When, If Ever, Is It Acceptable To Remove Someone Else's Cache?

[+Blue Power Ranger]

For the record, Groundspeak's volunteer cache reviewers do not issue "cache removal orders." We have no authority to do that.

Oh really? Then please explain this one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ea-40a93d9e9a6c

 

We removed this cache. Still have the container, and my son constantly badgers me about using it to put out another cache. Seems like a good enough idea. This month perhaps.

 

That is a "request" to remove. I don't think a reviewer can "order" a removal because the cache belongs to the owner, not to Groundspeak. Groundspeak is merely the listing service for the caches. Groundspeak can choose whether or not to list a cache but not whether or not a cache can exist.

[+Renegade Knight]

If I discovered a friend's archived cache still hidden, it's possible that I would pull the cache for him/her.

 

But how about if you found a cache illegally placed, meaning it breaks the law. How about a cache that does not conform to GC guidelines? What if the cache appears to put other cachers in imminent danger?

 

Is it ever appropriate/acceptable to remove another cacher's cache?

 

Rule 1.

Don't second guess the cache placment. You have incomplete information.

Rule 2.

If the land manager is yelling at you, you may still have incomplete information but...I'd take the cache until it can be sorted out later.

Rule 3.

If nobody is yelling at you, don't take the cache, if you still have a concern email the owner. But remember your job isn't to second guess the work the cache owner and this site have invested in the cache.

Rule 4.

There are caches that break "The Rules" depending on who's rules you use. Even so, go back to the start of the list.

Rule 5.

If you found the exception to these rules, then and only then should you talk to someone else about the removal of the cache. Do that before it's removed.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

For the record, Groundspeak's volunteer cache reviewers do not issue "cache removal orders." We have no authority to do that.

Oh really? Then please explain this one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ea-40a93d9e9a6c

 

We removed this cache. Still have the container, and my son constantly badgers me about using it to put out another cache. Seems like a good enough idea. This month perhaps.

 

That is a "request" to remove. I don't think a reviewer can "order" a removal because the cache belongs to the owner, not to Groundspeak. Groundspeak is merely the listing service for the caches. Groundspeak can choose whether or not to list a cache but not whether or not a cache can exist.

Some reviewers also take on the role of cache archiver, disabler, extra guideline writer, and cache removal instigator. I don't think the site itself condones all of those roles but I couldn't tell you where they draw the line.

[MyBoys&Me]

I see this can be a touchy subject. Here's how we handled it.

 

Went for a small park cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...51-f42c03b5647e and fount it badly muggled to our bitter disappointment. Re-hid at original location best we could, logged the "Needs Maintenance" and followed up with an email to the owner. Also emailed owners of Travel Bugs reported in but not found with the cache. It was also ominously close to a new construction project and several nearby trees were clearly marked for removal. Owner couldn't get to it soon, asked us to do what we could. We recovered it the next day (it had been re-muggled in the meantime), restocked and re-hid it safely clear of the construction, emailed new coordinates to owner for confirmation and updated our log to reflect the same for any others still looking for it, pending owner's update to cache page with new coordinates. Also consulted with other local more experienced cachers before taking action here. The cache had apparently been left in this condition for months when we found it based on older posts. We may have stretched the rules of etiquette somewhat, but I think we did our best to respect the owner and preserve the cache for others to find and enjoy this nice little park.

Edited July 7, 2006 by MyBoys&Me

[+Renegade Knight]

I see this can be a touchy subject. Here's how we handled it.

 

Went for a small park cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...51-f42c03b5647e and fount it badly muggled to our bitter disappointment. Re-hid at original location best we could, logged the "Needs Maintenance" and followed up with an email to the owner. It was also ominously close to a new construction project and several nearby trees were clearly marked for removal. Owner couldn't get to it soon, asked us to do what we could. We recovered it the next day (it had been re-muggled in the meantime), restocked and re-hid it safely clear of the construction, emailed new coordinates to owner for confirmation and updated our log to reflect the same for any others still looking for it, pending owner's update to cache page with new coordinates. Also consulted with other local more experienced cachers before taking action here. The cache had apparently been left in this condition for months when we found it based on older posts. We may have stretched the rules of etiquette somewhat, but I think we did our best to respect the owner and preserve the cache for others to find and enjoy this nice little park.

