Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
CacheDrone

Adoptions: Change in policy

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Except that once archived, they are out of site and hard to find (on the site). When live, people look for them and will clean them up. When owned by a current player, they are maintained.

 

Perhaps there needs to be a "Site requires cleaning" status when they are de-listed which can then be changed to "Archived" when the area is reported to be cleaned.

 

This is the sort of thing that would show that Groundspeak cares about the geotrash issue.

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.

 

I'll revised my statement to the "vast majority". I apologize for not meeting your posting precision expectations.

 

Yes, I've read the other topic and many others.

 

Yes, I've talked to many real life, in the flesh people on the subject.

 

I really have no desired to try and back up my position as I can guarantee that Groundspeak will never change their postion. This discussion is solely for the purpose of discussion and served no other purpose.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

So in that case, it is not a quote attributed to Cachedrone, but rather an erroneous statement made by you, which you then use to draw a dubious conclusion.

 

The "good chance a cache will be archived" conclusion is certainly valid if nobody is taking care of it. Otherwise there is a good chance the cache can continue on in the care of others.

Share this post


Link to post

Except that once archived, they are out of site and hard to find (on the site). When live, people look for them and will clean them up. When owned by a current player, they are maintained.

 

Perhaps there needs to be a "Site requires cleaning" status when they are de-listed which can then be changed to "Archived" when the area is reported to be cleaned.

 

This is the sort of thing that would show that Groundspeak cares about the geotrash issue.

 

Except that local cachers will have found that cache previously, and will have a record of it and will be able to find it. Wouldn't it make more sense for local cachers or caching organizations to take the initiative and remove these caches? Groundspeak sure can't do it. We know the reason for the policy, and we know that the policy allows abandoned caches to carry on when local cachers commit to caring for the cache.

 

"Site Requires Cleaning" may have potential (but I am sure the implementation of that feature would spark a fierce debate as well). Maybe a new class of volunteer who has access to local PQs for caches that were archived due to abandonment. Then they could organize the "CITO" style event to visit and clean. But I think that needs to go into another thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Except that local cachers will have found that cache previously, and will have a record of it and will be able to find it. Wouldn't it make more sense for local cachers or caching organizations to take the initiative and remove these caches? Groundspeak sure can't do it. We know the reason for the policy, and we know that the policy allows abandoned caches to carry on when local cachers commit to caring for the cache.

 

"Site Requires Cleaning" may have potential (but I am sure the implementation of that feature would spark a fierce debate as well). Maybe a new class of volunteer who has access to local PQs for caches that were archived due to abandonment. Then they could organize the "CITO" style event to visit and clean. But I think that needs to go into another thread.

 

That is certainly what we are going to do locally, but it would be nice if Groundspeak showed that they cared.

 

It is hard enough to convince land managers that we are responsible and this policy makes it harder. IMO, Groundspeak needs to do a lot more to ensure that cache owner's are active. If it were up to me, all cachers that do not respond to email queries within say 6 months would have their caches put up for adoption.....exactly the opposite to the policy in this thread. This would show that we are serious about ensuring caches are maintained.

Share this post


Link to post

If it were up to me, all cachers that do not respond to email queries within say 6 months would have their caches put up for adoption.....exactly the opposite to the policy in this thread. This would show that we are serious about ensuring caches are maintained.

That would be a colossal blunder that would put the company at great risk.

 

You understand that it is a legal issue, correct? Groundspeak does not own the cache containers, just the listing. The idea above would require a policy change that would see Groundspeak assume physical ownership of all abandoned caches. There are a lot of caches all around the planet, and for a company to have any type of policy that says "yep, those belong to us" would be like jumping into a legal snakepit.

 

If somebody puts out a cache, then abandons it, it is *they* (and they alone) who do not care about geotrash. It is that cacher who did not follow the guidelines and that cacher who effectively created the geotrash.

 

Luckily, there is a workable policy in place that allows other players to step up and maintain a cache. I also do like the idea of having some sort of "abandoned cache cleanup" list. You should post that idea in the appropriate forum and pursue it. (Let me know if you do, I'd be happy to join that conversation.)

