Mandatory Archiving....your take on it

[+snowfrog]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones. Those of us who have been caching for several years have pretty much done most of the nearby caches. Same locations with new hides, from new cachers, and new ideas. Sounds good to me. Businesses rotate their stock to keep it fresh! At the very minimom, a required long in to verify maintenance, to insure (hopefully) that its owner is taking care of it. How many cachers have way too many hides, and their is no possible way to do minimum maintenance. Newbies go hog wild at first and put out dozens, then burn out and abandon them. Before you reply consider the following: In the forums, thread "maintenance", is performed by a moderator with a little nudge to keep it on topic, if not it would no longer be needed. When the thread experiences too little traffic, it is closed. See where I'm going with this?

Edited November 19, 2007 by snowfrog

[+simpjkee]

While I agree that caches should be maintained by owners no matter. I completely disagree that just because a cache does no get very many visits it should be archived. As long as old caches that are found once a year are being maintained then they should stay NO QUESTION. Though if a cache goes missing and the owner has no response then archive it already. I'm cool with that.

[CoyoteRed]

No time-based automatic archival, please.

 

Over saturation is not an issue in a lot of places--most likely the majority. If you want to try to get your locals to voluntarily archive some of their less liked cache, then by all means.

[RV'n Iowans]

Some areas are heavily saturated with caches, many being poorly maintained but still visited often; while in our area there is a very low saturation with need for more, but still a lot are poorly maintained or visited.

 

Seems it would be a difficult job for Moderators to monitor all of this without offending someone.

 

Interesting subject to follow, anyway

 

Dick

[+snowfrog]

No time-based automatic archival, please.

 

Over saturation is not an issue in a lot of places--most likely the majority. If you want to try to get your locals to voluntarily archive some of their less liked cache, then by all means.

 

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature

Edited November 19, 2007 by snowfrog

[markandlynn]

More food for the FTF hounds.

 

All caches recieve a rush after first release so it would be an unfair measure of its subsequent popularity

 

A big no from me if the owner is unhappy with the number of visitors then its there decision it should not be an imposed limit.

[+Ambrosia]

No time-based automatic archival, please.

 

Over saturation is not an issue in a lot of places--most likely the majority. If you want to try to get your locals to voluntarily archive some of their less liked cache, then by all means.

 

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature

If they're remote, then they aren't in areas that are over saturated, thus they aren't getting in the way of new caches.

 

And...I wasn't aware that threads get closed when people stop posting to them, they just drop down the list.

[CoyoteRed]

No time-based automatic archival, please.

 

Over saturation is not an issue in a lot of places--most likely the majority. If you want to try to get your locals to voluntarily archive some of their less liked cache, then by all means.

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature

 

No frequency-based archival, either. No popularity-based archival. Whatever you want to call it. No archival based on a particular formula programed into the site. It should always be archived by a human whether it is the owner or a reviewer responding to user complaints.

[+Kiwi Nomad]

No time-based automatic archival, please.

 

Over saturation is not an issue in a lot of places--most likely the majority. If you want to try to get your locals to voluntarily archive some of their less liked cache, then by all means.

 

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature

 

So if you cache had 20 visits in the first month when it drops to below 2 visits a month it would have to be archived.

 

Who gets to decide?

Why add more rules?

Just because a cache doesn't get as many visitors as others is not reason enough to archive it.

 

I only joined 'recently' and would not be impressed on missing out on visiting older caches just because someone (other than the owner) decided they weren't being visited often enough and therefore had to be archived.

[+snowfrog]

No time-based automatic archival, please.

 

Over saturation is not an issue in a lot of places--most likely the majority. If you want to try to get your locals to voluntarily archive some of their less liked cache, then by all means.

 

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature

If they're remote, then they aren't in areas that are over saturated, thus they aren't getting in the way of new caches.

 

And...I wasn't aware that threads get closed when people stop posting to them, they just drop down the list.

I stand corrected, however what's the point in them hangin around. Anyhoo, maybe cache density should come in to play. I would be willing to "give up my territory" to new hides, if my finds dried up.

[+Rockin Roddy]

No time-based automatic archival, please.

 

Over saturation is not an issue in a lot of places--most likely the majority. If you want to try to get your locals to voluntarily archive some of their less liked cache, then by all means.

 

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature

If they're remote, then they aren't in areas that are over saturated, thus they aren't getting in the way of new caches.

 

And...I wasn't aware that threads get closed when people stop posting to them, they just drop down the list.

I stand corrected, however what's the point in them hangin around. Anyhoo, maybe cache density should come in to play. I would be willing to "give up my territory" to new hides, if my finds dried up.

In case someone wanted to search for info, post to an existing thread or whatever.

