is that people often go seeking geocaches outside their 'maintainable' range. Think about the vacation cacher that pulls a completely waterlogged geocache out of a mangrove swamp in Florida while visiting the state with a all-but-destroyed logbook while they are visiting from Toronto. Surely we want this person to post a Needs Maintenance log, and we can't expect them to go back and pull the cache three months later?

 

No, I think the OGA is setup right for this - there are regional reps that can respond and (I believe) have volunteered to do such a thing. The OGA reps *should* be running Pocket Queries against that NM attribute and then they can do clever and fun things like GSAK filters for NM log older than 3 months. That should produce a nice easy to manage list of the caches in trouble in their area. Combine that with an arc filter in GSAK for their region and you should have a nice little 'cache in trouble' monitor for each local rep. Keith's arc builder on the GH site would make this short work for most of them.

 

While that is the exception to the rule, I do favour your solution, BUT, it's kinda skating close to the thing that caused this problem in the first place.

 

I suppose that for NM's that don't get responded to, if they became Disabled then Archived... yes, OGA could set up a method to address or at least verify. But OGA shouldn't force its reps to have to go out and find Archived caches, unless a Revieweer requests it. It should be offered for anyone to participate.

 

While I might get jumped on for this, OGA could host a "Find the Archived Cache" feature, like many other groups already do.

 

I have a list of over 1100 Archived Cache locations in Ontario, and we already have Poly Filters for the entire province (that page is being rewritten for the OGA site).

 

But unless a Reviewer has Archived the cache first... OGA shouldn't be touching it, or anyone else for that matter.

 

We (OGA) can provide a method to identify Archived Caches, and suggest that people actually verify that the cache has been removed.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Looking for helpful suggestions for how OGA could implement a method for ensuring proper removal of Archived Caches.

 

Looking for methods to deal with Needs Maintenance requests, as a procedure.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

 

While I might get jumped on for this, OGA could host a "Find the Archived Cache" feature, like many other groups already do.

 

I have a list of over 1100 Archived Cache locations in Ontario, and we already have Poly Filters for the entire province (that page is being rewritten for the OGA site).

 

But unless a Reviewer has Archived the cache first... OGA shouldn't be touching it, or anyone else for that matter.

 

We (OGA) can provide a method to identify Archived Caches, and suggest that people actually verify that the cache has been removed.

 

It IS a thin line isn't it :laughing:

 

I'd agree - running out to remove a NM is a bit too early, but I wanted to suggest that the OGA should be watching those caches as they are most likely to become archived three months later. I favour watching the NM as a flag to upcoming trouble. Kind of like an early warning to future problems.

 

As we all know, the caches 'disappear' once archived. This thread has already determined that a reviewer has to archive the cache before it is pulled. Again: Needs Maintenance is NOT a call to archive, and an archiving listing on geocaching.com is not necessarily the be-all-end-all. The above mentioned procedures still apply in full.

 

What I wanted to point out is that the OGA (and quite possibly other geocaching groups) has an organized framework and can be a 'point of contact' for geocaching.com. The reviewer can notify the OGA that this cache is deemed 'geo-trash' and someone can run out and grab it.

 

The OGA has someone who is responsible for overseeing a given area. This is a good thing - though I feel bad for the GTA area people as they have literally thousands of caches to track, and for the remote areas like the north - a cache that gets archived 300km from the nearest cacher is no fun to go collect.

 

Now, since I'm tired of typing "The OGA (and possibly other geocaching groups)", I'm just going to use "The OGA" for the rest of this post - but I mean any reasonably sized, organized geocaching group. The OGA happens to be one of the larger ones in my area.

 

I feel that once the cache is deemed geo-trash, the OGA has the capability to organize someone to go out and pick it up (again: this is a good thing). Now this does not mean everyone else can just slack-off and let this become the OGA's problem. This is everyone's problem -- if you spot an archived cache that is near the spot you want to go geocaching on a given weekend, why not post a note to the archived cache and indicate you'll swing by to pick it up? The OGA does not have to run out the day a cache is archived: I'd even encourage a 'grace period' where in the OGA does not respond, which will allow the absent cache owner a time period to respond to the archive notice (yeah right) and also allow for the 'cacher in the area' method to take effect. Say, 1 month after archival geo-trash removal is dispatched thru the OGA.

