Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
CacheDrone

Adoptions: Change in policy

Recommended Posts

This note is to update the Canadian community of geocachers on an internal change of Groundspeak policies and guidelines.

 

Effective the 17th of April, 2008 Groundspeak will no longer be supporting non-consensual adoptions. All adoptions must be handled using the adoption tool found at Adopt a Listing.

 

There are no other changes to the adoption policy at this time.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand the reason, but it is still a little sad.

 

It would be nice if cachers would avoid posting a "Needs maintenance" log on a cache without first making a quick check that the owner is still active. Because of an innocent "needs maintenance" log, Barrie is losing a 4-year old cache that is among the most visited in the area. While the cache owner is long gone, the cache itself was being maintained by two different people. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

This note is to update the Canadian community of geocachers on an internal change of Groundspeak policies and guidelines.

 

Effective the 17th of April, 2008 Groundspeak will no longer be supporting non-consensual adoptions. All adoptions must be handled using the adoption tool found at Adopt a Listing.

 

I also understand the decision. It would have been nice to have had some formal advance warning so the local communities could have organized an effort to save some of the caches which are now at risk.

 

If a cache has been maintained by the local community on behalf of an AWOL owner and that cache ends up on Groundspeak's radar and gets archived, is there anything wrong with someone else creating a new listing, re-using the same description from the old cache page (and maybe even linking to the old cache page) and basically re-submitting the same cache as a new listing? It might be one way to keep the cache's history alive although I can see where many in our local community would consider it cheesy to be able to log the same cache a second time just because the GC number has changed.

Share this post


Link to post

To the best of my knowledge the only cache in Ontario affected by this is the one identified by Danoshimano.

 

A "Needs Maintenance" log is not something that reviewers act upon. That is a player to player notification. We only respond to caches that are "Disabled" for extended periods or "Needs Archived" request logs.

 

Even though I posted dozens of "Reviewer Notes" on the caches across Ontario that have had long standing "Needs Maintenance" requests it was done to help educate players on the newer "Needs Maintenance" and "Owner Maintenance" log types as they are not detailed in other areas of the Site.

 

However, it still may be that reviewers will "Disable" caches that have repeated "Did Not Find" logs or other reported issues. It may also be a result of seeing a cache with a "Needs Maintenance" log and other subsequent logs continue to express the same concern over an extended period. That is not to say that players should not log such items. Leaving listings active when nothing is getting maintained does not benefit anyone.

 

We understand that there are caches with significant history and other reasons to preserve them. On the flip side, hopefully these can be adopted from the owner to those that would be in a better position to care for them.

Edited by CacheDrone

Share this post


Link to post

...

We understand that there are caches with significant history and other reasons to preserve them. On the flip side, hopefully these can be adopted from the owner to those that would be in a better position to care for them.

And if the cache owner is no longer around ... ???

 

Who wins with this decision? What was the reason for the change?

Edited by nicolo

Share this post


Link to post
A "Needs Maintenance" log is not something that reviewers act upon. That is a player to player notification. We only respond to caches that are "Disabled" for extended periods or "Needs Archived" request logs.

 

Not around here.... A cache with multiple DNFs that has a NM log will be disabled by the reviewers and then archived at a later date. I could find you a dozen examples if you wanted. SBA logs are not supposed to be used in these cases according to the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

Any of the "good" or old caches would be adopted by the locals to keep the history of the cache alive.

 

This will just be the cause of a lot more geotrash and makes the community look bad.

Share this post


Link to post

...

We understand that there are caches with significant history and other reasons to preserve them. On the flip side, hopefully these can be adopted from the owner to those that would be in a better position to care for them.

And if the cache owner is no longer around ... ???

 

Who wins with this decision? What was the reason for the change?

 

The reason for the change is that Groundspeak does not own the geocache container. Since the cache owner retains ownership of the container they would have to grant permission for it to be transferred. That is done with the adoption tool provided in post #1.

Share this post


Link to post
A "Needs Maintenance" log is not something that reviewers act upon. That is a player to player notification. We only respond to caches that are "Disabled" for extended periods or "Needs Archived" request logs.

 

Not around here.... A cache with multiple DNFs that has a NM log will be disabled by the reviewers and then archived at a later date. I could find you a dozen examples if you wanted. SBA logs are not supposed to be used in these cases according to the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

Any of the "good" or old caches would be adopted by the locals to keep the history of the cache alive.

 

This will just be the cause of a lot more geotrash and makes the community look bad.

 

In my previous entry that was addressed here

It may also be a result of seeing a cache with a "Needs Maintenance" log and other subsequent logs continue to express the same concern over an extended period.

