Cache Listing Limit

[+jimear1e]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

Some of us have caches placed where permits are required. Most have a time limit and require you to reapply. If applied to cache listings there would be benefits. The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

My caches will start coming of age next spring. I plan on archiving them and replacing them with others. I am certain I can improve my cache quality through experience.

 

Just a thought…

[+Airmapper]

[+StarBrand]

Not all areas are experiencing problems with saturation or quality. Many of my (nearing) 5 year old caches remain quite popular. There are only 180 caches within 50 miles of my home.

[+flask]

some old caches are useless.

 

on the other hand, mature caches from the early days are harder and harder to find and they are important artifacts of our collective history.

[+Snoogans]

My caches will start coming of age next spring. I plan on archiving them and replacing them with others. I am certain I can improve my cache quality through experience.

 

Your aesthetic doesn't work for me, but that's what's great about geocaching. You can do whatever you want with your own caches.

[+flask]

some old caches are useless.

 

on the other hand, mature caches from the early days are harder and harder to find and they are important artifacts of our collective history.

[+TrailGators]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

Some of us have caches placed where permits are required. Most have a time limit and require you to reapply. If applied to cache listings there would be benefits. The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

My caches will start coming of age next spring. I plan on archiving them and replacing them with others. I am certain I can improve my cache quality through experience.

 

Just a thought…

 

I really like finding some of the historical caches! I would hate to see those disappear! I had the fortune of finding the oldest cache in California. I also found an awesome cache in the desert that Dave Ulmer was the FTF on. So I vote to keep the great older caches and to get rid of the new crappy caches instead!

Edited November 15, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Lighteye]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

I think you may be on to something here...continue,please...

 

Some of us have caches placed where permits are required. Most have a time limit and require you to reapply. If applied to cache listings there would be benefits. The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

Sounds like words from someone who has had the misfortune of running across a few piles of abandoned geotrash in the woods. I can personally think of 2 abandoned caches that are not adoptable, but just piles of garbage waiting to be collected after a few years of non maintenance. They are in prime spots, but a horrid waste of time.

 

My caches will start coming of age next spring. I plan on archiving them and replacing them with others. I am certain I can improve my cache quality through experience.

 

Sounds like GC maturity to me, brother {..uh-oh...that dreaded "M" word}

 

A few things that would need to be worked out are :

 

1. Who is responsible for collecting the old container? I suppose if the original hider wants it back, he will have to disable it and beat feet into the woods to get that nice 20MM ammo can.

 

2.If original hider leaves it, does the new hider get to use the old container if it still there after 1 year? That might get a tad sticky, but it sure would cut down on folks dropping a hundred caches in the woods that they can never hope to maintain or retrieve.

 

3. How early can the replacement hider submit their cache for publication? 30 days prior to expiration?

 

4.What if the original owner reapplies? Does he have dibs?

 

5.How about a rating system posted by finders? If the cache rates 8 out of 10 or better, it can stay, as it is seen worth keeping around. "Where The Green Fern Grows" would be a keeper, as no one that I know of who has completed it doesn't love it. That's one example right off of the top of my head.

 

There are a few issues with this concept, but it has some serious bright points as well. In our collective area, the prime hiding spots are fading fast. This would help with that problem if some of the points I mentioned could be addressed.

 

On a lighter note, maybe if we find a way to seal off the borders of my native state here from Northern invasion, cache saturation won't be such an issue

Edited November 15, 2006 by Mr. & Mrs. Lighteye

[+boda]

Sounds like GC maturity to me, brother {..uh-oh...that dreaded "M" word}

 

A few things that would need to be worked out are :

 

1. Who is responsible for collecting the old container? I suppose if the original hider wants it back, he will have to disable it and beat feet into the woods to get that nice 20MM ammo can.

 

2.If original hider leaves it, does the new hider get to use the old container if it still there after 1 year? That might get a tad sticky, but it sure would cut down on folks dropping a hundred caches in the woods that they can never hope to maintain or retrieve.

 

3. How early can the replacement hider submit their cache for publication? 30 days prior to expiration?

 

4.What if the original owner reapplies? Does he have dibs?

 

5.How about a rating system posted by finders? If the cache rates 8 out of 10 or better, it can stay, as it is seen worth keeping around. "Where The Green Fern Grows" would be a keeper, as no one that I know of who has completed it doesn't love it. That's one example right off of the top of my head.

