Mandatory Archiving....your take on it

[+StarBrand]

....

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.

I disagree that a lack of owner visit indicates that it is in poor shape.

 

I have a few caches that I have not visited in 3 or more years. I got to them in the past 2 months and all were in perfect shape. Didn't require any intervention of any kind from me. Under the 'plan', these caches would be archived and become geo-trash when In fact nothing is wrong with them.

 

Also - a semi-local cacher spent 3 years serving overseas, he did not log any caches and only a few visits to the site during that time. Would we have archived all of his hides?? He is now back home and quite active.

[+egami]

I disagree that a lack of owner visit indicates that it is in poor shape.

 

I would agree with this...especially in, say, western Nebraska...

 

I have a few caches that I have not visited in 3 or more years. I got to them in the past 2 months and all were in perfect shape. Didn't require any intervention of any kind from me. Under the 'plan', these caches would be archived and become geo-trash when In fact nothing is wrong with them.

 

Actually, you'd just take an online, virtual action to keep it active.

 

Also - a semi-local cacher spent 3 years serving overseas, he did not log any caches and only a few visits to the site during that time. Would we have archived all of his hides?? He is now back home and quite active.

 

Hence my reasoning for keeping the reviewer in the loop for such a change.

[+Ambrosia]

Hypothetically, someone could show that they haven't logged onto the site for months or years, but they're monitoring their cache logs from emails. Just because they're not logging on doesn't mean they're not watching their caches. Just a thought (hopefully I haven't missed someone else bringing that up).

[+egami]

Hypothetically, someone could show that they haven't logged onto the site for months or years, but they're monitoring their cache logs from emails. Just because they're not logging on doesn't mean they're not watching their caches. Just a thought (hopefully I haven't missed someone else bringing that up).

 

Which is why I introduced keeping the reviewer in the mix for having the final action in freeing up the log. Your scenario hasn't been brought up specifically, but it's similar to StarBrand's. Certainly a legit concern...

 

I would think that part of elmuyloco's proposal would entail that an e-mail alert would be generated to the owner so many days prior to the archive date which would then in turn alert the reviewer who would have the final action to archive it and free it up.

 

But, yes...regardless of the scenario I think we'd want to protect the integrity of caches that are indeed active and being maintained.

 

At this point, my biggest hesitation with the proposal is those caches that get virtually abandoned, but adopted and maintained by the area cachers. Maybe prior to the finalization of archival an "adoption" notice is sent out and it can be adopted.

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[Uberquandary]

It seems like every system people are suggesting that would make sense or be fair would be more trouble than it's worth.

[+egami]

It seems like every system people are suggesting that would make sense or be fair would be more trouble than it's worth.

 

I don't know...elmuyloco's idea is more reasonable and really not terribly cumbersome. Basically a cache owner would have to virtually maintain the cache once a year or so and that's it. That's less work that they are currently doing to manually maintain it.

 

If there is no virtual maintenance being done you kick off an adoption period and if it's not adopted it gets archived. I think if you kept the local approver involved, and the notifications were done properly as they are now with e-mail, then it could be successful. I kind of added the idea in to assist in further alleviating geo-trash as well by rewarding cachers for retrieving archived caches with a green smiley.

 

I could live with something like that. Am I missing how that is too much trouble or unfair?

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[Uberquandary]

How much would that increase the reviewer's workloads? That's what I meant by saying it would be too much trouble. As if worrying about getting caches published and following guidelines and archiving this and that weren't enough. The system ain't broke, so don't fix it!

[+egami]

How much would that increase the reviewer's workloads? That's what I meant by saying it would be too much trouble. As if worrying about getting caches published and following guidelines and archiving this and that weren't enough. The system ain't broke, so don't fix it!

 

Well, in fairness this system does have its issues as elmuyloco mentioned.

 

This would really be a minor addition as I see it proposed. I mean right now it appears to me the reviewers are already doing the same amount of work on their end when they archive one because it's a manual process, but I may be overlooking something...

 

I agree, I am not for making changes without "bettering" the system. Certainly changing one set of problems with another is pointless, but there may be some merit to this suggestion.

[Uberquandary]

Well-is there a problem to begin with? I don't think so.

[+egami]

Well-is there a problem to begin with? I don't think so.

 

Abandoned caches are not a problem?

[Uberquandary]

In specific instances, they are a problem. I don't see a broader issue, at least not one worthy of a system overhaul to deal with it.

[+egami]

I would argue that it's always a problem...anytime a cache is left abandoned as geo-trash that, to me, taints what Geocaching is about.