 

No on ANY form of cache age limitations. Some of the very best caches are the older ones. No to rules limiting how long I can leave my cache out for ANY reason other than if I decide to abandon or not maintain it. Some parks have rules about the length a cache can stay in one place, that I will follow!

[+snowfrog]

There is no guarantee now that current archived caches are"cleaned up" by owners, or for that matter, new cache placements that are denied publishing such as vacation hides. How many folks go back to the vacation spot just to remove a denied cache placement.The frequency would be determined by a significant drop in visits as compared to say, the first year. Who decides anything now? What cache is published, what is archived, or what post is too disrespectful...........those who are considered worthy. Seriously though, the system could easily be set up to self monitor the 'find frequency percentage". The owner could receive a system generated e-mail warning of closure and needed removal, but in reality if it's a local favorite cache, second visits could manipulate the numbers to keep it open anyway. Only those of little interest would actually get archived, which is good right. The whole idea is not that any person or mod would have the power to retire a cache, but the decision would be made by us, the caching community, by the lack of activity.

[+Rockin Roddy]

That's what I want...a machine to decide when my cache isn't fun anymore!! NO THANKS!

 

Thee are caches on mountains which get maybe a visitor a year if at all. There are caches underwater that get VERY few visitors. There are even caches which have been out for a year and NEVER found (FTFs still waiting).

 

NO to the community telling me when my cache is trash, I think I'm more than capable enough to do that myself! If you don't like a cache and think it's in need of archival, the tool is there!

Edited November 19, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[markandlynn]

The frequency would be determined by a significant drop in visits as compared to say, the first year.

All caches get visited more in the first year as thats when locals do them. In subsequent years its people on holiday etc who come to find them.

If caches got archived based on this then i would no longer be able to plan my holiday caching trips before i left.

Who decides anything now? What cache is published, what is archived, or what post is too disrespectful...........those who are considered worthy. Seriously though, the system could easily be set up to self monitor the 'find frequency percentage". The owner could receive a system generated e-mail warning of closure and needed removal

 

Owners decide or through lack of maintainance the finders decide and put SBA or need maintainance logs on the caches

 

but in reality if it's a local favorite cache, second visits could manipulate the numbers to keep it open anyway

 

So to keep it open people have to log two smileys for one cache, a quick forum search will reveal how popular that would be !!

 

 

Only those of little interest would actually get archived, which is good right

 

All of my caches are of interest the level of interest just varies for cache to cache.

The whole idea is not that any person or mod would have the power to retire a cache, but the decision would be made by us, the caching community, by the lack of activity.

 

I though this was request for automatic archival but if this is correct then use the SBA log type with a note saying cache has been in place to long and id like you or someone else to replace it with a new one.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The frequency would be determined by a significant drop in visits as compared to say, the first year.

All caches get visited more in the first year as thats when locals do them. In subsequent years its people on holiday etc who come to find them.

If caches got archived based on this then i would no longer be able to plan my holiday caching trips before i left.

Who decides anything now? What cache is published, what is archived, or what post is too disrespectful...........those who are considered worthy. Seriously though, the system could easily be set up to self monitor the 'find frequency percentage". The owner could receive a system generated e-mail warning of closure and needed removal

 

Owners decide or through lack of maintainance the finders decide and put SBA or need maintainance logs on the caches

 

but in reality if it's a local favorite cache, second visits could manipulate the numbers to keep it open anyway

 

So to keep it open people have to log two smileys for one cache, a quick forum search will reveal how popular that would be !!

 

 

Only those of little interest would actually get archived, which is good right

 

All of my caches are of interest the level of interest just varies for cache to cache.

The whole idea is not that any person or mod would have the power to retire a cache, but the decision would be made by us, the caching community, by the lack of activity.

 

I though this was request for automatic archival but if this is correct then use the SBA log type with a note saying cache has been in place to long and id like you or someone else to replace it with a new one.

 

I like the last lines here...you should try that and see what response you get from your reviewer!!

 

Is this idea because you can't find a place to hide a cache?

[+Isonzo Karst]

a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones

 

In some areas a "healthy turnover" of new caches is referred to as churning. An old hide is archived, a new hide is placed in the same area. For those who cache for the journey this is annoying.

 

I think your idea places the convenience of the cache seeker above the convenience of the cache hider. As the cache hider is the one spending their own time and money on creating a cache, I'd tend to favor their convenience over that of the seeker.

 

Saturation is becoming an issue in some areas, apparently. But if a hide is viable, no reason to archive it. If it isn't, then the site has an option to remove it in the form of intelligent intervention from a cacher (needs archived log) and a reviewer (archiving) and the owner who can also archive their own cache.

 

I'll remove and archive nearly any hide I have for your new placement, if you ask (there are some exceptions, of course; a couple of my favorite hides, and any of my multis). I've found that this is often true.

