Geocache Renewal - Flashback 5 years ago

[+The Blue Quasar]

Geocaching has been around for six years now, and there have been lots of debates about how the activity works.

 

So I thought before I asked my question or made my comment I would try to see what history there was about this idea first. I've been caching for 5.5 years already, but never really looked into this.

 

So before my question... here is a neat little flashback to a discussion I found in the Forums.

 

Jeremy on the Cache Health-o-Meter

 

So, I know this has been discussed before, and I admit that I am brutal at finding things in the Forums unless it is right in my face.... so here goes.

 

Does Groundspeak have any plans on how to deal with the growing number of listings that were placed by people that are no longer logging onto the site?

 

I word it that way, because we all know that owners get emails advising them of people's visits to their cache.

 

Personally, I would like to see a requirement that the owner of a Geocache must renew their listings on the anniversary date of joining up as a member. This date is better in my opinion because it cannot be altered like the 'cache placement date' can.

 

This way if someone loses interest in Geocaching, their caches would get flagged as ... dare I say.... abandoned.

 

I know there are a lot of passionate people out there on both sides of this issue... I'm just suggesting that we might be at a time now that we all need to think about how to handle the Geocaches that are out there when the owner is not logging on. Most other groups require you to 'renew' annually or your account is canceled, and things can't stay forever without someone taking resposibility for them.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service, but what do they do when a listing is not active anymore? I know they archive the listing, but I think we need to have more than that.

 

This isn't an attack on Groundspeak, far from it. I know they make a large effort to ensure that listings are valid and safe before listing. I think it's time to make a method for addressing a complete response when a cache is 'de-listed' by Groundspeak. Often the owner is not there to do it, or is unwilling.

 

It would be a responsible thing for the owners to return to the site on their anniversary date to renew their own cache listings. It shows they are at least watching them.

 

Thoughts?

 

The Blue Quasar

[+9Key]

Very good idea, quasar! There's could be a list or PQ of abandoned caches in your area that need to be either adopted or retrieved.

[+Mule Ears]

If a cache owner does not check in by the required deadline, what should happen? If the answer is that the cache should be de-listed (archived), I'd oppose such a scheme. There are quite a few wilderness caches that are community-adopted. They don't need much maintenance in the first place, and each new visitor takes care of any needs noted by the previous visitor. In addition to keeping these caches going, this process is kind of charming.

[+Lil Devil]

There are already mechanisms for dealing with problem caches, whether the owner is still active or not. Just simply being "abandoned" does not necessarily mean the cache becomes a problem. Many old caches are now simply maintained by the community.

[+the hermit crabs]

The first cache we ever found will hit its fifth birthday in less than two weeks. (We'll bring the balloons and noisemakers -- who's bringing the cake? )

 

Its owners haven't been on the site in more than two years. But it's an ammo can, and it's doing just fine. It's in a very scenic spot in a nice chunk of conservation land, and is still visited regularly. A couple of times the contents have degraded, and since it's within walking distance of our house we've upswagged it. Other nearby cachers probably have done the same. I would hate to see this one needlessly archived just because its owners have stopped caching.

Edited August 21, 2006 by the hermit crabs

[+The Blue Quasar]

Well, this is being brought forward based on a larger thread we had in the Canada Forum that I started.

 

While my thoughts on the matter changed during the discussion based upon ideas others brought forward, most of the ideals remain.

 

Here is a link to that discussion if anyone wants referrence on the topics we covered

 

Should we address abandoned caches and how to identify them

 

I agree that many active caches out there that are lacking an active owner are operating just fine. And the option of adoption should be made available. That is very good approach, much better than archiving it and removeing it, but also better than no one taking responsibility.

 

The idea that a cache in good shape should be saved is probably the best course of action. So here is my idea.

 

One the anniversary of a Geocacher becoming a member, they would get a 'Renewal notice" that would include a link to also renew their caches. If a month goes by without any action by the owner, they would automatically get flagged "Available for Adoption". If a further two months goes by with no action from the owner and no one offering to adopt it, then the listing is disabled and marked for removal. The listing should not be archived until it is physically removed or someone that has found it previously has verified it is gone.