 

There are a few issues with this concept, but it has some serious bright points as well. In our collective area, the prime hiding spots are fading fast. This would help with that problem if some of the points I mentioned could be addressed.

 

I just wrote a whole long response to this about how 200 pages of rules would be needed, but then I thought better of it.

 

You are kidding, aren't you?

 

Edited to remove extra word.

Edited November 15, 2006 by boda

[+welch]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

Some of us have caches placed where permits are required. Most have a time limit and require you to reapply. If applied to cache listings there would be benefits. The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

My caches will start coming of age next spring. I plan on archiving them and replacing them with others. I am certain I can improve my cache quality through experience.

 

Just a thought…

 

I was wondering if you could explain your reasoning for reusing the location and container yet giving the cache a new listing?

I can understand cache owners choosing to change, improve, rework caches to make them 'better' . But I don't quite see a benefit in just saying 'all cache's listings should expire after X time period'. If its an attractive location it will get a new cache... so why make a 'new' cache?, especially if its very similar to the previous cache (like same container).

[Tahosa and Sons]

I have many caches that have been out there for a few years or more, and they are not about to retire.

[+Airmapper]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

Some of us have caches placed where permits are required. Most have a time limit and require you to reapply. If applied to cache listings there would be benefits. The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

My caches will start coming of age next spring. I plan on archiving them and replacing them with others. I am certain I can improve my cache quality through experience.

 

Just a thought…

 

I was wondering if you could explain your reasoning for reusing the location and container yet giving the cache a new listing?

I can understand cache owners choosing to change, improve, rework caches to make them 'better' . But I don't quite see a benefit in just saying 'all cache's listings should expire after X time period'. If its an attractive location it will get a new cache... so why make a 'new' cache?, especially if its very similar to the previous cache (like same container).

 

The way I take it is so you can just keep going to the same spot and get a smiley for it. Example: "Oh, so-and-so's cache has been re-newed, lets log it again!" I'm sure before long going to re-visit the cache would be deemed unnecessary to most, and you would just log the extra find from your easy chair.

[+budd-rdc]

The way I take it is so you can just keep going to the same spot and get a smiley for it. Example: "Oh, so-and-so's cache has been re-newed, lets log it again!" I'm sure before long going to re-visit the cache would be deemed unnecessary to most, and you would just log the extra find from your easy chair.

I find this rather annoying. I don't care how many times people log finds on the same location, but it's a waste of time managing ignore lists just to expand my Pocket Query so I can explore other areas.

 

If a location was worthy, I'll visit it again without a smiley, maybe exchange a TB or whatever. Are people so forgetful that they need a new waypoint on the same location just to visit it again?

[Mr.Yuck]

I have many caches that have been out there for a few years or more, and they are not about to retire.

 

Ya know, I have thought about this. I have a few caches from 2003, that pretty much only get hit by newbies, or the occasional out-of-towner. Not really old enough to be considered "historical", but well-maintained and decent caches. So I don't know,

[+briansnat]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

Why should I archive my ammo box hidden near a scenic waterfall so someone can slap a Hide a Key on a guardrail 500 feet away?

 

The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

What is the point of recycling locations other than giving people the opportunity to pad their find counts? If I placed a cache in a nice area, I see no need to remove it until I'm tired of maintaining it. Let the new cachers do their research and find their own spot, like I did.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I like the idea of a cacher going back and archiving their own hides that may now seem insufficient in some way. I own some caches that I'd likely check on and archive if they got many DNFs. I'd not replace. I'm not going to proactively archive them though, they can die a natural death.

 

As a practical matter I'd mention that in Florida, where you cache, there have been ~5700 caches reviewed and ~4600 new caches listed in the last year. If all the previous caches had to archived and resubmitted, the reviewer workload would effectively double. I'm not sure I can find *exactly* the right words to express my feelings on that.

Edited November 15, 2006 by Isonzo Karst

[+Jhwk]

So when does a cache "come of age?"

[+nfa]

I would not be in favor of setting an expiration date on geocaches.

 

I like finding a geocache that has been around for years, and don't like the idea of losing these caches in favor of what could be weaker ones.