[+tabulator32]

I think the current system works great. If a cache is not maintained and the placer cannot be reached or refuses to communicate, the cache can be archived. Otherwise, ITS A GOOD CACHE!

 

I don't believe there would be a satisfactory "rule" you could create that would determine when a cacher's creation should be archived.

Edited November 19, 2007 by tabulator32

[+Snoogans]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones.

 

So what's the real story here?

 

Someone has a spot locked out that you want for a hide under 528 feet away, or gas prices are really hittin' your wallet hard?

 

My 7.5 cents (gotta give more with the dollar falling and all).... The system ain't broke. Why try to fix it?

[Swamp-Thing]

I have a hard time believing that with just 335 finds that you have found that Indiana is over saturated.

 

My vote is

 

NO

[+egami]

I think the current system works great. If a cache is not maintained and the placer cannot be reached or refuses to communicate, the cache can be archived. Otherwise, ITS A GOOD CACHE!

 

I don't believe there would be a satisfactory "rule" you could create that would determine when a cacher's creation should be archived.

 

To me, this is the key element. I don't see a simple rule being enacted that would adequately suffice all, or even the vast majority, of situation. It's such a case by case thing that if you ever tried to take an honest stab at building rules around an automated system it's be rather complex and even then....highly subjective.

 

Besides, what would keep the owners from just re-publishing the location immediately after it expired? Then you create a new GC.com buzzword: FTH

 

And I agree with the sentiment he posted as well...the current system works great, really.

[+ChileHead]

I've always thought we needed something similar to this, but acting more as a "nudge" after a period of time (say 18 months or so.)

 

November 18, 2007 - "Lame cache #1" by ChileHead is published

 

May 18, 2009 - Note gets automatically posted to "Lame cache #1" saying something like "Your cache has been out in the field for 18 months. We hope that the cachers in your area have enjoyed finding your cache. In order to open up areas for new caches to be placed, we're asking if you still want to keep this cache active. If so, please (click here) to indicate so. If the cache has served out its usefulness, (click here) to archive the cache. Should you do nothing, the cache will automatically archive in 30 days."

 

This would allow anybody to keep any of their caches active, should they wish to, and also act as a nudge to consider if its a worthwhile cache to keep alive. I'm not sure if the last part would be reasonable, as it could create geo-litter if a cacher is no longer active. But the community could step in to help out if needed.

 

I also think this has a beneficial role to play in the environment, as the geotrails that get formed would have a chance to fill in again.

[+baloo&bd]

I stand corrected, however what's the point in them hangin around. Anyhoo, maybe cache density should come in to play. I would be willing to "give up my territory" to new hides, if my finds dried up.

 

Great, archive them. If over saturation ever becomes a problem, this should be considered. Your area in Indiana, for that matter the whole state, does not have a saturation issue. I cache and live not to far from one a the largest metro areas in the country, no saturation problem there.

 

If this shows sign of becoming a problem, maybe, but until then there should be no forced archiving without cause.

Edited November 19, 2007 by baloo&bd

[Uberquandary]

No. For all of the reasons stated.

 

Also-it's cool to find really old caches.

[+DavidMac]

In some areas a "healthy turnover" of new caches is referred to as churning. An old hide is archived, a new hide is placed in the same area. For those who cache for the journey this is annoying.

 

I'll second this point. Why would I want to go back to the same cache sites repeatedly every year? I've seen many parks that have had two generations of caches, sometimes three, and it's nowhere near as exciting to revisit a cache as it is to visit a new area.

 

My vote on this idea will have to be a firm No.

[+Stargazer22]

I'll add another big NO to the list here. Any type of automatic archival system would not be a good thing in my opinion. If a cache is in an area and receiving no or very few visitors, there is nothing to make me think that a different cache in the same area a few feet away will get any more visitors than the first one did. This sounds more like a scheme to generate new caches for the FTFers. We already have a system of archival that I think works fine like it is.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I stand corrected, however what's the point in them hangin around. Anyhoo, maybe cache density should come in to play. I would be willing to "give up my territory" to new hides, if my finds dried up.

 

While you and many others have been geocaching "for years" there are new geocachers joining this game all the time. I have only been caching for 10 months and there are still quite a few caches that I have not found (or even looked for) within 20 miles of my home location. Why not give people like me and others just joining the game the opportunity to search for some of the older caches as well?

[+briansnat]

I don't like the idea.

 

I have caches that are going on 6 years old. They are as much fun to find today as they were the day I placed them. The visits are infrequent, but judging from the logs they get, they are still enjoyed by the people who do find them. New geocachers, vacationers and even long time geocachers who just never got around to hitting them all seem to appreciate them.

