Jump to content

Geolitter in Fort Worden State Park


shunra

Recommended Posts

PNWAdmin just archived a cache in Fort Worden State Park, because the owner is apparently awol.

 

The cache itself, however, is in fine shape.

 

If anyone has a problem with this cache, it would make more sense to reactivate it and ask the next finder to remove the containers and waypoints.

 

Archiving a cache without removing the container creates geolitter.

It is irresponsible, and confirms all the bad prejudices that the Fort Worden State Park people have about GC.com anyway.

 

It also destroys the goodwill that out local caching community is trying to create with the State Park staff.

Link to comment

PNWAdmin just archived a cache in Fort Worden State Park, because the owner is apparently awol.

 

The cache itself, however, is in fine shape.

 

If anyone has a problem with this cache, it would make more sense to reactivate it and ask the next finder to remove the containers and waypoints.

 

Archiving a cache without removing the container creates geolitter.

It is irresponsible, and confirms all the bad prejudices that the Fort Worden State Park people have about GC.com anyway.

 

It also destroys the goodwill that out local caching community is trying to create with the State Park staff.

 

Which cache?

Link to comment

PNWAdmin just archived a cache in Fort Worden State Park, because the owner is apparently awol.

 

The cache itself, however, is in fine shape.

 

If anyone has a problem with this cache, it would make more sense to reactivate it and ask the next finder to remove the containers and waypoints.

 

Archiving a cache without removing the container creates geolitter.

It is irresponsible, and confirms all the bad prejudices that the Fort Worden State Park people have about GC.com anyway.

 

It also destroys the goodwill that out local caching community is trying to create with the State Park staff.

 

It would make more sense to me to have it adopted.

Link to comment

PNWAdmin just archived a cache in Fort Worden State Park, because the owner is apparently awol.

 

The cache itself, however, is in fine shape.

 

If anyone has a problem with this cache, it would make more sense to reactivate it and ask the next finder to remove the containers and waypoints.

 

Archiving a cache without removing the container creates geolitter.

It is irresponsible, and confirms all the bad prejudices that the Fort Worden State Park people have about GC.com anyway.

 

It also destroys the goodwill that out local caching community is trying to create with the State Park staff.

 

It would make more sense to me to have it adopted.

 

It would, and I would have asked to adopt it if it hadn't been in a state park.

 

(The cache we're talking about is GCMYAC)

 

But PNWAdmin has reactivated the cache.

Glad to have it back. Thanks!

Edited by shunra
Link to comment

Let's see, a string of 5 DNFs over a 2 month span - not a peep from the owner. A disabling and 1-month warning from an approver, and again not a peep from the owner, who could have enabled the cache at any time, but instead did nothing. Can't really blame the approver for assuming its an abandoned cache.

Read each of the DNFs. They don't all pertain to the same waypoint or for the same reason.

 

Shunra also made the effort and went out to check on the cachein October in lieu of the owner's absence...

 

WP #1 is in place - saw it today.

WP #2 has only one DNF on it since it was last found. One other person declined because it was too crowded.

WP #3 was found as recently as two weeks ago, and nobody who had the coordinates for it has DNFed on it yet.

WP #4 is where most people fail, but it is in place, and actually quite easy if you read previous logs. I also saw it last week, and it is very unlikely to get dislodged ever.

 

I wonder which WP is presumed to be missing, and on basis of which DNF. I think this cache should remain active.

 

...and again in November to confirm the cache and all waypoints are as they should be... in place and in good condition.

 

Walked in the woods today. Checked on the location of the final - it is just where it should be.

 

I know of a few caches that are OK to remain this way when someone else checks on it. Why this one was archived as an exception without a request to retrieve it, only the reviewer can answer to.

Link to comment

I know of a few caches that are OK to remain this way when someone else checks on it. Why this one was archived as an exception without a request to retrieve it, only the reviewer can answer to.