 

The only thing I'd change in how you did things is to email the owner first. Since they responded the Needs Maintance log was a moot point.

 

/Pet Peeve on

I have a pet peeve about that log as most people using it on my caches are using it instead of a Did Not Find log. "Gee I can't find it, it must be gone" or instead of emailing me where I'd have a chance to ask them about the cache and verify it's gone, missing, busted etc. I've also had that log abused in other ways which in turn got the reviewers involved and they responded to a false alarm.

/Pet Peeve off

[MyBoys&Me]

Point taken Renegade. I thought posting the "Needs Maintenance" was best way to alert other cachers that problem was being addressed. Didn't dawn on me that owner might take it as a slight, and thankfully he didn't. I've used the "Did Not Find" log several times, when I truly could not find a cache. This is the first time I've posted a "Needs Maintenance", and I think it was well justified. I would never post a "Needs Maintenance" if I simply couldn't find it, or found it moved but still in good condition. I will be much more careful with such posts in the future.

[+Team Cotati]

For the record, Groundspeak's volunteer cache reviewers do not issue "cache removal orders." We have no authority to do that.

Oh really? Then please explain this one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ea-40a93d9e9a6c

 

We removed this cache. Still have the container, and my son constantly badgers me about using it to put out another cache. Seems like a good enough idea. This month perhaps.

 

Dude. Which one of those loggers is a reviewer?

[Mushtang]

To refine further, what if the cache could be used to harm geocaching as a viable hobby in your area. What if someone had the power to limit or prohibit geocaching if they found that cache? It might mean your caches would have to bye-bye, too?

 

So, now the cache is deemed illegal, it is archived, and a removal order has been issued. You gonna risk it?

 

Who issued the removal order? The reviewer? The police? Why would they single me out to remove it? If the police or property owner demanded its removal while I was the unlucky cacher looking for it at the time, then yes, I would move (not take) it to a new location and rehide it. Then I would email the coords and details to the owner explaining why it HAD to be removed immediately.

 

I wasn't aware though that reviewers were issuing removal orders. And if they are, then how would they determine who to issue that order to?

 

Again, you have the SBA log available to you. A GC reviewer has the power to archive the cache, which means in essence that it is no longer available for logging on GC's site. You do not, however, have the right to go retrieve that cache. It does not belong to you, or Groundspeak for that matter.

 

Don't get too hung up on who issued the removal order. Even without that, the other elements should suffice. The owner already knows the cache should be pulled, but hasn't.

What if the owner was told by gc.com that the cache had to be archived because it was in violation of the gc.com guidelines, but it was still listed on 3 other sites? Then someone STEALS the cache because they think it would hurt the sport if the authorities found out about it (which it probably would), and then the same person gets on the forums and goes on and on about how nobody should steal other peoples caches?

 

I can think of several reasons why I might be tempted to steal someones cache to avoid major damage to the hobby. It's a tough call but if you've just gone through a huge hassle with some form of cache hides in your state and you'd like to prevent another, I'm sure you could make a good case for it. It might not be "right", but it would definitely be the lesser of two evils.

 

But if you DO steal the cache, and then you say in post after post that other people shouldn't steal caches that they don't approve of, or that don't fit into the guidelines, don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

[+MtnGoat50]

Recently I was out looking for a place to hide a cache when I found, what appeared to be, an excellent spot. It was so good there was already an ammo can there. I was surprised because I thought I knew about all the nearby caches. Turns out this was the final of a multi that started across town. When I got to a computer I discovered it had been archived about 6 months earlier and the owner had been inactive for about as long. I emailed the cache owner telling him what I'd found and offering to remove the cache and get it back to him. He never responded to me but did remove the ammo can. If he hadn't removed it, or contacted me, most likely I would have removed it and sent him another email offering to return it.

