Adopting caches

[Lactodorum]

Groundspeak has decided, with immediate effect, to change how adoptions of caches are handled. As before, if a cache owner want to allow someone else to take over their cache they can still go to www.geocaching.com/adopt and use the form there. This does not change.

 

However there have been many cases where a cacher has left the sport and abandoned their caches. In these cases we (the reviewers) could ask Groundpeak to carry out a "forced" adoption. That option has now been withdrawn and NO forced adoptions will be carried out. This includes and caches where the specified 30 day waiting period has been started.

 

This will come as a surprise to many and I know some will not be happy with the decision but I believe there were legal "ownership" problems which forced Groundspeak's hand. Indeed a change to the Geocaching Disclaimer which is linked from each cache page will be modified to add the following text.

 

Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com.

 

I understand that NO exceptions will be made, even for so called "classic" caches.

[+louiethebeak]

Excellent way of promoting Geolitter is it not ?...We cant be asked to remove such caches as we dont own them,and if we did we would be guilty of theft.

[+rutson]

Hmmmm... but I guess there's nothing to stop "another" cache being submitted which happened to have the same text and coordinates?

[+Cushie Butterfield]

Sorry to come up with a 'what if' BUT

what if the original cache has been muggled, there is nothing at GZ and the original owner can't be contacted.

Can it be archived and a replacement cache put in the same place by other people?

Surely the 'spot' it was hidden isn't a geocache so it can't be the property of the original owner?

[+OldNickCov]

Sorry to come up with a 'what if' BUT

what if the original cache has been muggled, there is nothing at GZ and the original owner can't be contacted.

Can it be archived and a replacement cache put in the same place by other people?

Surely the 'spot' it was hidden isn't a geocache so it can't be the property of the original owner?

 

I see nothing that says that the reviews can't archive abandoned caches.

 

At the moment, once a cache has had problems for a long time they issue a warning and then archive them - surelyt his will still apply, and provide a route for (eventual) replacement.

[+purple_pineapple]

Sorry to come up with a 'what if' BUT

what if the original cache has been muggled, there is nothing at GZ and the original owner can't be contacted.

Can it be archived and a replacement cache put in the same place by other people?

Surely the 'spot' it was hidden isn't a geocache so it can't be the property of the original owner?

 

As Nick said, in this cache the cache would be archived by the reviewers. Any other cacher is then free to place a cache there if they so wish... This is no different from the way things stand at oresent, and realisistically, I can't see anyone wanting to adopt a muggled cache! Might as wll just place a new one!

 

I suppose with those 'classic' caches with missing owners, we would simply have to maintain them ourselves, so there is never a need for archiving them... Fingers crossed! I'm sure if the reviewers know that someone is informally looking after a cache, then it wouldn't matter too much if the owner isn't around... Oh, and I imagine the classic caches shouldn't need a lot of maintenance anyway!

 

Dave

[+Pengy&Tigger]

My only concern with this is that the reasoning is 'legal ownership problems' with caches.

 

If the new policy is to acknowledge that the abandoned cache legally 'belongs' to the person who places, then surely anyone who clears up a trashed cache or removes geo-litter is committing an act of theft.

 

Surely it would be better to add in the T&Cs of listing that if a cache is not maintained for X months it is assumed to be abandoned and the owner agrees that the cache may be removed from it's location.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

It is just another nail in the coffin of webcams and virtuals ... they are probably not dying quickly enough for TPTB!

Edited April 18, 2008 by Dorsetgal & GeoDog

[+pklong]

It is just another nail in the coffin of webcams and virtuals ... they are probably not dying quickly enough for TPTB!

 

Yup that was my first thought too....

[+Delta68]

Losing web-cam caches would be no great loss anyway

 

Is there a list of 'Classic Caches'?

Are there any recent classics?

[+pklong]

Losing web-cam caches would be no great loss anyway

 

Yes and no. If the Webcam is still there and still works, fine. If the webcam is gone or is broken more often than not, what is the point.

 

Philip

[+Delta68]

 

Yes and no. If the Webcam is still there and still works, fine.

At risk of drifting off topic here...

 

AND if the owner INSISTS that the cacher has to grab the picture as intended: not just allowing a photograph taken at gz

[+scottpa100]

Excellent way of promoting Geolitter is it not ?...We cant be asked to remove such caches as we dont own them,and if we did we would be guilty of theft.

 

Couldn't agree more. We don't do ourselves any favours with councils, land owners, the NT etc if a box just ends up being a mouldy box containing multiple soggy loggys.