 

Geocaching.com is a listing service only, they don't own caches the cache hider does. Since some caches are listed on more than one listing service it is not up to Groundspeak or it's volunteers to make sure the cache is removed.

 

In this case there was a string of DNF's and PNWadmin posted a disable note to the cache page asking the cache hider to make sure all was right with the cache. After a month passed with no note from the owner to the cache page or to PNWadmin the cache was archived. This is pretty standard procedure for taking care of caches that appear to have been abandoned.

 

An archival is not forever, as noted this cache has already been unarchived. It does however seem to be a pretty effective tool for getting a cache owners attention. :ph34r:

Link to comment

While this is only distantly related to this thread, I wanted to put a plug in for PNWAdmin who approved a cache of ours on Thanksgiving Day less than an hour after we had submitted it. The cache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=15adeb4d-74ca-4b7e-b1f9-3f4f0a744e6d) is in memory of our geopup (and namesake for Puppers) who passed away the Sunday before Thanksgiving. We never expected the reviewers to be working over the holidays and this speaks volumes to their dedication and service.

Edited by Puppers
Link to comment

Let's see, a string of 5 DNFs over a 2 month span - not a peep from the owner. A disabling and 1-month warning from an approver, and again not a peep from the owner, who could have enabled the cache at any time, but instead did nothing. Can't really blame the approver for assuming its an abandoned cache.

Read each of the DNFs. They don't all pertain to the same waypoint or for the same reason.

 

Shunra also made the effort and went out to check on the cachein October in lieu of the owner's absence...

 

WP #1 is in place - saw it today.

WP #2 has only one DNF on it since it was last found. One other person declined because it was too crowded.

WP #3 was found as recently as two weeks ago, and nobody who had the coordinates for it has DNFed on it yet.

WP #4 is where most people fail, but it is in place, and actually quite easy if you read previous logs. I also saw it last week, and it is very unlikely to get dislodged ever.

 

I wonder which WP is presumed to be missing, and on basis of which DNF. I think this cache should remain active.

 

...and again in November to confirm the cache and all waypoints are as they should be... in place and in good condition.

 

Walked in the woods today. Checked on the location of the final - it is just where it should be.

 

I know of a few caches that are OK to remain this way when someone else checks on it. Why this one was archived as an exception without a request to retrieve it, only the reviewer can answer to.

 

Shunra doesn't own the cache. Where were the owner's posts? Nowhere. The conclusion that the owner had abandoned the cache is a completely rational one.

Link to comment

I'm not disparaging the reviewers, but let's be clear...

 

AS I said before...

 

I know of a few caches that are OK to remain this way when someone else checks on it.

 

That indicates other than the owner, in case you missed it. (To paraphrase Foghorn - I keep tossin' 'em and someone keeps missin' 'em)

 

Apparently a decision to start enforcing the owner maintenance was made because of the new State Park rules.

 

That would preclude the same impression I had as Shunra, IF somebody other than the owner went out and verified the waypoints this third party inspection would be accepted.

 

That being said, with the new state park rules, the archival with the thought the cache was abandoned without removal of the cache, also goes against the new state park rules. Period. We don't have room for assumptions that it might be listed on another site (if nobody is going to make the time to validate that assumption) with the new rules.

 

My suggestion then, is for cooperation between all web sites to check with each other to accomodate the new state park rules. Or, do my customer service test, generate an owner complaint by removing the cache after it's declared abandoned and archived by the reviewer.

Link to comment

Let's see, a string of 5 DNFs over a 2 month span - not a peep from the owner. A disabling and 1-month warning from an approver, and again not a peep from the owner, who could have enabled the cache at any time, but instead did nothing. Can't really blame the approver for assuming its an abandoned cache.

 

Which has nothing to do with a viable cache, and doesn't automaticly create a need to archive it.

 

I'm glad to see it brought back.

Link to comment

Since some caches are listed on more than one listing service it is not up to Groundspeak or it's volunteers to make sure the cache is removed.