 

Cache owners are responsible for performing maintenance on their own caches (see Guidelines: Maintenance) and any other maintenance done by other players is a courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
A "Needs Maintenance" log is not something that reviewers act upon. That is a player to player notification. We only respond to caches that are "Disabled" for extended periods or "Needs Archived" request logs.

 

Not around here.... A cache with multiple DNFs that has a NM log will be disabled by the reviewers and then archived at a later date. I could find you a dozen examples if you wanted. SBA logs are not supposed to be used in these cases according to the Groundspeak guidelines.

 

Any of the "good" or old caches would be adopted by the locals to keep the history of the cache alive.

 

This will just be the cause of a lot more geotrash and makes the community look bad.

 

In my previous entry that was addressed here

It may also be a result of seeing a cache with a "Needs Maintenance" log and other subsequent logs continue to express the same concern over an extended period.

 

Cache owners are responsible for performing maintenance on their own caches (see Guidelines: Maintenance) and any other maintenance done by other players is a courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see this new policy creating an issue. Because the cache is the property of the owner, Groundspeak will not allow the listing, not the property of the owner, to be adopted. If the owner does not come forward, the listing will be archived. Once the listing is archived, the location will become available for a new cache to be placed there. Because the container is the property of the original owner, it can not be physically removed. Placing another cache here would cause confusion between the old cache and the new cache. I doubt Groundspeak would allow the use of the original container as it would be the same problem as adopting it in the first place.

 

The affect of this will now create a dead spot where no caches can be placed. Sad to know that a cache that was placed with the intent to stay can not stay just because the owner decided to no longer play the game, or worse yet, a cache with history get archived because the cache owner may be out of circulation long enough to have the cache archived

Share this post


Link to post

Because the container is the property of the original owner, it can not be physically removed.

 

Sure it can. I personally would have no moral issue removing a cache that is known to have been abandoned. What Groundspeak will not do is say "okay, that container is now your property." Makes sense to me and it doesn't go beyond that simple statement.

Share this post


Link to post

...

We understand that there are caches with significant history and other reasons to preserve them. On the flip side, hopefully these can be adopted from the owner to those that would be in a better position to care for them.

And if the cache owner is no longer around ... ???

 

Who wins with this decision? What was the reason for the change?

 

The reason for the change is that Groundspeak does not own the geocache container. Since the cache owner retains ownership of the container they would have to grant permission for it to be transferred. That is done with the adoption tool provided in post #1.

But if the cache owner is gone, AWOL, that can't happen can it?

 

It would be nice if the existing cache page, with place date, history, and logs, could continue on as an active cache via adoption even when the original cache owner is gone. In many cases such as this, the cache container is replaced. Why is this a problem?

Edited by nicolo

Share this post


Link to post

Because the container is the property of the original owner, it can not be physically removed.

 

Sure it can. I personally would have no moral issue removing a cache that is known to have been abandoned. What Groundspeak will not do is say "okay, that container is now your property." Makes sense to me and it doesn't go beyond that simple statement.

Then all that Groundspeak has to do is allow the cache to be adopted ( in the absence of the AWOL cache owner and after the standard attempts to contact them ) and say to the adoptee "ok, the container is not your property, replace it"

Share this post


Link to post

I can see this new policy creating an issue. Because the cache is the property of the owner, Groundspeak will not allow the listing, not the property of the owner, to be adopted. If the owner does not come forward, the listing will be archived. Once the listing is archived, the location will become available for a new cache to be placed there. Because the container is the property of the original owner, it can not be physically removed. Placing another cache here would cause confusion between the old cache and the new cache. I doubt Groundspeak would allow the use of the original container as it would be the same problem as adopting it in the first place.

 

The affect of this will now create a dead spot where no caches can be placed. Sad to know that a cache that was placed with the intent to stay can not stay just because the owner decided to no longer play the game, or worse yet, a cache with history get archived because the cache owner may be out of circulation long enough to have the cache archived

 

I'm sad to see this change too simply for the fact that historic caches will now become a memory.

 

As to the "dead spot" issue, if the listing is archived from geocaching.com, why wouldn't they allow a new container to be placed there? After all, they'd have no listing to reserve that spot.

 

Sure it could create confusion for seekers, but it's not any different than finding a letterbox with 20' of a geocache or finding a box that's listed on navicache or terracaching or some other listing site.

Share this post


Link to post

This note is to update the Canadian community of geocachers on an internal change of Groundspeak policies and guidelines.

 

Effective the 17th of April, 2008 Groundspeak will no longer be supporting non-consensual adoptions. All adoptions must be handled using the adoption tool found at Adopt a Listing.

 

There are no other changes to the adoption policy at this time.