 

I don't need some formula telling me it's time to remove them. I'll remove them when I'm no longer interested in maintaining them.

[+eigengott]

over saturation

 

Where? In the US? With less than 0.05 caches per km²?

[+Kit Fox]

I don't like the idea.

 

I have caches that are going on 6 years old. They are as much fun to find today as they were the day I placed them. The visits are infrequent, but judging from the logs they get, they are still enjoyed by the people who do find them. New geocachers, vacationers and even long time geocachers who just never got around to hitting them all seem to appreciate them.

 

I don't need some formula telling me it's time to remove them. I'll remove them when I'm no longer interested in maintaining them.

 

Another "I agree with Briansnat moment." I have many rarely visited caches. Some of my caches only get visited once or twice a year, and the long "found it" logs speak volumes. The way I read this proposal, you effectively "cleaned out" your area, and you want to have all the old "slow" caches archived, so cachers will hide new ones. To me, this is a very selfish idea.

Like Brian, I'll archive my caches when I no longer want to maintain my caches, or the area is no longer a desirable location to share with people.

[+elmuyloco5]

I posted this response to the OP in the first thread this discussion started in so I'll post it again:

 

I wouldn't want a mandatory archive for the reasons listed above, however, I think that the system should check for owners that have been absent for a year or more from the site and contact them. If they do not respond in 30 days, the cache should be automatically archived or adopted out. Every single cache should have an active owner to perform maintenance and to answer any questions the finders might have. I've looked in my tiny town and found at least 6 members that have not been to this site for at least a year, and each of those members owns multiple caches. You can imagine what a large city has. I think you would find that the quality of caches would go up and the number of places to hide would obviously increase as well, letting the active cachers have a better choice of areas to place.

[+TurtleMommy]

That's what I want...a machine to decide when my cache isn't fun anymore!! NO THANKS!

 

Thee are caches on mountains which get maybe a visitor a year if at all. There are caches underwater that get VERY few visitors. There are even caches which have been out for a year and NEVER found (FTFs still waiting).

NO to the community telling me when my cache is trash, I think I'm more than capable enough to do that myself! If you don't like a cache and think it's in need of archival, the tool is there!

 

OOOH, where can I find those! Those sound challenging! I was looking to see if someone had a bookmark list showing them, but I'm still a noob and don't know how to search for a bookmark list. I tried searching the forums, but didn't see anything there either. Does anyone have a list somewhere?

 

OH and a BIG NO!!!! on the OP idea of auto-archiving caches. Like I said already, being a newbie, would really stink to miss out on some of the older, quality caches and be stuck having to find micro-spew that seems to be the current trend in hiding.

 

Thanks to all!

 

Happy Caching.

[+egami]

I've looked in my tiny town and found at least 6 members that have not been to this site for at least a year, and each of those members owns multiple caches.

 

How are you determining that? Based on their forum appearances or based on their GC.com activity? I am just mentioning this because I know a number of cachers that have never posted on the forum, but are active cachers and can be found logging finds, etc,. on GC.com.

[Dinoprophet]

I've looked in my tiny town and found at least 6 members that have not been to this site for at least a year, and each of those members owns multiple caches.

 

How are you determining that? Based on their forum appearances or based on their GC.com activity? I am just mentioning this because I know a number of cachers that have never posted on the forum, but are active cachers and can be found logging finds, etc,. on GC.com.

User profiles have a "Last Visited" entry that tells that last time the person logged on to the site.

[+egami]

I've looked in my tiny town and found at least 6 members that have not been to this site for at least a year, and each of those members owns multiple caches.

 

How are you determining that? Based on their forum appearances or based on their GC.com activity? I am just mentioning this because I know a number of cachers that have never posted on the forum, but are active cachers and can be found logging finds, etc,. on GC.com.

User profiles have a "Last Visited" entry that tells that last time the person logged on to the site.

 

Yeah, I know...I was just asking which method they were using. I guess my point is there is a difference being active on GC.com versus Groundspeak Forums.

 

Or are you saying they are linked? I don't know if they are or not...I would assume not.

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[+elmuyloco5]

I've looked in my tiny town and found at least 6 members that have not been to this site for at least a year, and each of those members owns multiple caches.

 

How are you determining that? Based on their forum appearances or based on their GC.com activity? I am just mentioning this because I know a number of cachers that have never posted on the forum, but are active cachers and can be found logging finds, etc,. on GC.com.

 

Sorry, should have clarified......I was going off of the profile on GC.com. Not only are some absent, but some of their caches are missing or in need of repair. I personally haven't searched for those caches, just found them while looking for local caches we wanted to do. I therefore don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to notify the reviewer of these members. But, I don't think that we should have to wait until there is a problem with a cache either, to archive it. I just personally feel that caches should have an active owner, someone who actively wants to participate in this activity in one way or another. I'm sure there are a number of caches out there who have been placed by someone who has left the activity altogether for whatever reason. Shouldn't these caches be adopted if they are well liked, or archived and the space given to someone who does want to participate?