 

The OGA is _not_ a rubbish collection service, after all.

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said, OGA can host a list of the Archived Caches for each Region of Ontario. This would be like Michegan is doing now.

 

We cannot list actual coordinates of any cache, and I'm sure that there are rules in the Terms of Use that may apply. But right now we make sure that there is NO WAY anyone can find a cache by using our site directly. Every referrence links back to Geocaching.com since we have no desire to be a listing service. Even our maps have no way to referrence coordinates without going to Geocaching.com to get them.

 

For example, where I live "Niagara" I have this list

 

Niagara Archived Caches

 

And I could use the "USER FLAG" box to identify caches that have been verified as removed. If this were set up properly, these lists could (actually the plan already was to start doing this, hence the Service page being rewritten) displayed and when a cache gets the checkmark, I could use the OGA - Admin account to post a note to report that the cache has been verified as REMOVED.

 

This would take a while to set up on our site, but as a tentative timeline, I'll aim for May for our second annual MAY-TENANCE. Of course, all of this has to be discussed within the Executive as well.

 

Good ideas take time, and if someone wants to volunteer to help with this... let me know.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Getting back to the main topic:

 

Is there a way to identify if a cache is actually abandoned? If so, how?

 

And what process should occur if a Needs Maintenance log remains for too long? How long is too long? What happens next?

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said, OGA can host a list of the Archived Caches for each Region of Ontario. This would be like Michegan is doing now.

 

We cannot list actual coordinates of any cache, and I'm sure that there are rules in the Terms of Use that may apply. But right now we make sure that there is NO WAY anyone can find a cache by using our site directly. Every referrence links back to Geocaching.com since we have no desire to be a listing service. Even our maps have no way to referrence coordinates without going to Geocaching.com to get them.

 

For example, where I live "Niagara" I have this list

 

Niagara Archived Caches

 

And I could use the "USER FLAG" box to identify caches that have been verified as removed. If this were set up properly, these lists could (actually the plan already was to start doing this, hence the Service page being rewritten) displayed and when a cache gets the checkmark, I could use the OGA - Admin account to post a note to report that the cache has been verified as REMOVED.

 

This would take a while to set up on our site, but as a tentative timeline, I'll aim for May for our second annual MAY-TENANCE. Of course, all of this has to be discussed within the Executive as well.

 

Good ideas take time, and if someone wants to volunteer to help with this... let me know.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

 

As I have stated on a number of occassions, I think that something along the lines of what the MIGO group is doing is a very good start and we would have lots of room to expand on the whole process to fit OGA. I gave what I thought was a good suggestion the other week, but haven't really seen any specific comments from OGA in favour of it. As stated, have a list of archived or problem caches. Make the regional reps responsible for their regions. The regional reps could either take it upon themselves or ask for others to assist in the maintenance, cleanup, removal, verification of caches in question. This would definately be in line with the following Duties of Regional Reps, especially item #5 (see page 2 for specific details). (and a side note, according to #6, we should be seeing a couple dozen CITOs every year). I don't think anyone can expect the OGA execs to take on the responsibility on their own as it would be quite the task, so delegating it to the regions makes the most sense, plus the regional reps would be best to address caches within their own region. The fact that you made a trial run last month on a possible sollution was good...atleast we saw what people felt was positive and negative about it and from there we can improve. Make it fun, make it a competition, make it interesting...even challenge someone to fix a cache, replace a cache, adopt a cache or for an archived cache, hide a new cache at the same general location. Award points. Award a yearly prize, even if it is just a certificate. I display your certificate for completeing the Quasy Cache series proudly on my caching shelf overmy computer, along with other items.