In another case I noticed an archived cache that had been found a couple of times after it had been archived. Someone had even left a TB in it. I found the cache the next time I was in the area and grabbed the TB to move along (the logic of placing a travelbug in an archived cache escapes me). I told several other cachers about it and they also found it. The cache owner posted a note saying he would try to unarchive it or re-list it but before this could happen, one of the people I'd told about the cache listed it as there own, in the same spot, using the original container. I'm not sure of the etiquette on this but it surprised me.

[+Team Cotati]

Would it be safe to say that 'removing' caches for appropriate reasons, is just that removing? What makes this activity 'stealing'? That sounds so much more devious and unacceptable to me. Has GC 'management' given it's blessings to such cache 'removal' or are people out there going vigilante all over the place? IMHO there is a significant difference between the two.

[+TheManInStripes]

For the record, Groundspeak's volunteer cache reviewers do not issue "cache removal orders." We have no authority to do that.

Oh really? Then please explain this one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ea-40a93d9e9a6c

 

We removed this cache. Still have the container, and my son constantly badgers me about using it to put out another cache. Seems like a good enough idea. This month perhaps.

 

Dude. Which one of those loggers is a reviewer?

Crow T Robot is the reviewer.

[+Renegade Knight]

Would it be safe to say that 'removing' caches for appropriate reasons, is just that removing? What makes this activity 'stealing'? That sounds so much more devious and unacceptable to me. Has GC 'management' given it's blessings to such cache 'removal' or are people out there going vigilante all over the place? IMHO there is a significant difference between the two.

 

The taking of personal property by anyone who is not authorized by the owner is stealing. Caches are personal property. Ignoring that, there are reasons that can come up that directly relate to the health of geocaching as a whole where taking a cache is the best thing to do. The two don't mesh perfectly.

[+Cornerstone4]

 

I wasn't aware though that reviewers were issuing removal orders. And if they are, then how would they determine who to issue that order to?

 

 

This above scenario happened once in our area, and on three other occasions, I had removed someone elses cache.

 

There is a local nature preserve that had several caches placed on it. Recently, someone from the state made the manager of the preserve aware of caching, and told here how to check for caches on the preserve. She did, and sent a request to one of the reviewers asking that all the caches be archived and removed immediately. One of the cache owners contacted me and asked me to grab her cache for her.

 

In another instance, I had been the last finder on a cache, and it had obviously been found by some local transients. The owners came by to relocate it, and couldn't find it. They asked me to grab it for them, so I did, and returned it.

 

Both of those were by the owners request, the next two were not.

 

I went to one cache, and there was chain link fencing recently erected around the entire area of the cache. There were tractors doing some serious grading there. I could spy the area where I knew the cache had to be, so, since it was a Sunday, and nobody was working, I removed a panel of the fence, (It didn't say "No Trespassing"), and found the cache. I kept the container and emailed the owner. He archived the cache, and told me to keep the container.

 

The second was when we were accosted at a new cache placement in the act of finding it. We took the container with us, and posted a note as soon as we could. One of us went back after dark and replaced the container.

[CoyoteRed]

...don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

 

You mean with you and a couple of others don't be surprised when they try to twist two different things to mean the same and try to embarrass you over it. That's what you really mean isn't it? You know dadgum good and well the differences in the scenarios but because you're dealing with me you want to make it an issue.

 

I'm not too surprised you're still here trying to do that very thing even after you PMed me wondering what the situation was I was talking about. I explained it to you. You, sir, are a very, very low individual.

 

Let's see. You're are equating someone looking into a cache, deeming it unacceptable, and taking it to throw away with another scenario where several people complains about the legality of a cache including law enforcement types, at least one SBA which was deleted by the owner, archival by top authority, confirmation of vandalism, request to remove the cache, the owner apparently refusing, hostile anti-geocaching forces, and even the offer to return the cache to the owner. You don't see the difference? Boy, I sure do. One person pulling someone else's cache because he didn't like it versus the decision of the geocaching community to pull the cache. Not only that I still stand behind my previous statements.

 

Additionally, I would encourage others to follow the same set of standards I've already outlined in the past regarding this very issue.