[+tozainamboku]

I believe some people read too much into the cache permanence guideline. No cache should be really permanent. Even those that the old timers still talk about at events eventually deteriorate, especially if the owners stops maintaining them. Sure some people might like finding empty cracked tupperware with some pulp that looks like it may have been written on at sometime so they can log, "I don't know why no one has found this in the last two years?" In general, caches can last as long as they are being maintained by their owners. Cache owners can decide when the cache is no longer worth maintaining or if it should be archived to let new caches into the area. Perhaps the problem is with those cacher owners who stopped caching or are not able to maintain their caches. Some reviewers already look for caches that are not being maintained and if the owner cannot be contacted after a reasonable amount of time, archive them. And there of plenty of geocachers who have no problem posting a SBA on a cache they never looked for because it has been disabled for a long time or has had several DNFs and no response from the owner. I would say that with the current system caches get archived when they need to be archived - with one exception: adopted caches that should've been archived instead of adopted.

 

I think there is too much emphasis on adopting caches. I think very few caches should be adopted. If a cacher moves away or is unable to maintain their cache, the general rule should be to archive the cache. If the cache was in a particularly good spot, let someone else hide a cache there. If there was particularly good camo or a clever hiding technique, you might give the container to a friend to rehide - or if you are moving take it with you to hide in a new area. I particularly don't like unofficial adoptions. Its probably OK to do minor maintenance on someone else's cache - leave a new log or a pen, or maybe repair a leaky container. But we now see where people will leave a replacement cache if they don't find a cache. Even if a previous finder goes to replace a missing container it should only be done if the owner has personally asks. If the owner doesn't care enough to replace the missing cache or get a previous finder to check on it for him, the cache probably needs to be archived. I will admit to doing the good Samaritan stuff early in my caching career. I found a deteriorating cracked tupperware container that hadn't been found in a year. The log book was soaked as was most of the swag. But this was the oldest cache I had found; one of the oldest caches in Los Angeles county; and it was a great hike up a steep rocky trail to get just this one cache. So the next weekend I hiked backup the mountain with an ammo can to replace the original container. I didn't think to try to contact the cache owner - who looked like they stopped caching shortly after placing the cache. I just replace the cache with the new container an posted a note. About two years later, a group of cachers went up to find the cache, they placed six or seven new caches on the mountain (where there had only been the one). We now have an orphaned cache by a person no longer caching with six or seven newer caches being maintained by active cachers. I would contend that it is time for this cache to be archived. But I suspect that many who found it previously as well as those that have not would claim that this is historic or something. I think the historic part is that it shows people were hiding caches back in 2001 with no intention of maintaining them.

[+Semper Questio]

I'd have to stand against archival just because the owner is inactive. Many areas take care of caches that are owned by inactive cachers. Now if the owner is inactive and the cache has needed maintenance for "some time" with no offers for adoption by someone else, then maybe.

 

Of course, some (most?) of these would be resolved if folks would, instead of logging yet another "needs maintenance", would take a little more responsibility and log an "SBA" for caches that have fallen into disrepair with no corrective action by the owner.

[+egami]

Sorry, should have clarified......I was going off of the profile on GC.com. Not only are some absent, but some of their caches are missing or in need of repair. I personally haven't searched for those caches, just found them while looking for local caches we wanted to do. I therefore don't feel that it would be appropriate for me to notify the reviewer of these members. But, I don't think that we should have to wait until there is a problem with a cache either, to archive it. I just personally feel that caches should have an active owner, someone who actively wants to participate in this activity in one way or another. I'm sure there are a number of caches out there who have been placed by someone who has left the activity altogether for whatever reason. Shouldn't these caches be adopted if they are well liked, or archived and the space given to someone who does want to participate?

 

No apology needs, I was just looking to clarify that.

 

Your reply has me a bit confused...on one hand you say:

But, I don't think that we should have to wait until there is a problem with a cache either, to archive it.

 

I think OP is saying they should be archived regardless of if they are being maintained or not. I don't think you are in this category, but that one comment has me unsure.

 

Yet you also say:

I just personally feel that caches should have an active owner, someone who actively wants to participate in this activity in one way or another.

...

I'm sure there are a number of caches out there who have been placed by someone who has left the activity altogether for whatever reason. Shouldn't these caches be adopted if they are well liked, or archived and the space given to someone who does want to participate?

 

I agree with this, but I think the current process manages this effectively assuming cachers log correctly.