 

 

Surely it would be better to add in the T&Cs of listing that if a cache is not maintained for X months it is assumed to be abandoned and the owner agrees that the cache may be removed from it's location.

 

This I think is a really good suggestion and I would second Pengy&Tigger's suggestion. In fact, are the UK reviewers able to suggest this back to TPTB?

Edited April 18, 2008 by scottpa100

[Deceangi]

Excellent way of promoting Geolitter is it not ?...We cant be asked to remove such caches as we dont own them,and if we did we would be guilty of theft.

 

Couldn't agree more. We don't do ourselves any favours with councils, land owners, the NT etc if a box just ends up being a mouldy box containing multiple soggy loggys.

 

 

Surely it would be better to add in the T&Cs of listing that if a cache is not maintained for X months it is assumed to be abandoned and the owner agrees that the cache may be removed from it's location.

 

This I think is a really good suggestion and I would second Pengy&Tigger's suggestion. In fact, are the UK reviewers able to suggest this back to TPTB?

 

I've passed the above comments and requests to Groundspeak via the discussion the Reviewer community are having over this, in our Private Forum

[nobby.nobbs]

My only concern with this is that the reasoning is 'legal ownership problems' with caches.

 

If the new policy is to acknowledge that the abandoned cache legally 'belongs' to the person who places, then surely anyone who clears up a trashed cache or removes geo-litter is committing an act of theft.

 

Surely it would be better to add in the T&Cs of listing that if a cache is not maintained for X months it is assumed to be abandoned and the owner agrees that the cache may be removed from it's location.

 

i think that makes sense for the UK but in the US with it's "I'm going to sue" attitude it wont hold water and will only apply to caches from now on, not retrospectively. Hence their stance.

 

The simplest rule is for them to say no adoption as they don't have the authority to pass legal ownership onwards.

I know it's only a box and I personally agree with pengy&tigger but I can see why they have done it.

[SlytherinAlex]

Losing web-cam caches would be no great loss anyway

Maybe not to you.

[+Stuey]

Losing web-cam caches would be no great loss anyway

 

The reason I persevered and managed to get in touch with a chap called The Artful Dodger was so I could suggest to him that I adopt his Cardiff Webcam cache (he has/had lots of them around the world). It's a brilliant webcam and has always been available whenever I have looked. It's fully controllable online and is very good quality. I didn't want to see it get archived.

 

The links on the page had gone wrong so needed sorting out, and once I'd adopted it I fixed the links so the webcam link always worked and added some text to say that non-webcam photos were not allowed (the wrong URL meant that people assumed the camera was offline so took a location shot with a normal camera).

 

I think we need to keep the old webcams that work well. OK, some webcams were either always offline or so awful that you couldn't make out a human being let alone someone's face or GPS, but there are some good ones out there. I personally consider the Cardiff webcam a classic. It's been there a long time and is a good example of a webcam cache.

[Deceangi]

Official reply is that there will not be any changes to the T&C's over Archived/Abandoned caches.

 

As for the issue of Geolitter. what you personally do over a Abandoned and Archived cache is no business of Groundspeak it's Employee's or Volunteers!

[Lactodorum]

Losing web-cam caches would be no great loss anyway

Maybe not to you.

However, like it or not, we (the reviewers) have been told:

Grandfathered caches are not adopted. This includes Virtual caches, Moving caches and Web cams.

 

Note: this is not a guideline. This is a policy. which means that this the way it is to be done.

(my emphasis)

I think this is clear enough, (even for me )

[+Simply Paul]

So can grandfathered cache types (virtuals and web cams) still be adopted across in a 'non forced' way? They were when I asked the other week, but the quote in the lower box above suggests that's now stopped.

 

Without the issue of physical ownership of a cache with this type, it does seem clear our MATO (Masters Across The Ocean) hope they'll vanish in time. Which I think is a shame.

 

As I read the above, cachers are encouraged, in a non-official way, to collect old archived caches. Is that right?

[+Jaz666]

However, like it or not, we (the reviewers) have been told:

Grandfathered caches are not adopted. This includes Virtual caches, Moving caches and Web cams.

 

Note: this is not a guideline. This is a policy. which means that this the way it is to be done.

(my emphasis)

I think this is clear enough, (even for me )

 

Errrr..... Could you clear that up a bit further.....?

 

Can an active owner of a Grandfathered cachetype still adopt the listing over to someone else themselves, or has this now been blocked?

[+Haggis Hunter]

Losing web-cam caches would be no great loss anyway

 

The reason I persevered and managed to get in touch with a chap called The Artful Dodger was so I could suggest to him that I adopt his Cardiff Webcam cache (he has/had lots of them around the world). It's a brilliant webcam and has always been available whenever I have looked. It's fully controllable online and is very good quality. I didn't want to see it get archived.