[+Cornerstone4]

For the record, Groundspeak's volunteer cache reviewers do not issue "cache removal orders." We have no authority to do that.

 

LaPaglia did in our area. It was at the request of the land manager of a reserve, but he posted removal orders to the pages of all the caches in or near the preserve. Some were definately on land outside of the boundaries, but the owners complied just the same.

[+Team Cotati]

For the record, Groundspeak's volunteer cache reviewers do not issue "cache removal orders." We have no authority to do that.

Oh really? Then please explain this one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ea-40a93d9e9a6c

 

We removed this cache. Still have the container, and my son constantly badgers me about using it to put out another cache. Seems like a good enough idea. This month perhaps.

 

Dude. Which one of those loggers is a reviewer?

Crow T Robot is the reviewer.

 

Thank you. That is very interesting, isn't it?

[Keystone]

Would it be safe to say that 'removing' caches for appropriate reasons, is just that removing? What makes this activity 'stealing'? That sounds so much more devious and unacceptable to me. Has GC 'management' given it's blessings to such cache 'removal' or are people out there going vigilante all over the place? IMHO there is a significant difference between the two.

Posting once again to clarify...

 

Geocaching.com and its volunteers (in their capacity as volunteers) do not get involved in cache removals. Some of the reasons for this have been discussed in the thread. There are always exceptions, as when a cache owner's instructions or a land manager's instructions are communicated by Groundspeak or one of its volunteers.

 

So, if a land manager contacts Groundspeak and asks them to see to the removal of unauthorized geocaches, it is the land manager who is "ordering" the removal. Most land managers don't create accounts on the site, although some do, and we see similar requests posted as "Needs Archived" logs. If the land manager does not have an account, a Groundspeak employee or volunteer can assist by posting to the cache page, sending an e-mail to the cache owner, etc.

 

What you should *not* be seeing is Keystone posting a log saying "this soggy cache is not being maintained, so I went out and picked it up."

[+Blue Power Ranger]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to cache ownership. When you place a cache, you still own the cache. You have not gifted it to anyone or anything. It doesn't belong to the caching community, it belongs to you.

 

If someone in the caching community has a problem with it. They should contact you. If Groundspeak has a problem with a cache, they can choose not to list it but cannot choose to have someone remove it physically.

 

Am I off-base here?

[Keystone]

Am I off-base here?

No, you are not. Thanks for your post. Also, Renegade Knight's posts to this topic demonstrate a good understanding of the issues involved.

[MyBoys&Me]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to cache ownership. When you place a cache, you still own the cache. You have not gifted it to anyone or anything. It doesn't belong to the caching community, it belongs to you.

 

If someone in the caching community has a problem with it. They should contact you. If Groundspeak has a problem with a cache, they can choose not to list it but cannot choose to have someone remove it physically.

 

Am I off-base here?

 

I both agree and disagree. When you place a cache, it becomes part of the community's cache resources, but you as owner are expected to maintain it as your own. However, if you cannot, you should welcome the assistance of others in the community to help monitor and maintain it. If this was not the intention, there would not be a "Did not Find It" or "Needs Maintenance" option for logging a cache, nor a link for contacting the owner to report problems. Granted, these options can and have been abused by the less experienced (or less considerate), but generally serve the purpose to alert the owner that a check needs to be done. As for Reviewers and Groundspeak in general, they should have every right to monitor and moderate the cache logs, and if a particular cache poses a serious problem should have every right to refer someone dedicated to Geocaching who is nearby to review and/or remove it in support of the sport and its commitment to safety and environmental concerns with proper notification to the owner. As long as we all play fair, it will stay a Game. Let's not make it about politics and property, 'cause it's not.

[+Team Cotati]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to cache ownership. When you place a cache, you still own the cache. You have not gifted it to anyone or anything. It doesn't belong to the caching community, it belongs to you.

 

If someone in the caching community has a problem with it. They should contact you. If Groundspeak has a problem with a cache, they can choose not to list it but cannot choose to have someone remove it physically.

 

Am I off-base here?

