Cache owners neglecting their caches

[+Jedi Cacher]

A few months ago I found a cache that was destroyed and only the log book and the lid remained. The reason I know this is the cache lid, is I have seen it in photos of other previous cache logs. Other cachers have reported only finding the logbook with a rock on top of it as I did too. I contacted the cache owner several times to no avail. The cache is located in a most excellent area and is visited quite often by tourists. I took it upon myself to replace the container with a temp one and Emailed the owner of this since other cachers had been logging "needs maintenance" and nothing was being done by it. The problem now is my temporary container is cracked and the log book is full. The cache owner does not respond to my Emails, nor do they respond to all of the needs maintenance logs that other cachers are leaving. They have not cached since Oct.28th of last year but logged on July 2nd 07. I do not know there set of circumstances and did not mean to violate there cache ownership, but merely wanted to keep the cache going since we are in the height of the tourism season and allot of cachers visit this site. Now that the cache needs maintenance again do I just shrug it off or is there a possibility to adopt this cache since the owner does not care anymore. I do not know the protocol of cache adoption so please explain. Thanks!

[+TrailGators]

A few months ago I found a cache that was destroyed and only the log book and the lid remained. The reason I know this is the cache lid, is I have seen it in photos of other previous cache logs. Other cachers have reported only finding the logbook with a rock on top of it as I did too. I contacted the cache owner several times to no avail. The cache is located in a most excellent area and is visited quite often by tourists. I took it upon myself to replace the container with a temp one and Emailed the owner of this since other cachers had been logging "needs maintenance" and nothing was being done by it. The problem now is my temporary container is cracked and the log book is full. The cache owner does not respond to my Emails, nor do they respond to all of the needs maintenance logs that other cachers are leaving. They have not cached since Oct.28th of last year but logged on July 2nd 07. I do not know there set of circumstances and did not mean to violate there cache ownership, but merely wanted to keep the cache going since we are in the height of the tourism season and allot of cachers visit this site. Now that the cache needs maintenance again do I just shrug it off or is there a possibility to adopt this cache since the owner does not care anymore. I do not know the protocol of cache adoption so please explain. Thanks!

I would contact your local reviewer and tell him the story.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I do not know the protocol of cache adoption so please explain.

Everything you need to know about adopting a cache can be found here in the Geocaching FAQ (Read First!) found in the Getting Started forum.

[+ThatSeattleGuy]

There's neglecting the cache...and neglecting the cache description as well. I just had an experience where, due to a bridge washout, the hike to the cache was almost twice as long (seven miles instead of under four). The cache maintainer noted this in a VERY roundabout way, but never updated the terrain difficulty at all. (In my book, a seven mile hike does NOT translate to a terrain difficulty of 2.5!) See cache: GCK5TF

 

I really wish some owners would walk a mile in future cacher's shoes...

[+TrailGators]

There's neglecting the cache...and neglecting the cache description as well. I just had an experience where, due to a bridge washout, the hike to the cache was almost twice as long (seven miles instead of under four). The cache maintainer noted this in a VERY roundabout way, but never updated the terrain difficulty at all. (In my book, a seven mile hike does NOT translate to a terrain difficulty of 2.5!) See cache: GCK5TF

 

I really wish some owners would walk a mile in future cacher's shoes...

That is one of the reasons, that I was hoping that Groundspeak would implement this. Edited August 13, 2007 by TrailGators

[Keystone]

Sorry, but the cache is not eligible for involuntary adoption. I would recommend that you "encourage" the existing owner to adopt it to you voluntarily.

[+edscott]

Place one of your own 530 feet away. If the owner doesn't take care of the original one, the local reviewer will probably eventually archive it... some sooner than others.

Edited August 13, 2007 by edscott

[+edscott]

Sorry, but the cache is not eligible for involuntary adoption. I would recommend that you "encourage" the existing owner to adopt it to you voluntarily.

 

The OP found a cache that existed only as a logbook and lid. He replaces the box with a new one of his own. Now he can't adopt it. So if he goes back and takes his stuff out of the woods and reports the cache as muggled it would likely be archived in a month or so and he could then place a new cache. Looks like the rules are designed to discourage people from fixing someone else's cache. True?

[+TrailGators]

Sorry, but the cache is not eligible for involuntary adoption. I would recommend that you "encourage" the existing owner to adopt it to you voluntarily.