 

Is there any way to magically have caches archived that are abandoned unknowlingly though? I don't see a process like has been suggested solving that issue...I think if anything it emphasizes what is so good about the current method.

 

Also, I had an interesting issue recently...

 

I went to find a cache. Cache had 2 Maintenance logs in July, then two Finds between then and now. So, I go to check and the cache is indeed gone except some remnants that have been attached to the tree at the hide. The cache owner doesn't even cache and they only host this one cache. So, I go ahead and e-mail them and get a response and they have since disabled it for maintenance.

 

So, we have a 4 month span where they get conflicting log entries and no one contacted them (apparently) and they are going by logs that recently show finds versus maintenance requests...is that the owner's fault? Imo, somewhat, but also somewhat the fault of misleading Find logs.

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[+Scare Force One]

I disagree. A cache in Antartica (yes, there are some) may only get hit once every 5 years but that does not mean it needs to be archived. Not all areas are oversaterated or even aproching oversaturation, and besides certain areas being oversaturated just means it's esier to find more in 1 go.

 

~.~Scare Force One

[+egami]

I disagree. A cache in Antartica (yes, there are some) may only get hit once every 5 years but that does not mean it needs to be archived. Not all areas are oversaterated or even aproching oversaturation, and besides certain areas being oversaturated just means it's esier to find more in 1 go.

 

~.~Scare Force One

 

Exactly, this is the point I was hitting on earlier about even making a rule to do this...it'd be a nightmare due to all these type of exceptions that are valid, legitimate, maintained exceptions.

 

Also, I don't think the main point of mandatory archiving really even addresses the issue of saturation, per se. All it does is create turnover similar to what someone mentioned above regarding "Churning".

 

Creating a situation that speeds up this process, to me, doesn't seem to do anything inherently for saturated areas. It seems the OP's suggestion really creates more "Find" opportunities versus alleviating saturation, but maybe I am not seeing the point correctly.

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[+Shop99er]

The last thing we need is another rule. The majority of cache owners are responsible enuff to know when a chace needs to go away.

 

Just because a cache only gets found every several months, that's no reason to archive it. I have one that gets found maybe five times a year. But the folks that find it like it. Should I get rid of it? Nope.

 

I'm tending to agree with a couple of other posters here. This smells like a case of wanting to hide a cache, but the spot is taken.

 

If you want to see saturation, come out to Seattle. You can't hardly spit without hitting a cache in that town.

[+elmuyloco5]

I'd have to stand against archival just because the owner is inactive. Many areas take care of caches that are owned by inactive cachers. Now if the owner is inactive and the cache has needed maintenance for "some time" with no offers for adoption by someone else, then maybe.

 

Of course, some (most?) of these would be resolved if folks would, instead of logging yet another "needs maintenance", would take a little more responsibility and log an "SBA" for caches that have fallen into disrepair with no corrective action by the owner.

 

I understand that people take care of some caches, but there is no owner to answer questions should they arise. In my method, these caches could be adopted by the members who have been taking care of them. I'm not advocating that they should all be immediately archived. But, if the owner doesn't want to take part in the sport/game/whatever you want to call it, why shouldn't someone else get to own the cache or have the space opened for those who do?

 

 

Your reply has me a bit confused...on one hand you say:

But, I don't think that we should have to wait until there is a problem with a cache either, to archive it.

 

I think OP is saying they should be archived regardless of if they are being maintained or not. I don't think you are in this category, but that one comment has me unsure.

 

I wasn't responding in regard to what the OP said, I don't agree with their reasons for archival, although there's nothing wrong with their opinion on the matter. What I meant by the statement is this.....the current proceedures being used wait until there is an issue witht the cache, be it water infiltration, damaged container, etc. I think that there would be a lot less of these issues if we made sure that there was always an active cacher owning these caches. While the problem wouldn't disappear, it would be less likely to occur.

 

Yet you also say:

I just personally feel that caches should have an active owner, someone who actively wants to participate in this activity in one way or another.

...

I'm sure there are a number of caches out there who have been placed by someone who has left the activity altogether for whatever reason. Shouldn't these caches be adopted if they are well liked, or archived and the space given to someone who does want to participate?

 

I agree with this, but I think the current process manages this effectively assuming cachers log correctly.

 

Is there any way to magically have caches archived that are abandoned unknowlingly though? I don't see a process like has been suggested solving that issue...I think if anything it emphasizes what is so good about the current method.

