Jump to content

Physically Removing Archived Caches


kohldad
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Did the owner 'move' or was he deployed? Certainly, if a cache owner were being deployed, he might adopt out his active caches but let the archived ones sit in place until he returned.

 

Good point, the Navy base is a school (my son in law goes there) so no one should be deployed from there, the Army depot is very small, no one should be deployed from there either. My daughter says the Air Force base is rather large, so there could be a deployment from the Air Base.

 

But wouldn't the caches just be disabled if the owner was deployed? Again I think a responsible cache owner would have mentioned in a note or on the cache page that he/she was being deployed. That way the caches wouldn't be archived or disabled. Chances are the community would look after the caches until the owners return.

Link to comment

He might have adopted the ones out that he could and archived the rest.

 

He might also have adopted out the 'good' ones and archived the ones that he wasn't completely happy with.

 

He might have adopted out the ones without problems and archived the ones with issues.

 

He might have adopted out the active ones and let the archived ones sit for a while longer.

Link to comment

No matter how many scenarios we collectively dream up, the fact remains that, in this particular case, the cache owner was irresponsible. If you archive a cache, remove it in a timely fashion. If you can't remove it, post a note explaining when you will remove it. If you fail at this duty, you make us all look bad. If you archive a GC cache and list it elsewhere, post a note to the GC page and exchange the GC data sheet in the cache. If you fail at this duty, you confuse your fellow cachers. When you place caches, and are unwilling to take the steps necessary to resolve issues occurring as a result of your cache placement, you are irresponsible. Life teaches us that being irresponsible has negative consequences. Having your cache grow legs is one of those consequences. The OP acted rightly.

Link to comment

Why do you have an aversion with attempting to contact any cache owner before you remove his cache?

 

I don't really. I'm just reacting, I guess, to a "blanket rule" that all cache owners should be contacted when in some cases it is clearly not needed.

 

The way that I analyize an abandoned cache, one that the local community has no interest in keeping alive, there is no doubt that the owner will not respond. Most of the ones I have removed have been my containers anyway because I kept them maintained after the owner left the game or became inactive.

 

I think very few responsible cache owners will have any problems of this type. Those who are not responsible will simply continue to ignore those email contacts.

 

Cross listers, though, should certainly place a notice in their containers about all the sites it is listed on and then they should have no problems. I don't understand why they would resist doning this. Don't the other sites recommend having a note in the container?

Link to comment

I have found many archived caches and with one exception have always left them in place. It's not my cache, not my property, and I really have no idea if it is listed on another site. In at least 5 caches, the caches I found that had been archived on geocaching.com for many years WERE still listed on navicache.com. I would be pissed if a cache cop "came to the rescue" of my cache that didn't need rescuing.

 

In one case, I found a cache that had been archived 2+ years and it was garbage - rusted & falling apart, contents all over, full of water. In that case I pulled it.

 

In another case, I found a cache while hiding a new one that had never been published (didn't meet some guideline?) so I signed it and put the coords on my cache as a bonus cache.

 

Like Chilehead, I live in "Navicache Country", and it is not safe to assume it's not listed there. I do however, think the statements about "listed elsewhere" are theoretical, and not the case the vast majority of the time. I don't know, in the case of the OP, it was definately too soon to remove it. There were a couple of 2001 placements (in the same park) in my area that were disabled for about 1.5 years, pretty much because the owner never validated their account. Finally someone came along and said, "yo, these things are still here, can I adopt them"? This was admittedly when reviewers were far and few between, and caches would never sit disabled in the listings for 1.5 years these days. I don't know what to say, other than I'd leave the caches sitting there a long time before considering removing them. Edit: This is assuming negative contact with the owner!!

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

Mixed thoughts;

If the cacher listed it on NC or TC, there should be supporting documentation in the cache showing that to be the case. It's a simple matter to create an account at both those sites and see if it's been listed there. TC requires you to jump through a few hoops, but it's doable. If it's not listed at either of those sites, chances are high that it's geolitter. If you come to that conclusion, E-mail the owner and let them know you found their cache, and ask if they would like for you to remove it for them. If they ignore your E-mail, try again after a couple weeks. If that attempt fails, in my opinion, it fits the description of litter and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

It could also be a navicache or could be part of a local scavenger hunt or it could be a letterbox.