 

The OP found a cache that existed only as a logbook and lid. He replaces the box with a new one of his own. Now he can't adopt it. So if he goes back and takes his stuff out of the woods and reports the cache as muggled it would likely be archived in a month or so and he could then place a new cache. Looks like the rules are designed to discourage people from fixing someone else's cache. True?

True. I only fix friends caches because I know they will be around and they would do or have done the same for me if they got near one of my muggled caches before I could get to it.

[+nekom]

If the existing owner cannot be contacted after a reasonable period of time, I'd definately log a SBA notice, then your reviewer will probably give them a bit of time to respond and if not, it would be archived and a new cache could be placed there. I think.

[+Thrak]

Here is the accepted procedure:

 

From the section titled:

How do I Adopt Ownership of a Geocache or Trackable?

For a nonconsensual adoption:

 

1. The interested potential owner must make a concerted effort to contact the original owner to try and arrange for a consensual adoption. Send e-mails and leave a note on the cache page.

 

2. If the owner is missing in action and doesn't respond to voluntary adoption inquiries, contact your volunteer cache reviewer and summarize what you've done to try and contact the owner, and why you want to adopt the cache.

 

3. The volunteer cache reviewer will determine whether adoption is appropriate and, if so, he or she will make a further effort to contact the owner. Note that grandfathered cache types cannot be adopted through this procedure. This includes virtual caches, moving caches and webcam caches.

 

4. If there is still no response, after four weeks the volunteer cache reviewer may recommend to Groundspeak that the abandoned cache's ownership be transferred to the interested new owner. I say "may" because the reviewer might also recommend archival of the original cache, so that the interested geocacher can hide a new one. For example, if the owner of the original cache is still active on the site, but not responding to inquiries about the cache, then archival is the proper answer.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Thrak

[+Sagefox]

There are a lot of people who place caches and then never maintain them. Usually they are inactive or seldom active, but occasionally an active cacher will also neglect their containers.

 

Since this owner does not maintain the cache or respond to email you have a couple of choices that will guarantee resolution.

 

1. You can remove the container that you placed there (because you placed it there), leaving the logbook in a good quality ziplock and then report that the cache needs to be archived. The owner or other local cachers will fix the problem or a reviewer will archive the cache. If a reviewer archives the cache then I would suggest that you retrieve the logbook after 20 or 30 days and send one last email to the owner with an offer to mail it to them or place it somewhere they can find it.

 

2. You can replace the container and logbook to keep it active.

 

If the owner does not respond to your SBA or container replacement then either of these actions are perfectly justifiable. We have replaced a lot of containers at other peoples' cache sites over the years to keep them active. The owners either respond with a thanks if they are active, or don't respond at all. I've never known any maintenance challenged cache owner to complain about either of these actions.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Team Sagefox

[+jtbrady01]

I had gone after a cache shortly after I started out that hadn't been found for a while. I hadn't noticed at the time that there were multiple DNF's posted. I as well posted a DNF and there was no response from the owner. (He never went out, checked on it or performed maintenance.) There were multiple attempts from others to contact this owner since he was not active on the site. However, I went back out to the site again a couple weeks later (another cache was new down the road) and decided to give it one more try. I found it. Really good hide. The issue here was someone from across the road yelled at me. I waved and went on my way. I posted this on my log and immediately got a response from the owner wanting to know who yelled at me. Apparently the owner lived across the street from the hide and wanted to know which neighbor it was. It seems that maybe not all cache owners monitor the web sites daily but, do watch the logs that come in via email. This doesn't absolve them from not neglecting their cache however, inactivity on the web site doesn't mean they aren't watch the cache either. I think it's just plain laziness.

[+StarBrand]

Did you make a "note" on the page for each attempt at contact in addtion to an email? That way you have a documented trail of attempted contact. Offer to adopt it yourself in each note and email.

 

If there is never a response - be kind and put out a good container that will last. Only other option is to post an SBA but that does not seem quite appropriate in this case and may or may not happen.

[+imajeep]

There was one like that near us. We emailed the CO, got no response. The CO hadn't logged on in a year, so we posted a 'Needs Archiving' log. The CO turned up after a couple of weeks. Turned out he'd been tied up and away from caching but wanted to continue the cache. He replaced it in the same spot, and it turned out to be a very nice little cache!

[+ChileHead]

I'd post a needs maint followed afterwards if nothing happened by a needs archived. I wouldn't want to adopt a piece of trash though unless the cache had some sort of historical significance. I'd just wait for it to die and let somebody else take the spot, or take it for yourself.

[Keystone]

Sorry, but the cache is not eligible for involuntary adoption. I would recommend that you "encourage" the existing owner to adopt it to you voluntarily.

