adopting an old cache

[+mimiNpapaw]

Papaw and I went after a cache near our home. The cache needs work. I sent a message to the owner and it came back undeliverable. Looking at thier finds (2001/2002) it appears they are no longer caching. Is there a right way to "adopt" this cache?

[+USA 45]

Papaw and I went after a cache near our home. The cache needs work. I sent a message to the owner and it came back undeliverable. Looking at thier finds (2001/2002) it appears they are no longer caching. Is there a right way to "adopt" this cache?

 

I don't know about adopting one but after a year of emailing and trying to get hold of owner . The cache was a mess and had every thing rusty and wet and when I went to put a new container and dry logbook in for the owner it was gone. I emailed the reviewer and he archived it. Then I went and replaced it and had it published as new cache. This was a great site for a cache and since it is the only hand operated locks left in the USA People comes from all over to see them. If the org. owner shows up I will give it back to him. Dilligas45

[+StarBrand]

Non-consensual adoptions take time and sometimes never work out. You need to send email to the owner, post notes n the cache listing page requesting a response and do that regularly. Then write an email to your local reviewer and ask to adopt it. If the reviewers sees a need for adoption - they will post a note to the owner asking for a status and give them something like 30 days to respond. After all of that, if the owner doesn't respond to anybody, you may be able to adopt it - or the reviewer may choose to archive it.

 

The best most neighborly thing to do is ask for the adoption and get it rolling. In addtion, go out and do whever you reasonably can to fix the hide up to its original state.. Whether you ever end up with it or not - you will be looked on favorably for taking a little TLC to the cache.

[AZcachemeister]

A similar situation recently occurred here in Arizona.

Someone replaced the messed-up original container, and when they asked to adopt the cache, the original was archived, and (presumably) the good-samaritan was instructed to create a new cache at the same spot (a new cache was created at the same spot).

Sooo, (apparently) old caches in need of TLC, but with AWOL owners must be archived, even if someone wants to adopt them.

 

I really don't like this apparent trend/policy.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

A similar situation recently occurred here in Arizona.

Someone replaced the messed-up original container, and when they asked to adopt the cache, the original was archived, and (presumably) the good-samaritan was instructed to create a new cache at the same spot (a new cache was created at the same spot).

Sooo, (apparently) old caches in need of TLC, but with AWOL owners must be archived, even if someone wants to adopt them.

 

I really don't like this apparent trend/policy.

 

Yes, we lost a nice old cache (from February 2001) in our state. I regret having brought up that it needed to be maintained and adopted since the cache then got archived. The BOB View.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+Isonzo Karst]

Here's the FAQ on non consensual adoption FAQ adopting a cache.

[+gpsfun]

When the reason for a cache owner being unresponsive is not known, it may be due to unavoidable circumstances such as illness, deployment for military service, family issues, unresolved ISP issues and the like. If the absent cache owner returns to the sport and finds their cache adopted out to someone else, they may look at it more as an abduction than an adoption - even though the previously mentioned processes may have been executed with precision.

 

Allowing Groundspeak's volunteer reviewer to archive the old cache, as permitted by the guidelines, can serve to insulate a new cache owner in such cases.

 

When the reason for the cache owner being unresponsive is known, adoption may be a reasonable alternative. Nearly every circumstance is different and deserves individual consideration.

[+Team Crime Scene]

Tried this very same thing today. The right thing suggested was to archive the old cache and place a new one in our profile. Were on the way to owning a new cache!!

[+Mule Ears]

We've successfully adopted quite a few classic caches, most consentually (via the online form that the original owner fills out) and a few non-consentually. The FAQ that somebody linked above describes the process to a T. The only suggestion I can add is that if you fix up the cache now while waiting out the MIA-owner contact period, you're almost assured of getting the cache.

[+The Hawks]

We would like to adopt a cache of an owner that has "gone missing", but the listing has already been archived by the reviewers. I would really like to have the old log entries, and so I would really like to have exactly this listing.