Share this post


Link to post

You understand that it is a legal issue, correct? Groundspeak does not own the cache containers, just the listing. The idea above would require a policy change that would see Groundspeak assume physical ownership of all abandoned caches. There are a lot of caches all around the planet, and for a company to have any type of policy that says "yep, those belong to us" would be like jumping into a legal snakepit.

 

But they aren't. They are giving the LISTING to you, not the container. These are completely separate... They have stated this a billion times.

 

It is simple enough to deal with. In the terms and conditions, you agree that you maintain the cache and are contactable by email within a reasonable time or your LISTING is forfiet.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the thread should be closed in favor of the other one. No point in hashing out here was is going on in the other one.

Share this post


Link to post

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...

 

Me neither. Very good example of what could happen when a cache is adopted.

Share this post


Link to post

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...

 

Me neither. Very good example of what could happen when a cache is adopted.

That can happen whether a cache is adopted or retained by the original owner.

Share this post


Link to post

True, but at least the person who placed the cache made that decision themselves, not someone who took their cache in the guise of keeping a historical cache going.

Share this post


Link to post

True, but at least the person who placed the cache made that decision themselves, not someone who took their cache in the guise of keeping a historical cache going.

I do know what you mean.

 

One of the caches I adopted I unfortunately ended up having to archive because the cache was located just below some very sensitive fungi. I wanted to keep the cache mostly the same ( location & cache page ) but keep the people away from the fungi. I had wanted to turn the regular cache into a multi, with a micro at the original location but an approver ( I think it was you ) noted that I can't change cache types ( it made sense ).

 

Thus, I had to unfortunately archive the cache, resubmit a new cache with a cache page copied from the original and reference to the original cache, but as a multi. Sad to see it go but the area just wouldn't safely support a regular-sized cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches need to change with time. Sometimes the hiding location is compromised, sometimes there are changes in the area. This is part of the reason to have the adoption take place, so as to allow the changes that are required to take place.

 

Most of my caches have been moved since they were new. It is a normal part of cache maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post

You understand that it is a legal issue, correct? Groundspeak does not own the cache containers, just the listing. The idea above would require a policy change that would see Groundspeak assume physical ownership of all abandoned caches. There are a lot of caches all around the planet, and for a company to have any type of policy that says "yep, those belong to us" would be like jumping into a legal snakepit.

 

But they aren't. They are giving the LISTING to you, not the container. These are completely separate... They have stated this a billion times.

 

It is simple enough to deal with. In the terms and conditions, you agree that you maintain the cache and are contactable by email within a reasonable time or your LISTING is forfiet.

 

Groundspeak is not going to transfer you the LISTING either without permission from the current cache listing owner. The listing and the container might be separate but the listing is transferred with the /adopt tool.

 

There is no reason that comes to mind to need to have non-consensual adoptions when there is the option of someone saying they will take care of it on behalf of the absentee owner.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches need to change with time. Sometimes the hiding location is compromised, sometimes there are changes in the area. This is part of the reason to have the adoption take place, so as to allow the changes that are required to take place.

 

Most of my caches have been moved since they were new. It is a normal part of cache maintenance.

 

Then it is no longer the original cache and moving it changes the history for everyone that found it where it was at the time they found it. Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt that the policy is going to change, so I am just glad I was able to adopt a great spot with a 2002 cache when it was still possible. The cache lives on and on today under my care.

 

Most troubled/missing caches with AWOL owners never get replaced by anyone, and never get adopted out anyway. They just fade into the sunset and eventually get shut down by reviewers. So the policy change is no huge loss to the game - regardless of the reason.

 

Learning Outcomes and Action Plan:

 

1. If I ever quit the game (perish the thought!) I will be sure to adopt out my listings to other active cachers. I know that no one will do it for me later - so that is my job.

 

2. If I archive a listing I will be sure to remove the container. If it was a good enough place to justify a cache that I want to bring others to, it's a good enough place for me to visit one more time to remove the cache.

 

3. I will step up my efforts to locate and remove Archived Caches. While they are harder to see then active caches, they are not impossible to find. The most likely ones to be there are where a cacher just quits and shuts down all thier caches. Good places to look are:

 

a) in one's "found" logs (where I already know what I am looking for and where).

