Mandatory Archiving....your take on it

[Mdgeotrek]

I think the idea of madatory archiving is not the way to go. Some not all of us who started caching back in early 2001 had many problems with vandals and our caches getting sabatoged and stolen or destroyed. I had a cache that was very tiny and hard to find and my cache kept getting exposed. So I redid it and placed it in another location. It was going fine and I had no indication that it was having problems. I had changed my internet service and wasn't getting my emails or notifications from GC.com. I honestly forgot about geocaching. I got back into here in Feb 2011 and found that my cache was archived. I wish it could be unarchived even after 4 years. some of us do get away from the hobby and get back into it again. If fellow cachers had acted on the cache and replaced the container and log etc... that would have been nice and very helpful. Maybe it would still be up and active today. Now I will have to replace a new cache in the same area as I had the archived cache. I don;t think there should be a time limit on caches either.

[+lamoracke]

well, I am of the ilk if a forum post has not been responded to in say over 2 years, then it should be archived.

[sdarken]

Mdgeotrek - Rather than resurrect this ancient thread I think you should start a new topic along the lines of "Why wasn't my cache maintained by other people for 5 years?" That would very entertaining.

[+Student Camper]

I would have to say no to the automatic archiving of any cache.

In the case of caches that are seldom or if ever found, CO's should provide some assurance the cache is still in play and is in good shape.

Caches that have been out there for years and are still FTF, we have some in our area, are problematic, If I go for a FTF that is 6 years old, I'd like some evidence that it is still there, a varification once a year or even two years would be helpful.

[+G & C]

I think it's time for Groundspeak to start limiting the amount of time that can pass before someone can gravedig a thread from 2008.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

I like the nudge idea. I think we need to consider new cachers who would like to place caches in nice locations. After more then 10 years of cache placement, in most North American towns (and probably European too) within driving range of one's house, all the nice spots are taken. It's about sharing the fun of cache ownership.

[Pup Patrol]

Mdgeotrek - Rather than resurrect this ancient thread I think you should start a new topic along the lines of "Why wasn't my cache maintained by other people for 5 years?" That would very entertaining.

 

Something like this?

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=268860&st=0&p=4638420

Edited March 16, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+bflentje]

Another fine example of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

 

Had a new post been created, I can list off a couple of names of those who would have dug up the old threads and posted them along with a snippy comment.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Another fine example of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

 

Had a new post been created, I can list off a couple of names of those who would have dug up the old threads and posted them along with a snippy comment.

 

I think you're right... anyone starting a new thread, or resurrecting an old one, to complain about his cache not being maintained by strangers for five years while he ignored it, is going to get snippy comments.

[+bflentje]

Another fine example of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

 

Had a new post been created, I can list off a couple of names of those who would have dug up the old threads and posted them along with a snippy comment.

 

I think you're right... anyone starting a new thread, or resurrecting an old one, to complain about his cache not being maintained by strangers for five years while he ignored it, is going to get snippy comments.

 

The ridiculous complaining is beside the point. I agree, snipping happens incessently no matter what gets posted or how it gets posted.

[knowschad]

Another fine example of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

 

Had a new post been created, I can list off a couple of names of those who would have dug up the old threads and posted them along with a snippy comment.

 

Except that, in this case, he really did and didn't. He opened this ancient thread yesterday, as well as starting a new thread on the same issue just last month.

[+BruceS]

Locking this thread as the OP has an active thread about this cache and the cache was not automatically archived thus discussion of this cache in this thread is off topic.