 

The links on the page had gone wrong so needed sorting out, and once I'd adopted it I fixed the links so the webcam link always worked and added some text to say that non-webcam photos were not allowed (the wrong URL meant that people assumed the camera was offline so took a location shot with a normal camera).

 

I think we need to keep the old webcams that work well. OK, some webcams were either always offline or so awful that you couldn't make out a human being let alone someone's face or GPS, but there are some good ones out there. I personally consider the Cardiff webcam a classic. It's been there a long time and is a good example of a webcam cache.

I hadn't realised that there was a problem until his Edinburgh and Dundee webcams got archived. Both still in working order. If I had known I would have taken similar steps as yourself. Real pity as both of them where good, especially Dundee's right next to Desperate Dan.

[+BlueDeuce]

...but in the US with it's "I'm going to sue" attitude...

 

Hey, that's profiling! Somebody get my lawyer on the phone!

[+third-degree-witch]

Official reply is that there will not be any changes to the T&C's over Archived/Abandoned caches.

 

As for the issue of Geolitter. what you personally do over a Abandoned and Archived cache is no business of Groundspeak it's Employee's or Volunteers!

 

Why am i not suprised...here,have a towel to dry your hands on

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

My only concern with this is that the reasoning is 'legal ownership problems' with caches.

 

If the new policy is to acknowledge that the abandoned cache legally 'belongs' to the person who places, then surely anyone who clears up a trashed cache or removes geo-litter is committing an act of theft.

 

Surely it would be better to add in the T&Cs of listing that if a cache is not maintained for X months it is assumed to be abandoned and the owner agrees that the cache may be removed from it's location.

 

You can write what you like in your T&Cs, but that won't make it legal.

 

If I place my box in the woods that box belongs to me, if a website has some T&Cs which say if I don't go back to that box within x number of months then I relinquish my ownership of it then that doesn't make one iota of difference, legally that box still belongs to me and will continue to do so until I bestow ownership of it onto someone else.

[+Bambography]

Surely by putting a box out in a public area you are willingly putting it somewhere that might get stolen! If of were muggled we'd consider it lost, not stolen, its a risk of the game. However, I don't agree with it not being in the guidelines as it discourages the good Samaritan from tidying up the abandoned caches, whatev the legal stance is.

Edited April 19, 2008 by Bambography

[+Bambography]

<double post>

Edited April 19, 2008 by Bambography

[+purple_pineapple]

if removal of geolitter could be considered theft, then surely every litter picker and CITO event in the country is guilty of theft. Whether its an ammo can, plastic box, abandoned push bike, or empty crisp packet, it has still been left abandoned. Why should geolitter be any different to any other dropped rubbish?

[+t.a.folk]

if removal of geolitter could be considered theft, then surely every litter picker and CITO event in the country is guilty of theft. Whether its an ammo can, plastic box, abandoned push bike, or empty crisp packet, it has still been left abandoned. Why should geolitter be any different to any other dropped rubbish?

 

If a cache owner doesn't log on for months ,or years in some cases ,how could that not be considered disowning their caches ?

 

If I left an item on aS.W. train ,that was handed into their lost property department, they would dispose of my iitem after 3months .

[+dino-irl]

Official reply is that there will not be any changes to the T&C's over Archived/Abandoned caches.

 

As for the issue of Geolitter. what you personally do over a Abandoned and Archived cache is no business of Groundspeak it's Employee's or Volunteers!

 

Why am i not suprised...here,have a towel to dry your hands on

Uncalled for! You should read that comment again and this time remember to read the bit between the lines

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

if removal of geolitter could be considered theft, then surely every litter picker and CITO event in the country is guilty of theft. Whether its an ammo can, plastic box, abandoned push bike, or empty crisp packet, it has still been left abandoned. Why should geolitter be any different to any other dropped rubbish?

 

Well, thats almost how it works. It's very unlikely you would be charged with theft for picking up rubbish but the guy who helped me arrange my CITO event was very particular that we stayed within the boundaries of the area to be cleared as on previous clear ups they had volunteers venture onto other peoples land and for their trouble collecting litter were sued by the landowner for damages.

 

From a legal point of view it doesn't matter that you have left something in the woods for 6 months, it's still yours, just like you would retain ownership of your car even if you parked it 50 miles from home and didn't go near it for a year.