 

And as for the topic of what qualifies as an abandoned cache...to me an abandoned cache would be one that there is a problem with and where the owner obviously does not put any effort in to resolve the problem. If it was "my" game, I would have a rule that after a month, if the cache issue has not been resolved, then the cache would be archived...but that would have to be a rule and it's not "my" game. I really hate things that drag on and to me to see a cache sitting disabled for 3 months with no seemingly intent to be fixed is just too long in my honest opinion.

 

I've got some other ideas on this and other topics too if OGA wants to hear them.

Edited by res2100

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think anyone can expect the OGA execs to take on the responsibility on their own as it would be quite the task, so delegating it to the regions makes the most sense, plus the regional reps would be best to address caches within their own region.

Completely agree with you on these points and they would work in Ontario but not all places have this structure. And you certainly are correct about OGA Execs and spreading to the regions. But for the sport in general, beyond Ontario (and places with a similar structure) the participation of the volunteer reviewers seems to me to be the only viable solution.

 

And as for the topic of what qualifies as an abandoned cache...to me an abandoned cache would be one that there is a problem with and where the owner obviously does not put any effort in to resolve the problem. If it was "my" game, I would have a rule that after a month, if the cache issue has not been resolved, then the cache would be archived...but that would have to be a rule and it's not "my" game. I really hate things that drag on and to me to see a cache sitting disabled with no seemingly intent to be fixed is just too long in my honest opinion.

I certainly understand your point and agree with your other posts that we want to encourage increasing the number of caches rather than removing. That's why adoption is the best first solution. However, I think land managers such as Parks Canada and Parks Ontario (and others) would want a specific 'owner' of the cache. Otherwise, as I read most County Forest and parks documents it would be considered trash. So, I think we have to make sure there is some form of ownership for all caches.

 

A no reply to and email, Needs Maintenance, or Needs Adoption, of longer than two months seems like quite a long time to me. I extend it a month longer than your suggestion just because of vacations, illnesses etc. that may interfere with someone responding.

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

I wish it was as easy as you suggest Res, to get the regional reps to commit to these things. True, there are a list of duties like you mentioned and it is a challenge to get the reps to do these things. Adding yet another responsibility is even less likely to get done.

 

OGA is supposed to be fun, as well as informative, but sometimes nagging people to provide things just makes it not happen at all.

 

Some OGA reps are great, and some not as much. Kind of like cachers, some are very active and take care of their caches, and others don't....

 

We request CITO's, and even posted a Forum note last year....

 

But like other things, a lot of people recommend how things should be, but are unwilling to actually step up and do it.

 

I'm not looking for people to fix OGA, unless they are willing to be an active part of the solution. We have enough 'consultants'.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

I wish it was as easy as you suggest Res, to get the regional reps to commit to these things. True, there are a list of duties like you mentioned and it is a challenge to get the reps to do these things. Adding yet another responsibility is even less likely to get done.

 

OGA is supposed to be fun, as well as informative, but sometimes nagging people to provide things just makes it not happen at all.

 

Some OGA reps are great, and some not as much. Kind of like cachers, some are very active and take care of their caches, and others don't....

 

We request CITO's, and even posted a Forum note last year....

 

But like other things, a lot of people recommend how things should be, but are unwilling to actually step up and do it.

 

I'm not looking for people to fix OGA, unless they are willing to be an active part of the solution. We have enough 'consultants'.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

 

I do think it's easy...if we don't make it complicated. As I feel with many things in life.

 

Assuming the OGA reps are volunteers, like with anything in life, I would think they wouldn't volunteer for something if they couldn't do what is asked of them. I have faith in them. Similar thing to cache reviewers and forum moderators. I know the reason why I never volunteered is bcause I know I couldn't do #4 and I also don't qualify based on 2 other criterias in that document.