My suggestion then, is for cooperation between all web sites to check with each other to accomodate the new state park rules.

Just curious: Which listing sites do you have in mind? Navicache.com appears to be essentially dead (at least around here), and terracaching.com generally prohibits cross-listing of caches (that is, they are likely to be voted into archival). Is cross-listing between geocaching.com and navicache.com really an issue?

 

I agree that it is not Groundspeak's or the volunteers' responsibility to remove archived caches (crosslisted or not), but I also suggest that we might not want to contribute to that problem by archiving a cache that is known to be in place.

 

It also seems to me that there ought to be a means to allow adoption of an abandoned cache. I understand Groundspeak's rationale in generally not allowing that - they don't "own" the cache so how could they transfer ownership - but it seems to me that anyone who places a cache out on public property and then abandons it (e.g., ignores maintenance needs) has relinquished whatever ownership they may have had in it. More importantly, cross-listed or not, all Groundspeak would be doing is transferring the right to administer the listing on gc.com - without making any judgment as to who owns the box and the junk in it. And I assume Groundspeak's position is that it controls who has access to listings on its site, so that should be no problem.

Link to comment

Since some caches are listed on more than one listing service it is not up to Groundspeak or it's volunteers to make sure the cache is removed.

My suggestion then, is for cooperation between all web sites to check with each other to accomodate the new state park rules.

Just curious: Which listing sites do you have in mind? Navicache.com appears to be essentially dead (at least around here), and terracaching.com generally prohibits cross-listing of caches (that is, they are likely to be voted into archival). Is cross-listing between geocaching.com and navicache.com really an issue?

 

I agree that it is not Groundspeak's or the volunteers' responsibility to remove archived caches (crosslisted or not), but I also suggest that we might not want to contribute to that problem by archiving a cache that is known to be in place.

 

It also seems to me that there ought to be a means to allow adoption of an abandoned cache. I understand Groundspeak's rationale in generally not allowing that - they don't "own" the cache so how could they transfer ownership - but it seems to me that anyone who places a cache out on public property and then abandons it (e.g., ignores maintenance needs) has relinquished whatever ownership they may have had in it. More importantly, cross-listed or not, all Groundspeak would be doing is transferring the right to administer the listing on gc.com - without making any judgment as to who owns the box and the junk in it. And I assume Groundspeak's position is that it controls who has access to listings on its site, so that should be no problem.

As I don't belong to other listing sites, I was unaware of their policy or likely demise. Given that status, calling for a volunteer to go out and pick up the geolitter would not be unreasonable. I remember doing that once 3 years ago. I'm wondering why we (geocaching.com and the community) got away from that. I'm pretty proliferant in the forums and with instant notifications of archivals, and haven't seen any further calls for "cleanup" up on archivals.

 

That being said, I'm in favor with adoption over abandonment by archival. We have many cachers that are willing to pick up the slack by adoption and failing that, some are willing to go out and pick up the geolitter if they happen to be in the area.

Link to comment

Caches are sort like an automobile with Groundspeak being the Department f Motor Vehicles. If I abandon my car and don't license it, it doesn't become community property for somebody else to license without my agreement. <_<

 

I think the Groundspeak approvers have the right to archive the listing if the owner is non-responsive but don't have the right to transfer ownership without owner concurrence. It doesn't matter if the car is operational or not, it still belongs to the owner and not the community.

 

I find no fault with the action taken by PNWAdmin or the actions that resulted.

Link to comment

If you abandon your car on public property it can be towed out at your expense, and the city or state will hunt you down for it by denying your renewal of driver's license. If you abandon your car on private property, it's up to the property owner to get rid of it after due diligence and can go after you in small claims court. You have no say if it isn't on your property and you don't take appropriate action on the due diligence given you regarding that abandoned vehicle.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the abandonment conflicting with the message we (WSGA) have given the parks department which is supposed to be consistent with geocaching.com?