 

I would guess the issue which has sparked this policy change is not a complaint over someone picking up geolitter from an abandoned cache but more likely the original cache owner returning to the site from some period of absence to find one of their old caches still very much alive and well but now transferred to someone else via a forced adoption and not being very happy about it.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Surely it would be better to add in the T&Cs of listing that if a cache is not maintained for X months it is assumed to be abandoned and the owner agrees that the cache may be removed from it's location.

 

You can write what you like in your T&Cs, but that won't make it legal.

 

If I place my box in the woods that box belongs to me, if a website has some T&Cs which say if I don't go back to that box within x number of months then I relinquish my ownership of it then that doesn't make one iota of difference, legally that box still belongs to me and will continue to do so until I bestow ownership of it onto someone else.

 

Um, I never said anything about ownership being transferred, only that it could be removed from it's location. My concern was with geolitter, not with caches being adopted.

 

I realise that putting something like that in the T&Cs doesn't really cover it legally. However it does seem that the new policy means that Groundspeak acknowledge that removal of geolitter is theft, and it's nothing to do with them if you remove an abandoned/trashed cache (so much for CITO!)

[+Renegade Knight]

...Can an active owner of a Grandfathered cachetype still adopt the listing over to someone else themselves, or has this now been blocked?

 

Per the orginal post, that part hasn't changed. I adopted out a couple of my grandfathered cache types with no problem.

[+Renegade Knight]

if removal of geolitter could be considered theft, then surely every litter picker and CITO event in the country is guilty of theft. Whether its an ammo can, plastic box, abandoned push bike, or empty crisp packet, it has still been left abandoned. Why should geolitter be any different to any other dropped rubbish?

 

It's simpler than that. If it's an active cache, it's personal property. If its' abandoned it's litter.

The hard part is telling the difference.

[nobby.nobbs]

You have to remember that an individual going out into the woods and removing something that they consider to be abandoned could face a charge of theft should the "owner" of the item call the police.

 

This is what we have established regarding geocoins that are removed and kept/sold.

 

That individual is facing a chance that they will be prosecuted but in all likelyhood not much will happen.

 

If a large multinational organisation who have significant funds is seen to be endorsing an act which could be or is illegal then that organisation could be sued in a civil court for large amounts of money. Even defending a not guilty would cost a fortune in legal fees.

 

I don't really want my subscriptions to have to increase by that much.

 

I can fully understand why they have taken this stance.

 

People DO retain ownership of rubbish that they drop. That's how they get prosecuted for littering. You'd not get arrested for removing a bag of actual litter.

[+trublatmill]

To be in danger of being guilty of theft, there have to be two issues proved, amongst other things, which would not happen in this case.

 

Firstly, for it to be Theft, the item has to be "Dishonestly appropriated". If you are rescuing an abandoned cache, then it could easily be argued that there was no dishonesty involved.

 

Secondly, there also has to be “the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the property”. Therefore, if you are taking an abandoned cache for safe keeping and try and notify the owner that you have it and how it can be retrieved, you are not depriving them of it.

 

Consequently, in the situations described above, there is no theft.

[nobby.nobbs]

I agree with your second point but there is an offence of theft by finding where the dishonestly appropriates is not included.

 

I was pointing out a technicality that is obviously being considered by Groundspeak.

[+PopUpPirate]

Is trading down theft too, then?

 

Sorry, just had to get my big stirry stick out

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Is trading down theft too, then?

 

Sorry, just had to get my big stirry stick out

 

If signing the logbook is criminal damage.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I've always taken it that Groundspeak have no power to allow anyone to 'adopt a cache': they merely facilitate the adoption of the cache listing. If the new cache listing owner then decides to keep (or dump) the container without reference to the person who originally listed the cache, then that's between them and the original owner.

 

To illustrate how a cache listing is not a 'cache'; it may be that my cache listing on geocaching.com is no longer of interest to me, but I don't bother archiving it as I've forgotten that I listed it there. However, it's still up and running on IOMCaching.co.im (which doesn't exist, but there are several genuine alternative geocaching listing sites), and frequently logged by aficionados of this local caching site.

 

Eventually, someone on geocaching.com notices that I haven't signed on for a couple of years, nor can he get in contact via my defunct geocaching e-mail, so he 'adopts' the listing. But hasn't adopted the cache.

[+trublatmill]

I agree with your second point but there is an offence of theft by finding where the dishonestly appropriates is not included.

 

True, but there are three defences to this, two of which would apply in this scenario and the third might.

 

1) You appropriate the property in the belief that you would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it.

 

If the original cache placer had been but was no longer an active Geocacher, it could be argued that it would be reasonable to believe they would have no objection to someone else maintaining their cache for them.