 

Sometimes if one wants something done, I feel a direct email directly asking an individual something is a lot more effective than simply posting it here in the forums or in the OGA-talk, especially since not everyone visits the forums or is signed up to the OGA-talk. Yes there may be a lot of consultants and people suggesting things, and that is good in my opinion. Ideas are how things get started and it's up to the people in charge to delegate things to others. If the ideas are there and they are good, they should be pursued. I am sure if given the chance that there would be enough members of OGA that would gladly step up to fill spots or take on assignments. If OGA needs a spot filled a general message might be a good initial approach and if that doesn't get a reply, then perhaps direct a request to someone who you feel would be able to and perhaps willing to fill that role. I know I have had my fair share of suggestions for OGA. I was just looking through my list of cache ideas and I currently have 83 different ideas for caches that I want to place, but it will take a long time before that all happens. Yes I relaize that things take time and many of us lead busy lives, but we wouldn't be doing the volunteering if we didn't think we could do it. So I do think of lots of stuff as do others. Many people diagree with each other and that is ok. Ask Joe to forward you my latest email from today with a few things I have been thinking of lately. If you think f something you feel would be suited for me to do to help OGA and if I felt I was able to do it effectively, then I certainly would as I am sure many others would too.

 

I don't think there is anything that needs fixing with OGA. It's a fairly young organization that has shown a lot of progress over the past few months, atleast that is the visible perception that it appears to me as being...probably more than it has the first year and a half. Either that or the things that OGA does now seems more directed to my interests.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that it would be useful for geocaching.com to provide some guidelines to prevent frustrated cachers from taking things into their own hands in a unique way each time. This would also prevent leaving the rest of the comunity confused as to what happened to the cache. That being said, I have taken over a cache. Here's what I did:

 

* Posted a note saying the cache required maintenance

* Monitored the cache until a few other requests for maitenance where posted

* Attempted to contact the owner (no reply)

* Reviewed the owners profile for activity (> one year)

* Presented my findings to the local reviewer with an offer to adopt

* My offer was accepted

* Performed the required maintenance

 

KenJamin

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, [wrenching things back onto topic]

 

So the next step in this topic seems to be hammering out the defined times for actions to occur.

 

How's this for a timeline?

 

----

 

- Cacher places cache (1-3 days)

- Lots of happy people visit cache ( undefined length of time)

- Unhappy cacher visits cache, posts a NM or SBA ( start idle timer )

- Cache is flagged in PQ downloads for local geocaching groups

- Owner does nothing

- If Owner responds, reset idle timer to date of response, or stop idle timer if issue fixed.

- Reviewer or Local Group tries to contact the owner ( at timebase idle+1 month )

- Owner does nothing / No good samaritans fix cache problem

- If good samaritan fixes geocache, reset idle timer, confirm cache is OK, start 6 month adoption timer

- Cache is "promoted"/advertised by local group or reviewer for adoption (at timebase idle+2 months)

- No adoption occurs, not adopted by local group

- Cache is identified for archival to take place at idle+3 months or adoption+6 months, whichever is later

 

Adoption timebase refers to a timeline that starts if another geocacher fixes the cache. It will not be set if no action is taken while the "idle" timer is running!!!

 

Archival Process:

- Ensure local caching group maintains a copy of the geocache information for post archival action

- Listing is cross checked against major geocaching sites, including geocaching.com, navicache and others.

- Cache Reviewer is notified via SBA posted at time mentioned above, with the specific reason.

- Other site reviewers contacted if listing is cross-posted and idle on those sites.

- < hold for reviewer decision >

- If reviewer denies the archival, reset timers to zero, flag for ignore (possibly? needs discussion)

- If all contacted reviewers archive the listing post information on forum or local geocaching website (ie: OGA archived caches list).

- < hold 1 month for local cacher or owner retrieval >

- Local geocaching group removes the geocache

 

Adoption Process:

- Cross check listing against major geocaching sites as above. If owner/geocache is active on other sites, do nothing

- Once idle+3 months or adoption+6 months occurs ( whichever is later ), Needs Maintenance post is made suggesting this cache should be made available for adoption, and calling forth cachers to adopt.

