Can I adopt this?

[+Johnmelad]

GC6332

 

The box was put out in 2002 and I can't contact the owner. I have replaced the damaged box and dried out a lot of the contents, I get the impression that the owner has abandoned it.

 

I have a decent box with some excellent swaps waiting to go out in the wild and would be happy to replace my old box with this if it is allowed?

[+Simply Paul]

Cumbria: Reg. Trad: Abbots Bay by stewcris A link for those who love them

[+The Golem]

If you look down through the logs I replaced the box myself back in October 2005 (I was only a sproglet cacher then ) I received an email from the owner at the time to say thanks but perhaps they've given up caching now.

 

Edited to add: Their last visit to the site was back in May...

Edited September 21, 2006 by The Golem

[+Johnmelad]

I was only a sproglet cacher then

 

I'm newer than you as I only joined this year, so there...

[Deceangi]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

[+The Golem]

Now - this links back into The Lord of the Rings cache - how long will that be allowed to continue before its archived?

 

Edit: If it was archived and I then went around and placed caches at all the existing locations would it be well received or frowned upon?

I just think it's a shame for such a well received cache to bite the dust, if I can't adopt it I'd like to shamelessly copy it...

Edited September 21, 2006 by The Golem

[nobby.nobbs]

at the end of the day you can adopt it in all but name.

 

put it on the watchlist so you know if there is any probs, then maintain it like it was your own. if the owner comes back i'm sure they will be grateful.

[+CrazyL200]

Now - this links back into The Lord of the Rings cache - how long will that be allowed to continue before its archived?

 

Edit: If it was archived and I then went around and placed caches at all the existing locations would it be well received or frowned upon?

I just think it's a shame for such a well received cache to bite the dust, if I can't adopt it I'd like to shamelessly copy it...

 

If it gets archived, why not replace the caches and re-list it with a subtle change in name and description. As it's such a good one it would be a shame to loose it.

Presumably, the owner hasn't responded yet to any prompts. ? Seems too long now out of action.

[Fiona Eliza & Florence]

Not wishing the worst on this cache owner...this thread just got me thinking that perhaps we should carry "Cache Donor Cards" so in the sad event of our death our next of kin would know we want our caches to go to those who need them!

[+currykev]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

Makes complete sense to me.An archived cache allows anyone to place a new cache,either exactly as before or as they please.

[+CrazyL200]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

Out of interest, what's a "reasonable" time.

 

For example, if one was made temp unavailable by the owner several months ago, the owner then posted a note saying soon to be replaced a couple of months later, but hasn't done anything since and a reviewer posted a warning note quite recently. Fairly obviously, the owner hasn't the time or inclination to do anything about it.

[+Bambi&Thumper]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

When did this happen? This strikes me as a really bad idea, because what will happen is that more caches will get abandoned and become litter. When a cache is adopted, the owner has the right to archive it and then create another in the same location or nearby, will hopefully remove the old one, but if a cache is just archived for an absent owner, no-one is likely to go and clear up the rubbish. Increased rubbish like this will increase the amount of negative publicity our hobby gets which is a bad thing.

 

I think GC.com has a duty to the environment to consider the consequences of this action and come up with a better idea, like a structured adoption system.

 

(See this thread for my thoughts on the subject elsewhere; any support comments etc greatly appreciated).

 

B.

[+KiwiGary]

I must agree with Bambi & Thumper, so I am right in thinking that if you flag a cache needs help. Ie. The Blue cross.

 

And the owner doesn't bother and after a certain time that cache is archived? And the cache becomes Geolitter to remain in woods forever?

 

Seems crazy to me, would it be better to call for locals to adopt it?

 

See ya...Gary

[+CrazyL200]

Added my tuppence here.

[+Icenians]

Don't forget that a cache that appears abandoned on gc may still be an active cache elsewhere. The cacher may have abandoned gc rather than the cache. It would be very unfair for someone to just take over a cache that was now hosted elsewhere.

[+KiwiGary]

I agree, but if the owner has given up with GC.com. Then couldn't there archive their caches before closing the door?

 

Seems like common sense to me?

[lakeuk]

Don't forget that a cache that appears abandoned on gc may still be an active cache elsewhere. The cacher may have abandoned gc rather than the cache. It would be very unfair for someone to just take over a cache that was now hosted elsewhere.

 

True - examples

 

SATO caches

Letterboxes

[+rutson]

Navicache

Terrache (though being listed on gc.com would violate their T&Cs)

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

 

There seems to be a flaw with this concept in that;

 

If the owner can not be contacted and the cache is archived by the reviewer, then the physical cache still remains in the landscape, and as such is litter or trash, something which I thought geocaching was opposed to and certainly breaks GAGB guidelines i.e. no responsible contact etc.

[+currykev]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

 

There seems to be a flaw with this concept in that;

 

If the owner can not be contacted and the cache is archived by the reviewer, then the physical cache still remains in the landscape, and as such is litter or trash, something which I thought geocaching was opposed to and certainly breaks GAGB guidelines i.e. no responsible contact etc.