 

or

 

2) You appropriate the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

 

Where Groundspeak or a moderator or another cacher local to the original cache placer had tried to contact them directly or via the cache logs and they had received no reply, then this would apply.

 

or possibly

 

3) You appropriate the property in the belief that you have in law the right to deprive the other of it.

 

If the cache had been abandoned and there was no intention to replace it with a new one, then you might argue that removing the old cache was the same as picking up litter while you are out for a walk.

 

Surely with 2 above, a 'forced adoption' would remain within the law.

 

And just to labour a point, for theft, property has to belong to someone. If something has been abandoned, it is deemed to no longer belong to anyone. However this would have to be proved and that would be easily resolved with a string of logs relating to the cache stating it needed maintenance, or had been disabled or even archived by Groundspeak but the owner had taken no steps to remove or repair the cache.

[+Team Sieni]

Not quite on topic I know, but I read in a local Coventry paper about a local dump that had to add extra security patrols because people were stealing the rubbish.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Surely with 2 above, a 'forced adoption' would remain within the law.

My point above dealt with this: as I see it Groundspeak are only 'forcing the adoption' of the cache listing, not the cache itself. This has to be the case: they have no control over the physical cache.

 

It seems common sense that they have every right to allocate cache pages to whichever user they see fit. I can't see any way that you could prosecute someone for re-allocating a web page within their own system.

[+legacypac]

I have adopted a historic cache in the past, and was trying to adopt another but stopped by this policy change. A good cache can develop issues that can only be practically corrected by an active owner (like moving it slightly to minimize off trail damage and updating the coords).

 

I don't think that the cache actually "belongs" to the "owner". Once you hide a box with trinkets in the woods it has been placed in the public domain. It is subject to being taken by landowners, muggles, even animals. If it gets cracked other cachers might replace the box and toss the old one. Others might replace soggy logbooks, and off course we all remove items and add items. None of these things are "yours" exclusively anymore. They are all game pieces and it is our job to "protect the integrity of the game pieces".

 

The listing online belongs to Groundspeak - otherwise I could just copy all the listings and set up my own large geocaching site based on the Groundspeak data without penalty.

 

So what we really adopt is the Groundspeak owned "listing" from an inactive player to an active player account. This allows an active player to manage the listing going forward.

 

 

In the unlikely event that an inactive cacher comes back from the dead and wants their cache listing back, I would think that pretty much all adopters would gladly freely return the listing to the first owner. We give credit to the hiders anyway on the adopted listing.

 

This new policy does not make much sense to me - and as a paying customer I didn't ask for it.

[+Lotho]

Im pretty sureCache should be archived now then as they have stopped caching and planned to remove the cache months ago and the adoption process over to me had not began yet.

[Deceangi]

Im pretty sureCache should be archived now then as they have stopped caching and planned to remove the cache months ago and the adoption process over to me had not began yet.

 

My apologies for the change in policy re forced adoption, your one of many caught out by the change. The cache has been Archived

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

[+scottpa100]

As for the issue of Geolitter. what you personally do over a Abandoned and Archived cache is no business of Groundspeak it's Employee's or Volunteers!

 

Hmmm - so we can take things into our own hands....

 

Im pretty sureCache should be archived now then as they have stopped caching and planned to remove the cache months ago and the adoption process over to me had not began yet.

 

Shame, you've gone to the effort of replacing the cache...

 

Im pretty sureCache should be archived now then as they have stopped caching and planned to remove the cache months ago and the adoption process over to me had not began yet.

 

My apologies for the change in policy re forced adoption, your one of many caught out by the change. The cache has been Archived

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer Geocaching.com

 

So the cache has been archived, but you have replaced it, but you can do what you want with it.... I tell you what! Submit it as a brand new cache! And get more hits on it. One of the best things as a cache owner is getting decent logs. This way it rewards you for replacing the cache, helps keep the geolitter down and rewards the geocaching community too!

 

Look forward to seeing a new cache in Reading soon Lotho!

[+Happy Humphrey]

The listing online belongs to Groundspeak - otherwise I could just copy all the listings and set up my own large geocaching site based on the Groundspeak data without penalty.

 

So what we really adopt is the Groundspeak owned "listing" from an inactive player to an active player account. This allows an active player to manage the listing going forward.

Exactly: I'm glad that someone else noticed.

This new policy does not make much sense to me - and as a paying customer I didn't ask for it.

I agree. Perhaps we need an explanation from Groundspeak as to why the policy has changed.

 

In any case: as we can see from the above, there is a work-around. You simply get the cache archived and then re-list it yourself.