 

The problem is that cachers don't log correctly, hence leading to missing caches not being mentioned as well as those in need of serious repair. I'm not sure if it's magical or not, but my process would be easy to impliment. The site keeps tabs on when people visit GC.com already. When someone hasn't visited for a certain length of time, let's use 1 year for an example, then the site will then search to see if this person owns any caches. If they do, they will have a stock letter sent out to them to find out if they plan to maintain the caches and be an active member. If they receive no response, or one that confirms that they are inactive, the cache is automatically placed on an "to be adopted" list. If the cache is clearly well liked, someone will adopt it. If not, then it needs to be archived after a period of time, say 30 days. This way, we are able to keep really great caches, and prevent some of the maintenance issues that arise (again not solving all of them, but better than we currently have it).

 

Also, I had an interesting issue recently...

 

I went to find a cache. Cache had 2 Maintenance logs in July, then two Finds between then and now. So, I go to check and the cache is indeed gone except some remnants that have been attached to the tree at the hide. The cache owner doesn't even cache and they only host this one cache. So, I go ahead and e-mail them and get a response and they have since disabled it for maintenance.

 

So, we have a 4 month span where they get conflicting log entries and no one contacted them (apparently) and they are going by logs that recently show finds versus maintenance requests...is that the owner's fault? Imo, somewhat, but also somewhat the fault of misleading Find logs.

 

Proof that the current system doesn't work as well as it could. And maybe an additional improvement would be to track members who have had caches archived due to unresolved maintenance issues and not allow them to hide more. (By unresolved, I mean the member doesn't try to fix the cache)

 

I've not brought this subject up because I am upset with the lack of space to place caches in my area, there are lots. And we're getting ready to place a 20 cache series, which is enough caches to maintain for us. We have not been caching long, but as we have, we find many that are in poor shape. We like to help out and fix what we can and CITO where we are able to. The idea I proposed was only to help improve the overall quality of caches out there for the members who are an active part of the geocaching community.

 

edited for better quote layout

Edited November 19, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+Red Rose]

I would vote no. Clearing caches based on frequency would get rid of some of the best.

 

My observation is over-saturation in our area is caused by people with just a few finds (less than 10 often) going out and splattering a bunch of new caches. Usually fairly urban/suburban, usually micros or other cheap containers with not much else in them but some paper and a pencil.

 

I think a new user should be prevented by the GC.com site from submitting a new cache until they have reached at least 25 finds. This isn't too draconian, it isn't a new rule people have to follow and would prevent a lot of clutter.

[+egami]

Proof that the current system doesn't work as well as it could. And maybe an additional improvement would be to track members who have had caches archived due to unresolved maintenance issues and not allow them to hide more. (By unresolved, I mean the member doesn't try to fix the cache)

 

I am not suggesting it is not perfect. I guess I am curious as to what your proposal. It's one thing for you, the OP, or anyone to shoot from the hip and say we need this, but I think what you'll find is that when you try to write the rules for an automated system you'll introduce all kinds of new problems for caches in areas where this isn't a problem.

 

I've not brought this subject up because I am upset with the lack of space to place caches in my area, there are lots. And we're getting ready to place a 20 cache series, which is enough caches to maintain for us. We have not been caching long, but as we have, we find many that are in poor shape. We like to help out and fix what we can and CITO where we are able to. The idea I proposed was only to help improve the overall quality of caches out there for the members who are an active part of the geocaching community.

 

I can understand that. But is it fair to those that do maintenance theirs to have to auto-archive them or be belabored with republishing them after theirs expire in this proposed system?

 

I am simply saying that this proposal isn't without flaws itself. I am not one for simply trading one set of issue with another.

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[+elmuyloco5]

Proof that the current system doesn't work as well as it could. And maybe an additional improvement would be to track members who have had caches archived due to unresolved maintenance issues and not allow them to hide more. (By unresolved, I mean the member doesn't try to fix the cache)

 

I am not suggesting it is not perfect. I guess I am curious as to what your proposal. It's one thing for you, the OP, or anyone to shoot from the hip and say we need this, but I think what you'll find is that when you try to write the rules for an automated system you'll introduce all kinds of new problems for caches in areas where this isn't a problem.

 

But isn't a cache without an owner a problem? How is an owner who is unactive for over a year any different than placing a cache while on a trip? Trip caches are supposed to be shot down and yet some of those people might be back by the trip cache before the unactive person would ever come around again.

 

I've not brought this subject up because I am upset with the lack of space to place caches in my area, there are lots. And we're getting ready to place a 20 cache series, which is enough caches to maintain for us. We have not been caching long, but as we have, we find many that are in poor shape. We like to help out and fix what we can and CITO where we are able to. The idea I proposed was only to help improve the overall quality of caches out there for the members who are an active part of the geocaching community.

 

I can understand that. But is it fair to those that do maintenance theirs to have to auto-archive them or be belabored with republishing them after theirs expire in this proposed system?

 

I am simply saying that this proposal isn't without flaws itself. I am not one for simply trading one set of issue with another.