 

I've seen this announced in the UK and now Canadian forums...when is there going to be a site-wide announcement of this change in policy?

 

Is this going to be another change that people won't hear about until they come up against it? And then they'll open a thread in the forums (which they never read otherwise) to ask why they can no longer do something they've done in the past?

Share this post


Link to post

...

I'm sad to see this change too simply for the fact that historic caches will now become a memory.

...

Same here. Caching history ( or any history for that matter ) is important and it's sad that Groundspeak does not respect that. Yet another change that was not requested by the paying customer.

Share this post


Link to post

...

I'm sad to see this change too simply for the fact that historic caches will now become a memory.

...

Same here. Caching history ( or any history for that matter ) is important and it's sad that Groundspeak does not respect that. Yet another change that was not requested by the paying customer.

 

Actually, it was the caching history and paying customer that prompted this, changing cache owner changes the history and some cache owners were really upset when they discovered their cache was taken away from them. The cache belongs to the cache owner and they are responsible for the cache container and cache site, geocaching.com only hosts the cache listing. I don't see how Groundspeak can be faulted for a cache owner who has abandoned their "historic" cache.

Share this post


Link to post

...

Actually, it was the caching history and paying customer that prompted this, changing cache owner changes the history and some cache owners were really upset when they discovered their cache was taken away from them. The cache belongs to the cache owner and they are responsible for the cache container and cache site, geocaching.com only hosts the cache listing.

...

If a reasonable amount of effort was taken to contact the AWOL cache owner ( I usually go through a 3 month process myself ) there should be no surprise. I e-mail the cache owner via their profile so don't see how the AWOL paying customer would even know about having the cache "taken" from them once it is done.

 

...

I don't see how Groundspeak can be faulted for a cache owner who has abandoned their "historic" cache.

What are you talking about man? I am not faulting Groundspeak for an owner abandoning a cache, I am faulting Groundspeak for introducing policy that prevents a historical cache, with cache page and that history, from continuing on as an active cache once the original cache owner disappears from geocaching.

 

You have been in geocaching long enough to know that every area has favorite caches that have been around for years where the cache owner is out of the game or eventually leaves the game. Active cachers eventually want to adopt that cache, replacing the container ( which they don't own ) yet retaining the history of the cache page. What is the problem with this?

 

 

By the way, and this is not a question just for CT ... doesn't Groundspeak claim ownership of cache pages? Wasn't this claimed years ago as a result of data-scraping by third party entities?

Edited by nicolo

Share this post


Link to post

Trash is what concerns me and how it reflects on the community. Guidelines could be changed to read that a cacheowner who has not logged on the site for 12 months and fails to respond to a request from a reviewer within six months will be considered to have abandoned his "property" and then Groundspeak will reserve the right to transfer ownership of that property to another willing cacher.

 

Groundspeak logo is on many of these abandoned caches. They should want to protect their reputation rather than leaving archived, abandoned caches in the woods that will be found and perceived to be trash leaving a black mark on groundspeaks trademark.

 

...

Actually, it was the caching history and paying customer that prompted this, changing cache owner changes the history and some cache owners were really upset when they discovered their cache was taken away from them. The cache belongs to the cache owner and they are responsible for the cache container and cache site, geocaching.com only hosts the cache listing.

...

If a reasonable amount of effort was taken to contact the AWOL cache owner ( I usually go through a 3 month process myself ) there should be no surprise. I e-mail the cache owner via their profile so don't see how the AWOL paying customer would even know about having the cache "taken" from them once it is done.

 

...

I don't see how Groundspeak can be faulted for a cache owner who has abandoned their "historic" cache.

What are you talking about man? I am not faulting Groundspeak for an owner abandoning a cache, I am faulting Groundspeak for introducing policy that prevents a historical cache, with cache page and that history, from continuing on as an active cache once the original cache owner disappears from geocaching.

 

You have been in geocaching long enough to know that every area has favorite caches that have been around for years where the cache owner is out of the game or eventually leaves the game. Active cachers eventually want to adopt that cache, replacing the container ( which they don't own ) yet retaining the history of the cache page. What is the problem with this?

 

 

By the way, and this is not a question just for CT ... doesn't Groundspeak claim ownership of cache pages? Wasn't this claimed years ago as a result of data-scraping by third party entities?

Edited by Girls Phind Squirrels

Share this post


Link to post

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 gamepieces".

 

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 a inactive cacher comes back from the dead and wants thier 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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Yes and I believe that most parks consider it a form of littering ( that they nicely ignore ... sometimes ).

 

...

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. So why are we getting this lame "the cache owner owns the container" mantra? As I said previously, when a person adopted an old, abandoned cache in the past, most often the old container wasn't used anyway, the new owner replaced it.