 

And let's go back to the subject of adoption of the cache. There have been caches that have been adopted that were obviously long abandoned by the owner. So this message is a bit inconsistent as well.

 

Fwiw, I'm no longer arguing the actions taken. As I noted above, I'm not disparaging the reviewers. I'm questioning the inconsistency and this is a good thread for it as example.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

If you abandon your car on public property it can be towed out at your expense, and the city or state will hunt you down for it by denying your renewal of driver's license. If you abandon your car on private property, it's up to the property owner to get rid of it after due diligence and can go after you in small claims court. You have no say if it isn't on your property and you don't take appropriate action on the due diligence given you regarding that abandoned vehicle.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the abandonment conflicting with the message we (WSGA) have given the parks department which is supposed to be consistent with geocaching.com?

 

And let's go back to the subject of adoption of the cache. There have been caches that have been adopted that were obviously long abandoned by the owner. So this message is a bit inconsistent as well.

 

Fwiw, I'm no longer arguing the actions taken. As I noted above, I'm not disparaging the reviewers. I'm questioning the inconsistency and this is a good thread for it as example.

 

Yes there are reasons for not having geolitter just like we don't want a bunch of abandoned cars. Regardless of past actions I feel a third party has no right to adopt a cache without owner consent just like I have no right to start driving an abandoned car.

 

Regarding the State Parks.......well let's just say a whole bunch of rules were established giving them the right to deal with caches. I don't see (or want) similar rules giving somebody the right to adopt a cache without the owners position.

Link to comment

Yes there are reasons for not having geolitter just like we don't want a bunch of abandoned cars. Regardless of past actions I feel a third party has no right to adopt a cache without owner consent just like I have no right to start driving an abandoned car.

I don't think your analogy really fits. The Department of Licensing determines your right to drive your vehicle on public streets. If you abandon your vehicle, you're right, DOL has no right to transfer ownership and allow someone else to drive it around. (Though, an unlicensed vehicle (e.g., a total) that is abandoned on a public street (e.g., by a thief who found he stole a liability) does, interestingly enough, become public property. Don't ask me how I know. :laughing: )

 

On the other hand, Groundspeak doesn't license caches. It doesn't give you permission to place one anywhere, or to do anything other than place a listing for your cache on its web site. Allowing adoption of a cache, as that term is used on this site, does nothing more than transfer control over the listing. It says nothing about ownership of the cache - a legal issue over which Groundspeak has no control, and one that is in fact pretty nebulous to begin with. Groundspeak clearly exercises control over the listings. It will deny a listing (through its volunteer reviewers) if it doesn't meet site guidelines. Perhaps more on point, Groundspeak reserves and exercises its right to ban members - completely cutting them off from "their" listings. Allowing adoption of a listing without the "owner's" consent (because the owner has abandoned the listing and will not respond to maintenance requests as required by site guidelines) is functionally no different. Surely, if that "owner" then materialized and adequately explained why he failed to respond, Groundspeak would consider returning control of the listing. I have no problem with any of that. All one has to do to avoid having one's listing transfered to someone else is respond to requests for needed maintenance. Why would anyone have a problem with that, particularly when the current alternative sometimes leads to the the archiving of a listing when the physical cache is still sitting out there in the woods?

Link to comment

Yes there are reasons for not having geolitter just like we don't want a bunch of abandoned cars. Regardless of past actions I feel a third party has no right to adopt a cache without owner consent just like I have no right to start driving an abandoned car.

I don't think your analogy really fits....

 

Runhills has a fairly good grasp of the situation. You could be right in that this site may start exercising control of the listing. That would be bad news on several fronts not the least of which is legal liablity for the placment of caches for when they assume control of what should be OWNER controlled listings (for a lot of reasons). This discussion should take place in another thread.