 

If I saw that a nearby cache to me has been archived due to no maintenance,then I would check the cache myself,as curiousity would get the better of me.If it was still there,I'd probably do said maintenance and relist it as a new cache.If we all did this then there would be no trash!...further comments please.

[+KiwiGary]

I agree Kev, in a perfect world this is what would happen. Lets hope it does..

[+CrazyL200]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

 

There seems to be a flaw with this concept in that;

 

If the owner can not be contacted and the cache is archived by the reviewer, then the physical cache still remains in the landscape, and as such is litter or trash, something which I thought geocaching was opposed to and certainly breaks GAGB guidelines i.e. no responsible contact etc.

 

If I saw that a nearby cache to me has been archived due to no maintenance,then I would check the cache myself,as curiousity would get the better of me.If it was still there,I'd probably do said maintenance and relist it as a new cache.If we all did this then there would be no trash!...further comments please.

 

Ditto.

[+Johnmelad]

The Cache I started the thread on has been damaged for some time but has never been archived, when I found it, it was full of water and froth from a tub of shampoo that had leaked. Basically it was garbage a couple of inches from a beck and could have been contaminating it. I know, shampoo should not have been in it, but it was and it was leaking. Thought I replaced the box and dried out all the visiting cards etc, I had no trinkets to put in as replacements for those I had to dispose of.

 

IMHO this sort of cache should qualify for an immediate archive by the Mods.

[+Icenians]

I agree, but if the owner has given up with GC.com. Then couldn't there archive their caches before closing the door?

 

Seems like common sense to me?

Fair point.

[+Bambi&Thumper]

Don't forget that a cache that appears abandoned on gc may still be an active cache elsewhere. The cacher may have abandoned gc rather than the cache. It would be very unfair for someone to just take over a cache that was now hosted elsewhere.

 

Very true, but people who think about stuff like this will probably (hopefully) archive thier caches, especially since the reason they are leaving is probably political/moral and they want to take "their contribution" somewhere else. The people we are targetting here are the "one-cache-wonders" who find a dozen, place one and then give up.

 

 

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

There seems to be a flaw with this concept in that;

 

If the owner can not be contacted and the cache is archived by the reviewer, then the physical cache still remains in the landscape, and as such is litter or trash, something which I thought geocaching was opposed to and certainly breaks GAGB guidelines i.e. no responsible contact etc.

 

My point exactly!

 

 

If I saw that a nearby cache to me has been archived due to no maintenance,then I would check the cache myself,as curiousity would get the better of me.If it was still there,I'd probably do said maintenance and relist it as a new cache.If we all did this then there would be no trash!...further comments please.

 

This is all very well, but there are a couple of points. Yes, there are some good souls who will go and collect, but since (I think) you can't log archived caches you don't get credit for finding them on the site, which doesn't exactly encourage people to participate. Remember the "Dust-off" project - what happened to that?

 

Secondly, many people don't want to complicate things by feeling obliged to go and hunt caches that are unpleasant to find. Also, you have to spot that the cache has been archived in the first place.

 

Fact is, many people won't think about this and it wouldn't be a priority if they did.

 

 

The Cache I started the thread on has been damaged for some time but has never been archived, when I found it, it was full of water and froth from a tub of shampoo that had leaked. Basically it was garbage a couple of inches from a beck and could have been contaminating it. I know, shampoo should not have been in it, but it was and it was leaking. Thought I replaced the box and dried out all the visiting cards etc, I had no trinkets to put in as replacements for those I had to dispose of.

 

IMHO this sort of cache should qualify for an immediate archive by the Mods.

 

I agree, but what about the rubbish that is left behind?

 

Maybe, instead of well meaning people like you (and us) doing cache maintainance on dying caches like this, we need to collect them and report that we have done this and offer to post the bits to the owner. The problem with this is that it's impossible to tell whether a cacher is active and people will get offended if you go round and collect their caches and post them to them, hmmm, maybe there is a new game here, post-caching!

 

Seriously, I don't see a solution, except to encourage reviewers to force adoption where possible. Unfortunately, if the issue of abandoned caches becomes a problem, it will not encourage landowners, especially the larger ones, to be sympathetic to our hobby.

 

B.

[+Another Mr Lizard]

Why no more forced adoptions, just out of interest?

 

I think collecting geolitter caches needs to become part of the caching mindset - and why shouldn't it, after all we're always banging on about CITO.

 

If a cache needs to be archived, maybe the mods could post a note asking the next finder to dispose of it. The finder still gets to log a find, and hopefully they get a nice warm glow as well. Last-to-find should be prized as much as first-to-find

[+currykev]

Last-to-find should be prized as much as first-to-find

 

......and another congratulations thread too!

[+KiwiGary]

Not sure about a congrats thread, buy maybe this could be a new log type. Which counts towards your finds.

 

Removed Dead Cache, I agree the admins should be only ones that can authorise a hit.

 

Or we would have dead caches everywhere...

 

See ya...Gary

[+Bambi&Thumper]

Not sure about a congrats thread, buy maybe this could be a new log type. Which counts towards your finds.