 

On the implementation aspect, system overhaul isn't probably a fair representation of the change. Working in IT, software development specifically, I could probably write, test and implement such a change in well under a week, so the overall cost associated with it isn't terribly expensive.

 

All I am saying is that there are some value in the benefits and certainly minimizing geo-trash is the best interest of the community and the environment. If in the process we slightly raise the bar for maintainence and enhance the back end process of caches being abandoned with implementing an adoptive program then that's good as well.

 

And, at the end of the day, there isn't much more overhead created for cachers or approvers. Especially when weighed against an increase in integrity of caching in general.

 

I think his suggestion is pretty reasonable.

[+meralgia]

I disagree with mandatory archival. I have four caches in an area that requires that you pay for parking. Unless people bike over or are willing to pay, they don't get visited very often.

[+elmuyloco5]

....

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.

I disagree that a lack of owner visit indicates that it is in poor shape.

 

I have a few caches that I have not visited in 3 or more years. I got to them in the past 2 months and all were in perfect shape. Didn't require any intervention of any kind from me. Under the 'plan', these caches would be archived and become geo-trash when In fact nothing is wrong with them.

 

Also - a semi-local cacher spent 3 years serving overseas, he did not log any caches and only a few visits to the site during that time. Would we have archived all of his hides?? He is now back home and quite active.

 

I just wanted to point out that I didn't state that an inactive owner indicates that the cache is in poor shape, but rather that it will be at some point in the future (what that point is depends on too many variables to determine). For your instance of the military member being overseas, my personal opinion should be that their caches are temporarily adopted or archived. I'm an ex-military member and so is my husband. I'm in no way trying to be unfair to those serving overseas, but rather being fair in my opinion that ALL caches should have an active member. If you have to be inactive for an extended period of time, I'm sure local cachers would be more than happy to help you out. Notification of such to your local reviewer is always a good idea in these cases.

 

Hypothetically, someone could show that they haven't logged onto the site for months or years, but they're monitoring their cache logs from emails. Just because they're not logging on doesn't mean they're not watching their caches. Just a thought (hopefully I haven't missed someone else bringing that up).

 

Which is why I said that the process would include a notification system. The whole thing is super simple and requires very little programming to actually function. The site already monitors when members have last visited GC.com whether it's to search other caches or read their own. Once this time frame hits one year since last visited, a form letter would be immediately sent off to the email address they provide to GC.com. This letter would ask if they intended to remain an active member and maintain their owned caches as active. If they did, nothing would happen to the cache. If they reply that they do not intend to, or they do not reply at all, the cache is then placed on a "needs to be adopted" list online where it sits for a predetermined amount of time, say 30 days. Once that time has expired, it is clear that the owner is not interested in the cache and neither are other cachers, the cache is then archived. The cache is placed on an "archived list" that can be accessed by all GC.com members for removal. If the member removes it, they get a green smiley for their CITO work (love your idea Egami....by the way).

 

Seems simple to me. It's unbiased, fair, and consistant. It helps keep geotrash cleaned up, and should upset no one. If the owner didn't respond, they clearly don't care what happens to their cache. If their fellow cachers don't adopt it, they don't care to see it still in place. So who could possibly have an issue with it? It's no more work for the reviewers as we all know that caches with no owner will eventually be archived anyway as at some point in the future something will happen to the cache, even maintained ones require new containers after a period of time from cracked tupperware or broken gaskets etc. It requires a small amount of effort on GC.com's part in the beginning to impliment, but if they are truly about the CITO, then this plan helps keep our planet cleaned up.

[Uberquandary]

I would argue that it's always a problem...anytime a cache is left abandoned as geo-trash that, to me, taints what Geocaching is about.

There's already a system in place to take care of abandoned caches: when it starts to deteriorate and cachers log 'needs maintenance' or SBAs, then the reviewers are notified that a cache has become a nuisance. As far as I can tell, that system is working just fine.

[+The Jester]

Well-is there a problem to begin with? I don't think so.

 

Abandoned caches are not a problem?

How does auto-archiving caches (by whatever means/system you desire/propose) prevent abandoned caches? It sounds like creating geo-litter to me.

[+The Jester]

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

Hmm, I was going to mention one of those caches myself...

[+egami]

There's already a system in place to take care of abandoned caches: when it starts to deteriorate and cachers log 'needs maintenance' or SBAs, then the reviewers are notified that a cache has become a nuisance. As far as I can tell, that system is working just fine.

 

As you may have read before...I don't have any qualms with the current system. That doesn't mean that the aformentioned suggested improvements are of no value.