- Cache should be advertised on local caching group website as "available". Possibly start a forum topic on geocaching.com for "caches available to adopt - july 2007" for example.

- Adoptee posts a Reviewer Note/Note to the cache, and CC's a reviewer indicating a desire to adopt the cache.

- < hold for reviewer decision >

- Cache is adopted or idle/adoption timer reset to zero (possibly added to ignore flag?)

 

--------

 

Now this is a rough (and I mean rough) draft. Feel free to comment, ignore, rip apart and reassemble. It should provide a summary / skeleton of a framework... other people will have other ideas, and I encourage them to post those ideas.

Share this post


Link to post

Are we ready to take this thread and distill it so it can be taken to the powers that be, or to the Web Site forum to get some further action?

 

I think much of what Northern Penguin has proposed sounds good.

 

Still wish there was a way to identify "Abandoned Caches", but I don't know if we can do this. Still seems wrong to me that people don't have to log onto the site to at least prove they are still interested, even if that is all they have to do to reset the "Ticker" to prevent a cache from going to an Adoption/Disabled kind of state.

 

Would be nice to see some non-Ontario input too. There was, but after some content shifted this discussion to OGA, it was hard to get it back to a National level.

 

I won't lie, with the upcoming Parks Canada talks, this proposal would really help matters. A clear procedure for handling caches that have been abandoned or need maintenance is a requirement for our activity, and this need will increase over time as people come and go but their caches remain behind.

 

:P The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Looks reasonable to me... I think the main thing is, that the proceedure is clear, and easy to follow.

Share this post


Link to post

A good draft Northern Penguin. Looks good. I agree with Blue Quasar it would be nice to hear how this can work outside of the OGA. But good work!

 

JDandDD

Share this post


Link to post

Hi from outside OGA (Montréal, to be exact)!

 

I would prefer owning caches through adoption than creating them. I have no imagination nor creativity so I leave others to create absolutely fun caches in my area. It comes with the risk the original owner might want to reclaim his cache but that's okay.

 

Geocaching has exploded in Québec in the past year and adoption is a way to keep the story of the game's beginning alive as well as the memory of players that came before us and were the pionners of the game we now know. We should not forget them.

 

I find the process a bit teadeous (spelling?) but it is necessary to "do things right". So you get my vote on the process.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I am opposed to ADOPTION. I favour the approach that Leprechauns stated...

 

To keep history intact, place a new cache under your own account. Let everyone enjoy the new hunt.

 

Sure there are some examples where a cache should be preserved (Deer Bait comes to mind) but for the most part... recycle that location with a new cache.

 

But when we talk about what to do about Abandoned Caches, that's where everyone gets passionate, myself included, and there is no cut-and-dry method that works so far.

 

I wish people had to renew their caches annually... then if it lapses it could be removed as they basically gave up the option to own it. I'm not saying a visit must be done, but at least renew the listing like you have to do with your Premium Membership.

 

Lot of server side work though

 

But a thought

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I am opposed to ADOPTION. I favour the approach that Leprechauns stated...

 

To keep history intact, place a new cache under your own account. Let everyone enjoy the new hunt.

 

Sure there are some examples where a cache should be preserved (Deer Bait comes to mind) but for the most part... recycle that location with a new cache.

 

I don’t agree. I would rather adopt a cache with history and keep it the same. Why archive a perfectly good cache and replace it with a new one just so people can get another smiley? What is the criteria to decide of a cache is worthy to keep its original listing or be replaced just to pump up people’s numbers? Why not just put a time to live on all caches so we can all go out and visit the same cache a second or third time? Personally I like to go to new and interesting places. Going back to the same cache under a different listing is just a cheap find considering you know exactly where it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I am opposed to ADOPTION. I favour the approach that Leprechauns stated...

 

To keep history intact, place a new cache under your own account. Let everyone enjoy the new hunt.

 

... recycle that location with a new cache.

 

. . . Going back to the same cache under a different listing is just a cheap find considering you know exactly where it is.