 

I have archived some of my own caches that either weren't great or got repeatedly muggled, and have logged numerous caches SBA...most of these end up archived before long.

 

I feel as though this part of geocaching ain't broke, so we shouldn't fix it...

 

Jamie - NFA

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

Why should I archive my ammo box hidden near a scenic waterfall so someone can slap a Hide a Key on a guardrail 500 feet away?

 

The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

What is the point of recycling locations other than giving people the opportunity to pad their find counts? If I placed a cache in a nice area, I see no need to remove it until I'm tired of maintaining it. Let the new cachers do their research and find their own spot, like I did.

 

You da man, Briansnat!!!!

 

I also see no point in archiving a cache just to place e "new" cache in the same location. You can replace the container, replace the contents, redo the camo and even move it a short distance, all without having to list it as a new cache. The only thing relisting will do is let the same people log it over and over again. Why?

[Not So Lost Puppies]

Sounds like words from someone who has had the misfortune of running across a few piles of abandoned geotrash in the woods. I can personally think of 2 abandoned caches that are not adoptable, but just piles of garbage waiting to be collected after a few years of non maintenance. They are in prime spots, but a horrid waste of time.

 

I believe that in most cases such abandoned caches can be taken of by the local reviewers. If you find one, post a needs maintenance entry, if the cacher hasn't been active in a long time send a note to your local reviewer who can check on it. They have the ability to archive caches that should be archived.

 

As for caches that are in good shape, I don't think there should be any time limit imposed by GC, regardless of how often they are visited.

[+emurock]

There are posts about quality and some concerned with saturation. Both could be addressed with a small modification. Limit the time a cache is listed.

 

Some of us have caches placed where permits are required. Most have a time limit and require you to reapply. If applied to cache listings there would be benefits. The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

My caches will start coming of age next spring. I plan on archiving them and replacing them with others. I am certain I can improve my cache quality through experience.

 

Just a thought…

 

I really like finding some of the historical caches! I would hate to see those disappear! I had the fortune of finding the oldest cache in California. I also found an awesome cache in the desert that Dave Ulmer was the FTF on. So I vote to keep the great older caches and to get rid of the new crappy caches instead!

I like finding historical caches too!

[+Renegade Knight]

....There are a few issues with this concept, but it has some serious bright points as well. In our collective area, the prime hiding spots are fading fast. This would help with that problem if some of the points I mentioned could be addressed. ...

 

There are a lot of issues with the concept proposed by the OP. However I'd like to address your own comment. As I look around the prime hiding spots are all alive and well and the easy ones have caches in them. Isn't that the point? The remaining prime spots are out there but harder work to find, get to and put a cache in. Lazy cachers unwilling to invest the time to find and put caches in these spots do not deserve the easy spots taken by cachers who did their homework and took advantage of the opportunity to place a nice cache even if the spot happened to be easier than what remains by most standards.

 

Caches all have different natural life spans. Until that life span has been met, it's viable as a cache. Remote caches tend to have longer life spans than urban. I'm defining life span as when most all cachers who would seek it, have found it or passed on it. Quantify that, and maybe the OP is onto something.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I believe that in most cases such abandoned caches can be taken of by the local reviewers. If you find one, post a needs maintenance entry, if the cacher hasn't been active in a long time send a note to your local reviewer who can check on it. They have the ability to archive caches that should be archived.

 

As for caches that are in good shape, I don't think there should be any time limit imposed by GC, regardless of how often they are visited.

 

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

[Not So Lost Puppies]

....I believe that in most cases such abandoned caches can be taken of by the local reviewers. If you find one, post a needs maintenance entry, if the cacher hasn't been active in a long time send a note to your local reviewer who can check on it. They have the ability to archive caches that should be archived.

 

As for caches that are in good shape, I don't think there should be any time limit imposed by GC, regardless of how often they are visited.

 

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

 

Yes, that is also another good option for 'old' caches where the original owner may have moved away from caching, and yet the cache still is "good." Even if it requires maintenance, that doesn't make it a bad cache.

 

Though I do agree that anyone that suggests an older cache be archived (after allowing an appropriate amount of time for the owner to respond to e-mails) should have to wait some amount of time before being allowed to place a cache within .1 miles of the archived cache.