 

That aside, this site would need to change it's TOS to start adopting out caches or putting out a CRM (cache rescue mission) cache to retrieve the cache upon archival. With a change in the TOS people would know if they don't respond within a specific time frame their cache will be archived and removed. Without it that cache is personal property and if this site doesn't want to verify the caches final disposition they have no choice but to leave it up to the owner to retrieve as time permits if they ever do.

Link to comment

I guess I accept all answers and reasonings behind the why.

 

My concern falls into the human behavior issue.

 

The owner doesn't respond to requests.

The listing service doesn't want to maintain the listing so archives it.

The owner not responding, is most of the time likely not going to go out and pick up that box.

We now have a location that was effectively littered.

 

Recourse?

Little to none. Phony names can be given when signing up to the service. Even if the name is real, contact info is scant and can go stale.

 

Solution?

Without some kind of organizational (local or otherwise) policy of cache rescue or adoption, there appears to be none encouraged.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

I guess I accept all answers and reasonings behind the why.

 

My concern falls into the human behavior issue.

 

The owner doesn't respond to requests.

The listing service doesn't want to maintain the listing so archives it.

The owner not responding, is most of the time likely not going to go out and pick up that box.

We now have a location that was effectively littered.

 

Recourse?

Little to none. Phony names can be given when signing up to the service. Even if the name is real, contact info is scant and can go stale.

 

Solution?

Without some kind of organizational (local or otherwise) policy of cache rescue or adoption, there appears to be none encouraged.

 

I hate being on the opposite side of the argument but nobody else has the right to arbitarily decide when my property is no longer mine and give it to another private party. No matter how long a fancy dancy car is left abandoned, nobody has the right to arbitrarily give it to someone else to use.

 

This is not part of the Groundspeak written policy now and if looks like the way policy will be developed, I will pull my personal property expecting Groundspeak to furnish the materials required for a hide. :laughing:

Link to comment

The cache was obviously abandoned by the owner, and will probably be abandoned again, since he lives far away.

After notification of the owner and not getting a response, approvers have the following options:

 

(1) Just archive the listing, and walk away from half a dozen WP containers-turned-geolitter.

(2) Leave the abandoned cache in place, who cares.

(3) Ask that someone (the next finder, for instance) remove the containers, and THEN archive the listing.

 

I believe the third option is the only responsible one. PNWAdmin chose for option (1).

 

My problem is specifically not with the archival itself, which was fully justified, but with the way it was done, the geolitter it was about to cause in the park, to the relationship between the State Parks and GC.com in general, and to the trust between the park rangers and the caching community on location.

Edited by shunra
Link to comment

After notification of the owner and not getting a response, approvers have the following options:

 

(1) Just archive the listing, and walk away from half a dozen WP containers-turned-geolitter.

(2) Leave the abandoned cache in place, who cares.

(3) Ask that someone (the next finder, for instance) remove the containers, and THEN archive the listing.

 

I believe the third option is the only responsible one. PNWAdmin chose for option (1).

You're assuming he hasn't already arranged for its removal.

Link to comment

My concern falls into the human behavior issue.

 

The owner doesn't respond to requests.

The listing service doesn't want to maintain the listing so archives it.

The owner not responding, is most of the time likely not going to go out and pick up that box.

We now have a location that was effectively littered.

...

Solution?

Without some kind of organizational (local or otherwise) policy of cache rescue or adoption, there appears to be none encouraged.

 

I hate being on the opposite side of the argument but nobody else has the right to arbitarily decide when my property is no longer mine and give it to another private party. No matter how long a fancy dancy car is left abandoned, nobody has the right to arbitrarily give it to someone else to use.

I agree with you: No one should arbitrarily take or authorize the taking of a cache. On the other hand, if there is a non-arbitrary, fair, reasonable process for allowing a cache owner to take responsibility for the cache, and he fails to do so, I do think it is in the best interest of this game (and our relationship with land managers) to make provision for continued maintenance of or physical removal of abandoned caches. In most cases, the cache owner is not simply sitting back, monitoring and waiting for just the right time to jump back in and start taking care of his cache; in most cases, the owner is gone from the game and probably for good. By the same token, in most cases, if a cache is adopted, it isn't going anywhere. To be clear, my suggestion includes the notion that if the original owner did step forward to reclaim the cache, he could certainly do so. But in the meantime, I think it behooves us to find a way to minimize the geolitter problem. I hate the thought of hundreds or thousands of abandoned, non-listed caches sitting out there giving our game a bad reputation with land managers.