 

This way people can keep finding it and logging it... but everyone knows that it needs an Owner. Maybe this could be a variation of the "Needs Maintenence" log type.

 

I do have a question for Lil Devil though:

 

Lil Devil Posted Today, 01:16 PM

There are already mechanisms for dealing with problem caches, whether the owner is still active or not. Just simply being "abandoned" does not necessarily mean the cache becomes a problem.

 

I'm wondering what mechanisms there are? I'm asking honestly because in my area we have tried to address this problem. No one wants to adopt the neglected caches, and these 'in rough shape' caches are sending the wrong message. Yes I could post "needs maintenence" or "needs archive" but I would like to think we can have a better method to ensure proper management.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Mule Ears]

One the anniversary of a Geocacher becoming a member, they would get a 'Renewal notice" that would include a link to also renew their caches. If a month goes by without any action by the owner, they would automatically get flagged "Available for Adoption". If a further two months goes by with no action from the owner and no one offering to adopt it, then the listing is disabled and marked for removal. The listing should not be archived until it is physically removed or someone that has found it previously has verified it is gone.

 

I like the idea of identifying caches that are in need of adoption. I don't like the idea of automatically disabling the listing if no one steps up to adopt, however. This will always pose a threat of unnecessary archival to remote caches.

 

The part about physically removing these caches reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. A mathematician is standing in front of a blackboard covered with equations. Linking two dense patches of mathematical symbols is the phrase "...and then a miracle occurs."

[+Lil Devil]

I do have a question for Lil Devil though:

 

Lil Devil Posted Today, 01:16 PM

There are already mechanisms for dealing with problem caches, whether the owner is still active or not. Just simply being "abandoned" does not necessarily mean the cache becomes a problem.

 

I'm wondering what mechanisms there are? I'm asking honestly because in my area we have tried to address this problem. No one wants to adopt the neglected caches, and these 'in rough shape' caches are sending the wrong message. Yes I could post "needs maintenance" or "needs archive" but I would like to think we can have a better method to ensure proper management.

The first mechanism is for someone to go in and fix/replace it. I've seen this happen many times. I've personally fixed and replaced dozens of caches. I didn't feel any need to adopt them permanently. I just did my good deed for the day and moved on.

 

Another existing mechanism is someone who lives nearby volunteers to adopt the cache. He contacts a reviewer or Groundspeak and the adoption is done. One would hope that before s/he even bothers with the formal process, that s/he will go out and fix/replace the cache as a goodwill show of intent.

 

If no one wants to fix or adopt it, and the cache is a mess, someone can post a "needs archived" note and the reviewer will take a look and take appropriate action, which, if its been a mess for a long time, will probably mean the cache gets archived.

 

So in your scenario, "No one wants to adopt the neglected caches" I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If no one wants it, what is any automatic flagging of the cache going to accomplish? It will get flagged, no one wants it so it sits there and eventually is archived. My point is the same outcome can happen now with existing mechanisms. Why convolute the process?

[+The Blue Quasar]

Those are the mechanisms that I am aware of, and have done them myself as well.

 

Well, as for the cache just sitting there and eventually getting archived.... after it is archived, it just sits there mostly invisible. I'd rather see a method to ensure it gets picked up.

 

Since I like to think of myself as an honest person, I'd rather see a process to be upfront about an issue. I'm sure there are others that would say "Just remove it yourself and don't tell anyone"

 

First off, I think that is wrong on so many levels. It doesn't show a responsible nature that using proper channels can show. Also there is a chance that after two DNF's that everyone avoids the cache, and thus no one ever deals with it.

 

I don't know what it is like around other people's areas, but we have caches here that have Needs Maintenance icons on them that have been there for over 6 months. We have caches that end up getting archived because the local reviewer has asked repeatedly for a reply due to a maintenance issue, but never gets one. We have caches that the owner places and decides to just archive cause it isn't worth the trouble to go back to and remove, let alone check on. In these situations, how do we know the geo-trash has been removed?

 

People might say "For the good of Geocaching, just go out and fix up the cache." And that is fine and good. But that doesn't happen in other aspects of life, let alone other activities.