[k_statealan]

If a cache is failed to be reapplied for then it becomes an "open" area. The original container is still there and becomes geotrash, but is probably still logged on paper when people find it mistakenly for the other cache.

[+monkeynuts16]

If I had to watch expiration dates like I was buying a gallon of milk, replace a perfectly viable container because it has outlived it's time limit, dream up a new cache "theme" Spend the time to type out the page (some of the background info and storytelling involved with some of the better caches I have found) that's a big one. On top of getting new a permit, especially if someone else got a permit has a relationship with the park. This sounds so much llike work now... Where do I get to go out and find a new cache or fix one that was muggled, And darn it, that one cache I wanted to get expired last week and I didn't know. I spent half the day hiking there.

I'm sorry the sarcasim is thick but there is no way that every hiding spot is taken, I say to myself at least 5 times a day "that would make a great hiding spot."

[+QuesterMark]

It might be nice if the site could handle the cache poster ASSIGNING an expiration date.

 

In the case of a cache that had to have a permit, the expiration of the permit could be set up in the cache listing.

 

Then in the nearly unthinkable case that the owner could not renew the permit, then the cache would "expire" -automatically- be temporarily disabled until someone did something.

 

Just a thought.

[+Harry Dolphin]

1. Who is responsible for collecting the old container? I suppose if the original hider wants it back, he will have to disable it and beat feet into the woods to get that nice 20MM ammo can.

 

This seems to be a place that a lot of former (and even active) geocachers do not live up to their responsibilities. I think it's on the cache submission form: promising to remove the cache when necessary. It seems seldom to be done.

I rescued a travel bug from a cache that had been archived six months ago, and not found in nine months. The cache owner had not been active in two years. So, I took the cache home with me. Thanks, but I have no use for a four-year-old Tupperware container (though it actually survived well.)

So, I guess, one good possibility about allowing new caches at old cache locations might be requiring the new hider to remove the previous cache.

Other than that, I can see no reason for time limitations on caches. My first cache is over two years of age, and is doing quite well. Everyone who finds it loves it. It would be a shame to require its archival due to age.

[+Lighteye]

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

 

Ahh...the catch....the original hider has long since bailed out of the game, and doesn't respond to requests to allow the cache to be adopted. I even spoke to the owner of the 2 abandoned geotrash piles via phone, and he was not interested in maintaining them or giving them up. The only option left at that point is the SBA.

[+Lighteye]

It might be nice if the site could handle the cache poster ASSIGNING an expiration date.

 

In the case of a cache that had to have a permit, the expiration of the permit could be set up in the cache listing.

 

Then in the nearly unthinkable case that the owner could not renew the permit, then the cache would "expire" -automatically- be temporarily disabled until someone did something.

 

Just a thought.

Very nice, 0ccam... I believe that is more in the spirit of the OP's suggestion.

[GermanSailor]

The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

 

Not a bad idea. We could also tear down Stonehenge, The Pyramides, the Great Wall of Chinan, Neuschwanstein and the Eremitage just to replace them with a nice new Mall or an Theme Park. Imagine what great micros could be placed in their parking lots!

 

Sorry for being sarcastic, but if something is working fine, there is no reason to throw it away just to have something new. Newer is not always better!

 

GermanSailor

Edited November 16, 2006 by GermanSailor

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

 

Ahh...the catch....the original hider has long since bailed out of the game, and doesn't respond to requests to allow the cache to be adopted. I even spoke to the owner of the 2 abandoned geotrash piles via phone, and he was not interested in maintaining them or giving them up. The only option left at that point is the SBA.

 

So? Fix them up and maintain them anyway if you like them. Just because your name isn't on the page doesn't mean you can't pick up the slack of the missing owner if you want to.

[+TrailGators]

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

 

Ahh...the catch....the original hider has long since bailed out of the game, and doesn't respond to requests to allow the cache to be adopted. I even spoke to the owner of the 2 abandoned geotrash piles via phone, and he was not interested in maintaining them or giving them up. The only option left at that point is the SBA.

 

So? Fix them up and maintain them anyway if you like them. Just because your name isn't on the page doesn't mean you can't pick up the slack of the missing owner if you want to.

Good point! This is what many of us do out here. Also if someone moves away they typically post a note on the local thread offering their caches up for adoption.