Link to comment
... If you archive a cache, remove it in a timely fashion. If you can't remove it, post a note explaining when you will remove it. If you fail at this duty, you make us all look bad.
I don't see how you make this leap. Consider this scenario: A cacher places a cache with permission. As far as the land manager is concerned, permission was given to leave the box where it is and for anyone to come onto the property to find the box. How, exactly, does it 'make us all look bad' if the cacher archives his cache on GC.com, post it to another site (TC, NC, LB, personal page, whatever), and not let us know when it will be removed? Are we that egotistical that everyone must clear all of there actions with us?
If you archive a GC cache and list it elsewhere, post a note to the GC page and exchange the GC data sheet in the cache. If you fail at this duty, you confuse your fellow cachers. When you place caches, and are unwilling to take the steps necessary to resolve issues occurring as a result of your cache placement, you are irresponsible. Life teaches us that being irresponsible has negative consequences. Having your cache grow legs is one of those consequences. The OP acted rightly.
First, a note on the GC.com page explaining where the cache is now listed could be construed as an advert for the other site, which would be uncool. Further, who said that anyone had to use a GC.com data sheet (whatever that is) in their cache? The suggestion that it is OK to steal someone's cache if they don't clear their actions with us is ... troubling at best. It also tends to 'make us all look bad'. :laughing:
Link to comment
Why do you have an aversion with attempting to contact any cache owner before you remove his cache?
I don't really. I'm just reacting, I guess, to a "blanket rule" that all cache owners should be contacted when in some cases it is clearly not needed. ...

What's the down side to such a rule?

Link to comment
Why do you have an aversion with attempting to contact any cache owner before you remove his cache?
I don't really. I'm just reacting, I guess, to a "blanket rule" that all cache owners should be contacted when in some cases it is clearly not needed. ...

What's the down side to such a rule?

 

You got me there! There will always be many situations where it will clearly not be necessary to email an obvioulsy long gone cache owner but there is certainly nothing wrong with trying it.

Link to comment
I don't see how you make this leap.

Simple logic, Brother. It's not that hard.

Consider this scenario: A cacher places a cache with assumed permission. Then they bail out of the game, archiving their caches, leaving their Tupperware in the woods. The locals know this clown is gone, and his caches are not listed anywhere else. Yet, they leave the trash in the woods to appease the handwringers in our society. Some time later a land manager finds this moldy cracked collection and discerns that it is a geocache. He checks the site as instructed by the GC Data Sheet, (AKA: Stashnote), and finds that the owner wasn't responsible enough to pick up after himself. Chances are good that this won't leave a positive impression on said land manager.

 

First, a note on the GC.com page explaining where the cache is now listed could be construed as an advert for the other site, which would be uncool.

Personally, I think Jeremy is secure enough to not be bothered by a note explaining "This cache is archived here, but is still active elsewhere". No need to advertise, or do other "uncool" acts.

 

Further, who said that anyone had to use a GC.com data sheet (whatever that is) in their cache?

From the Hiding A Cache tutorial:

Step 2 - Preparing Your Cache

It's also recommended to have a note to welcome the cache finder and let them know what it is all about (if they accidentally found the cache). We have a letter you can use in both Microsoft Word format and Text format.

Whether you call it a stashnote or a GC data sheet is irrelevant, so long as it is in the cache.

 

The suggestion that it is OK to steal someone's cache if they don't clear their actions with us is ... troubling at best. It also tends to 'make us all look bad'.

With all the promotion given by Groundspeak toward CITO efforts, the suggestion that leaving garbage in the woods is OK is ... troubling at best. And it most certainly makes us look bad.

Link to comment

Even if you throw out the cross listing argument, I don't think you should ever take out a cache without the owner's permission. That is their property. You do not know their intentions.

 

I would be pretty frustrated if I was an owner that had archived a cache and for whatever reasons had waited a while to go pick it up, only to find it gone. If someone picks it up and doesn't tell the owner, then the owner loses the logbook, the container, and anything else inside it. What if they wanted to recycle it for another cache? What if they wanted the logbook for sentimental reasons?

 

Even if you pick it up and then email and the owner says they want it, exchanges can turn into a long and drawn out process that may never even happen. Just don't do it.

I certainly agree with Ambrosia...I logged a find just the other day that was archived the previous day, which of course was not in my PDA. Container had not been removed and everything looked OK...no smiley:)