 

I don't see the harm in requesting that owners log on and renew their cache listings once a year. To me the best date would be the anniversary date of the membership. That way, all get done at once.

 

If there really is a big fan club for a specific cache that the owner is absent... one of them will adopt it. Or at least tell the local reviewer that they will take care of it.

 

Like I posted in the Canada thread on this, I am using the 3 strikes rule. A total of three of the following in any combination warrants attention. DNF Entry on a unique date, Needs Maintenance Icon, Owner hasn't logged on in 6 months.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

Those are the mechanisms that I am aware of, and have done them myself as well.

 

Well, as for the cache just sitting there and eventually getting archived.... after it is archived, it just sits there mostly invisible. I'd rather see a method to ensure it gets picked up.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

If I am reading you right, you want a method for assuring that abandoned caches that are archived are removed. If so, that is a good idea, but so far nobody has suggested any formal way of doing it.

 

Maybe we can get some people to volunteer to be "archived cache removers" and have reviewers send them lists of archived caches to be removed?

[+welch]

...

Groundspeak is a listing service, but what do they do when a listing is not active anymore? I know they archive the listing, but I think we need to have more than that.

...

I think that is the sticking pointing for me. What does a listing site do? What things are/are not a listing sites responsibilities? Does being a listing site mean you will become active in the maintance and future well being of a cache listed with you??

I think of a listing site, as basically something that says 'give us your cache's info and if it meets our requirements and we'll format the data and distribute it to our users'. I wouldn't think someone that says 'by giving us your data you entitle us to transfer ownership of it to someone else and/or have them remove or change the cache' as a listing site. Maybe I'm wrong but considering how gc.com shys away from cache adoptions in which the previous owner is possiably around, I think they want to try away from being thought of as someone that does the latter.

Don't misunderstand me, geo litter is bad, and I think we as geocachers should try to prevent and eliminate it. But it is something I would like to see it stay as a geocacher/ cache community function. To me having gc.com take over as the geo-litter police would make them more like a governing body, than a listing site.

[+JimmyEv]

Why can't you just e-mail the owner asking them if they still want to maintain the cache? If they don't respond or don't want to, and nobody wants to adopt it, you could post an SBA log with a note for the next person to cache-out the cache.

 

If there's an abandoned cache in our area that the community doesn't want to maintain, the e-mail and SBA works just fine. And there's a few hiders with only one or two caches who don't cache, don't log into gc.com, but respond to the logs on their caches.

[+Mule Ears]

If implemented as described, the OP's plan will archive a lot of perfectly viable caches. And those archived caches most likely will be left in place. You cannot compel anyone to remove an archived cache, particularly since it's been archived precisely because no one is on record as being responsible for it. If it's still listed as an active cache, it will at least have a chance of getting visitors who will monitor it's condition and possibly maintain or adopt it.

 

If there's a problem in your area with abandoned, unmaintained caches, then a program of targeted SBAs and CITOs is called for.

 

I'm participating in this thread because today, just prior to the original post, I did some volunteer maintenance on a cache near my home. The owner hadn't logged into geocaching.com since March, so I stepped up. I contacted my area's reviewer and offered to adopt the cache. The reviewer posted a note to the effect that if the owner doesn't surface within a month, the cache will be adopted out.

 

Very orderly process. The only step that needs help is publicizing the plight of abandoned caches and putting them up for adoption.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Mule Ears

[+The Blue Quasar]

Mule Ears Posted Yesterday, 07:33 PM

If implemented as described, the OP's plan will archive a lot of perfectly viable caches. And those archived caches most likely will be left in place.

 

Definitely. This would be very bad.

 

I contacted my area's reviewer and offered to adopt the cache. The reviewer posted a note to the effect that if the owner doesn't surface within a month, the cache will be adopted out.

 

Very orderly process. The only step that needs help is publicizing the plight of abandoned caches and putting them up for adoption.

 

That is a great thing. I wish that was the official guideline from Groundspeak. I wish there was an official guideline of some kind.

 

I would like to see it stay as a geocacher/ cache community function. To me having gc.com take over as the geo-litter police would make them more like a governing body, than a listing site.