 

The reviewers say they can't do anything about archived caches, however, I do not understand why they can't simply unarchive it, just like any other lsiting?

[+Mule Ears]

We would like to adopt a cache of an owner that has "gone missing", but the listing has already been archived by the reviewers. I would really like to have the old log entries, and so I would really like to have exactly this listing.

 

The reviewers say they can't do anything about archived caches, however, I do not understand why they can't simply unarchive it, just like any other lsiting?

 

If they can't or won't unarchive it in order for you to adopt, you could link to the old cache page (or your favorite logs) from the description of your new, replacement cache. It would accomplish the same thing without having to push the reviewer to do something awkward.

[+DanOCan]

When the reason for a cache owner being unresponsive is not known, it may be due to unavoidable circumstances such as illness, deployment for military service, family issues, unresolved ISP issues and the like. If the absent cache owner returns to the sport and finds their cache adopted out to someone else, they may look at it more as an abduction than an adoption - even though the previously mentioned processes may have been executed with precision.

 

Never thought of that, to be honest.

 

All three of my adoptions were situations where the original owners had posted on the cache page that they couldn't maintain their cache and wanted someone to take over. That helped a lot I imagine.

 

I still prefer adoption over "archive and replace" because it keeps more of the history of the cache alive. The old logs, the old number, etc. In case where the original cache is still more or less intact and only the owner is missing is seems strange to create a new GC number when the cache is still essentially the same.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I still prefer adoption over "archive and replace" because it keeps more of the history of the cache alive. The old logs, the old number, etc. In case where the original cache is still more or less intact and only the owner is missing is seems strange to create a new GC number when the cache is still essentially the same.

I agree. I adopted one "Old Timey, Historic" cache and fortunately the owner approved the adoption right away, so the GC number is the same and all the old logs are on the cache page. I only slightly edited the hint because I didn't want to change it from the original owner's intent.

[+austinsdad]

Papaw and I went after a cache near our home. The cache needs work. I sent a message to the owner and it came back undeliverable. Looking at thier finds (2001/2002) it appears they are no longer caching. Is there a right way to "adopt" this cache?

I just adopted an old cache here in Prince George,Canada.All I did after I couldn't get a hold of the owners is email the reviewer of that area.I explained it all to him and he gave the owners 30 days to get back to him.And if they didn't,he would do a forced adoption.Once the 30 days were up I reminded the reviewer about the forced adoption and that I was still interested in adopting it.The next thing I knew I was the owner of that cache.

[+Viajero Perdido]

The reviewers say they can't do anything about archived caches

Maybe it depends on the reviewer.

 

I've had helpful reviewers un-archive caches for me on at least two occasions. One was by request from the original owner, so that she could then let me adopt it. The other was a cache where it was obvious from the absent owner's logs that the cache still existed and was meant to be available. I went out, found it, pinged a reviewer, and presto - unarchived!

 

Reviewers have amazing powers. I hear they're given 10 lightning bolts per week to use as they see fit.

[Keystone]

The reviewers say they can't do anything about archived caches

Maybe it depends on the reviewer.

No, it doesn't depend on the reviewer. The same adoption procedures apply worldwide.

 

What it *does* depend upon is whether the adoption is voluntary or involuntary. If the original owner is not active and is not involved in the effort for the unarchival and adoption of the cache, then nothing can be done. Archived caches cannot be adopted through the involuntary adoption procedure. Worldwide consistency on involuntary adoptions is guaranteed because only Groundspeak (not a site volunteer) can transfer ownership of a cache from one account to another.

[+Ambrosia]

I've adopted two caches, and I have also placed two caches to replace archived caches. I've enjoyed doing it both ways, there's pros and cons to either way.

 

One that I adopted was from an absentee owner, I went through the 30 day process with my reviewer to see if the owner would respond, he didn't, so I now own a wonderful historical cache. I only changed the cache page slightly.

 

The other cache I adopted was recently, from an owner who wanted to either adopt out his cache, or archive it. I adopted it for sentimental reasons. It was quick and easy, because I used the automated system with the owner.