[+cimawr]

 

I believe that in most cases such abandoned caches can be taken of by the local reviewers. If you find one, post a needs maintenance entry, if the cacher hasn't been active in a long time send a note to your local reviewer who can check on it. They have the ability to archive caches that should be archived.

 

Exactly what I was going to say, so I'll only add that in some cases it's not a bad idea to try contacting the owner of the cache, as well. Depending on the response, then you can decide whether to drop a private note to the reviewer.

 

As for caches that are in good shape, I don't think there should be any time limit imposed by GC, regardless of how often they are visited.

 

100% agreed.

[+TrailGators]

As for caches that are in good shape, I don't think there should be any time limit imposed by GC, regardless of how often they are visited.

100% agreed.

Geocaching is still a fairly new activity. So I think it would be cool to read people's logs that are stilling finding my caches many years from now. In fact, I would like to see that the special caches are protected and always maintained.... Edited November 15, 2006 by TrailGators

[+emurock]

The location and container could be recycled. It would insure placement opportunities for new cachers and allow new placements in areas previously cached.

 

 

Not a bad idea. We could also tear down Stonehenge, The Pyramides, the Great Wall of Chinan, Neuschwanstein and the Eremitage just to replace them with a nice new Mall or an Theme Park. Image what great micros could be placed in their parking lots!

 

Sorry for being sarcastic, but if something is working fine, there is no reason to throw it away just to have something new. Newer is not always better!

 

GermanSailor

So true.

[+jimear1e]

Not all areas are experiencing problems with saturation or quality. Many of my (nearing) 5 year old caches remain quite popular. There are only 180 caches within 50 miles of my home.

I agree, but in other areas this may not be the case. Would it be so complicated to send an email to the cache owner 90 days prior with an optional link to UPDATE the listing? There would be no new listing, just the continuation of a well maintained one. This would alleviate the reviewers having to check every cache that expires and keep the caches and listings up to date.

I really like finding some of the historical caches! I would hate to see those disappear! I had the fortune of finding the oldest cache in California. I also found an awesome cache in the desert that Dave Ulmer was the FTF on. So I vote to keep the great older caches and to get rid of the new crappy caches instead!

Historical caches you enjoyed were probably well maintained. Otherwise they would not still be there or have been so memorable. Would you have been thrilled if the cache were open, full of water without a log to sign? This is the most important point of all, maintenance. Some people place caches and afterwards the guidelines they agreed to are soon forgotten and a new hobby has taken the forefront. In asking for caches to be UPDATED by some time frame we can eliminate some of the trash that is left in their wake.

 

I am not sure crappy caches will be addressed by any method.

Not a bad idea. We could also tear down Stonehenge, The Pyramides, the Great Wall of Chinan, Neuschwanstein and the Eremitage just to replace them with a nice new Mall or an Theme Park. Image what great micros could be placed in their parking lots!

GermanSailor

Currently I don't see caching on the same scale as Stonehenge, not sure about Pyramides or the Great Wall of Chinan though.

So? Fix them up and maintain them anyway if you like them. Just because your name isn't on the page doesn't mean you can't pick up the slack of the missing owner if you want to.

This is done in our area quite often. More times than not the cache owner will reciprocate in like manner for someone else. On the other hand, this would be addressed automatically.

[+TrailGators]

I really like finding some of the historical caches! I would hate to see those disappear! I had the fortune of finding the oldest cache in California. I also found an awesome cache in the desert that Dave Ulmer was the FTF on. So I vote to keep the great older caches and to get rid of the new crappy caches instead!

Historical caches you enjoyed were probably well maintained. Otherwise they would not still be there or have been so memorable. Would you have been thrilled if the cache were open, full of water without a log to sign? This is the most important point of all, maintenance. Some people place caches and afterwards the guidelines they agreed to are soon forgotten and a new hobby has taken the forefront. In asking for caches to be UPDATED by some time frame we can eliminate some of the trash that is left in their wake.

If a cache is full of water or needs maintainance you are supposed to post a "Needs Maintenance" log. If a "Needs Maintenance log is posted and nothing is done after a certain period of time, then the cache should be either adopted by someone else or archived.

[GermanSailor]

 

Currently I don't see caching on the same scale as Stonehenge, not sure about Pyramides or the Great Wall of Chinan though.