Link to comment

I don't think it's a good idea to press for the adoption of all abandoned caches. Just because a cache has met the requirements for publication doesn't mean that it needs to be a historical artifact. Far better to archive the ones that don't stand out and open up the area for new caches. What to do about the geolitter though? Even though geocaching.com does not own caches, it still reflects badly on the game and organization to have old cache containers moldering away indefinitely. Our admins give cache owners repeated warnings over a long period of time before archiving abandoned caches. If the cache owner objects after their cache is finally archived for them, I have no sympathy for that cache owner. As a matter of fact, it irks me that those irresponsible cache owners waste so much of our admins time to repeatedly remind them to take care of their caches. I'd like to see a way of motivating active cachers to remove geolitter caches that have been archived by an admin because they have been abandoned, or archived by a cache owner who doesn't bother to pick up the remnants of their cache. Maybe a trash can icon that goes on our list of geocaches found, which tallies the number of abandoned geolitter caches we have removed from the environment.

Link to comment

TM, there is no dispute about the fact that the owner was not responding, but is that a reason for archival if the container is in place and in fine shape? And even if it is - if the owner had not woken up for a few minutes and said he had wanted to keep the cache, we'd be stuck with geolitter now.

 

* The owner, out of state and having lost interest, would obviously not have cleared it up.

* The approver would not have come all the way to do it himself

* There would be no listing left to ask a next finder to remove the containers and waypoints.

* No local cacher was asked to volunteer and remove the cache.

 

The bottom line is that an approver wilfully chose to archive a cache in such a way that would turn it into forgotten geolitter in a state park.

 

This is particularly egregious in this case, since cache placements in Fort Worden State Park are closely monitored by rangers hostile to GC.com.

Link to comment

Before you wonder why a Pennsylvanian is barging into a thread in the Northwest Forum, let me say that I've found caches in Fort Worden State Park. I visited the park with PNW Admin, Team Misguided and others on a goodwill mission to promote better relations with the park. (They do stuff like that, you know... without a lot of publicity.) I moved a travel bug across the country after it was liberated from a cache that the rangers had removed. It's a beautiful park.

 

It seems to me that PNW Admin did the only thing which protocol allows him to do. That protocol is shaped, in part, by past complaints in the forums:

 

-- Do nothing, and people whine in the forums that GC.com is tolerating unmaintained cache listings that clutter the "nearest caches" list with caches that cannot be found.

 

-- Advocate for the removal of the cache, and incur the forum wrath of those who regard this as interference with personal property rights, including the right to cross-list a cache on other listing services.

 

OK, so Navicaching may not be too popular in Washington. It is more popular where I cache. This year, a dozen or so caches were archived near me by a hider who geocided and moved all his caches to Navicache. They remain in place. So, a consistent rule is needed for all to follow.

 

There is a clear procedure for both voluntary and involuntary cache adoptions. It can be found here. The procedure for involuntary adoption is not applicable if the owner remains active.

 

I'll remember this thread the next time someone whines about the vacation cache / maintainable distance guideline.

 

Place the blame on the cache owner, where it rightly belongs.

Link to comment

I'd just like to point out that all the DNF notes and the disable note by PNWadmin were ignored by the wayward cache owner. The archive note got his attention. Anyone consider that maybe, just maybe that PNWadmin knew that's what it would take to get a response from the cache owner??

I think this is a good thing that it happened that way. I may be wrong and you can feel free to point it out, but my perception is that's the exception. What about the others where the owner has not responded?