Link to comment
Consider this scenario: A cacher places a cache with assumed permission. Then they bail out of the game, archiving their caches, leaving their Tupperware in the woods. The locals know this clown is gone, and his caches are not listed anywhere else. Yet, they leave the trash in the woods to appease the handwringers in our society. Some time later a land manager finds this moldy cracked collection and discerns that it is a geocache. He checks the site as instructed by the GC Data Sheet, (AKA: Stashnote), and finds that the owner wasn't responsible enough to pick up after himself. Chances are good that this won't leave a positive impression on said land manager.
You're example assumes that 1) no actual permission was obtained, 2) that the GC.com stash note was used instead of a personal note, and 3) that the locals would actually know that the cache isn't listed anywhere else. Rather than make assumptions, it might be better to 1) give a reasonable time for the cache owner to take his own action and 2) make efforts to contact teh cache owner for clarification.
First, a note on the GC.com page explaining where the cache is now listed could be construed as an advert for the other site, which would be uncool.
Personally, I think Jeremy is secure enough to not be bothered by a note explaining "This cache is archived here, but is still active elsewhere". No need to advertise, or do other "uncool" acts.
Still, I'm not sure if it would be reasonable to assume that cache owner's are going to put a note on the cache page. After all, the cache page has been archived. It will no longer return on searches. Further, the idea that the owners must put a note on the cache page makes the assumption that most cachers are not responsible for their archived caches. I believe that the opposite is true. We assume that the cache owner is responsible for all other areas related to the cache, why not this one?
Further, who said that anyone had to use a GC.com data sheet (whatever that is) in their cache?
From the Hiding A Cache tutorial:

Step 2 - Preparing Your Cache

It's also recommended to have a note to welcome the cache finder and let them know what it is all about (if they accidentally found the cache). We have a letter you can use in both Microsoft Word format and Text format.

Whether you call it a stashnote or a GC data sheet is irrelevant, so long as it is in the cache.

No where in the quoted text did it say that anyone has to use the GC.com stash note. We've all seen personalized stash notes in caches. In fact, I bet that most owners of cross-listed caches use their own note.
The suggestion that it is OK to steal someone's cache if they don't clear their actions with us is ... troubling at best. It also tends to 'make us all look bad'.
With all the promotion given by Groundspeak toward CITO efforts, the suggestion that leaving garbage in the woods is OK is ... troubling at best. And it most certainly makes us look bad.
Without contacting the owner, you have no idea if the cache is 'garbage'. If you assume that the cache is garbage, just because it is not listed on GC.com, doesn't that infer that cachers who only use NC or TC could infer that all GC.com caches are garbage? Couldn't letterboxers infer that all caches are trash? Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

It's all the hypothetical scenarios that prevent a set of guidelines that will work in all situations. Each cache is different and will require evaluation to determine the correct steps required for removal, if it needs or should be removed at all. For this reason, I have identified my MINIMUM for dealing with archived caches.

 

One of the poster's was correct in that I live in near several military installations where over 3,000 families are transient members. There are also lots more that are in the Reserves which have also been called to duty. I would hate to remove a cache placed by one of the people that is still active. However, this is one of the reasons that I will place a note in the archived cache listing that the cache was physically removed and the log book is available.

 

At least in my searches, since these will be a series of caches by a single owner that I will be currently working when they become archived, I should have a decent understanding of why the cache was archived.

 

In this particular case, I know the cache owner is still active on GC, so a non-response will clearly indicate a lack of interest in these caches. I will further be able to evaluate that the owner has been active and on line since my attempts at contact further indicating a lack of interest.

 

Based on all the post, I feel confident that my minimum guidelines are adequate, provide reasonable time to hunters with old data, and provide sufficient accountability to the cache owner and GC.

 

Thanks to all the posters for you have shown the errors of my quick un-thought out actions and aided the formation a well thought out set of guidelines for possible removal of archived caches.

 

Kohldad's Cache Removal Guidelines

1. Wait a minimum of 12 weeks after cache is archived. This provides time for the owner to remove the cache plus any cacher with old coordinates still has a valid hunt.

2. Check to see if the cache container has been removed, leave note in log book (if present and useable).

3. Attempt to contact the cache owner at least twice with at least two weeks between attempts.

4. Attempt to determine if cache has been cross-listed on other sites.

5. Wait at least 2 weeks after last attempt before revisiting the cache.

6. Remove the cache if in same or worse condtion then when found in step 2.

7. Any trade items will be non-traded into next few caches visited

8. Add note in archived cache log indicating my actions of physically removing the cache

9. If log is salvagable, will store for at least 12 months.

Link to comment

It's all the hypothetical scenarios that prevent a set of guidelines that will work in all situations. Each cache is different and will require evaluation to determine the correct steps required for removal, if it needs or should be removed at all. For this reason, I have identified my MINIMUM for dealing with archived caches.

 

One of the poster's was correct in that I live in near several military installations where over 3,000 families are transient members. There are also lots more that are in the Reserves which have also been called to duty. I would hate to remove a cache placed by one of the people that is still active. However, this is one of the reasons that I will place a note in the archived cache listing that the cache was physically removed and the log book is available.

 

At least in my searches, since these will be a series of caches by a single owner that I will be currently working when they become archived, I should have a decent understanding of why the cache was archived.

 

In this particular case, I know the cache owner is still active on GC, so a non-response will clearly indicate a lack of interest in these caches. I will further be able to evaluate that the owner has been active and on line since my attempts at contact further indicating a lack of interest.