 

Work on your attitude towards caching, dude! Just kidding of course. You are right, but what I meant to say that one shouldn't automatically scrap things because they are getting old. Otherwise we never leave any historic places of our age. But I guess thats a cultural difference here. Europeans seem to appreciate old things more. (And love all the cool new working up to date things which come from the US! )

 

I think the best comment so far was:

Why should I archive my ammo box hidden near a scenic waterfall so someone can slap a Hide a Key on a guardrail 500 feet away?"

by briansnat

 

Ideally the location is what makes the cache great, and that rarely changes.

 

GermanSailor

Edited November 16, 2006 by GermanSailor

[+Isonzo Karst]

This is somewhat off topic, but I noticed this a few posts up and wanted to address it

 

"Needs Maintenance log is posted and nothing is done after a certain period of time, then the cache should be either adopted by someone else or archived.

 

While that may be true, it seems to imply some sort of process to assure that happening. Needs Maintenance logs go to cache owners, not reviewers. If you want a reviewer to look at cache, use the Needs Archived log.

 

Back on topic, somewhere in a thread on the website forum there was a suggestion that caches belonging to owners that hadn't logged in for a year would get some kind of flagging. Jeremy responded with a hm, yeah maybe kind of interest. The problem, I suspect (I'm no expert in data base management) is the number of hits to the database to scrape for that information. This site can get slow, without adding anymore check every listing/profile functions. I'm guessing that the programming and server load costs involved with any auto-expiry on cache listings would be considerable. Not to say that at some future point there might not be enough grumpiness about stale abandoned caches to implement it.

[+trignet]

 

The problem, I suspect (I'm no expert in data base management) is the number of hits to the database to scrape for that information. This site can get slow, without adding anymore check every listing/profile functions. I'm guessing that the programming and server load costs involved with any auto-expiry on cache listings would be considerable.

 

and not to mention a technical or programming glitch that archives or offlines your cache.

Ever miss paying thephone bill by 1 day? and when you get ahold of someone, it was a computer glitch and your payment didn't get posted as soon as they got it or whatever the excuse was?

anyone here post on MI-geocaching.org?

I have noticed that the time there is not on sync? My time here says 10 am today, theirs says 6 pm tonight?

and for the record, I am in the same time zone as the server, I checked.

but something like that could drop an active cache.

[+chizu]

some old caches are useless.

 

on the other hand, mature caches from the early days are harder and harder to find and they are important artifacts of our collective history.

 

Surely all caches are pretty useless - doesn't make it less fun finding them! Whether they are enjoyable or not though is a different matter, and that's surely subjective.

[Not So Lost Puppies]

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

 

Ahh...the catch....the original hider has long since bailed out of the game, and doesn't respond to requests to allow the cache to be adopted. I even spoke to the owner of the 2 abandoned geotrash piles via phone, and he was not interested in maintaining them or giving them up. The only option left at that point is the SBA.

I may be wrong, but I believe that reviewers have the ability to adopt out caches to others, just as they have the ability to archive them. Though it is, and should be a very rarely used option.

[+TrailGators]

Would you have been thrilled if the cache were open, full of water without a log to sign? This is the most important point of all, maintenance. Some people place caches and afterwards the guidelines they agreed to are soon forgotten and a new hobby has taken the forefront. In asking for caches to be UPDATED by some time frame we can eliminate some of the trash that is left in their wake.

If a cache is full of water or needs maintainance you are supposed to post a "Needs Maintenance" log. If a"Needs Maintenance log is posted and nothing is done after a certain period of time, then the cache should be either adopted by someone else or archived.

While that may be true, it seems to imply some sort of process to assure that happening. Needs Maintenance logs go to cache owners, not reviewers. If you want a reviewer to look at cache, use the Needs Archived log.

The process we have now is very clear. When somebody finds a cache that needs maintenance they "should" post a "Needs Maintenance" log to notify the owner. The next step in the process is to post an SBA log. However, you should not post an SBA log until you have given the cache owner a reasonable amount of time to take care of the cache.

 

I think that a "blind" time limit will cause false triggers on caches that are perfectly maintained. However, if there was time limit that began after the "Needs Maintenance log was posted then it would help!