[+egami]

How does auto-archiving caches (by whatever means/system you desire/propose) prevent abandoned caches? It sounds like creating geo-litter to me.

 

If you go back and read the proposal I added to elmuyloco's you can see that. I responded to StarBrand's similar inquiry just up the page.

[+egami]

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

Hmm, I was going to mention one of those caches myself...

 

This issue is also not an issue with what elmuyloco proposed.

[+The Jester]

How does auto-archiving caches (by whatever means/system you desire/propose) prevent abandoned caches? It sounds like creating geo-litter to me.

 

If you go back and read the proposal I added to elmuyloco's you can see that. I responded to StarBrand's similar inquiry just up the page.

But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info. How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows). How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking?

 

All these questions (which have been discussed before) all go into my thoughts that any auto-archive system will NOT help with the abandoned cache/geo-litter "problem".

[+The Jester]

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

Hmm, I was going to mention one of those caches myself...

 

This issue is also not an issue with what elmuyloco proposed.

My quote was just for laughs - look at who hid the second one listed...

[+Kealia]

I'm dog-piling on the "No" band-wagon for all of the reasons previously stated.

[+elmuyloco5]

How does auto-archiving caches (by whatever means/system you desire/propose) prevent abandoned caches? It sounds like creating geo-litter to me.

 

If you go back and read the proposal I added to elmuyloco's you can see that. I responded to StarBrand's similar inquiry just up the page.

But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info. How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows). How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking?

 

All these questions (which have been discussed before) all go into my thoughts that any auto-archive system will NOT help with the abandoned cache/geo-litter "problem".

 

I'll try to address each of your questions.

 

1.But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info.

 

You would "find" these listings easily because they would be placed on a "Recently Archived" list available for all members to look at. The cache would remain on the list until the cache is removed from it's physical position and logged as such (for the green smiley) by another cacher, or it will be removed once a member finds that no cache is in place either because it went missing or was removed by the owner, and lastly it would be removed from the list if the owner had commented that they had removed the cache themselves.

 

2. How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows).

 

Distinction between non-active and acitve is simple. Look at your profile page, it will show when you last visited the site (no matter why you came online). This date would start the "one year point" at which the plan would use. One year since the last time you visited online the letter would be sent out so that owners who still want to participate but have not been online for a year, can still keep their cache. The second part to your question is addressed by other cachers going to look to see if the archived cache is still in place to properly remove it. There are plenty of us on here who are self-motivated to CITO without an event. I'm sure the motivation of a green smiley will work for some, while others will be motivated to obtain a free container, while some will just be motivated because it's cleaning up.

 

3. How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking?

 

The "notification" will be the fact that the cache is removed from the archived list as explained in answer #1. Once it's removed from the list, it's been verified that the cache is no longer in place and properly cleaned up. The current procedures do nothing to ensure the cache is removed.

Edited November 19, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+Ambrosia]

....

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.

I disagree that a lack of owner visit indicates that it is in poor shape.

 

I have a few caches that I have not visited in 3 or more years. I got to them in the past 2 months and all were in perfect shape. Didn't require any intervention of any kind from me. Under the 'plan', these caches would be archived and become geo-trash when In fact nothing is wrong with them.

 

Also - a semi-local cacher spent 3 years serving overseas, he did not log any caches and only a few visits to the site during that time. Would we have archived all of his hides?? He is now back home and quite active.

 

I just wanted to point out that I didn't state that an inactive owner indicates that the cache is in poor shape, but rather that it will be at some point in the future (what that point is depends on too many variables to determine). For your instance of the military member being overseas, my personal opinion should be that their caches are temporarily adopted or archived. I'm an ex-military member and so is my husband. I'm in no way trying to be unfair to those serving overseas, but rather being fair in my opinion that ALL caches should have an active member. If you have to be inactive for an extended period of time, I'm sure local cachers would be more than happy to help you out. Notification of such to your local reviewer is always a good idea in these cases.

 

Hypothetically, someone could show that they haven't logged onto the site for months or years, but they're monitoring their cache logs from emails. Just because they're not logging on doesn't mean they're not watching their caches. Just a thought (hopefully I haven't missed someone else bringing that up).

 

Which is why I said that the process would include a notification system. The whole thing is super simple and requires very little programming to actually function. The site already monitors when members have last visited GC.com whether it's to search other caches or read their own. Once this time frame hits one year since last visited, a form letter would be immediately sent off to the email address they provide to GC.com. This letter would ask if they intended to remain an active member and maintain their owned caches as active. If they did, nothing would happen to the cache. If they reply that they do not intend to, or they do not reply at all, the cache is then placed on a "needs to be adopted" list online where it sits for a predetermined amount of time, say 30 days. Once that time has expired, it is clear that the owner is not interested in the cache and neither are other cachers, the cache is then archived. The cache is placed on an "archived list" that can be accessed by all GC.com members for removal. If the member removes it, they get a green smiley for their CITO work (love your idea Egami....by the way).