 

We tried that here, and some people got really upset that 'caches that are still being visited will be removed', which went right along with 'what gives you the right to decide when a cache is abandoned? That should be decided by gc.com'

 

Either way, it would be nice if there was some kind of guidelines on determining if a cache is still being owned or not, and how it will be handled. I still believe that at a minimum each cache should be renewed every year on the owner's anniversary date of becoming a Geocacher. I don't see why that is difficult for the cache placer to do. I'm not saying that caches get yanked because of it, but it would certainly help identify caches that need community involvement.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Big Max]

I recently adopted a cache. The Texas Geocaching Association has a very easy method for doing this. There is a note posted on the cache page that the cache is up for adoption. You send an email through the Association and it's yours. The owners moved out of state. They archived some of their caches that weren't anything really special, but some they put up for adoption. The one I adopted is nice, regular cache quite a ways out in the country located in a pretty little canyon area. You can drive right up to it and climb down a little ravine, so it is pretty easy. But it doesn't get visited very often because you pretty much have to going there to do the cache. I adopted it because it is similar to the kind I want to start doing, good write up, some history of the area and is a regular cache. People will adopt them if they are worth the effort. There is another one like this that I am thinking about adopting but I want to go find it first so I can get the smiley, plus I need to know where it is!!

[+Big Max]

There are some things that can give Geocaching a bad name, one is putting caches in places they shouldn't be, i.e. private property without permission, another is damaging sensitive areas, including flower gardens in parks, and the last is litter when a cache is abandoned or severely damaged and the owner is unable to get to it in a reasonable period for repair. I have only cached for a short while but have already seen all of the above. I volunteered to replace a cache for one of our local cachers because it had gotten hit by a mower and was located about 80 miles away in an area that he does not frequent. Fortunately I do, so on one of my trips I cleaned up and replaced the cache for him and moved it to a more protected spot at the same coordinates (with his permission).

Edited August 22, 2006 by Big Max

[+Breaktrack]

Hmmmmm, if the cache placer in question is still paying the money to be a premium member, then that might give a hint as to the intent toward maintaining caches.

 

Another thing is, who cares if they've logged in "recently" if their caches are still being maintained. I do not come on here and necessarily log it when I check my caches. If they are doing fine, I have no reason to log anything on the site. A couple of my physical caches are needing to be checked right now and I have temporarily disabled them so cachers will know they are not in shape to be hunted for right now. When I have them back up and running I'll put them back online.

 

Mac

[+Kiamichi Muskrat]

Old, old caches are my favorites. In fact, some of the best caches I've found were placed by people who are no longer even active on the site, and haven't been in quite some time. I would be very, very disappointed to see them archived or flagged, even though they are fine, dry and out in the boonies waiting to be found.

[+welch]

I would like to see it stay as a geocacher/ cache community function. To me having gc.com take over as the geo-litter police would make them more like a governing body, than a listing site.

 

We tried that here, and some people got really upset that 'caches that are still being visited will be removed', which went right along with 'what gives you the right to decide when a cache is abandoned? That should be decided by gc.com'

People that get upset a cache that honestly appeared abandoned was adopted or removed will be upset no matter who acts, you, the local org, gc.com, etc. But you and the local org are already there, and can work on the problem as you wish.

I would disagree with those people that say its something that should be decided by gc.com. I think you and the other local cachers would know the area, the caches, and be able to visit any suspect caches. (Btw, did these people say what would give gc.com the right to decree a cache abandoned and have it removed?)

[+Mule Ears]

Old, old caches are my favorites. In fact, some of the best caches I've found were placed by people who are no longer even active on the site, and haven't been in quite some time. I would be very, very disappointed to see them archived or flagged, even though they are fine, dry and out in the boonies waiting to be found.

 

Exactly! And if even a few of these excellent legacy caches were unintended victims of a 'renewal' process, it'd be a real tragedy.

[+Mule Ears]

People that get upset a cache that honestly appeared abandoned was adopted or removed will be upset no matter who acts, you, the local org, gc.com, etc. But you and the local org are already there, and can work on the problem as you wish.