 

The new cache doesn't have to been in the exactly the same place, as long as there isn't another cache within .11 miles.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I am opposed to ADOPTION. I favour the approach that Leprechauns stated...

 

To keep history intact, place a new cache under your own account. Let everyone enjoy the new hunt.

 

:( The Blue Quasar

 

I lean toward what Blue Quasar is thinking re: new caches rather than adoptions. For me it's about the incentive to re-visit a location. A new cache spurs me on to return to an area. It was great revisiting the Walter Bean trail in Kitchener to find Unleashed and Bootlegged_signals-01. It had been over a year since I was there to find On the Fritz. (It's not about the count for me - in 4.5 years of caching we've just cracked the 300 mark).

 

R of JARS

Share this post


Link to post

As for archived caches. Some cachers will leave their abandoned caches in the field and go on to place new ones. I think a cacher should not be allowed to place any new ones until old ones are dealt with first. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

New AND Interesting places are hard to come by.

 

Hence the increase in the "Road Side Micro" in my opinion..

 

Sure you can go 162 meters away from an existing cache... that has never been the issue.

 

The topic is "Should the Issues of Abandoned Caches be Addressed?"... and that has been a challenge to say the least.

 

But thanks to the "Needs Maintenance" log type... we can move forward..

 

The Reviewers need direction from Groundspeak regarding the steps they should follow when a NM log is filed against a cache...

 

For me, after reading this thread, especially what DogsBreathCanada had to say... I favour the idea that I will post a Needs Maintenance if I see a total of three of the following in any combination.

 

- DNF log from a unique date (so three on the same date only count as one)

- Comments that state (not suggest) that a container is cracked, damp or damaged in anyway... including contents

- Cache Owner not logging onto the Groundspeak site in excess of six months

 

Remember, there must be three of these total... so if there is no problems reported even if the owner never logs on again, there won't be a NM coming from me.

 

Owners must be maintaining their caches... that is in the listing guidelines, and as a community we all share in the successes and failing of the hobby... and those that don't take care of their caches can't expect them to remain unaffected.

 

Sure, it would be great if people came forward to actually take over the cache... but that rarely happens, and getting a cache adopted isn't that easy... it takes months. But in the meantime, if you want to adopt a cache, start by taking care of it... and post a note to that effect... that way no one is left guessing what is going on with the cache.

 

Some people talk a good game about how things should be handled... I hope they are willing to take action to fix up a cache that they see deteriorating too, by repairing it and possibly taking ownership if the owner doesn't want it.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

For me, after reading this thread, especially what DogsBreathCanada had to say... I favour the idea that I will post a Needs Maintenance if I see a total of three of the following in any combination.

 

- DNF log from a unique date (so three on the same date only count as one)

- Comments that state (not suggest) that a container is cracked, damp or damaged in anyway... including contents

- Cache Owner not logging onto the Groundspeak site in excess of six months

 

Remember, there must be three of these total... so if there is no problems reported even if the owner never logs on again, there won't be a NM coming from me.

 

I think this sounds like a very reasonable thing to do. I assume some common judgement will come into play too before logging a Needs Maintenance. I'ld like to add too, that I hope when someone posts a needs maintenance that they give a specific reason that is specific to the individual cache in question so that the cache owner would be prepared with the necessary stuff when they go out to fix up the cache.

It might also help to educate people that if they do find a container that has a problem that they themselves post a Needs Maintenance too and I see you have commented on this with your article in the March edition of theOGA Newsletter. Since it's a fairly new log type, many may not know about it.

 

I am sure that what you proposed here will lead to better maintenance of caches, which is good for everything.

Share this post


Link to post

But thanks to the "Needs Maintenance" log type... we can move forward..

 

The Reviewers need direction from Groundspeak regarding the steps they should follow when a NM log is filed against a cache...

 

I'm not bashful about posting a NM log against a cache I've been to at all. I'm sure the reviewers have their procedures but it will basically be handled the same as a regular cache - if it gets ignored by the owner, it get's archived.