 

Based on all the post, I feel confident that my minimum guidelines are adequate, provide reasonable time to hunters with old data, and provide sufficient accountability to the cache owner and GC.

 

Thanks to all the posters for you have shown the errors of my quick un-thought out actions and aided the formation a well thought out set of guidelines for possible removal of archived caches.

 

Kohldad's Cache Removal Guidelines

1. Wait a minimum of 12 weeks after cache is archived. This provides time for the owner to remove the cache plus any cacher with old coordinates still has a valid hunt.

2. Check to see if the cache container has been removed, leave note in log book (if present and useable).

3. Attempt to contact the cache owner at least twice with at least two weeks between attempts.

4. Attempt to determine if cache has been cross-listed on other sites.

5. Wait at least 2 weeks after last attempt before revisiting the cache.

6. Remove the cache if in same or worse condtion then when found in step 2.

7. Any trade items will be non-traded into next few caches visited

8. Add note in archived cache log indicating my actions of physically removing the cache

9. If log is salvagable, will store for at least 12 months.

 

Well now, the Charleston, SC Chief of GeoCache Police has been self-appointed.

 

When does the posse sign up begin?

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Sorry Not being on the BOD of Geo.com I just don't know any better. I would think it up to the powers that be to bring this decision about, as to who, what and when a cache gets "Officially" removed from it's hidding place. Afterall the Owner made an agreement/contract with them to maintain it, not us.

 

Also not being a dues paying member I might not be informed well enough to discuss this endeavor but IMHO I would think the person that wants to act on behalf of another (orgainization or person) would first gain their written permission at least for a chain of custody/events issues.

Without written permission, your just forcing your opinion of the subject matter, on others, in the name of the owner or orgainization in charge.

 

That's my half gallon o' gas money anyway... :)

Link to comment

 

I have an archived cache that has not been picked up. I will get it. It's not abandoned.

How about that? I agree with you on this! I will sometimes leave archived or unlisted caches "in the field" while I think about what to do with them. Sometimes I'll find a spot to hide something and just go pick up one that I have, well, "cached" in the woods somewhere. Guess I wouldn't be too upset if someone grabbed it, but that doesn't mean I've abandoned it.

Link to comment

The corss-listing concerns seem a bit unrealistic to me.

 

If gc.com archived a cross listed cache wouldn't the cache owner go place a note in the cache container that it is cross listed? They would have received email notice of the archive.

 

If the the owner archived their gc.com listing but wanted to keep the container listed on the other site wouldn't they go place a note in the container that it is listed on the other site?

 

If the container was active on another site wouldn't the cross lister make a note on the gc.com archived web page so people would know that it is still active?

 

If the cross lister does not respond to gc.com archives or needs maintenance logs but wants the container active on the other site they need to take some action or be prepared for removal of the container.

 

I would add to the above:

 

If it's been three or more months since the archiving, and there aren't any recent entries in the physical log, IT IS TRASH and should be removed as such! I would post a note on the cache page saying I removed it as trash, and if the (irresponsible) owner wants it back they can come get it.

 

Aren't we 'all about' CITO? If we can't (or won't) clean up after ourselves, what business do we have picking up after others?

How do we know the guy who threw those empty beer bottles in the ditch wasn't planning on coming back for them?

 

Just because it used to be a geocache makes no difference.

Link to comment
The corss-listing concerns seem a bit unrealistic to me.

 

If gc.com archived a cross listed cache wouldn't the cache owner go place a note in the cache container that it is cross listed? They would have received email notice of the archive.

 

If the the owner archived their gc.com listing but wanted to keep the container listed on the other site wouldn't they go place a note in the container that it is listed on the other site?

 

If the container was active on another site wouldn't the cross lister make a note on the gc.com archived web page so people would know that it is still active?

 

If the cross lister does not respond to gc.com archives or needs maintenance logs but wants the container active on the other site they need to take some action or be prepared for removal of the container.

I would add to the above:

 

If it's been three or more months since the archiving, and there aren't any recent entries in the physical log, IT IS TRASH and should be removed as such! I would post a note on the cache page saying I removed it as trash, and if the (irresponsible) owner wants it back they can come get it.

 

Aren't we 'all about' CITO? If we can't (or won't) clean up after ourselves, what business do we have picking up after others?

How do we know the guy who threw those empty beer bottles in the ditch wasn't planning on coming back for them?

 

Just because it used to be a geocache makes no difference.

About two weeks ago I removed a cache that had been Archived more than a year ago. This cache was not "cross-listed" on another Site. I emailed the cache owner telling them I had the container and logbook and offered to get them back to them. I have not received a reply.

 

And, speaking of beer. I picked up half a case of cans today while on a walk. I sure hope the person who left the cans didn't expect them to be there when they returned. :)

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...