 

Seems simple to me. It's unbiased, fair, and consistant. It helps keep geotrash cleaned up, and should upset no one. If the owner didn't respond, they clearly don't care what happens to their cache. If their fellow cachers don't adopt it, they don't care to see it still in place. So who could possibly have an issue with it? It's no more work for the reviewers as we all know that caches with no owner will eventually be archived anyway as at some point in the future something will happen to the cache, even maintained ones require new containers after a period of time from cracked tupperware or broken gaskets etc. It requires a small amount of effort on GC.com's part in the beginning to impliment, but if they are truly about the CITO, then this plan helps keep our planet cleaned up.

But what if the email gets throttled or sent to junkmail or gets overlooked, etc......

 

I hate the idea that I might be overlooking something and have to fear that one of my caches may be taken away from me without notice by some automated system. Sounds like big brother to me!

 

(that wasn't invoking godwin's law...right? )

[+egami]

But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info.

 

Well, this is elmuyloco's baby and I tagged on some ideas, so let me give you my answer on how I'd see that working. I mentioned it once, but with everything spread out I'll try to answer these for you...

 

What I suggested was an addition of a "green smiley". Once a cache is archived it'd be listed as eligible for removal and cachers would probably race to be the one to get them. Knowing the vehement nature of FTFer's I could see a hot trend to get the green smiley's because they are a one-time shot deal.

 

I am not sure of why they don't publish the info. to answer that fully, but the data is there and I am sure it'd be easy to work satisfy the goal of removing archived caches and protecting info. as they see fit.

 

How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows). How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking?

 

They would be "active" until the green smiley was logged.

 

All these questions (which have been discussed before) all go into my thoughts that any auto-archive system will NOT help with the abandoned cache/geo-litter "problem".

 

I think if you create the "green smiley" you'd be surprised at how few archived caches would become geo-litter compared to now.

[+elmuyloco5]

But what if the email gets throttled or sent to junkmail or gets overlooked, etc......

 

I hate the idea that I might be overlooking something and have to fear that one of my caches may be taken away from me without notice by some automated system. Sounds like big brother to me!

 

(that wasn't invoking godwin's law...right? )

 

 

How would this be any different than if one of your caches requires maintenance? You would be notified of that as well through email. Or you would have to look online, which again would make you an active member. Are you frequently gone for more than a year from GC.com? How can this affect your caches then? If one of your caches had a serious issue, your reviewer would contact you through your email. If you don't receive that email and contact them back, your cache will be archived after a certain amount of time anyway.......see no difference. Again, this plan is such that the only caches that it would archive (again the current procedure is still in place as well to maintain problem caches with active owners) are those from a member who hasn't been active for at least a year.

[+ILReviewer]

This issue is also not an issue with what elmuyloco proposed.

I think the issue is that so many posts have hit this thread that people still think you're arguing in favor of the proposed system submitted by the original poster. What you are suggesting (I believe) is this:

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.

...which was buried on the first page in post 30.

 

Around Illinois, I monitor caches that have been inactive for quite some time and ones that have "Needs Archived" logs. In the case of the Needs Archived logs, I'll look at the cacher that posts the Needs Archived and see if it's a mistake (sometimes wrong log type) or I'll look at the history of the owner and see if they're pretty quick to respond. If I think the cache doesn't need my intervention, I'll just watch it for about a week.

 

If the cache needs my help, I'll post a reviewer note on the cache page that says something along the lines of "It's been disabled for X days. What's going on?" or "There's a Needs Archived log here and you haven't responded. What's up?"with a time limit of 2 or 3 weeks to respond by posting a note on the page. No response and the cache gets archived.

 

This Illinois process is doing even MORE than what your proposal would do. Caches may be still found if they have Needs Archived or are temporarily disabled for too long. It will usually capture problem caches owned by missing cachers much sooner than 1 year after the cacher last logged in. And what if the user logs in every 6 months, but doesn't maintain the caches? The only aspect this doesn't catch is if a cache doesn't have an active owner. However, if the cache is out there, well stocked, doing quite well - with lots of finders and a great log book with 150 pages left in an air tight container. If that type of cache is being maintained by the community I see no harm in leaving the cache as is, with proper credit for the hide going to the owner account and not someone that happened to replace a log book.

