Abandoned Caches

[+markp99]

I am relatively new to geocaching, with only 50-60 finds in the last couple months.

 

One element of geocaching feels a bit disturbing to me. The condition of MANY caches found in my area are frankly very poor, with crappy, failing containers (tupperware), and soggy/musty contents, amounting to little more than geotrash. I just reviewed my list of finds and would estimate 10-15 of my ~60 finds fall into this category.

 

I have sent notes to the owners on a few of these caches, but never saw a reply or maintenance visit logged. I've also checked the latest activity of many of the suspect owners. I generally have found the crappy caches were placed in the 2004 timeframe and the owner's last visible activity (logged find or hide) was also in ~2004. I would guess that ~2+ years with no logged activity would suggest the owner is no longer involved in geocaching and his caches are now still active, but abandoned.

 

I suppose I could care less if a person moves on and away from geocaching, but the trend of crappy caches I am finding in my area leaves me empty and disapointed in some way. I feel like I may have missed the bus and joined this hobby too late. Is geocaching dying in my area, or is this level of geocaching "atrophy"normal?

 

Questions:

 

Should I "challenge" every owner of a crappy cache I find to determine if they have abandoned their caches? If yes, should they be archived or adopted (a few are in popular areas and are still being found on a ~weekly basis). I don't really want to adopt them ALL, but a few would be pretty nice caches to maintain.

 

Brightspot:

 

I found three caches this weekend (in a row) that were recently muggled by mother nature from flooding and were lost to a local river. Each of these three caches were kindly replaced by a prolific cacher in our area (Bushwhack Bob) who was not the owner. This sort of cache support was quite encouraging and helped to offset the bad feelings described above. Yay Bob!

 

A few of the most recent hides in my area are my own (just 3), which were found right away (within a few hours of being paced, so this shows me there is still interest I just wish there were more new hides placed in my area.

[+briansnat]

I've found the percentage to be much lower. Perhaps its because the major hiders in this area are still active and are responsible cache owners and also because ammo boxes are the preferred container for many.

 

Still, I do encounter a sodden mess once in a while. I think in cases where the cache is obviously abandoned and is as you described, its time to put the thing out of its misery and issue an SBA and trash the junk out.

 

If locals want to maintain an abandoned cache, that's one thing, but if nobody is taking care of it, what's the point? Opening a container filled with slimy, green water and rusty key rings is not pleasant.

[+Lasagna]

The easy way of sorting out inactive owners is to simply report the cache as "Needs Maintenance". That will alert others to the fact that the cache is in poor condition, will force the owner to perform some maintenance (or at least logon to the site and clear the maintenance flag), and will put it where a reviewer will eventually question the owner as to why the maintenance flag has not been addressed. If the flag remains set, the review may archive the cache -or- if you set it and it's been that way for a good period of time without at least some commentary from the owner, you can post a "Should be Archived" log which will eventually result in the cache being pulled as well.

 

As for the ratio, it's hard to say ... older caches do tend to be in poorer condition ... so if you're doing a lot of those, perhaps you need to just mix up the "age" of the caches you search for a bit.

[+The Leprechauns]

The easy way of sorting out inactive owners is to simply report the cache as "Needs Maintenance". That will alert others to the fact that the cache is in poor condition, will force the owner to perform some maintenance (or at least logon to the site and clear the maintenance flag), and will put it where a reviewer will eventually question the owner as to why the maintenance flag has not been addressed. If the flag remains set, the review may archive the cache -or- if you set it and it's been that way for a good period of time without at least some commentary from the owner, you can post a "Should be Archived" log which will eventually result in the cache being pulled as well.

 

As for the ratio, it's hard to say ... older caches do tend to be in poorer condition ... so if you're doing a lot of those, perhaps you need to just mix up the "age" of the caches you search for a bit.

Reviewers are not notified when a "needs maintenance" log is entered. Nor should they be.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Why not adopt the cache? Its easy enough to do. We have adopted some caches, some of which were abandoned.

 

I dont think caches in our area are that often abandoned. Certainly not 20% of them.

[+tozainamboku]

The easy way of sorting out inactive owners is to simply report the cache as "Needs Maintenance". That will alert others to the fact that the cache is in poor condition, will force the owner to perform some maintenance (or at least logon to the site and clear the maintenance flag), and will put it where a reviewer will eventually question the owner as to why the maintenance flag has not been addressed. If the flag remains set, the review may archive the cache -or- if you set it and it's been that way for a good period of time without at least some commentary from the owner, you can post a "Should be Archived" log which will eventually result in the cache being pulled as well.

 

As for the ratio, it's hard to say ... older caches do tend to be in poorer condition ... so if you're doing a lot of those, perhaps you need to just mix up the "age" of the caches you search for a bit.

Reviewers are not notified when a "needs maintenance" log is entered. Nor should they be.