 

That way the history ( cache page and logs ) of the original cache are retained for all cachers to enjoy. A much better solution than trying to find an archived cache to determine the "history" of the new cache.

Edited by nicolo

Share this post


Link to post
Because the container is the property of the original owner, it can not be physically removed. Placing another cache here would cause confusion between the old cache and the new cache. I doubt Groundspeak would allow the use of the original container as it would be the same problem as adopting it in the first place.

 

Groundspeak may think the container remains the property of the owner forevermore, but I have no qualms about stumbling across an archived cache and removing it. I'll even post a note on the cache page saying what I have done -- heck, if i haven't found the cache before I'll even log it as a Find.

 

As for the original container, unless it is mentioned in the cache listing that "This is the original container from GCxxxx", I don't think Groundspeak would ever know if the container was recycled from the original cache or not so I don't see it being an issue. What they've done is covered their collective butts because they could then say to the AWOL owner who returns to the game "Don't look at me, I didn't do it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Trash is what concerns me and how it reflects on the community. Guidelines could be changed to read that a cacheowner who has not logged on the site for 12 months and fails to respond to a request from a reviewer within six months will be considered to have abandoned his "property" and then Groundspeak will reserve the right to transfer ownership of that property to another willing cacher.

 

Agreed, a simple change in the Terms and Conditions could just as easily address Groundspeak's concern which seems to be transferring property from one person to another. I can see where it would be difficult to apply a change in the guidelines retroactively to existing caches, however.

 

Groundspeak logo is on many of these abandoned caches. They should want to protect their reputation rather than leaving archived, abandoned caches in the woods that will be found and perceived to be trash leaving a black mark on groundspeaks trademark.

 

To me it's not so much about the trash as it is the contact info. A muggle who stumbles across a cache in the woods and deems it to be trash isn't likely going to care whether or not the cache is Archived or Active, owned or un-owned. To them it is litter. However, a land manager who finds a cache and wants to talk to the owner about his/her concerns is much more likely to have a negative impression of Groundspeak if he/she finds the contact information in/on the cache leads to someone who is no longer around. Again, does the land manager care if the cache is Archived? Not likely, so what has this new policy improved on?

Share this post


Link to post
In the unlikely event that a inactive cacher comes back from the dead and wants thier 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.

 

It's amazing to me that there are people out there who would get that upset about a simple Tupperware container. I don't doubt that they exist, it just amazes me that people are like that.

 

I agree with what you are saying though. If any of the AWOL owners who originally owned the caches I have adopted were to come back to the game all they would have to do is ask and I would gladly let them adopt the cache back, even though I have replaced their leaking containers with new ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Because the container is the property of the original owner, it can not be physically removed. Placing another cache here would cause confusion between the old cache and the new cache. I doubt Groundspeak would allow the use of the original container as it would be the same problem as adopting it in the first place.

 

Groundspeak may think the container remains the property of the owner forevermore, but I have no qualms about stumbling across an archived cache and removing it. I'll even post a note on the cache page saying what I have done -- heck, if i haven't found the cache before I'll even log it as a Find.

 

As for the original container, unless it is mentioned in the cache listing that "This is the original container from GCxxxx", I don't think Groundspeak would ever know if the container was recycled from the original cache or not so I don't see it being an issue. What they've done is covered their collective butts because they could then say to the AWOL owner who returns to the game "Don't look at me, I didn't do it!"

I don't even know why Groundspeak is suddenly caring about who owns the physical container. Isn't their mind-numbing, drone-like mantra : "We are only a listing service" ...?

Edited by nicolo

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even know why Groundspeak is suddenly caring about who owns the physical container. Isn't their mind-numbing, drone-like mantra : "We are only a listing service" ...?

 

This whole thread and new policy is mind numbing. Some caches in this area have become moldy, dirty, and strewn about after the owner gave up caring about the sport. Sure, the location is perfect, the hide may have been crappy, but it has history. One in particular, I have contacted the reviewer many times about changes in location and neglect. The reviewer went so far as to change coordinates on my suggestion. The owner had been AWOL for over a year. I never logged an SBA, but I should have.

 

My application to have the cache ownership transferred to me was denied, and the cache was archived.

 

So what? Now that spring is here, the owner still is nowhere to be found and has not asked that his cache be reinstated, I have clear intentions of using that space to place one of my own. I will also CITO what's left of the original container while I'm at it.

 

On the other side of the coin, one cache with history has been voluntarily maintained by a local cacher for 2 years while the owner was ill. That cacher recently passed away without allowing the listing to be adopted by the maintainer. Is this lack of permission? Or do we just neglect to mention to Groundspeak that the owner is now dead and can't do maintenance if a "needs maintenance" note ever comes up on the listing.