I would disagree with those people that say its something that should be decided by gc.com. I think you and the other local cachers would know the area, the caches, and be able to visit any suspect caches. (Btw, did these people say what would give gc.com the right to decree a cache abandoned and have it removed?)

 

I think the OP's intent is beginning to sink in. He's actually said as much, but I didn't really get it previously. What I believe he's saying is that, under the current custom, someone has to submit "needs maintenance" and SBA logs to start an abandoned cache on the road to archival/removal. They have to take the initiative to maintain or adopt an abandoned cache. People may be reluctant to take these steps, as it might set them up for criticism.

 

But if there's a process in place that gives a cache a defined lifetime and fixed rules for declaring it abandoned, no individual has to take the (possibly controversial) step(s) of writing an SBA log, doing volunteer maintenance, or removing geo-litter.

 

I understand the reasoning now, but I still disagree. Easing people's discomfort about doing the right thing is not as important as preserving perfectly good caches that are maintained by each new finder.

[+Zzyzx Road]

I would like to see something like an available adopting list - other sites have an annual email that gives instructions to go to the site and click on update...that is how you are supposed to make sure that your info is current.

There is a cache in my area (#7 for me) that I went to specifically to grab a travel bug. It is an ammo can in a well-traveled but country area, been there a while too. I emailed the owner about the TBs, with no response. A little while later (and after someone else logged that there was no TB either) I emailed again. Still no response. I wondered if the owner was still active. Months went by before the owner showed up again. The reviewer said that unless there was a string of DNFs or something, nothing is wrong with it. The owner STILL hasn't cleared out the TB, even with other logs stating it is free of TBs. (I even contacted the person who took the TB - they had gotten married and moved, and the TB was packed away, and they assured me they would take care of it, but haven't...they are active too) I would LOVE to adopt this, but can't. And yet the owner (as far as I know) isn't really taking an active interest in the cache.

 

I know that seems a bit OCD about a TB, but I was NEWER then and took it really seriously!

 

To have them all blatently archived due to the owner's abcense isn't a good solution, but maybe to have prominent cachers (or a list of volunteers) in the area of whom the reviewer is aware on a "hotlist" for adoption instead.

Edited August 22, 2006 by Zzyzx Road

[+welch]

I think the OP's intent is beginning to sink in. He's actually said as much, but I didn't really get it previously. What I believe he's saying is that, under the current custom, someone has to submit "needs maintenance" and SBA logs to start an abandoned cache on the road to archival/removal. They have to take the initiative to maintain or adopt an abandoned cache. People may be reluctant to take these steps, as it might set them up for criticism.

 

But if there's a process in place that gives a cache a defined lifetime and fixed rules for declaring it abandoned, no individual has to take the (possibly controversial) step(s) of writing an SBA log, doing volunteer maintenance, or removing geo-litter.

 

I understand the reasoning now, but I still disagree. Easing people's discomfort about doing the right thing is not as important as preserving perfectly good caches that are maintained by each new finder.

Actually if you don't want to post an NA you could always just email the reviewer, but yes someone has to make some action.

As for "doing volunteer maintenance, or removing geo-litter"(or adopting) even if there were a egg timer for every cache, people would still have to do something that could be considered controversial. Do that many people really need to hear a ding before acting???

[+Mule Ears]

As for "doing volunteer maintenance, or removing geo-litter"(or adopting) even if there were a egg timer for every cache, people would still have to do something that could be considered controversial. Do that many people really need to hear a ding before acting???

 

I think it's the other way around. The OP's got people who are willing to take action, but want some official 'cover' to deflect criticism.

[+ibycus]

As for "doing volunteer maintenance, or removing geo-litter"(or adopting) even if there were a egg timer for every cache, people would still have to do something that could be considered controversial. Do that many people really need to hear a ding before acting???

 

I think it's the other way around. The OP's got people who are willing to take action, but want some official 'cover' to deflect criticism.

