Container Pick up or Missing option

[+LSUMonica]

I'm really not sure the best way to implement this suggestion but here it is...

 

Quite often I am seeing people archiving caches simply due to lack of maintenance time which means the container is STILL THERE!! So now our game/hobby/obsession is contributing to the litter problem.

 

What I would like to see is some sort of option or checkbox to indicate that the owner has or has not picked up the container or that it has been verified as missing. This would allow people who may still have the coordinates to the cache be the LAST TO FIND and pick up the container if the container was left in place. Of course we would need an option to indicate that we have picked it up.

 

Just a thought and suggestion...

[+TeamHarrison]

Great idea! Environmentally conscious and avoids bad P.R. for Geocaching! Awesome! TPTB should implement this ASAP.

 

I'll sit back now and watch the usual bunch shoot the idea to pieces. LOL. Sorry, getting a bit jaded by the forums I guess. Double-LOL!

[+ThePropers]

I too like this idea. It kindof had a sortof similar idea in this post but unfortunately it was part of another thread that kindof turned into a flame-fest. I'll just quote the relevant info below.

 

What I would actually like to see implemented is some kindof feature like this, but there are too many semantics, I suppose

1. Automatic weekly/monthly job to scour the database for any caches owned by users who haven't logged onto the site for X time (say 6 months).
   
2. Automatically post note to cache page asking for response to verify the owner is still around, still interested in geocaching, and still interested in owning/maintaining their cache(s). Maybe email them a simple link to click on that would just verify they are still around.
   
3. If no response in X time (say 1 month), put the cache up for adoption (which might mean another reviewer log type).
   

Everything up to that point could be an automatic process. How to actually find an adopter in the area would require some thought, as well as what should happen if no adopter can be found. I think archiving the cache would be fine, but then someone would have to clean it up. That needs further thought and hashing out obviously.

 

What is my reasoning for this? Well, it would remove an "abandoned" cache that, in reality, doesn't have an owner, and open up the area for an active cacher. Also, and I'm not sure this is even a problem, if a non-cacher (like a park ranger or something) has a problem with the cache and wants it to be removed and goes through the GC site to either log a note or email the owner, and receives no response because they aren't active anymore (and maybe never even get the mail) it does reflect badly on geocaching. A think a little bit of self-policing is prudent.

 

EDIT: Perhaps when the "Up for Adoption" log is added, it could send an email to everyone who has requested notifications in the area, in order to get the word out that it's available to be adopted. Just a thought...

 

I too await the inevitable "if it ain't broke, there's no room for improvement" responses.

Edited December 21, 2006 by ThePropers

[Not So Lost Puppies]

Many local organizations have implemented "cache rescue" processes. They list archived caches and request someone to volunteer to check that the cache had been removed and any remnants of it also removed it had been destroyed.

[+supertbone]

I like this idea. I would even take it one further an do this to caches that have been temporary disabled for extended periods of time. I have caches near my house that have been disabled since 2005 and which eat up caching space. These caches are owned by active cachers who have gotten a little lazy.

 

I too like this idea. It kindof had a sortof similar idea in this post but unfortunately it was part of another thread that kindof turned into a flame-fest. I'll just quote the relevant info below.

 

What I would actually like to see implemented is some kindof feature like this, but there are too many semantics, I suppose

1. Automatic weekly/monthly job to scour the database for any caches owned by users who haven't logged onto the site for X time (say 6 months).
   
2. Automatically post note to cache page asking for response to verify the owner is still around, still interested in geocaching, and still interested in owning/maintaining their cache(s). Maybe email them a simple link to click on that would just verify they are still around.
   
3. If no response in X time (say 1 month), put the cache up for adoption (which might mean another reviewer log type).
   

Everything up to that point could be an automatic process. How to actually find an adopter in the area would require some thought, as well as what should happen if no adopter can be found. I think archiving the cache would be fine, but then someone would have to clean it up. That needs further thought and hashing out obviously.