Share this post


Link to post
Because the container is the property of the original owner, it can not be physically removed. Placing another cache here would cause confusion between the old cache and the new cache. I doubt Groundspeak would allow the use of the original container as it would be the same problem as adopting it in the first place.

 

Groundspeak may think the container remains the property of the owner forevermore, but I have no qualms about stumbling across an archived cache and removing it. I'll even post a note on the cache page saying what I have done -- heck, if i haven't found the cache before I'll even log it as a Find.

 

As for the original container, unless it is mentioned in the cache listing that "This is the original container from GCxxxx", I don't think Groundspeak would ever know if the container was recycled from the original cache or not so I don't see it being an issue. What they've done is covered their collective butts because they could then say to the AWOL owner who returns to the game "Don't look at me, I didn't do it!"

I don't even know why Groundspeak is suddenly caring about who owns the physical container. Isn't their mind-numbing, drone-like mantra : "We are only a listing service" ...?

 

This is true. B) But I've seen some reviewers say in these forums that some of the ugliest confrontations they've ever dealt with are from supposedly absent cache owners (as defined as not responding to emails from some throw-away email account you don't check anymore) having their cache "taken away" by the website. For example, the guy who invented the word geocaching was a little upset at having his caches involuntarily adopted, as seen here

 

Of course that was six years ago. ;)

 

I wouldn't doubt there were threats of litigation over a recent involuntary adoption. Just a wild conspiracy theory on my part though. :D

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

Let me just say that this tool is quite efficient

 

I will be adopting the 6 caches owned by a local cacher who is moving back to his native Sweden

 

We did one just as a test, and it worked perfectly, now the next time he gets a chance he'll have the other 5 to me with no problems

Share this post


Link to post

Rothstafari of Groundspeak made a public forum discussion found here Official Statements

 

The purpose of this thread was to inform Canadians about the change and since the original posting of this thread there have been alterations so READ THAT THREAD as it is the official one. As such, the cache that Danoshimano referred to has had the "Needs Maintenance" icon removed by me.

 

Some truths though:

  • All caches need an owner
  • Groundspeak does not own the cache
  • Volunteer Reviewers should be contacted to handle site related items
  • Adoptions must be done with the /adopt tool
  • 'Group' or 'Community' maintenance is not always the right solution

Reviewers, and not players, will determine based on log activity and other factors whether caches with issues are being maintained and act on them according to the listing guidelines. Player input will of course be considered and if a suitable maintenance plan is arranged I see no reason why an abandoned cache cannot be treated like a 'foster cache' (my term, not Groundspeak's) in most cases.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service and when a listing is no longer valid, it is archived to preserve history as it was when the listing was no longer available. Archived in the truest sense means 'Saved in storage'.

 

I hope this helps.

Edited by CacheDrone

Share this post


Link to post

In my first post (#2) in this thread, I made the assertion that the "needs maintenance" log was what lead to the cache I was talking about being slated for archiving. This was incorrect. Since the cache does not fall into the guidelines for archiving an abandoned cache, and since the local cache community is maintaining it without any issues, the cache will stand.

 

In my humble opinion, the policy is understandable, fair, and workable.

 

Thanks, Cachedrone, for your assistance.

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewers, and not players, will determine based on log activity and other factors whether caches with issues are being maintained and act on them according to the listing guidelines. Player input will of course be considered and if a suitable maintenance plan is arranged I see no reason why an abandoned cache cannot be treated like a 'foster cache' (my term, not Groundspeak's) in most cases.

 

I can see this leading to problems. Applying a "This cache is worthy and this one is not" approach is going to lead to forum threads complaining about unfairness as with many decisions made by approvers that the asking cacher does not agree with.

Share this post


Link to post

In my first post (#2) in this thread, I made the assertion that the "needs maintenance" log was what lead to the cache I was talking about being slated for archiving. This was incorrect. Since the cache does not fall into the guidelines for archiving an abandoned cache, and since the local cache community is maintaining it without any issues, the cache will stand.

 

In my humble opinion, the policy is understandable, fair, and workable.

 

 

I would agree. To be honest, I thought such a policy was already in effect since the adopt a listing page game out (which I'm guessing was a year ago, at best). You learn something new every day. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewers, and not players, will determine based on log activity and other factors whether caches with issues are being maintained and act on them according to the listing guidelines. Player input will of course be considered and if a suitable maintenance plan is arranged I see no reason why an abandoned cache cannot be treated like a 'foster cache' (my term, not Groundspeak's) in most cases.