 

I remember not too long ago there was a cache around here, the darned thing had had maintenance issues since it was placed. (the container was in a water prone area, and was anything *but* water proof). I'd tried contacting the owner multiple times, I posted multiple NM logs (each time for a different issue), I'd done maintenance on the cache myself, and offered to adopt it, no response from the owner on that, tried contacting the reviewer, but after having done some maintenance on the cache, and removing a sogged mess of a log book (which had been replaced with another 'cleaner' book), the owner logged on to the site after 2 years of inactivity and asked if I'd return the log book to the cache (which meant that their last logon date was more recent). Worst part was it seemed by reading the logs that this was a lot of people's first cache (a lot of them didn't continue either).

 

I visited the cache site regularly as it was in one of my favorite dog parks. Well one day I visited the cache site, and found it had been trashed (probably by an animal). I picked up the remains, and threw them out.

 

Got home and posted an SBA log on the cache. The amount of crap I got for that from the local community was unbelievable. What right did *I* have to decide if the cache was viable or not was their big issue...

[+Mule Ears]

Got home and posted an SBA log on the cache. The amount of crap I got for that from the local community was unbelievable. What right did *I* have to decide if the cache was viable or not was their big issue...

 

Yeah, I think that this is the kind of scenario the OP has in mind. And I have to grant that it might work as intended in terms of providing a ready answer to critics. But as several of us have said, abandoned isn't necessarily the same as unmaintained.

 

I guess my question for you, ibycus, if you had it to do all over again, would you?

[+ibycus]

Got home and posted an SBA log on the cache. The amount of crap I got for that from the local community was unbelievable. What right did *I* have to decide if the cache was viable or not was their big issue...

 

Yeah, I think that this is the kind of scenario the OP has in mind. And I have to grant that it might work as intended in terms of providing a ready answer to critics. But as several of us have said, abandoned isn't necessarily the same as unmaintained.

 

I guess my question for you, ibycus, if you had it to do all over again, would you?

 

Probably, might have done it, and not been honest about it (which I really don't like, but it would have been a darned site easier on me if I had)...

 

Actually funny thing was with this cache right after I cleaned it up, another local cacher who frequents the park offered to adopt the 'cache' and they managed to get a response from the owner. Cache was adopted and the container replaced, and moved a wee bit, and the cache is now going strong with a new owner (makes you wonder though exactly what they were supposedly adopting, as there was *nothing* physically there, and the hide has even changed...)

 

I think one option that has to be available for any abandoned cache, is the opportunity to adopt it (without a huge wait period). That way if a 'good' cache comes up for adoption, and you don't want to see it disapear, you as a concerned cacher can offer to adopt the cache (or a local org could collectively decide to adopt the cache, and do with it as they saw fit).

Also important to bear in mind, if you get to a cache site to remove geo-trash, and find a perfectly viable cache there, you aren't just going to throw it out. Very likely that cache will end up being either adopted, or recycled to a new location (and new listing), but now the cache has one specific person or persons who are active and responsible for it, as opposed to before where no one in particular was responsible for it, and the community just maintained it when ever they felt like it.

[+welch]

As for "doing volunteer maintenance, or removing geo-litter"(or adopting) even if there were a egg timer for every cache, people would still have to do something that could be considered controversial. Do that many people really need to hear a ding before acting???

 

I think it's the other way around. The OP's got people who are willing to take action, but want some official 'cover' to deflect criticism.

I don't buy it. If the cache is clearly in need of some attention then what other reason is needed then 'this cache had a problem, I could fix it, so I did'. If someone wants to argue that its someone's right to place a cache and let it turn into a waterlogged box of rotting junk and I should not interfer with this gpsr marked litter, then they can, but I'm not listening to it. Geocachers are not litter bugs, we often CITO and do things to make the places we cache better. If we don't, if its somehow ok to create extra litter or watch others create litter, then our RASH is flawed and someday the parks will wise up and ban us , and they would be right in doing so .

'offical cover' or not, if someone is ticked that they cleaned up litter they'll complain. Surely you've seen the people that get angry because their cache gets denied for violating something thats clearly in the guideline?

[+The Blue Quasar]

Thanks guys! Maybe I've drawn some conclusions pre-maturely but here, as brief as I can be is what I think has been said. These appy to caches that have known issues that are not being addressed

 

1... Groundspeak is only a listing service, and any decision should be made by cachers.