 

Removed Dead Cache, I agree the admins should be only ones that can authorise a hit.

 

Or we would have dead caches everywhere...

 

See ya...Gary

 

I actually prefer the idea that caches that have a problem and the owner can't be contacted should be flagged with an adoption tag such that it appears on the search results list. The cache can then be adopted with the guidance/assistance of the reviewers, but the adoption procedure forces a "needs maintainance" attribute so that the new owner has to pay it a visit. This visit can either be an archive visit (with the option of replacement with a new cache) or just a normal maintainance visit.

 

I saw in another thread that someone said "I adopted these caches and would hate to see them archived", presumably out of respect/responsibility to the original setter. Personally, I feel that with the arrival of a more automated system, we would also need to encourage an attitude of "if it's a good cache keep it/replace it, but if it's a lousy cache remove it and archive".

 

I appreciate that this would generate more work for our esteemed reviewers, but personally I'd put the environment above publishing new caches so if it means fewer caches listed and/or a slower turn around, so be it.

 

B.

 

<The deer trots off into a lovely wooded glad, pauses to rethink, swiftly dons her fire suite, finds a bit of concrete jungle and ducks behind a large convenient boulder...>

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

I think "no forced adoptions" is a bad blanket policy to have.

 

As other have said, a cache archived for non maintenance will just end up dead in the woods. If cache owners are non contactable and someone else is willing to look after a cache then I think the reviewers should be able to consider doing a forced adoption.

 

I adopted the first cache I ever found, the owners were non contactable and when someone posted that it was in real need of maintenance I didn't want to see it archived, so I asked to adopt it and a review transferred it to my account. Under the new guidelines it would have just been archived and probably still be rotting away there now.

[+Jaz666]

If Groundspeak no longer wants to allow forced adoptions, they should implement a feature that allows us to easily search for archived caches.

 

A few months ago I went to look for some archived caches from my area (one's I'd previously not found) with the idea to clean up any geolitter that remained, and it took a rather long-winded method of using the guk website to find their cachepages.

 

Ability to search for archived caches = Less geolitter.

 

Will it happen? Errrr, unlikely given some of the posts in this thread http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=144804

It seems someone in the past has complained about the physical removal of the cache they abandoned.

 

So the whole sticky issue of property ownership seems to be the reasoning behind the end of forced adoptions.

Edited September 25, 2006 by Jaz666

[+housefamily]

So the whole sticky issue of property ownership seems to be the reasoning behind the end of forced adoptions.

Perhaps when we place a cache, part of the terms and conditions state that we hand ownership of the box and contents to Geocaching.com? Not ideal, would it help this problem?

[The Royles]

Perhaps when we place a cache, part of the terms and conditions state that we hand ownership of the box and contents to Geocaching.com? Not ideal, would it help this problem?

GC.com would probably not want to be the listed owner of the caches, as they would be liable if there was ever an issue.

 

You should also remember that GC.com is just a listing service, which is why - IMHO - they do not feel they are able to do forced adoptions or sanction clean up operations.

 

What we need is someone posting a list of caches that have been archived, so that people could make a PERSONAL decision to go and clean up the cache site. I know that if there was one local to me that appeared abandoned I would go and ensure that there is no "remains" of the cache left at the site.

 

Is this something GCUK could take on ? perhaps a post on their forums is needed.

[+Michael]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

There seems to have been a miscommunication. I am sure I was the source of this and I apologize. We, Groundspeak are still doing abandon cache adoptions. Not all abandon caches will be adopted, many will. if you want to adopt an abandon cache you must understand that there is a procedure that must be followed and it is not a quick on. Expect it to take 4-6 weeks. we make every attempt to contact the original owner before we consider adopting a cache. You need to contact your reviewer to start the process. However we do not adopt caches that are already archived. If its archived feel free to place a new one at the same location.

 

I hope this clears things up.

Edited September 26, 2006 by Michael

[nobby.nobbs]

you already can search for archived caches on gcuk. go into uk stats then choose misc. the option is down the bottom.

[+Jaz666]

Groundspeak will no longer do enforced adoptions of caches, only the cache owner can adopt it over.

 

If after a reasonable time the owner has not paid a Maintenance visit, as it has a Needs Maintenance log on it the cache will be treated as abandoned and Archived. In which case the location will be freed up for a new cache there.

 

There seems to have been a miscommunication. I am sure I was the source of this and I apologize. We, Groundspeak are still doing abandon cache adoptions. Not all abandon caches will be adopted, many will. if you want to adopt an abandon cache you must understand that there is a procedure that must be followed and it is not a quick on. Expect it to take 4-6 weeks. we make every attempt to contact the original owner before we consider adopting a cache. You need to contact your reviewer to start the process. However we do not adopt caches that are already archived. If its archived feel free to place a new one at the same location.

 

I hope this clears things up.

 

Cheers it does clear things up.

(OK, this was a blatent bump, but I thought it important that others saw this message which seemed to have slipped by unnoticed).