 

I don't think lack of activity on the owner account should be a sole reason to archive a cache. However, lack of activity on the owner account coupled with a poorly maintained cache will certainly capture my attention.

[+egami]

You could even implement some simple concept that your date to renew your caches for the year is you B-Day. As long as you get here within say 30 days either side that you can click the button to retain maintenance.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Oh, it is possible that I understand the point of this thread now.

 

There should be a time-based auto-archive feature that allows caches such as St. George's Longbranch Prey that inspires creative other hides based on the original's concept such as Left overs! Long Branch Beastie series#1.

 

Indeed, auto-archive such caches as the one listed above, where many local cachers endeavor to keep up with the maintenance, despite the owner has moved to a new location, since cachers in the area "want to keep some of these good caches here with a history as long as we can. We need a few older caches with some history to stay as long as possible."

 

[+egami]

I think the issue is that so many posts have hit this thread that people still think you're arguing in favor of the proposed system submitted by the original poster.

 

Undoubtedly. Which is unavoidable.

 

What you are suggesting (I believe) is this:

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.

...which was buried on the first page in post 30.

 

With modifications mentioned later...yes.

 

Around Illinois, I monitor caches that have been inactive for quite some time and ones that have "Needs Archived" logs. In the case of the Needs Archived logs, I'll look at the cacher that posts the Needs Archived and see if it's a mistake (sometimes wrong log type) or I'll look at the history of the owner and see if they're pretty quick to respond. If I think the cache doesn't need my intervention, I'll just watch it for about a week.

 

If the cache needs my help, I'll post a reviewer note on the cache page that says something along the lines of "It's been disabled for X days. What's going on?" or "There's a Needs Archived log here and you haven't responded. What's up?"with a time limit of 2 or 3 weeks to respond by posting a note on the page. No response and the cache gets archived.

 

At that point, does anyone retrieve that cache physically? This is one aspect I am vague on that leads me to believe currently it becomes geo-litter, but feel free to elaborate.

 

This Illinois process is doing even MORE than what your proposal would do. Caches may be still found if they have Needs Archived or are temporarily disabled for too long. It will usually capture problem caches owned by missing cachers much sooner than 1 year after the cacher last logged in.

 

Well, remember, this is in addition to the current model. It'd be more of the catch scenario than the default.

 

And what if the user logs in every 6 months, but doesn't maintain the caches? The only aspect this doesn't catch is if a cache doesn't have an active owner.

 

Doesn't physically maintain them, but virtually does? That would fall under current monitoring...again, the suggestion isn't a replacement, but an ammendment to the existing process.

 

However, if the cache is out there, well stocked, doing quite well - with lots of finders and a great log book with 150 pages left in an air tight container. If that type of cache is being maintained by the community I see no harm in leaving the cache as is, with proper credit for the hide going to the owner account and not someone that happened to replace a log book.

 

That is understandable...what I would suggest is the ability for reviewer's to be able to renew it yearly for the owner and no harm done.

 

I don't think lack of activity on the owner account should be a sole reason to archive a cache. However, lack of activity on the owner account coupled with a poorly maintained cache will certainly capture my attention.

 

I agree whole-heartedly and that's why numerous times I stress the importance of the human element staying involved to avoid a catastrophic end to a perfectly good cache.

 

Are all reviewers as attentive as you? I hope so. Iowa Admin is great I know.

[Guyute1210]

I would argue that it's always a problem...anytime a cache is left abandoned as geo-trash that, to me, taints what Geocaching is about.

 

I do not like the idea of mandatory and/or automatically archiving caches, period. I have a cache that was placed in mid-July that has been found twice (within the first 2 weeks of it being published) and hasn't been found since then. Is it a problem that it hasn't been found? I don't think so...I also see no need to hike back down to the cache site just to maintain it. One could argue that that type of cache maintains itself since it gets so few visitors...

 

The issue with geo-trash could be aleviated (although not a problem in my area) by having another log option that would be set by a reviewer to have someone go out and retrieve the cache or trash before it's archived. This doesn't have to be a new type of smiley or stat, just another find it log, note or dnf before archiving it...

[+egami]

I would argue that it's always a problem...anytime a cache is left abandoned as geo-trash that, to me, taints what Geocaching is about.

 

I do not like the idea of mandatory and/or automatically archiving caches, period. I have a cache that was placed in mid-July that has been found twice (within the first 2 weeks of it being published) and hasn't been found since then. Is it a problem that it hasn't been found? I don't think so...I also see no need to hike back down to the cache site just to maintain it. One could argue that that type of cache maintains itself since it gets so few visitors...