 

What is my reasoning for this? Well, it would remove an "abandoned" cache that, in reality, doesn't have an owner, and open up the area for an active cacher. Also, and I'm not sure this is even a problem, if a non-cacher (like a park ranger or something) has a problem with the cache and wants it to be removed and goes through the GC site to either log a note or email the owner, and receives no response because they aren't active anymore (and maybe never even get the mail) it does reflect badly on geocaching. A think a little bit of self-policing is prudent.

 

EDIT: Perhaps when the "Up for Adoption" log is added, it could send an email to everyone who has requested notifications in the area, in order to get the word out that it's available to be adopted. Just a thought...

 

I too await the inevitable "if it ain't broke, there's no room for improvement" responses.

Edited December 21, 2006 by supertbone

[+The O'Hara Cache Crew]

Pardon me but, If the caches have been disabled since '05 shouldn't your local "approver" be notified and the caches archived? The ones in our "neighborhood" usually get disabled within a few months after being posted as "needs archived". Whew that was alot of "quotes".

 

I like this idea. I would even take it one further an do this to caches that have been temporary disabled for extended periods of time. I have caches near my house that have been disabled since 2005 and which eat up caching space. These caches are owned by active cachers who have gotten a little lazy.

 

I too like this idea. It kindof had a sortof similar idea in this post but unfortunately it was part of another thread that kindof turned into a flame-fest. I'll just quote the relevant info below.

 

What I would actually like to see implemented is some kindof feature like this, but there are too many semantics, I suppose

1. Automatic weekly/monthly job to scour the database for any caches owned by users who haven't logged onto the site for X time (say 6 months).
   
2. Automatically post note to cache page asking for response to verify the owner is still around, still interested in geocaching, and still interested in owning/maintaining their cache(s). Maybe email them a simple link to click on that would just verify they are still around.
   
3. If no response in X time (say 1 month), put the cache up for adoption (which might mean another reviewer log type).
   

Everything up to that point could be an automatic process. How to actually find an adopter in the area would require some thought, as well as what should happen if no adopter can be found. I think archiving the cache would be fine, but then someone would have to clean it up. That needs further thought and hashing out obviously.

 

What is my reasoning for this? Well, it would remove an "abandoned" cache that, in reality, doesn't have an owner, and open up the area for an active cacher. Also, and I'm not sure this is even a problem, if a non-cacher (like a park ranger or something) has a problem with the cache and wants it to be removed and goes through the GC site to either log a note or email the owner, and receives no response because they aren't active anymore (and maybe never even get the mail) it does reflect badly on geocaching. A think a little bit of self-policing is prudent.

 

EDIT: Perhaps when the "Up for Adoption" log is added, it could send an email to everyone who has requested notifications in the area, in order to get the word out that it's available to be adopted. Just a thought...

 

I too await the inevitable "if it ain't broke, there's no room for improvement" responses.

[+The Leprechauns]

Don't forget the checkboxes for "I'm archiving my caches here and listing them on another listing site where there are not so many rules, or finders," and for "I'm archiving my cache, but don't you dare touch it, because it's my property."

 

By the time a politically correct form is designed, it will take three screen loads to archive a cache.

 

If an owner wants assistance with retrieving a container, it's a simple proposition to say this in their archive log.

[+altosaxplayer]

I like the idea. There is one cacher in our area who archived 30+ caches at one sitting, not taking a single container from its hiding place.

 

This is a good one to implement.

[+altosaxplayer]

Oh yeah. Local cachers have been going and collecting the junk as they can.

 

The "picked up the litter" log would be nice.

Edited December 22, 2006 by altosaxplayer

[+The Leprechauns]

I like the idea. There is one cacher in our area who archived 30+ caches at one sitting, not taking a single container from its hiding place.

 

This is a good one to implement.

Did he list them on Navicache? That sounds familiar, although the number was more like 20 to 25. If the caches are re-listed elsewhere, then you are not retrieving litter.