 

I can see this leading to problems. Applying a "This cache is worthy and this one is not" approach is going to lead to forum threads complaining about unfairness as with many decisions made by approvers that the asking cacher does not agree with.

 

Almost any policy will lead to problems with someone, some where, some time.

 

This policy takes the input of the players, and to me that is the best type of policy there is. Either players are taking care of the cache, or they are not. If not, it will be obvious by the logs being left. If the cache is not being maintained, then there are going to be comments in the logs and there are going to be "Needs Maintenance" logs posted.

 

It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Share this post


Link to post

This policy takes the input of the players, and to me that is the best type of policy there is. Either players are taking care of the cache, or they are not. If not, it will be obvious by the logs being left. If the cache is not being maintained, then there are going to be comments in the logs and there are going to be "Needs Maintenance" logs posted.

 

It seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

I understood the policy is caches can only be adopted if the owner is a participant in the process, and the on-line form is used.

 

Couple that with the previous statement from cache drone that every cache must have an owner, caches abandoned by their owner will be archived and the policy prevents another cacher from adopting it if the owner can not be brought in on the process.

 

Add those two points together with a "Should Be Archived" log, and there is a good chance the cache is gone.

Share this post


Link to post

Add those two points together with a "Should Be Archived" log, and there is a good chance the cache is gone.

 

Yes, leading to Geotrash, which apparently Groundspeak does not care about.

Share this post


Link to post

Add those two points together with a "Should Be Archived" log, and there is a good chance the cache is gone.

 

Yes, leading to Geotrash, which apparently Groundspeak does not care about.

Of couse they don't ...

...

[*]Groundspeak does not own the cache

...

...

their mind-numbing, drone-like mantra : "We are only a listing service" ...?

Share this post


Link to post

Some truths though:

  • All caches need an owner
  • Groundspeak does not own the cache
  • Volunteer Reviewers should be contacted to handle site related items
  • Adoptions must be done with the /adopt tool
  • 'Group' or 'Community' maintenance is not always the right solution

Reviewers, and not players, will determine based on log activity and other factors whether caches with issues are being maintained and act on them according to the listing guidelines. Player input will of course be considered and if a suitable maintenance plan is arranged I see no reason why an abandoned cache cannot be treated like a 'foster cache' (my term, not Groundspeak's) in most cases.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service and when a listing is no longer valid, it is archived to preserve history as it was when the listing was no longer available. Archived in the truest sense means 'Saved in storage'.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Here is one other way to see this :

 

- all caches need an owner

- if the owner of the cache is no longer active (either not logging on the Goundspeak website or actually deceased), the cache has been abandoned

- abandoned caches should be adopted so that they don't become geotrash.

 

I understand that a common solution that people are thinking about if adoption is refused is to wait for archival then create an identical cache page (with new owner, of course) for the same coordinates, leading to the same container. If that is what people will do, then the whole issue of who owns the container will not at all be solved by Groundspeak refusing to transfer the cache page from one person to another... it just adds an extra step and makes the cache history harder to access (though the new cache âge can link to the archived cache page).

 

Oh, and if "Group or Community maintenance is not always the right solution, then doesn't that mean it is sometimes the right solution? :drama: So when a group or community of cachers have proved that they are able to maintain the caches they said they would maintain, shouldn't they be allowed to adopt them and trusted to continue maintenance?

 

By the way, I do know reviewers are not responsible for changing policies and guidelines, I just hope you can get our feedback to the people who actually do make the policies and guidelines :D

Share this post


Link to post

The best way to do that would be to post in the topic they started and are probably watching...

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=191715

 

Really, let's get realistic. Groundspeak does not care......

 

None of the "Players" wanted this change, none. In fact, it has been made quite clear that we wanted a BETTER process and CLEAR rules for non-consensual adoptions in many, many threads.

 

Groundspeak just wants to cover their legal rear ends.

 

It is easier to sit here and vent at the wall that does not respond.

Share this post


Link to post

Addressing several comments in one reply

 

I can see this leading to problems. Applying a "This cache is worthy and this one is not" approach is going to lead to forum threads complaining about unfairness as with many decisions made by approvers that the asking cacher does not agree with.

 

The decision is not based on the 'worth' of a cache and never has been. It is based on the listing guidelines and how the cache is meeting them. Every player agreed to the listing guidelines when they submitted their cache to Groundspeak.

 

Couple that with the previous statement from cache drone that every cache must have an owner, caches abandoned by their owner will be archived and the policy prevents another cacher from adopting it if the owner can not be brought in on the process.