2... If a cache is in bad shape and no one is doing anything about, either clean it up yourself or remove it.

3... Ensure you post a SBA suggesting that someone could adopt the cache if they are passionate about it.

4... People will argue no matter what, so be prepared to deal with it.

 

For me, I guess that I would act to support the Geocachers that are actually still logging activity on the site. If someone doesn't like what I am doing they can complain to the local reviewer, who really has no say in the matter. Anyone can adopt the listing, if they really feel it should still exist on the Geocaching.com site, even if that means they have to go out to the site and replace the cache. That is what they would have to do if they owned the cache, or were willing to clean it up anyway.

 

For me, I'll set some personal guidelines on this issue. I already had some in mind, like if a Need Maintenance icon is on a cache for 6 months, if three unique log dates comment on needing attention (wet, cracked, etc) or 3 DNF's from different dates and the cache owner isn't responding. Probably make a Bookmark list, and after a cache is on the list for a month then remove it with a note saying I'll keep it for a month to hear from the owner, and should anyone want to adopt the cache that they should contact the local reviewer.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+The Leprechauns]

Mule Ears Posted Yesterday, 07:33 PM

If implemented as described, the OP's plan will archive a lot of perfectly viable caches. And those archived caches most likely will be left in place.

 

Definitely. This would be very bad.

 

I contacted my area's reviewer and offered to adopt the cache. The reviewer posted a note to the effect that if the owner doesn't surface within a month, the cache will be adopted out.

 

Very orderly process. The only step that needs help is publicizing the plight of abandoned caches and putting them up for adoption.

 

That is a great thing. I wish that was the official guideline from Groundspeak. I wish there was an official guideline of some kind.

 

I would like to see it stay as a geocacher/ cache community function. To me having gc.com take over as the geo-litter police would make them more like a governing body, than a listing site.

 

We tried that here, and some people got really upset that 'caches that are still being visited will be removed', which went right along with 'what gives you the right to decide when a cache is abandoned? That should be decided by gc.com'

 

Either way, it would be nice if there was some kind of guidelines on determining if a cache is still being owned or not, and how it will be handled. I still believe that at a minimum each cache should be renewed every year on the owner's anniversary date of becoming a Geocacher. I don't see why that is difficult for the cache placer to do. I'm not saying that caches get yanked because of it, but it would certainly help identify caches that need community involvement.

 

The Blue Quasar

There is already the cache maintenance section of the listing guidelines, the site's published procedures for voluntary and involuntary adoptions, and the site's "needs maintenance" and "needs archived" log options. Just how thick of a rule book are you looking for here?

[+The Blue Quasar]

There is already the cache maintenance section of the listing guidelines, the site's published procedures for voluntary and involuntary adoptions, and the site's "needs maintenance" and "needs archived" log options. Just how thick of a rule book are you looking for here?

 

I'm looking for "And what happens when the 'needs maintenance' is not getting resolved.

 

I'm looking for "You aren't maintaining the listing, like you agreed to, here's what will happen."

 

In reality, I can go out and remove a cache and tell my local reviewer... "I removed the cache as it appears to be abandoned, you need to disable the listing because it's no longer in place."

 

Just because there are log options for Needs Maintenance and Should Be Archived doesn't mean there is anywhere that explains the process that occurs when these happen.

 

Care to provide a link that outlines these processes?

 

In the guidelines, which we all know very well it states:

 

Cache Maintenance

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So from that, I'll inform my local reviewer, and let him/her deal with it.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

edit: additions

Edited August 23, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[+The Leprechauns]

There is no official explanation about how the site responds to a "Needs Maintenance" log. That is because there is no official notification when one of these logs is entered. It's largely a matter for resolution between cache owners and cache finders. This is *exactly* what people were clamoring for, and why the log type was added. Something short of a "Needs Archived." So don't expect a rules manual about that, or else the log type isn't living up to its intended purpose.

 

There are, however, very nice explanations (IMHO) of the "Needs Archived" log type, and of the procedures for voluntary and involuntary adoptions, found in the Frequently Asked Questions thread that's pinned at the top of the "Getting Started" forum. I believe those posts to be directly on point to this thread.