 

Agreed, that is my concern too and why I was originally against it, but this modification suggested later makes that a non-issue.

 

The issue with geo-trash could be aleviated (although not a problem in my area) by having another log option that would be set by a reviewer to have someone go out and retrieve the cache or trash before it's archived. This doesn't have to be a new type of smiley or stat, just another find it log, note or dnf before archiving it...

 

That's what I suggested as well....see previously the "green smiley" comments.

[+ILReviewer]

At that point, does anyone retrieve that cache physically? This is one aspect I am vague on that leads me to believe currently it becomes geo-litter, but feel free to elaborate.

 

Please don't confuse geocaching with Geocaching.com. Geocaching.com is a listing service owned by Groundspeak. There are other listing services out there, even if they are few and far between. Just because the cache is not maintained on this site and by a current user login does not mean that it is not listed somewhere else. The game geocaching (with a little "g") is a sport where people hide containers and use GPS coordinates to direct seekers to those coordinates.

 

I would never presume as a reviewer on a listing service to tell someone to go and pick up a cache because it's not listed here. The Yellow Pages is a VERY large, but not entirely comprehensive list of businesses. If a local pizza parlor was listed for years in the Yellow Pages, but then was not listed in the 2007 edition, that doesn't mean that people who read the Yellow Pages can go into the establishment and start pulling down the light fixtures and taking the dough out of the refridgerator - just because it wasn't listed anymore.

 

More often than not, you are correct that the box probably becomes litter. I talked with the Department of Natural Resources about this when they were concerned about caches being placed on Illinois Nature Preserves. Their response was that in due time nature would consume an unlisted cache much quicker than we think. I thought that was an odd comment, but I do bring that up from the land manager's perspective.

 

I also believe that you're doing yourself some discredit by using this thread to espouse your idea. I think that you are fighting a battle of the title of this thread since your idea is being thought out in a thread titled "Mandatory Archiving....your take on it, A cure for over-saturation?" You might want to ask a forum morderator to split this into another thread. BTW - I'm a Reviewer, not a moderator, no matter what my little icon says under my avatar.

Edited November 19, 2007 by ILReviewer

[+egami]

At that point, does anyone retrieve that cache physically? This is one aspect I am vague on that leads me to believe currently it becomes geo-litter, but feel free to elaborate.

 

Please don't confuse geocaching with Geocaching.com. Geocaching.com is a listing service owned by Groundspeak. There are other listing services out there, even if they are few and far between. Just because the cache is not maintained on this site and by a current user login does not mean that it is not listed somewhere else. The game geocaching (with a little "g") is a sport where people hide containers and use GPS coordinates to direct seekers to those coordinates.

 

I fully understand this.

 

I would never presume as a reviewer on a listing service to tell someone to go and pick up a cache because it's not listed here. The Yellow Pages is a VERY large, but not entirely comprehensive list of businesses. If a local pizza parlor was listed for years in the Yellow Pages, but then was not listed in the 2007 edition, that doesn't mean that people who read the Yellow Pages can go into the establishment and start pulling down the light fixtures and taking the dough out of the refridgerator.

 

More often than not, you are correct that the box probably becomes litter. I talked with the Department of Natural Resources about this when they were concerned about caches being placed on Illinois Nature Preserves. Their response was that in due time nature would consume an unlisted cache much quicker than we think. I thought that was an odd comment, but I do bring that up from the land manager's perspective.

 

I am talking specifically GC.com. If I, as a cache owner, fail to maintain my cache and disappear from sight as far as GC.com is concerned and you , as a reviewer, archive my cache....who goes and retrieves it? I don't...I am lazy, I quit geocaching, I won the lottery and retired in Tahiti and forget what geocaching is....if I don't do it, who does?

 

I assumed that was apparent, or implied being, we were discussing altering the protocol here.

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[Guyute1210]

The issue with geo-trash could be aleviated (although not a problem in my area) by having another log option that would be set by a reviewer to have someone go out and retrieve the cache or trash before it's archived. This doesn't have to be a new type of smiley or stat, just another find it log, note or dnf before archiving it...

 

That's what I suggested as well....see previously the "green smiley" comments.

I saw the Green smiley...my suggestion was not to have another stat. That just makes something else for the numbers hunters to go for (and conversely the others to say it's not about the number, blah, blah, blah)...if it's for the "good of the sport" than it shouldn't need a seperate stat...