 

Yes, thank you for that info. So it seems as though on the rare occasions when cache owners are instructed to remove their cache, that our reviewers perform the role of an order delivery service. That makes sense. Thank you.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Team Cotati

[+Pepper]

Is it ever appropriate/acceptable to remove another cacher's cache?

 

What happens if the geocache in question is listed on more than one cache listing service?

 

I'm all about GC.com, but I am aware that there are caches that are crossed listed. So I would say no unless permission was granted from the cache owner. If for what ever reason there is no response from the GC.com user it could be archived, but removed...that might not be a good idea.

 

I use to hunt/remove archived caches until a pal of mine in WA told me it was not such a good idea anymore because of cross listings. The thought never crossed my mind becasue I only use GC.com. When I thought about it he made a good point.

 

just my little 2 cents

 

Pepper

[+Blue Power Ranger]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to cache ownership. When you place a cache, you still own the cache. You have not gifted it to anyone or anything. It doesn't belong to the caching community, it belongs to you.

 

If someone in the caching community has a problem with it. They should contact you. If Groundspeak has a problem with a cache, they can choose not to list it but cannot choose to have someone remove it physically.

 

Am I off-base here?

 

Yes, thank you for that info. So it seems as though on the rare occasions when cache owners are instructed to remove their cache, that our reviewers perform the role of an order delivery service. That makes sense. Thank you.

 

Well... yes. All a reviewer can do is "request" that a cache be removed. They don't have (or I assume want) the "authority" to physically remove a cache.

 

It isn't a perfect example but if you see a car parked illegally on a public street, you have no authority to remove that car whether you are doing the public or the community a service or not.

 

Under normal circumstances, the only one that has a right to remove a cache is the cache owner (or someone acting at thier request), a private land owner or the managing government agency. Of course as we've seen above, there are logical exceptions.

Edited July 8, 2006 by Blue Power Ranger

[Mushtang]

...don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

You mean with you and a couple of others don't be surprised when they try to twist two different things to mean the same and try to embarrass you over it. That's what you really mean isn't it?

Yes, of course that's what I meant. How silly of me to use a lot of different words that SEEMED like I meant something else completely when I actually meant just that. Please accept my apology.

 

(Yawn)

 

You know dadgum good and well the differences in the scenarios

What scenarios? Oh, the ones you didn't quote because you don't like to quote people when they point out that you're being hypocritical?

 

but because you're dealing with me you want to make it an issue.

Yes, again you're correct. I want to point out that once again you're being very hypocritical and trying to tell others that you know how to be a better cacher than anyone else so they should do like you say.

 

I'm not too surprised you're still here trying to do that very thing even after you PMed me wondering what the situation was I was talking about. I explained it to you. You, sir, are a very, very low individual.

Yes I PMed you because you invited folks to. The reason you gave in your PM was pretty straightforward, but your reason for not typing it in a post was pretty weak. It was just an attempt to seem more high and mighty to those that PMed you.

 

Let's see. You're are equating someone looking into a cache, deeming it unacceptable, and taking it to throw away with another scenario where several people complains about the legality of a cache including law enforcement types, at least one SBA which was deleted by the owner, archival by top authority, confirmation of vandalism, request to remove the cache, the owner apparently refusing, hostile anti-geocaching forces, and even the offer to return the cache to the owner.

Nope, not equating the two at all. Go re-read my post. I actually agreed that there are cases where it's a better idea to steal a cache than to leave it behind to cause a great deal of harm. Neither are really good, but one is less bad than the other.

 

You don't see the difference? Boy, I sure do. One person pulling someone else's cache because he didn't like it versus the decision of the geocaching community to pull the cache.

Yes indeed. If you haven't yet, go re-read the post that you failed to quote. Keep in mind that I'm agreeing that you probably avoided a really bad situation by stealing it.

 

Not only that I still stand behind my previous statements.

And now we get to the point I was making. In your previous statements you made it quite clear that people shouldn't steal caches that they don't approve of, or that don't fit into the guidelines. You got very preachy on the subject and as I, and a few others, read it we couldn't believe it. Someone pointed out that you were saying one thing and doing another, and you began the mother of all backpeddles.