 

Just to clarify, I DO NOT AGREE with the OP about archiving in regards to the numbers of visits to a cache. I'm talking about a program that puts caches with inactive owners up for adoption or archival, if no one wants to adopt it. This is no way would effect members who are doing maintenance. Those members would be active, hence this would not affect them. Also, if they are not active on the site, but are maintaining their cache, they would respond to the letter sent to them inquiring their desire to keep the cache open. I'm looking to clear up the caches that have an owner who clearly are not intersted in the geocaching sport/game/whatever anymore. Someone was talking on the forum about how the numbers of geocachers registered is probably fairly inaccurate because many have signed up, but since left over the years.

[+Miragee]

If older caches were Archived, there wouldn't be any cache adventures like this one or this one.

[+egami]

Just to clarify, I DO NOT AGREE with the OP about archiving in regards to the numbers of visits to a cache. I'm talking about a program that puts caches with inactive owners up for adoption or archival, if no one wants to adopt it. This is no way would effect members who are doing maintenance. Those members would be active, hence this would not affect them.

 

I guess my point on this aspect remains that I'd be curious of the details as to how the system programmatically determines when that is.

 

Also, if they are not active on the site, but are maintaining their cache, they would respond to the letter sent to them inquiring their desire to keep the cache open. I'm looking to clear up the caches that have an owner who clearly are not intersted in the geocaching sport/game/whatever anymore. Someone was talking on the forum about how the numbers of geocachers registered is probably fairly inaccurate because many have signed up, but since left over the years.

 

I could actually go with this if the current infrastructure remained in place as far as cachers being allowed to cache maintenance logs and needs archiving logs.

 

I think it's fair to argue that part of a cache owners' maintenance could be retaining active status on GC.com, so long as it's not cumbersome and there is some leeway....maybe before the cache location becomes active it has to be done by the approver in the area just so there is a human element of a check and balance.

[+StarBrand]

No. Not the right answer.

 

Sounds like a way to generate lots of Geo-litter.

 

Bring a maintenance kit with you always - do your best to take care of all the caches you find. Log your DNFs and suggest archives when it is appropriate. Be a kind neighbor.

 

There is no over saturation problem in any of the areas that I regularly cache in.

[+egami]

No. Not the right answer.

 

Sounds like a way to generate lots of Geo-litter.

 

Bring a maintenance kit with you always - do your best to take care of all the caches you find. Log your DNFs and suggest archives when it is appropriate. Be a kind neighbor.

 

There is no over saturation problem in any of the areas that I regularly cache in.

 

Not neccesarily. First of all, you could combat that and actually give a virtual reward (green smiley maybe) for the person that retrieves an archived/abandoned cache.

 

Secondly, in the areas of saturation the cache location is being replaced anyway. It'd be a requirement of the new owner to remove the old cache remains.

 

How is geo-litter being avoided now on these caches? If an owner disappears and the cache is archived is someone being prompted now to go retain those remains?

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[+elmuyloco5]

Just to clarify, I DO NOT AGREE with the OP about archiving in regards to the numbers of visits to a cache. I'm talking about a program that puts caches with inactive owners up for adoption or archival, if no one wants to adopt it. This is no way would effect members who are doing maintenance. Those members would be active, hence this would not affect them.

 

I guess my point on this aspect remains that I'd be curious of the details as to how the system programmatically determines when that is.

 

Also, if they are not active on the site, but are maintaining their cache, they would respond to the letter sent to them inquiring their desire to keep the cache open. I'm looking to clear up the caches that have an owner who clearly are not intersted in the geocaching sport/game/whatever anymore. Someone was talking on the forum about how the numbers of geocachers registered is probably fairly inaccurate because many have signed up, but since left over the years.

 

I could actually go with this if the current infrastructure remained in place as far as cachers being allowed to cache maintenance logs and needs archiving logs.

 

I think it's fair to argue that part of a cache owners' maintenance could be retaining active status on GC.com, so long as it's not cumbersome and there is some leeway....maybe before the cache location becomes active it has to be done by the approver in the area just so there is a human element of a check and balance.

 

When the process of "letter...adoption/archival" would begin would need to be determined by GC.com. I gave the example of a years time being inactive from GC.com (visible from a member's profile page), but it could be 6 months, etc.

 

And certainly, I would agree that the current procedure should remain intact. My idea was only to supliment the current procedure to help eliminate caches that will only have future problems because of a lack of an active and participating owner. My method would also have no effect on geotrash as the inactive owner has already caused the cache to be geotrash by not keeping up with it. In time these caches would be archived anyway due to a lack of maintenance and would result in the same amount of trash. My idea would help keep caches alive by creating an active adoption process as well as archiving some prior to the cache being trashed. These caches could be picked up to eliminate the geotrash issue as I have described on here previously....but that's a whole other issue.