 

No but they should be able to get a PQ periodically of caches the have had Needs Maintenance set for over some specified period of time - say 60 days. I know many reviewers already do this for caches that remain temporarily disabled for too long.

[+Ed & Julie]

The easy way of sorting out inactive owners is to simply report the cache as "Needs Maintenance". That will alert others to the fact that the cache is in poor condition, will force the owner to perform some maintenance (or at least logon to the site and clear the maintenance flag), and will put it where a reviewer will eventually question the owner as to why the maintenance flag has not been addressed. If the flag remains set, the review may archive the cache -or- if you set it and it's been that way for a good period of time without at least some commentary from the owner, you can post a "Should be Archived" log which will eventually result in the cache being pulled as well.

 

As for the ratio, it's hard to say ... older caches do tend to be in poorer condition ... so if you're doing a lot of those, perhaps you need to just mix up the "age" of the caches you search for a bit.

Reviewers are not notified when a "needs maintenance" log is entered. Nor should they be.

 

No but they should be able to get a PQ periodically of caches the have had Needs Maintenance set for over some specified period of time - say 60 days. I know many reviewers already do this for caches that remain temporarily disabled for too long.

 

Maybe your So. Cal Revewers do...but certnally not our Nor Cal Revewers. Even dsabled caches wth SBA notes go wthout Revewer attenton.

[+Renegade Knight]

Maybe you are expecting too much. Instead of looking for older caches focus on the newre ones you apparently like bettter. Personally I like the older caches and would still like them even if their logs were mold and the contents mush.

[+Team JSAM]

We have come across a few that were full of junk and crap but we just clean it out and add a bunch of swag, just because the owner doesnt care about the cache anymore dosent mean I cant put a few extra items in and clean it up a bit to make it nice for the next cacher.

 

$0.02

[4wheelin_fool]

If it is in a good location, creative, or an older cache, then fix it! If it is none of the 3, then post a "should be archived" note. To just ignore it does not help. A "needs maintenance" note is the least that you can do, to prepare other caches for what is there.

[+Lasagna]

The easy way of sorting out inactive owners is to simply report the cache as "Needs Maintenance". That will alert others to the fact that the cache is in poor condition, will force the owner to perform some maintenance (or at least logon to the site and clear the maintenance flag), and will put it where a reviewer will eventually question the owner as to why the maintenance flag has not been addressed. If the flag remains set, the review may archive the cache -or- if you set it and it's been that way for a good period of time without at least some commentary from the owner, you can post a "Should be Archived" log which will eventually result in the cache being pulled as well.

 

As for the ratio, it's hard to say ... older caches do tend to be in poorer condition ... so if you're doing a lot of those, perhaps you need to just mix up the "age" of the caches you search for a bit.

Reviewers are not notified when a "needs maintenance" log is entered. Nor should they be.

 

That's true ... but it alerts other cachers to issues with the cache ... and certain reviewers do occasionally look for forlorn caches with old needs maintenance logs and post a "what's up with this cache" note. It also doesn't hurt when you do eventually post an SBA to see an old "Need Maintenance" out there.

[+Team Dromomania]

If I know there is a problem with a cache before I do my search, then I try to bring whatever is needed to repair the cache and/or its contents. IMO, helping each other out is part of the game. Besides, it just makes you feel good.

[+Totem Clan]

Why not adopt the cache? Its easy enough to do. We have adopted some caches, some of which were abandoned.

 

I dont think caches in our area are that often abandoned. Certainly not 20% of them.

 

That's a good thought but somtimes.... There a local cache that is pathatic. The owner knows about. I offered to repare or adopt it. He jumpped on the rapair option. I put out a new container, log and so forth. Long story short. He's to lazy to even remove the maintenance flag.

 

Just do the best you can. Fix what you can on the spot. Report what needs to be reported. And if it really needs it, for the sake of the sport, as a last resort, log a needs archived. But only if it really needs to be archived.

[+briansnat]

That's a good thought but somtimes.... There a local cache that is pathatic. The owner knows about. I offered to repare or adopt it. He jumpped on the rapair option. I put out a new container, log and so forth. Long story short. He's to lazy to even remove the maintenance flag.

 

You can get your local reviewer to remove the maintenace flag if the owner is too lazy to do so.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Down here in the North Dallas area there seems to be a slighty different problem. There are a few cachers that place a ton of caches, but aren't all on top of maintaining the ones that they've already placed. I propose a new twist to the "Needs Maintenance" logs....how about a 'block' on a cacher being able to submit a new cache until they clear up any exisitng cache's "Needs Mantenance" issues?

 

Now, just for clarification, let me say that not all, not even the majority, of the prolific cache hiders down here are like this, just a few.

[H to the Bizzle!]

There are a few "abandoned" caches in my area. Luckily, area cachers step in to "care" for them to ensure their integrity.