 

Additionally, I would encourage others to follow the same set of standards I've already outlined in the past regarding this very issue.

Since you got to tell me what I really meant at the beginning of your post, I'll take my turn. What you really mean here is, "I would encourage others to follow the ways that I cache and the things that I deem acceptable in the past because I, CoyoteRed, am the cacher that all cachers should strive to be like".

 

Yip yip yip

[+NotThePainter]

I removed a cache during a FTFP (First to Find Published) run. It was a very difficult decision to do so. The cache was placed on a 4 lane highway bridge over a river, a major security problem. We had already been questioned by the police during the hunt and thought it best to remove it before a bomb squad showed up.

 

The other cachers present was only a hundred or so shy of 1,000 and is well respected by the local community. We talked about it quite a lot and I took the cache home (and filed an SBA and offer to buy the hider a beer at our next event).

 

Here's the view while standing at the cache:

 

and here's the view from below:

 

and here's the hide itself:

 

This was a very difficult decision to make. It was the hider's first hide and he has since placed the container in a much better location.

 

Paul

[CoyoteRed]

...don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

You mean with you and a couple of others don't be surprised when they try to twist two different things to mean the same and try to embarrass you over it. That's what you really mean isn't it?

Yes, of course that's what I meant. How silly of me to use a lot of different words that SEEMED like I meant something else completely when I actually meant just that.

 

Well, at least you're admitting to it. I guess everyone has to have a hobby. Now we know yours.

[Keystone]

...don't be surprised when someone calls you on it.

You mean with you and a couple of others don't be surprised when they try to twist two different things to mean the same and try to embarrass you over it. That's what you really mean isn't it?

Yes, of course that's what I meant. How silly of me to use a lot of different words that SEEMED like I meant something else completely when I actually meant just that. Please accept my apology.

 

(Yawn)

 

You know dadgum good and well the differences in the scenarios

What scenarios? Oh, the ones you didn't quote because you don't like to quote people when they point out that you're being hypocritical?

 

but because you're dealing with me you want to make it an issue.

Yes, again you're correct. I want to point out that once again you're being very hypocritical and trying to tell others that you know how to be a better cacher than anyone else so they should do like you say.

 

I'm not too surprised you're still here trying to do that very thing even after you PMed me wondering what the situation was I was talking about. I explained it to you. You, sir, are a very, very low individual.

Yes I PMed you because you invited folks to. The reason you gave in your PM was pretty straightforward, but your reason for not typing it in a post was pretty weak. It was just an attempt to seem more high and mighty to those that PMed you.

 

Let's see. You're are equating someone looking into a cache, deeming it unacceptable, and taking it to throw away with another scenario where several people complains about the legality of a cache including law enforcement types, at least one SBA which was deleted by the owner, archival by top authority, confirmation of vandalism, request to remove the cache, the owner apparently refusing, hostile anti-geocaching forces, and even the offer to return the cache to the owner.

Nope, not equating the two at all. Go re-read my post. I actually agreed that there are cases where it's a better idea to steal a cache than to leave it behind to cause a great deal of harm. Neither are really good, but one is less bad than the other.

 

You don't see the difference? Boy, I sure do. One person pulling someone else's cache because he didn't like it versus the decision of the geocaching community to pull the cache.

Yes indeed. If you haven't yet, go re-read the post that you failed to quote. Keep in mind that I'm agreeing that you probably avoided a really bad situation by stealing it.

 

Not only that I still stand behind my previous statements.

And now we get to the point I was making. In your previous statements you made it quite clear that people shouldn't steal caches that they don't approve of, or that don't fit into the guidelines. You got very preachy on the subject and as I, and a few others, read it we couldn't believe it. Someone pointed out that you were saying one thing and doing another, and you began the mother of all backpeddles.

 

Additionally, I would encourage others to follow the same set of standards I've already outlined in the past regarding this very issue.

Since you got to tell me what I really meant at the beginning of your post, I'll take my turn. What you really mean here is, "I would encourage others to follow the ways that I cache and the things that I deem acceptable in the past because I, CoyoteRed, am the cacher that all cachers should strive to be like".