[+altosaxplayer]

No. They were not re-listed. Most are still out in their original hiding spots.

[+The Leprechauns]

OK we are thinking of two different people. In my example, if someone went out to remove what they perceived as geolitter, and used tools provided by the listing service to label it as such, there would be an outcry from the "owner's rights" crowd.

 

I do not disagree with the noble goal of keeping the woods free of abandoned cache containers. I am simply pointing out a consequence of what's being requested. For every ten or hundred successful cleanups of truly abandoned containers, there will be one where the owner's feelings will be hurt. Guess which will generate a forum thread and mounds of e-mails to occupy the time of Groundspeak service staff and volunteers. Hint: the word "thank you" will not show up a lot in said forum thread and e-mails.

[+BlueDeuce]

I'm just wondering, if you aren't already watching the cache to see if the owner cleans it up, and then it gets archived, how is anybody going to know if this 'needs retrieval' (or not) is present? You can't search for archived caches.

 

Seems to me that you have to be involved with the issue before it gets disabled/archived/retrieved.

Edited December 22, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+9Key]

I'm just wondering, if you aren't already watching the cache to see if the owner cleans it up, and then it gets archived, how is anybody going to know if this 'needs retrieval' (or not) is present? You can't search for archived caches.

 

Seems to me that you have to be involved with the issue before it gets disabled/archived/retrieved.

I think the idea was to have a different type of search or maybe cache type if the cache needs to be removed.

[+Renegade Knight]

Don't forget the checkboxes for "I'm archiving my caches here and listing them on another listing site where there are not so many rules, or finders," and for "I'm archiving my cache, but don't you dare touch it, because it's my property."

 

By the time a politically correct form is designed, it will take three screen loads to archive a cache.

 

If an owner wants assistance with retrieving a container, it's a simple proposition to say this in their archive log.

 

Scarcasm aside, you have the gist of what needs to be done to do this.

 

The site listing TOS needs to say "all caches that are archived will have the final disposition stated, where no dispostion is stated the cache will be adopted out or collected"

 

That lets the owner say they are archiving here and listing somewhere else. Or archiving and picking up, or if they don't respond at all a Cache Rescue Mission cache (CRM) can be created out of the death of any one cache. The CRM cache remains until picked up, or enough DNF's accumulate to make it 90% sure the cache is gone.

 

It's not a perfect system, but I don't think it needs to get all that complex.

[+tozainamboku]

Don't forget the checkboxes for "I'm archiving my caches here and listing them on another listing site where there are not so many rules, or finders," and for "I'm archiving my cache, but don't you dare touch it, because it's my property."

 

By the time a politically correct form is designed, it will take three screen loads to archive a cache.

 

If an owner wants assistance with retrieving a container, it's a simple proposition to say this in their archive log.

 

Scarcasm aside, you have the gist of what needs to be done to do this.

 

The site listing TOS needs to say "all caches that are archived will have the final disposition stated, where no dispostion is stated the cache will be adopted out or collected"

 

That lets the owner say they are archiving here and listing somewhere else. Or archiving and picking up, or if they don't respond at all a Cache Rescue Mission cache (CRM) can be created out of the death of any one cache. The CRM cache remains until picked up, or enough DNF's accumulate to make it 90% sure the cache is gone.

 

It's not a perfect system, but I don't think it needs to get all that complex.

 

A cache owner who archives there own cache ought to know the status. They should be able to choose the following:

1. I have removed the cache.
   
2. The cache is probably missing, because there have been a number of DNFs. I checked and couldn't find it.
   
3. The cache is probably missing because there are a number of DNFs. I am too lazy unable to go check.
   
4. Please retrieve my cache as I am too lazy unable to do it.
   
5. Please leave my cache alone as I am listing it on another site or keeping it a private cache.
   
6. You probably want to stay away from my cache as the property owner said he would shoot anyone he saw set foot on his land.
   

When a reviewer archives a cache, they may not know the status. Although it will probably be either 3) or 6)