 

Edited to add I see where our good friend The Leprechauns has partially answered my question. I don't think it covers all the bets though it does try to cover as best it can. And again, I'm not disparaging PNW Admin's actions. You guys are the epitome of ethics in this sport based on the guidelines you need to follow.

 

I'm looking for a way to handle the geolitter that gets left behind by owners who have not listed on other sites, and frankly don't care they left their carp behind.

 

Maybe I'm barking up a tree at a non problem. But then again...

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

The key here is that the Groundspeak Reviewer team cannot and should not get involved in removing geolitter.

 

The WSGA promotes our membership as being responsible and self-policing. I cannot suggest a specific course of action, but many other geocaching communities have ways of handing abandoned caches such as this one. It is generally something that is monitored through their club websites.

Edited by Team Misguided
Link to comment

The key here is that the Groundspeak Reviewer team cannot and should not get involved in removing geolitter.

 

The WSGA promotes our membership as being responsible and self-policing. I cannot suggest a specific course of action, but many othere geocaching communities have ways of handing abandoned caches such as this one. It is generally something that is monitered through their club websites.

I still think that creating an icon for cleaning up geolitter would take care of the problem tout de suite. Lots of cachers like icons and watching their numbers grow, so it would motivate active cachers to clean up geolitter (after a cache is archived) without any involvement from reviewers.

Link to comment

The key here is that the Groundspeak Reviewer team cannot and should not get involved in removing geolitter.

 

The WSGA promotes our membership as being responsible and self-policing. I cannot suggest a specific course of action, but many othere geocaching communities have ways of handing abandoned caches such as this one. It is generally something that is monitered through their club websites.

I still think that creating an icon for cleaning up geolitter would take care of the problem tout de suite. Lots of cachers like icons and watching their numbers grow, so it would motivate active cachers to clean up geolitter (after a cache is archived) without any involvement from reviewers.

So not only will we have the FTF Hounds, for which there is no icon, but we would have the LTF (last to find) Hounds for which there would be an icon.

Link to comment

The key here is that the Groundspeak Reviewer team cannot and should not get involved in removing geolitter.

 

Very interesting.

 

Several of the SBAs that I have posted (in case of delapidated containers and obviously absentee owners) have been followed up by reviewer requests that the following finder remove the litter. As soon as that was done, the cache was archived.

 

This is a perfect course of action: If the owner should suddenly wake up (as in the present case), he need only say so, and the reviewer could remove their note, and the cache remain active. If he remained absent, the litter would have been removed, as it has been in so many cases.

 

I don't understand why those reasonable ordinary Groundspeak procedure could not have followed this time.

Link to comment

I guess I accept all answers and reasonings behind the why.

 

My concern falls into the human behavior issue.

 

The owner doesn't respond to requests.

The listing service doesn't want to maintain the listing so archives it.

The owner not responding, is most of the time likely not going to go out and pick up that box.

We now have a location that was effectively littered.

 

So I have a real life example in Auburn. Wrong Way was the only cache listed by a cacher. There have been problems lately finding it, especially after the flooding. I have tried to get in touch with the owner for about 3 months.

 

Where is the point where we should think about getting someone to adopt the cache? Its a good cache, but I think it needs someone owning it to make sure it stays a good cache.

 

cheers,

Poppa J

Link to comment

Here is what Michigan cachers do. They also have part of the leaderboard on the front page of the site, near the bottom.

 

I took a quick look at this, and it looks like a cool thing to promote here in Washington. Essentially you have people volunteering to go out after archived caches, and verify the cache and any geo-litter is gone.

 

cheers,

Poppa J

Link to comment

For the record, PNWAdmin archived and requested the removal of this geolitter which was sucessfully handled after it became apparent the owner had no intention of following through with their responsibility.

 

This is the mechanism I was looking for in order to stay good with a park permit system upon an administrative archival of a cache.

 

Kudos to PNWAdmin for the way this was handled.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...