 

The OP found a cache that existed only as a logbook and lid. He replaces the box with a new one of his own. Now he can't adopt it. So if he goes back and takes his stuff out of the woods and reports the cache as muggled it would likely be archived in a month or so and he could then place a new cache. Looks like the rules are designed to discourage people from fixing someone else's cache. True?

Not true. The strict involuntary adoption rules are designed to avoid reductions in the "hidden" count of caches owned by an active account. Geocachers are welcome to help each other out by performing routine maintenance tasks and emergency repairs.

 

In the case under discussion here, the owner of the neglected cache logged into the website last month. That makes the cache ineligible for involuntary adoption. Since the owner is active they can be contacted about a voluntary adoption. If they don't answer, I'd take that as a "no" answer. If they don't fix the cache, the cache can be archived.

[+Ambrosia]

Sorry, but the cache is not eligible for involuntary adoption. I would recommend that you "encourage" the existing owner to adopt it to you voluntarily.

 

The OP found a cache that existed only as a logbook and lid. He replaces the box with a new one of his own. Now he can't adopt it. So if he goes back and takes his stuff out of the woods and reports the cache as muggled it would likely be archived in a month or so and he could then place a new cache. Looks like the rules are designed to discourage people from fixing someone else's cache. True?

A person shouldn't be fixing someone else's cache just so they can adopt it. They should fix caches out of the goodness of their heart.

[+edscott]

Sorry, but the cache is not eligible for involuntary adoption. I would recommend that you "encourage" the existing owner to adopt it to you voluntarily.

 

The OP found a cache that existed only as a logbook and lid. He replaces the box with a new one of his own. Now he can't adopt it. So if he goes back and takes his stuff out of the woods and reports the cache as muggled it would likely be archived in a month or so and he could then place a new cache. Looks like the rules are designed to discourage people from fixing someone else's cache. True?

Not true. The strict involuntary adoption rules are designed to avoid reductions in the "hidden" count of caches owned by an active account. Geocachers are welcome to help each other out by performing routine maintenance tasks and emergency repairs.

 

In the case under discussion here, the owner of the neglected cache logged into the website last month. That makes the cache ineligible for involuntary adoption. Since the owner is active they can be contacted about a voluntary adoption. If they don't answer, I'd take that as a "no" answer. If they don't fix the cache, the cache can be archived.

 

So if the OP had not fixed the cache, it would probably be archived by now and he could have a new one in place for everyone to enjoy. The rules are being followed, but the bottom line is that they seem to favor not fixing the cache of an irresponsible owner.

[+Jedi Cacher]

Did you make a "note" on the page for each attempt at contact in addtion to an email? That way you have a documented trail of attempted contact. Offer to adopt it yourself in each note and email.

 

If there is never a response - be kind and put out a good container that will last. Only other option is to post an SBA but that does not seem quite appropriate in this case and may or may not happen.

 

 

Yes, I did make a "note" on cache page explaining the circumstances. Other cachers have also logged notes and need maintainence reports. Others log it as finds but still make a note of the status of the cache container and the logbook. I have been trying to contact the owner for 3 months and no response.

[+Jedi Cacher]

A person shouldn't be fixing someone else's cache just so they can adopt it. They should fix caches out of the goodness of their heart.

 

You are correctomundo! I replaced the missing container and added logbook pages so others could enjoy the caching experience and not be disappointed when they reached the summit. This cache site is visited by allot of tourists passing thru on there way to Mt.Rushmore. Within 75 yards of this cache stands several large dinosaur statues that overlook the city. Family's visit here all the time passing thru. I am in no way trying to bully anybody into taking over there cache, but I am willing to step up to the plate and maintain this cache if the owner cannot for some reason. Several maintainence reports have been made by myself and other cachers but the owner just does not respond. I would really like to see this cache fully operational and running again sometime soon.

[+TrailGators]

A person shouldn't be fixing someone else's cache just so they can adopt it. They should fix caches out of the goodness of their heart.

 

You are correctomundo! I replaced the missing container and added logbook pages so others could enjoy the caching experience and not be disappointed when they reached the summit. This cache site is visited by allot of tourists passing thru on there way to Mt.Rushmore. Within 75 yards of this cache stands several large dinosaur statues that overlook the city. Family's visit here all the time passing thru. I am in no way trying to bully anybody into taking over there cache, but I am willing to step up to the plate and maintain this cache if the owner cannot for some reason. Several maintainence reports have been made by myself and other cachers but the owner just does not respond. I would really like to see this cache fully operational and running again sometime soon.