[+ReadyOrNot]

I think Groundspeak should send an email to cache owners that have not logged onto the website for a given period of time (let's say 3 months), to re-verify their account. If they do not respond to the email, a 2nd email would be sent, explaining that the caches they own will be archived if they do not respond...

 

At that point, the caches would be opened up for adoption and caches not adopted would be archived.

[+egami]

The issue with geo-trash could be aleviated (although not a problem in my area) by having another log option that would be set by a reviewer to have someone go out and retrieve the cache or trash before it's archived. This doesn't have to be a new type of smiley or stat, just another find it log, note or dnf before archiving it...

 

That's what I suggested as well....see previously the "green smiley" comments.

I saw the Green smiley...my suggestion was not to have another stat. That just makes something else for the numbers hunters to go for (and conversely the others to say it's not about the number, blah, blah, blah)...if it's for the "good of the sport" than it shouldn't need a seperate stat...

 

I understand that reasoning...personally, as you can tell by my profile, I am far from a number hunter.

 

Yes, it'd be nice if people would do it from a purely altruistic perspective, but that is clearly failing at some level today or there wouldn't be a geo-litter issue to begin with. While I am not excited about the numbers, if the numbers can drive an issue of the game that actually enhances the integrity...I'd live with that sacrifice.

 

We can agree to differ on that point...it's secondary to main issue and largely subjective.

Edited November 19, 2007 by egami

[+FamilyDNA]

At that point, does anyone retrieve that cache physically? This is one aspect I am vague on that leads me to believe currently it becomes geo-litter, but feel free to elaborate.

 

Please don't confuse geocaching with Geocaching.com. Geocaching.com is a listing service owned by Groundspeak. There are other listing services out there, even if they are few and far between. Just because the cache is not maintained on this site and by a current user login does not mean that it is not listed somewhere else. The game geocaching (with a little "g") is a sport where people hide containers and use GPS coordinates to direct seekers to those coordinates.

 

I fully understand this.

 

I would never presume as a reviewer on a listing service to tell someone to go and pick up a cache because it's not listed here. The Yellow Pages is a VERY large, but not entirely comprehensive list of businesses. If a local pizza parlor was listed for years in the Yellow Pages, but then was not listed in the 2007 edition, that doesn't mean that people who read the Yellow Pages can go into the establishment and start pulling down the light fixtures and taking the dough out of the refridgerator.

 

More often than not, you are correct that the box probably becomes litter. I talked with the Department of Natural Resources about this when they were concerned about caches being placed on Illinois Nature Preserves. Their response was that in due time nature would consume an unlisted cache much quicker than we think. I thought that was an odd comment, but I do bring that up from the land manager's perspective.

 

I am talking specifically GC.com. If I, as a cache owner, fail to maintain my cache and disappear from sight as far as GC.com is concerned and you , as a reviewer, archive my cache....who goes and retrieves it? I don't...I am lazy, I quit geocaching, I won the lottery and retired in Tahiti and forget what geocaching is....if I don't do it, who does?

 

I assumed that was apparent, or implied being, we were discussing altering the protocol here.

I think you missed part of the point. I can disappear from gc.com, but still be active and list my caches (the same ones) on another site. If this was the case, you would not be "helping" by removing my cache, even if I never logged in to gc.com again.

[+The Jester]

How does auto-archiving caches (by whatever means/system you desire/propose) prevent abandoned caches? It sounds like creating geo-litter to me.

 

If you go back and read the proposal I added to elmuyloco's you can see that. I responded to StarBrand's similar inquiry just up the page.

But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info. How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows). How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking?

 

All these questions (which have been discussed before) all go into my thoughts that any auto-archive system will NOT help with the abandoned cache/geo-litter "problem".

 

I'll try to address each of your questions.

 

1.But once a cache is archived it is very hard to find it's listing (now that the old GC maps are gone). So how do you suggest anyone "find" these listings, espcially with GC.com stand on NOT publishing archived cache info.

 

You would "find" these listings easily because they would be placed on a "Recently Archived" list available for all members to look at. The cache would remain on the list until the cache is removed from it's physical position and logged as such (for the green smiley) by another cacher, or it will be removed once a member finds that no cache is in place either because it went missing or was removed by the owner, and lastly it would be removed from the list if the owner had commented that they had removed the cache themselves.

 

2. How do you distinquish between non-active owner caches, active owner caches (who may or may not pick up their own cache - and/or how long do you give them) and ones archived because they appear to be missing (which probably don't need picking up, but who knows).