 

As far as logging NM against caches that I have NOT been to lately, well, that's a judgement call. It's a good idea where it's clearly demonstrated in the logs, but then again the owner should have gotten the point as well. I like that the NM log sets an archive type that members can filter against, but then again - the NM type isn't really there for the power geocachers, it's there for the newbies, who have not necesarily set up gc.com paid memberships.

 

GSAK doesn't flag NM very well yet, and the "search for caches" does not show anything on the page. GC.com really should be putting that attribute on the listing on the summary page, just like the icons that show up for travel bugs and geocoins - that may catch the newbie's eye, but looking for a summary icon on the listing page tends to just 'blend in'.

 

Still, the NM flag will be used by people that are afraid to log 'Should be archived' for whatever reason, and that is a good thing. One thing I really dislike seeing though is several DNF's followed by a NM post, then followed by more DNFs with the owner keeping the listing active and attracting people to the spot.

 

Regarding the recent debate on archiving vs adopting, I dislike the concept of archiving a cache to have another hidden within 10 feet. That's just cheap, and what happens with the caches that exist due to grandfathering rules? I've seen caches archived recently in Ontario Parks 'to make room for others', but the new caches can't be approved under current gc.com guidelines?

 

Also a huge amount of this discussion has focused on archiving caches to prevent environmental wear and tear of off trail spots. How does triggering another FTF rush followed by 100 repeat cache visits help in this case?

 

No, if the cache is in the same spot, it's there for sentimental value, historic value or frankly because the other person found the spot first. New caches should not be placed within 150 meters of an archived cache for a year I say, except in rare cases (ie the original owner wants the cache moved to a nearby spot).

 

Just another .02

Share this post


Link to post

Northern Penguin said:

 

Still, the NM flag will be used by people that are afraid to log 'Should be archived' for whatever reason, and that is a good thing. One thing I really dislike seeing though is several DNF's followed by a NM post, then followed by more DNFs with the owner keeping the listing active and attracting people to the spot.

 

Regarding the recent debate on archiving vs adopting, I dislike the concept of archiving a cache to have another hidden within 10 feet. That's just cheap, and what happens with the caches that exist due to grandfathering rules? I've seen caches archived recently in Ontario Parks 'to make room for others', but the new caches can't be approved under current gc.com guidelines?

 

Also a huge amount of this discussion has focused on archiving caches to prevent environmental wear and tear of off trail spots. How does triggering another FTF rush followed by 100 repeat cache visits help in this case?

 

Paragraph 1: Totally! From what I've been told, and that was a few weeks ago, there is no procedure for handling NM caches that are not addressed. That may be coming.

 

Paragraph 2: I don't know of any caches that have been Archived in Ontario Parks to make way for new caches. Ontario Parks does not allow any new caches to be placed, so removing ones to place new ones doesn't work in that case. There is one in Niagara that the owner is removing because they are not caching anymore, after we exchanged emails.

 

Paragraph 3: Good point, although exaggerated... I've never seen a FTF rush exceed 10 people. Usually under 5 try this FTF for a given cache in my experience. More often than not (actually seems to be true all of the time), the new cache gets placed more than 50 meters from the old cache site. Usually much more. Around here there have been a few new caches go where one once existed. Usually the person that places it didn't find the first cache and thinks they have found a new spot that has never been used before.

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Sufficient time has passed on this discussion that I have taken this to a higher level in the Forums architecture.

 

Here is a link for those that may be interested.

 

Cache Renewal discussion

 

I would like to thank everyone that participated in this discussion. For myself, I learned a great deal about the nuances of Geocaching. Together we came up with some very good ideas and I think we created a very workable procedure.

 

Hopefully this discussion will grow further in the entire community and some day we will see some kind of guidelines from Groundspeak either way.

 

All I know is that as time passes, things develop and change. Hopefully we have suggested something that will be view as a positive addition.

 

:huh: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...