I guess if I were you I'd get the ball rolling using the official sanctioned method cited above. The cache may be down for a little bit while the process runs, but in the long run it sounds like it would be worth it.

[+BlueDeuce]

Adoption should be allowed once the cache meets Archiving criteria. Let'em have it or let'em replace it.

 

In my opinion maintaining a cache without a formal owner is a disservice to the community. What happens when a cacher emails the owner with a question? What happens when it's the Landowner?

 

Hey great, someone is checking the mailbox and getting the newspaper off the porch. Unfortunately when a real issue comes up nobody is home and can be held accountable or responsible or can really do anything about it. What happens when the cache page needs to be updated?.

 

The owner agreed to maintain it when they placed it. First go through the Archive process and take it from there.

 

If an owner truly needs help, and they let you know, they aren't going to get their cache archived. It's the AWL owners who never respond who lose their rights.

Edited August 14, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+edscott]

yes wait until after the tourist season is over and start the process.. Hopefully by spring it is all straightened out.

[+FireRef]

Sorry, but the cache is not eligible for involuntary adoption. I would recommend that you "encourage" the existing owner to adopt it to you voluntarily.

 

Based on what was said, and the guidelines for an involuntary adoption of a cache, it sounds like they completed the first step, and are waiting for the second step. Does this mean that you, as a reviewer, did have contact with the party not maintaining their cache? Simply logging into the website doesn't indicate in any way that they are interested in continuing the game. Someone could have very easily clicked on a link or a favorite in IE, and if the cookies are set on, it would log them in automatically. I think their lack of maintenance, and lack of response to emails, says more than a simple indicator that they clicked on one link one time.

 

I'm not saying we should be out hunting for caches to be adopted out involuntarily. But if a person has made a clear indication that they are unwilling to maintain it (through many contact attempts and many notes on the page of it being in need of maintenance, with no reply to any of this) and unwilling to return emails, that is what this policy seems to be for. Otherwise, by saying it's not eligable, the reviewers are letting the person who agreed to the original terms when the cache was published to violate those terms with no consequence.

 

Or is there some other reason you say it's not eligable?

Edited August 15, 2007 by FireRef

[Keystone]

I have had no contact with the cache or the cache owner, except for reading the owner's profile. That is because this cache is not in my review territory.

 

I can tell that the cache is ineligible for involuntary adoption because the owner's profile shows that they are active on the website. I posted the answer here for forum discussion purposes.

 

I am sorry if this was not clear from my prior posts.

[+FireRef]

I have had no contact with the cache or the cache owner, except for reading the owner's profile. That is because this cache is not in my review territory.

 

I can tell that the cache is ineligible for involuntary adoption because the owner's profile shows that they are active on the website. I posted the answer here for forum discussion purposes.

 

I am sorry if this was not clear from my prior posts.

 

So simply logging in once in a while, even if you don't perform the required maintenance of the cache which we all agree to when we have caches published, is enough to maintain ownership indefinitely?

 

I know if you disable a cache for more than a few weeks, you get a reviewer knocking at your door unless there are unusual circumstances (like a seasonal cache). If you never disable it, it's safe if you log into the website once in a while?

 

I guess I'm asking what consitiutes "activity"? Not everyone posts on the forums or reads them. Browsing the website once every... ? ..., even if you never find and log caches, and never publish any new ones, and never perform necessary maintenance on a cache, you're considered active?

[+BlueDeuce]

Getting a cache archived and getting one adopted do not follow the same guidelines.

 

Do not maintain a cache if you expect either one.

[+FireRef]

Getting a cache archived and getting one adopted do not follow the same guidelines.

 

Do not maintain a cache if you expect either one.

 

So trying to be helpful doesn't mesh with the selfish desire to control a cache (or location)?

 

Seems to me maintaining it, and making clear that you are the one who has been maintaining it, would be grounds for a more likely involuntary transfer of ownership, as you have shown an interest in meeting the guidelines that the original hider has apparently shown an interest in disregarding.

[+BlueDeuce]

Getting a cache archived and getting one adopted do not follow the same guidelines.

 

Do not maintain a cache if you expect either one.

 

So trying to be helpful doesn't mesh with the selfish desire to control a cache (or location)?

 

Seems to me maintaining it, and making clear that you are the one who has been maintaining it, would be grounds for a more likely involuntary transfer of ownership, as you have shown an interest in meeting the guidelines that the original hider has apparently shown an interest in disregarding.