 

The decision is based on many factors and if someone comes forward to tend to the cache (more on this later), not a cut-and-dry "No owner, no listing"

 

Oh, and if "Group or Community maintenance is not always the right solution, then doesn't that mean it is sometimes the right solution? smile.gif So when a group or community of cachers have proved that they are able to maintain the caches they said they would maintain, shouldn't they be allowed to adopt them and trusted to continue maintenance?

 

Yes sometimes it is the right solution. Since you are from the Ottawa area, have a look at Binthair's caches. There is a large group of people committed to preserving those caches. Group management does not have to mean adoption, there are other forms it takes. (more on this later)

 

The "More on this later" portion

 

Very little has actually changed here, and to explain it I will use the Old Way/New Way method

 

It starts with a listing being disabled...

 

> A listing is disabled either by the owner or a reviewer for whatever reason, and those vary depending on the reasons and nature of the problem.

> Another players comes forward (posts a note / emails the reviewer) and say "Hey I'd love to adopt that cache" for whatever reason.

> The reviewer says "Hey that's great. Send a message to the current owner and offer to adopt it from them using the adoption tool. If a month goes by and it hasn't been transferred to you then I will contact Groundspeak on your behalf/make note that you will be taking care of it and you will need to watch the listing and posts notes to keep me updated, this is of course if the cache can be saved.

> Should a month go by then Groundspeak looks into whether the cache can be transferred / the player continues to do maintenance on behalf of the absent owner and posts notes as needed.

 

Not every listing was eligible for adoption and the same is true for a listing to not be archived. The only real difference here is that ownership is no longer being transferred. I'm sure Danoshimano can vouch for how this process works since they have seen both versions.

 

Everyone talks about preserving the history of a cache (when they usually mean listing), and keeping it with its original owner does that. Archiving a listing that should be archived based on the guidelines also preserves the history. Sometimes a listing just is not able to be saved, and sometimes it is.

 

The reviewers all knew what caches should be available for adoption, and now instead it is if the cache can be maintained by other or not. Again, remember that there are many caches already being maintained by others and there are no problems with that practice. This is actually better because every abandoned cache is treated the same way. Let reviewers know that you are taking care of it if a problem is noted, and we will try to help you with anything on the site side.

Edited by CacheDrone

Share this post


Link to post

Archiving a listing that should be archived based on the guidelines also preserves the history.

No it doesn't.

 

There is no way to find archived caches on the website unless you just happen to know it is there (or are a reviewer). If we could have archived caches show up in searches, then your argument would hold otherwise they are gone.

 

Why "you" can not see that the huge majority of "Players" want this is beyond me.

 

Again, remember that there are many caches already being maintained by others and there are no problems with that practice. This is actually better because every abandoned cache is treated the same way. Let reviewers know that you are taking care of it if a problem is noted, and we will try to help you with anything on the site side.

No, it is a BAD practice. Why??? Because the listing can not be updated to reflect changes that happen throughout the cache's life. Sometimes cache's need to be moved a little or the hint changed. Without adoption, none of this can happen. Getting the reviewers to change someone's cache page is no better than transferring it to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure Danoshimano can vouch for how this process works since they have seen both versions.

 

Yes. The process worked fine, no problem.

Share this post


Link to post

[Cachdrone said] caches abandoned by their owner will be archived

Where was that said? I can't find it.

 

There was this point:

 

Reviewers, and not players, will determine based on log activity and other factors whether caches with issues are being maintained and act on them according to the listing guidelines. Player input will of course be considered and if a suitable maintenance plan is arranged I see no reason why an abandoned cache cannot be treated like a 'foster cache' (my term, not Groundspeak's) in most cases.

I have first-hand experience with a cache that was abandoned by the owner. It is NOT being archived. All it took was dialogue, and the proof was in the logs. The cache stands. Why jump to conclusions about how bad things will be?

Share this post


Link to post
None of the "Players" wanted this change, none.
You haven't read the other topic then. I have talked about this with other people out of the forums. Many could care less. The only thing true about an absolute statement like the one of yours that I quoted above is that it is absolutely untrue.

 

One thing I have seen which is not being mentioned is abuse. I've seen people adopt listings saying they are preserving the cache, then they move the coordinates. If you move the cache, it isn't the same cache. These people just want to own an old cache listing. One thing that caused this new policy is this abuse.

 

Regarding the history aspect and it being lost when archived because those who never found it cannot see it... this is also untrue. I can still see the cache when I look though my found caches. The history of that cache I found is changed when someone does what I describe above. A couple of years ago, one of the first caches I found was adopted. It was immediately totally changed. The name of the cache was changed. The location was changed. It was changed from a traditional to a multicache. It is no longer the same cache that I found. The real history of the cache was most certainly lost and all of the logs before the point of the change make less sense. I don't want to see this happen again, so from this perspective I am glad that this change has come about. I want the history of caches that I have found preserved. They now will be. Just because you cannot see it does not make it unimportant. In contrast, it makes it exceptionally important to those of us who *are* the history of that cache -- those of us who found the cache and made that history.

