+Team KG Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 For a long time we've had many people work on making caches together but only one gets it under their account. Can you please make a new feature that enables multiple owners? Thanks. Link to comment
crawil Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 For a long time we've had many people work on making caches together but only one gets it under their account. Can you please make a new feature that enables multiple owners? Thanks. This has been talked about for quite some time. With multiple owners, who is ultimately responsible for taking care of the cache? Suppose you have a cache co-listed with your two caching buddies. A Needs Maintenance log is posted. Each of you assume that the other two will take care of it. One owner, one point of contact. Link to comment
+Team KG Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 For a long time we've had many people work on making caches together but only one gets it under their account. Can you please make a new feature that enables multiple owners? Thanks. This has been talked about for quite some time. With multiple owners, who is ultimately responsible for taking care of the cache? Suppose you have a cache co-listed with your two caching buddies. A Needs Maintenance log is posted. Each of you assume that the other two will take care of it. One owner, one point of contact. Caches should be communicated with each other when something new comes up on the cache. It wouldn't be a problem for us. Link to comment
+Beaverbeliever Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 That would be a nice feature. What makes you think that someone wouldn't perform TLC in the cache? If I were to do joint ownership, I would choose a good caching buddy. I would do my share, as I would hope the other would do his. That's my point of view... Link to comment
crawil Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Those of us that are posting in the forums would *probably* be good joint-cache owners. Think of all of those that would joint-own a cache just to get the icon. As much as I like the idea, from a truly practical point of view, I don't think it would work. Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I'd think most dual-ownerships would be between couples. If I were gc.com I'd stay away from that potential powder-keg too. One cache, one owner. Link to comment
+whistler & co. Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) I think it would be a good feature. We agreed to be the "local maintenance person" for a cache that someone who visits the area often, but lives a little too far away to address maintenance issues promptly, wanted to hide. If the cache could be listed with dual ownership (his name first, as the person who developed the puzzle and hid the cache, and ours second as the maintenance crew), it would be nice! Edited to add: I think this would also be a great idea for events, since often one has or requests help from other cachers. Especially for events, actually! Edited January 18, 2008 by whistler & co. Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 What's the point of GC having dual owners? If the one owner has it on their account, the other owner can set it up as "watching". SBA, Needs Maintenance, etc would be communicated to both. Link to comment
+whistler & co. Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 What's the point of GC having dual owners? If the one owner has it on their account, the other owner can set it up as "watching". SBA, Needs Maintenance, etc would be communicated to both. The point of dual ownership would be, I guess, so both people "get credit" for the cache. Our kids have a few cache hides that we, as the parents, have to help them maintain. Our stats bar shows that we have 32 hides, but it's actually more when you take into account the kids' hides. We do not have any event cache "hides", but our older son is planning on doing a CITO event as a service project for school at some point, and we would, of course, be helping out. It would be nice to get "credit" for that. Not that it matters, really, but it would be nice! Link to comment
Ferreter5 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I'm guessing the term "owner" means owner of the cache listing as far as the site's software is concerned at the moment -- could be changed in the future though. One account would have to be the owner of the listing so there's no "edit the listing" battles. Link to comment
OpinioNate Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 With V2 we have opened up the possibility of allowing this by implementing a similar approach to how waymark categories are managed by a group of waymarkers. We'll of course examine all of the implications of having shared responsibility of a geocache by a group of people, including ways of making sure everyone is pulling their own weight. It could even improve response to maintenance issues. Many hands make light work! Link to comment
+bblhed Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 How about at least a way of being able to add something like a show as mine option when the "Owner" creates the cache page they can add owners to the cache not just in name, but so that caches that are co-owned show up in the co-owners list as owned as well. This way you don't have to log a find on a cache that you own so that it comes off your not found or owned list. This is one of those weird times where you want to ignore and watch a cache at the same time. Link to comment
+Glenn Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 With V2 we have opened up the possibility of allowing this by implementing a similar approach to how waymark categories are managed by a group of waymarkers. We'll of course examine all of the implications of having shared responsibility of a geocache by a group of people, including ways of making sure everyone is pulling their own weight. It could even improve response to maintenance issues. Many hands make light work! I'm not to sure about "making sure everyone is pulling their own weight" feature. I mean if a cache owner is pulling his own weight that means he is adequately maintaining his own cache and doesn't need a group to help maintain the cache. I deploy for six months and usually more. During that time I am unable to pull my weight concerning cache maintenance. Right now that mean either adoption out the caches I own or archiving them. When I first heard tell that this feature was being considered I was hoping that it would be a better solution than adopting around caches. That the group would decide at what level they feel that each member is able to participate in the maintenance of the cache based on their individual situation at that particular time. Link to comment
+seldom|seen Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 How about at least a way of being able to add something like a show as mine option when the "Owner" creates the cache page they can add owners to the cache not just in name, but so that caches that are co-owned show up in the co-owners list as owned as well. This way you don't have to log a find on a cache that you own so that it comes off your not found or owned list. This is one of those weird times where you want to ignore and watch a cache at the same time. You can currently add a cache listing to your ignore list and also add it to your watchlist. It will not show up in your queries, but you will get e-mail [LOG] notifications when that cache is logged. I have many co-owned caches and have had to describe this process to my co-authors as they got tired of seeing their co-ownerships showing up and, of course, didn't want to log the cache as a "found it" (although many of them had done just that). I actually encourage area cachers to co-author with me and when I have an idea that might appeal to one of them I offer it up as an opportunity. This builds caching comraderie and leads to more interesting and unique caches. Here is my take. One owner, one cache. A new category called co-owner/co-author is the way to go. A designation similar to My Caches in that you can select it to hide your co-owned caches and also keep them from showing up in your queries. I have no problem with a co-owner getting recognition for co-owning a cache and getting a number added to their "My Caches", but at the same time I can see a great deal of conflict arising from a system of multiple-ownership. Ultimately, one person/team has to be responsible for making decisions about the longetivity of their caches... maintenance, posts, etc. Link to comment
Franberry Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I would also definitely like to have a feature called "co-author" - the important thing for me would be that the cache is listed under "cache hides" in each owner's account. We wouldn't even need a different category called "co-author" for this: One could simply write down two owners, with the person listing the cache first also being the one officially responsible for it. A simple link from the "owner field" to the second owner's account would be enough! This way, the maintenance problem (that no one would feel responsible) would be solved. Besides, if two persons would be responsible at equal measure, I agree that this might even increase the cache quality, as two persons care for it. As the entries here are already pretty old, I hope that something is happening already now! Link to comment
+Delta68 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Rather than joint ownership of a cache I'd like to be able to become a 'guardian' of a cache owned by someone else and be able to remove Needs Maintenance flags etc Example: We set a series last year whose route goes past an existing cache. It is currently in good condition but the owners no longer log on. We'd already decided to look after it but if anyone doing our series decides to put a Needs Maintenance log on it, there will be no way of removing it (although I expect our overworked reviewers can ) Mark Link to comment
Recommended Posts