 

That makes perfect sense to me however I don't think maintaining a cache without owner support is ever a good idea.

 

gc.com looks at the cache condition and owner activity.

Edited August 15, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+FireRef]

Getting a cache archived and getting one adopted do not follow the same guidelines.

 

Do not maintain a cache if you expect either one.

 

So trying to be helpful doesn't mesh with the selfish desire to control a cache (or location)?

 

Seems to me maintaining it, and making clear that you are the one who has been maintaining it, would be grounds for a more likely involuntary transfer of ownership, as you have shown an interest in meeting the guidelines that the original hider has apparently shown an interest in disregarding.

 

That makes perfect sense to me however I don't think maintaining a cache without owner support is ever a good idea.

 

gc.com looks at the cache condition and owner activity.

 

So let it become a piece of geojunk because of a complete lack of owner response or interest?

 

It is common sense, and commonly accepted, that if something simple is wrong with a cache, you can fix it - replace a ziploc baggie that is torn with a good one, mend something simple with tape to stop a leak, etc - while notifying the owner that you did. How will you look when you say "Found contents scattered around the ground, but since it's not my cache, I left them where they were and claimed a find."

 

What I was asking Keystone is what is considered activity...

[Keystone]

I have had no contact with the cache or the cache owner, except for reading the owner's profile. That is because this cache is not in my review territory.

 

I can tell that the cache is ineligible for involuntary adoption because the owner's profile shows that they are active on the website. I posted the answer here for forum discussion purposes.

 

I am sorry if this was not clear from my prior posts.

 

So simply logging in once in a while, even if you don't perform the required maintenance of the cache which we all agree to when we have caches published, is enough to maintain ownership indefinitely?

 

I know if you disable a cache for more than a few weeks, you get a reviewer knocking at your door unless there are unusual circumstances (like a seasonal cache). If you never disable it, it's safe if you log into the website once in a while?

 

I guess I'm asking what consitiutes "activity"? Not everyone posts on the forums or reads them. Browsing the website once every... ? ..., even if you never find and log caches, and never publish any new ones, and never perform necessary maintenance on a cache, you're considered active?

I am going to ask you to re-read the FAQ thread entry, which Thrak so helpfully posted a little ways up the page:

 

For a nonconsensual adoption:

 

1. The interested potential owner must make a concerted effort to contact the original owner to try and arrange for a consensual adoption. Send e-mails and leave a note on the cache page.

 

2. If the owner is missing in action and doesn't respond to voluntary adoption inquiries, contact your volunteer cache reviewer and summarize what you've done to try and contact the owner, and why you want to adopt the cache.

 

3. The volunteer cache reviewer will determine whether adoption is appropriate and, if so, he or she will make a further effort to contact the owner. Note that grandfathered cache types cannot be adopted through this procedure. This includes virtual caches, moving caches and webcam caches.

 

4. If there is still no response, after four weeks the volunteer cache reviewer may recommend to Groundspeak that the abandoned cache's ownership be transferred to the interested new owner. I say "may" because the reviewer might also recommend archival of the original cache, so that the interested geocacher can hide a new one. For example, if the owner of the original cache is still active on the site, but not responding to inquiries about the cache, then archival is the proper answer.

(Bold emphasis added.)

 

If an owner is still actively logging in on the site then the cache won't be involuntarily adopted. That does not mean that an owner can keep an unmaintained cache on the website indefinitely. Eventually someone will log a "Needs Archived," or write a complaint message to the reviewer, or the reviewer will notice 15 consecutive DNF and "Needs Maintenance" logs. Then the cache will be archived.

 

If the community maintains a physical cache through voluntary repairs, and folks are happily finding and logging it, then there's no maintenance issue and no need for an adoption.

[+FireRef]

I have had no contact with the cache or the cache owner, except for reading the owner's profile. That is because this cache is not in my review territory.

 

I can tell that the cache is ineligible for involuntary adoption because the owner's profile shows that they are active on the website. I posted the answer here for forum discussion purposes.

 

I am sorry if this was not clear from my prior posts.

 

So simply logging in once in a while, even if you don't perform the required maintenance of the cache which we all agree to when we have caches published, is enough to maintain ownership indefinitely?

 

I know if you disable a cache for more than a few weeks, you get a reviewer knocking at your door unless there are unusual circumstances (like a seasonal cache). If you never disable it, it's safe if you log into the website once in a while?