 

It is easier to sit here and vent at the wall that does not respond.

If you are posting here in this topic instead of the one I linked to, you should not expect a response from Groundspeak for the reasons I pointed out.

 

And by the way Red90, you need to get off of CacheDrone's back. He did not create this policy. He is only reporting it. Please quit shooting at the "messenger boy". If you want to post with so much angst, direct it to the other topic and not to someone who is only giving the courtesy of reporting this new policy.

Edited by mtn-man

Share this post


Link to post

 

The decision is not based on the 'worth' of a cache and never has been. It is based on the listing guidelines and how the cache is meeting them. Every player agreed to the listing guidelines when they submitted their cache to Groundspeak.

 

This is not totaly true. If I remember correctly, there are some cachers from way back that did have to agree to the guidelines in place at the time. It was not till a few years ago, that we had to agree to the guidelines before we could continue to review the website and such. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I bet with a few more of the old-timers and the "wayback machine" we could find out.

 

Now for my 2 cents.....

 

IMHO, I think this was the best solution that the geocaching owners / operators could take on this issue. They could of kept it the way it was going, but could over time have a good chance of paying some lawyer fees. But on the other hand.... being the listing service of a ton of caches that have been archived will in turn create a ton of geotrash that could have a large impact on the enviroment.

There has to be some leeway!!!!

If this new process is to stay there should be some way to combat the issue of geotrash. As I posted in other threads before on this topic, our prov. group is in the process of cleaning up geotrash sites. We have compiled a list of archived caches (have about 90% of them) and cleaning up the sites. Oh.... how wonderful it would be to have the power to run a PQ for archived caches.

Edited by parker2

Share this post


Link to post

No "extra" geotrash would be created. Statements suggesting that this is not true simply don't hold water.

 

Nothing has changed except that people cannot take ownership of a cache or its listing contents without the permission of the current owner. Groundspeak will no longer transfer a cache listing to another player. That's it, that's all. These geocaches and their listings will be in effect frozen as they are.

 

Also remember that we are talking about a very small portion of the caches in any given area. Over the last year I sent maybe 5 caches to Groundspeak. And each of those, because a player wanted them. They should want to tend to them whether the cache is moved to their profile or not, if they are concerned about the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

How about this? I'm thinking right now of two old school, historic caches in Ontario, where even the adoptive caretakers have gone inactive. No need to mention names, but one is in The Niagara Region, one in The GTA. For example, I attempted to contact the caretaker for the GTA one a few months ago for parking recommendations, and never heard back, and they haven't logged in to the website in a long time.

 

Say new problems arose with these caches. Would someone else be allowed to step up to the plate?

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel

Share this post


Link to post

[Cachdrone said] caches abandoned by their owner will be archived

Where was that said? I can't find it.

 

There was this point:

 

Reviewers, and not players, will determine based on log activity and other factors whether caches with issues are being maintained and act on them according to the listing guidelines. Player input will of course be considered and if a suitable maintenance plan is arranged I see no reason why an abandoned cache cannot be treated like a 'foster cache' (my term, not Groundspeak's) in most cases.

I have first-hand experience with a cache that was abandoned by the owner. It is NOT being archived. All it took was dialogue, and the proof was in the logs. The cache stands. Why jump to conclusions about how bad things will be?

 

fix that for you.

 

Couple that with the previous statement from cache drone that every cache must have an owner, caches abandoned by their owner will be archived

 

Before the comma is the statement from cache drone. After the comma is the usual result of a cache with no owner.

Share this post


Link to post

Addressing several comments in one reply

 

I can see this leading to problems. Applying a "This cache is worthy and this one is not" approach is going to lead to forum threads complaining about unfairness as with many decisions made by approvers that the asking cacher does not agree with.

 

The decision is not based on the 'worth' of a cache and never has been. It is based on the listing guidelines and how the cache is meeting them. Every player agreed to the listing guidelines when they submitted their cache to Groundspeak.

 

 

If the guidelines are always applied to the letter, then there would be no reason for anyone to cry unfair. The moment an exception is made, and exceptions do get made, you will then have people crying unfair.

Share this post


Link to post

And by the way Red90, you need to get off of CacheDrone's back. He did not create this policy. He is only reporting it. Please quit shooting at the "messenger boy". If you want to post with so much angst, direct it to the other topic and not to someone who is only giving the courtesy of reporting this new policy.

 

He IS defending it, not just reporting it.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×