[+Renegade Knight]

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

 

Ahh...the catch....the original hider has long since bailed out of the game, and doesn't respond to requests to allow the cache to be adopted. I even spoke to the owner of the 2 abandoned geotrash piles via phone, and he was not interested in maintaining them or giving them up. The only option left at that point is the SBA.

I may be wrong, but I believe that reviewers have the ability to adopt out caches to others, just as they have the ability to archive them. Though it is, and should be a very rarely used option.

 

You are correct. The cache could be adopted if the owner consents. With a little more legwork reviewers can and do grant adoptions where the isn't around to grant permission.

[+Renegade Knight]

... If a cache is full of water or needs maintainance you are supposed to post a "Needs Maintenance" log. If a "Needs Maintenance log is posted and nothing is done after a certain period of time, then the cache should be either adopted by someone else or archived.

 

A key problem is that people don't agree on a reasonable amount of time. I'm inclined to give folks at least a year. Maybe more. Things happen and knowing this I'm willing to cut others some slack.

 

Plus I find it hard to remember at the time when it would do me some good. Right now I need a specific container found at WalMart. When I'm at walmart I'm in "groceries" mode or "home repair" mode and tend to forget the cache. I can make a list but I'm good at forgetting the list. I will remember but not "Immediatly" like some would like. That's life. If someone who doesn't know me doesn't have the patience they can go buy my container, they can go place it, fix the cache, then send me the bill. Otherwise they should probably either come over nad have a beer and help me out so I can get out, or just shut the heck up about my cache.

 

Is my "NM Log" pet peeve showing?

[+Ambrosia]

There is also nothing wrong with the local cachers adopting an otherwise abandoned cache and keeping it alive and well.

 

Ahh...the catch....the original hider has long since bailed out of the game, and doesn't respond to requests to allow the cache to be adopted. I even spoke to the owner of the 2 abandoned geotrash piles via phone, and he was not interested in maintaining them or giving them up. The only option left at that point is the SBA.

I may be wrong, but I believe that reviewers have the ability to adopt out caches to others, just as they have the ability to archive them. Though it is, and should be a very rarely used option.

 

You are correct. The cache could be adopted if the owner consents. With a little more legwork reviewers can and do grant adoptions where the isn't around to grant permission.

Yes. We have a cache here that I wanted to adopt, that was my second find in '02, and is the 8th oldest cache in WA state (at the time I wanted to adopt it, it was the 9th oldest cache). The cache was not being maintained for a long time and was not doing well. I emailed the owner and got no response, and the owner hadn't signed into the site for a while. I contacted my local reviewer who then tried to contact the owner as well. If my memory serves right, the email showed as inactive to the reviewer. After a couple weeks to make sure, the reviewer transfered the cache over to me.

 

I'm very happy to be able to help maintain a big part of our WA state caching history.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ambrosia

[+TrailGators]

... If a cache is full of water or needs maintainance you are supposed to post a "Needs Maintenance" log. If a "Needs Maintenance log is posted and nothing is done after a certain period of time, then the cache should be either adopted by someone else or archived.

 

A key problem is that people don't agree on a reasonable amount of time. I'm inclined to give folks at least a year. Maybe more. Things happen and knowing this I'm willing to cut others some slack.

 

Plus I find it hard to remember at the time when it would do me some good. Right now I need a specific container found at WalMart. When I'm at walmart I'm in "groceries" mode or "home repair" mode and tend to forget the cache. I can make a list but I'm good at forgetting the list. I will remember but not "Immediatly" like some would like. That's life. If someone who doesn't know me doesn't have the patience they can go buy my container, they can go place it, fix the cache, then send me the bill. Otherwise they should probably either come over and have a beer and help me out so I can get out, or just shut the heck up about my cache.

 

Is my "NM Log" pet peeve showing?

 

I see your point, but a NM cache should be temporarily archived until it is repaired so people don't waste their time on it. Perhaps a timit limit could be set for that to happen.....

[+sbell111]

I see your point, but a NM cache should be temporarily archived until it is repaired so people don't waste their time on it. Perhaps a timit limit could be set for that to happen.....

Why?

 

Someone posts 'needs maintenance' because the log book is full, or because someone stole all the swag but left the logbook in the container, or there is PI nearby, or because the super cool camo is damaged. Should the cache be automatically 'temporarily archived' for these reasons?

[+Ambrosia]

I assume "temporarily archived" means "disabled".