 

I guess I'm asking what consitiutes "activity"? Not everyone posts on the forums or reads them. Browsing the website once every... ? ..., even if you never find and log caches, and never publish any new ones, and never perform necessary maintenance on a cache, you're considered active?

I am going to ask you to re-read the FAQ thread entry, which Thrak so helpfully posted a little ways up the page:

 

For a nonconsensual adoption:

 

1. The interested potential owner must make a concerted effort to contact the original owner to try and arrange for a consensual adoption. Send e-mails and leave a note on the cache page.

 

2. If the owner is missing in action and doesn't respond to voluntary adoption inquiries, contact your volunteer cache reviewer and summarize what you've done to try and contact the owner, and why you want to adopt the cache.

 

3. The volunteer cache reviewer will determine whether adoption is appropriate and, if so, he or she will make a further effort to contact the owner. Note that grandfathered cache types cannot be adopted through this procedure. This includes virtual caches, moving caches and webcam caches.

 

4. If there is still no response, after four weeks the volunteer cache reviewer may recommend to Groundspeak that the abandoned cache's ownership be transferred to the interested new owner. I say "may" because the reviewer might also recommend archival of the original cache, so that the interested geocacher can hide a new one. For example, if the owner of the original cache is still active on the site, but not responding to inquiries about the cache, then archival is the proper answer.

(Bold emphasis added.)

 

If an owner is still actively logging in on the site then the cache won't be involuntarily adopted. That does not mean that an owner can keep an unmaintained cache on the website indefinitely. Eventually someone will log a "Needs Archived," or write a complaint message to the reviewer, or the reviewer will notice 15 consecutive DNF and "Needs Maintenance" logs. Then the cache will be archived.

 

If the community maintains a physical cache through voluntary repairs, and folks are happily finding and logging it, then there's no maintenance issue and no need for an adoption.

 

Thanks - I did read it...

 

The emphasis supports your statements. I still don't agree with the idea that if other people are maintaining it, and it is clear the owner isn't actively doing so, and isn't responding to attempts to contact them, that it shouldn't be able to be adopted involuntarily.

 

This leaves the option of:

 

1) stealing the cache (yes, that's wrong...)

2) posting a SBA note because now, the cache is gone (of course, not stating why or how)

3) waiting for it to be archived, but while waiting...

4) creating a cache page ready to go with the same location, new name and owner, so when the original is archived, it can be submitted immediately.

5) upon publication, replacing the cache as a reincarnation of the previous one.

 

Obviously there are a TON of things against the rules in that (and no, that isn't something i've ever done or would try to do), but wouldn't being a little less restrictive on involuntary adoptions when an owner isn't replying to email messages and notes on the cache page over a long period of time from multiple sources (interested user and reviewer) eliminate that problem?

 

I doubt someone who refuses to answer emails, and refuses to maintain their cache, is going to come back screaming "YOU STOLE MY CACHE!" - a simple note of their lack of maintenance, breaking the agreement to list the cache in the first place, is all that is needed to quiet that. "You broke the rules (guidelines), you lost the cache".

 

Otherwise why have guidelines? I understand they're not hard and fast rules, but if there aren't any consequences for breaking them, not too many peple will follow them. A speed limit without enforcement power would be no limit at all.

Edited August 15, 2007 by FireRef

[+legacypac]

Occasionally I've replaced missing/broken containers (out of stock in the Jeep) complete with new log books etc. If the cache is in a good location, and is VERY clearly gone or damaged, it is a nice gesture to both the owner (however neglectful they seem to be) and future seekers to do this. I then claim a "Find", add it to my watch list because I now have a sense of ownership in the cache, and move on. No, my hide count does not go up, but I also have no further responsibility to the cache either. If you want more hides, go make some hides. Or, if you can occasionally adopt caches from others who exit the game.

 

In a couple cases I went ahead and arranged a voluntary adoption, before or after going out to look for the cache. In others, the cache was outside my usual area and I just left it to the owner. I always clearly state what I did and why.

 

In one case, at a cache I replaced, the real cache turned up months later about 45 m away with a note inside suggesting the previous finders moved it. My replacement was exactly at GZ after two visits, and was found a number of times by others before the real one turned up. You just never know what twists and turns the game will bring.

 

Involuntary adoptions are possible, but it is a great idea to follow the guidelines listed so that hiders don't get their tail in a knot about lossing a cache.

[+RogerAg]

I have also found caches that needed removing.

In two cases GCQRPJ and GCRYHM I took what was left and logged what I did telling the owner that I would mail them what was left. The owner of GCRYHM replaced the old cache however it seems to be muggled again