 

Distinction between non-active and acitve is simple. Look at your profile page, it will show when you last visited the site (no matter why you came online). This date would start the "one year point" at which the plan would use. One year since the last time you visited online the letter would be sent out so that owners who still want to participate but have not been online for a year, can still keep their cache. The second part to your question is addressed by other cachers going to look to see if the archived cache is still in place to properly remove it. There are plenty of us on here who are self-motivated to CITO without an event. I'm sure the motivation of a green smiley will work for some, while others will be motivated to obtain a free container, while some will just be motivated because it's cleaning up.

 

3. How will anyone be notified that the geo-litter is picked up so they don't go looking?

 

The "notification" will be the fact that the cache is removed from the archived list as explained in answer #1. Once it's removed from the list, it's been verified that the cache is no longer in place and properly cleaned up. The current procedures do nothing to ensure the cache is removed.

You didn't address the one point that makes all your other points moot. GC.com has a firm stand against publishing archived cache data - so where is this "recently archived" list coming from? There have been many threads asking about this - both from the geo-litter and stale data POV - but the answer has always been NO. Assuming you can get the list, who maintains the list? I don't think you will get much interest from the reviewers to add this job on top of the stuff they already have. So it looks like this whole idea has moved away from an automated system to one that pretty much uses a lot of man-hours (not counting the cachers who are collecting said geo-litter) to work.

[+snowfrog]

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.

 

Apologies to Kit Fox for changing my mind! No scheme, no conspiracy, and not a victim of over saturation in rural Indiana. Just a discussion...........................

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I'm dog-piling on the "No" band-wagon for all of the reasons previously stated.

 

Add one more to the pile.

 

With a comment:

 

Y'gotta be kidding me, right?

 

 

 

 

michelle

[+snowfrog]

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.

One of the best and apparently overlooked viewpoints.

[+Bat-Bubba]

Although I disagree with the automatic archiving string, I do think there should be one more rule. Cachers should only be aloud a certain limit to the caches they place. Why? There has been many times when I looked for a cache and it wasn't there, I logged a DNF and a maintenance log, then waited and waited. Several weeks and sometimes months later, nothing. Not an email from the owner, not a cache maintenance from the owner, nothing posted by the moderator. Finally, I email the moderator only to get them to post a warning. Weeks later, nothing.

 

We have cachers in this area with so many cache hides that if someone emails them that it's missing, they just automatically archive it without even checking on the status. Just making it mandatory for them to log a maintenance on the cache is not enough, they would just post something without even checking on it.

 

Just my two cents worth.

[+wimseyguy]

I agree with briansnat, kealia, c-gal, and everyone else who has posted-no thanks. Bad idea.

NO more rules or guidelines.

NO need for expiration dates on cache listings.

NO automated archival of the history of the sport's earlier caches. I and many others enjoy, and seek them out when we travel.

NO need to remove the responsibility for cache management and maintenance from the owner.

NO reason to label a viable cache as geotrash.

NO need to add more to the reviewers workload.

 

Who says the geotrails weren't there before the cache? Someone tell the deer to stop following the same paths. And if the traffic to these caches slows to the point where the OP and others may think they are candidates for archival, then won't the trail fill back in anyway (assuming we have created it.

 

In case I wasn't clear-NO it's a bad idea.

Edited November 20, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+tabulator32]

I agree with briansnat, kealia, c-gal, and everyone else who has posted-no thanks. Bad idea.

NO more rules or guidelines.

NO need for expiration dates on cache listings.

NO automated archival of the history of the sport's earlier caches. I and many others enjoy, and seek them out when we travel.

NO need to remove the responsibility for cache management and maintenance from the owner.

NO reason to label a viable cache as geotrash.

NO need to add more to the reviewers workload.

 

Who says the geotrails weren't there before the cache? Someone tell the deer to stop following the same paths. And if the traffic to these caches slows to the point where the OP and others may think they are candidates for archival, then won't the trail fill back in anyway (assuming we have created it.

 

In case I wasn't clear-NO it's a bad idea.

 

All in favor?

 

Aye! Aye! Aye! Aye!

 

Aye! Aye! Aye! Aye!

 

Ok, back to caching.

 

[+DanOCan]

Voting "No".

 

Some of the best caches around are older and don't get many visits. Heck, my own caches that get the best reviews see the fewest visitors.

[Moun10Bike]

In case we are voting...

 

...not no, but heck no!

[+TrailGators]

NO WAY!

I really like historic caches!

Edited November 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Wadcutter]

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.

What makes anyone think that just because older, less visited caches are archived that they'll be replaced?

1 square mile could accommodate 100 caches. If the saturation level hasn't reached that amount over a wide area then it's not likely anyone would be putting out a bunch of new caches just because others are archived.