 

Yip yip yip

 

Yet another thread has been thrown off-course by this back and forth nitpicking over things unrelated to the discussion at hand. This post dissection looks like a conversation. Go have that conversation privately -- the thread isn't interested in it. Mushtang, you are done posting to this thread. For everyone else, the topic is removing cache containers. There is very little about that in the post I quoted. Help get us pointed back on topic. Thanks.

[Clan Riffster]

What happens if the geocache in question is listed on more than one cache listing service?

Hi Pepper! Good question. I know of three cache listing sites, GC, TC & NC, and I am a registered member of all three. There are probably more, but I don't know of them personally. TC & GC do not allow cross listing, but what could concievably happen is someone has a cache listed here for a while, then archives it and lists it at TC. I haven't seen this done, so I'm not sure if The Powers That Be would go for it or not. NC has no prohibition against cross listing that I'm aware of, so it's possible to have a cache listed there and here at the same time.

 

On the single occassion when I found an archived cache and removed it, Reflections Cache, I did verify that it hadn't been listed on any other sites.

 

Thanx Keystone for steering us back on topic.

[gstar1517]

I know that I would hate it if someone took one of my caches without letting me have the first chance to remove it myself. I have over 50 caches out, and yes, I have had to remove or relocate one or two of them for various reasons. However, for someone else to do that seems irresponsible, disrespectful and down right nasty. Always contact the owner first and give them the opportunity to handle it themselves.

[+Yellow ants]

TC & GC do not allow cross listing [ ... ] NC has no prohibition against cross listing that I'm aware of, so it's possible to have a cache listed there and here at the same time.

 

So what you're saying is that GC is explicitly prohibiting crosslisting on TC, but not on NC? Do you have a link ?

 

I know a lot of GC caches are crosslisted on Opencaching.de - I'd hate to find out they violate the GC ToS, because I think I know where ze Germans prefer to list their caches

[+Miragee]

I know that I would hate it if someone took one of my caches without letting me have the first chance to remove it myself. I have over 50 caches out, and yes, I have had to remove or relocate one or two of them for various reasons. However, for someone else to do that seems irresponsible, disrespectful and down right nasty. Always contact the owner first and give them the opportunity to handle it themselves.

In the case of the cache we had in the car when the Tribal Policeman approached us, there was no opportunity to return the cache to its hiding spot. He wanted us out of there and back on the road. By merely stopping on the shoulder of the road, we were apparently trespassing . . .

[Keystone]

TC & GC do not allow cross listing [ ... ] NC has no prohibition against cross listing that I'm aware of, so it's possible to have a cache listed there and here at the same time.

 

So what you're saying is that GC is explicitly prohibiting crosslisting on TC, but not on NC? Do you have a link ?

 

I know a lot of GC caches are crosslisted on Opencaching.de - I'd hate to find out they violate the GC ToS, because I think I know where ze Germans prefer to list their caches

Don't worry, Yellow ants. There is no policy at Geocaching.com regarding cross-listing. So long as a geocache meets the listing guidelines here, the site doesn't care where else it might be listed. In fact, it is the Terracaching community that discourages cross-listing.

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of cache container removal. The possibility of a geocache being listed on other services is indeed a valid consideration.

[+NotThePainter]

Always contact the owner first and give them the opportunity to handle it themselves.

But what about my "fear of the bomb squad" example above? Sometimes, in the opinion of the finder, there just isn't time to do that.

 

Paul

[+thedeadpirate]

Always contact the owner first and give them the opportunity to handle it themselves.

But what about my "fear of the bomb squad" example above? Sometimes, in the opinion of the finder, there just isn't time to do that.

 

Paul

 

In that case I would probably post an SBA log and then contact the owner.

[+NotThePainter]

In that case I would probably post an SBA log and then contact the owner.

 

That would work for a mature cache, but for this one the cache had been live for less than 20 minutes. If the owner wasn't online, or even was online but not willing to come out and get it, the cops could still be called and bridge shutdown and bad press all around...

 

Paul