 

The two caches that I placed where an archived cache used to be, I used the other cache names in the title, with links to those former caches. Using one as an example, the archived cache was called, "Sleepless in Seattle", and I named my replacement cache, "Still Sleepless in Seattle". I loved doing the previous cache, and when it was archived I quickly placed one in the same area (after discussing it with the other owner, out of respect), to honor the previous cache.

[+Trucker Lee]

I recently adopted an abandoned cache, it was worth saving and had a long history of finds in spite of it's recent history of wet and no container.

 

First, I checked the owner's profile and attempted to contact him through there. The email came back undeliverable, and the owner hasn't been to the site in a couple years.

 

I forwarded this information to my local reviewer, who attempted to contact the owner again and placed an appeal to him on the cache page. After 30 days, the cache was assigned to me.

[+Seasoned Warrior]

Papaw and I went after a cache near our home. The cache needs work. I sent a message to the owner and it came back undeliverable. Looking at thier finds (2001/2002) it appears they are no longer caching. Is there a right way to "adopt" this cache?

 

<<This was a great site for a cache and since it is the only hand operated locks left in the USA People comes from all over to see them. If the org. owner shows up I will give it back to him. >>Dilligas45

 

Slightly off topic but I believe that the Songo Locks on the Songo River between Brandy Pond and Sebago Lake in Maine are still hand operated and I seem to remember a hand operated lock in New Hope Township in Pennsylvania but I may be wrong on the latter.

[+Zop]

Papaw and I went after a cache near our home. The cache needs work. I sent a message to the owner and it came back undeliverable. Looking at thier finds (2001/2002) it appears they are no longer caching. Is there a right way to "adopt" this cache?

 

That is a toughie.. There are at least two in our area that the owner has gone AWOL. What has happened however is a few of us have simply kept an eye on the cache and have maintained the cache sans adoption.

 

Since this really is a community game, I think it's cool whan someone is willing to repair a cache or add a logbook when the old is damaged or full. Especially when the owner is no longer a player.

 

What really sucks though is when a cache placer places a cache for only a couple of months then takes it out of play by disabling it with no explaination as to why then complaining about others posting an SBA.

[+Glenn]

When the reason for a cache owner being unresponsive is not known, it may be due to unavoidable circumstances such as illness, deployment for military service, family issues, unresolved ISP issues and the like. If the absent cache owner returns to the sport and finds their cache adopted out to someone else, they may look at it more as an abduction than an adoption - even though the previously mentioned processes may have been executed with precision.

 

Never thought of that, to be honest.

 

All three of my adoptions were situations where the original owners had posted on the cache page that they couldn't maintain their cache and wanted someone to take over. That helped a lot I imagine.

 

I still prefer adoption over "archive and replace" because it keeps more of the history of the cache alive. The old logs, the old number, etc. In case where the original cache is still more or less intact and only the owner is missing is seems strange to create a new GC number when the cache is still essentially the same.

 

Because of the war I deploy more frequently and for longer periods. It would piss me off to no end if I returned from a deployment to find my hide count much lower than I remember and all my caches forced adopted by someone else. Maybe there needs to be a some kind of unadoption or reverse adoption option. So that when the original owner returns he can get his cache listing back.

 

The argument that the forced adoption of a cache helps maintain the history of the cache is completely wrong. First, the historic owner is no longer listed on the cache. Then the new owner is at liberty to delete historic logs and to change the historic description. If you really want to preserve the history of a cache then request it to be archived. I highly suspect that a lot of the people that want to adopt a historic cache is to get the low GC#. The proof is when you suggest that they request that the cache be archived to open up the area so that they can make a new listing and they instantly loose all interest or make some lame argument about preserving the history of the cache listing. That is very telling of their true motives.

 

For the record I don't want any cache listing that make to be forced from my ownership. Please archive my listing, to preserve the history of both the cache listing and my account/profile and let the person know that they make their own listing without having to steal my listing.