:) in the found lists and hides from profiles of long time prolific cachers (for caches I have not found). Look for an older local cache, go back the the early logs, and look at what else that cacher logged in the area to find archived listings.

 

4. Extra bonus points for finding, logging, and CITOing an abandoned cache.

 

5. If I search for a archived listing and don't find it, I will always log that fact to the old listing so future cachers know the cache is confirmed removed (by owner, muggle, or another cacher).

 

6. I will encourage cache owners to post in their archive logs if they removed the cache or not.

 

There is a big discussion going on in the official thread - but not as interesting as this Canadian thread. Cache On.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches need to change with time. Sometimes the hiding location is compromised, sometimes there are changes in the area. This is part of the reason to have the adoption take place, so as to allow the changes that are required to take place.

 

Most of my caches have been moved since they were new. It is a normal part of cache maintenance.

 

Then it is no longer the original cache and moving it changes the history for everyone that found it where it was at the time they found it. Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

Hello?

 

OK, then in your world of the absentee cache owner where ...

 

...

someone saying they will take care of it on behalf of the absentee owner.

What would happen if the original cache area can no longer support the cache? I would imagine that since the cache can't be moved because ...

 

...

Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

...

the cache would have to be archived.

 

Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post

Caches need to change with time. Sometimes the hiding location is compromised, sometimes there are changes in the area. This is part of the reason to have the adoption take place, so as to allow the changes that are required to take place.

 

Most of my caches have been moved since they were new. It is a normal part of cache maintenance.

 

Then it is no longer the original cache and moving it changes the history for everyone that found it where it was at the time they found it. Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

Hello?

 

OK, then in your world of the absentee cache owner where ...

 

...

someone saying they will take care of it on behalf of the absentee owner.

What would happen if the original cache area can no longer support the cache? I would imagine that since the cache can't be moved because ...

 

...

Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

...

the cache would have to be archived.

 

Is this correct?

 

To affect the change you are suggesting should be done by the current cache owner. Reviewers usually only update coordinates upon request from the cache owner if they are not able to do so themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches need to change with time. Sometimes the hiding location is compromised, sometimes there are changes in the area. This is part of the reason to have the adoption take place, so as to allow the changes that are required to take place.

 

Most of my caches have been moved since they were new. It is a normal part of cache maintenance.

 

Then it is no longer the original cache and moving it changes the history for everyone that found it where it was at the time they found it. Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

Hello?

 

OK, then in your world of the absentee cache owner where ...

 

...

someone saying they will take care of it on behalf of the absentee owner.

What would happen if the original cache area can no longer support the cache? I would imagine that since the cache can't be moved because ...

 

...

Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

...

the cache would have to be archived.

 

Is this correct?

 

To affect the change you are suggesting should be done by the current cache owner. Reviewers usually only update coordinates upon request from the cache owner if they are not able to do so themselves.

You didn't REALLY answer my question did you?

 

I asked what would happen to the cache in an absentee owner scenario where the cache was being maintained by other cachers and the cache location could no longer support the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches need to change with time. Sometimes the hiding location is compromised, sometimes there are changes in the area. This is part of the reason to have the adoption take place, so as to allow the changes that are required to take place.

 

Most of my caches have been moved since they were new. It is a normal part of cache maintenance.

 

Then it is no longer the original cache and moving it changes the history for everyone that found it where it was at the time they found it. Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

Hello?

 

OK, then in your world of the absentee cache owner where ...

 

...

someone saying they will take care of it on behalf of the absentee owner.

What would happen if the original cache area can no longer support the cache? I would imagine that since the cache can't be moved because ...

 

...

Those that would find it at the new location are not finding the cache as it was intended. Since the current owner didn't agree to such a change, it shouldn't happen.

...

the cache would have to be archived.

 

Is this correct?

 

To affect the change you are suggesting should be done by the current cache owner. Reviewers usually only update coordinates upon request from the cache owner if they are not able to do so themselves.

You didn't REALLY answer my question did you?

 

I asked what would happen to the cache in an absentee owner scenario where the cache was being maintained by other cachers and the cache location could no longer support the cache.

 

The answer you seek can be found at Listing Guidelines: Cache Maintenance

 

As it stands now, the exception has been given that a person or group might able to maintain a cache on behalf of an absentee owner but this is not always going to be a possibility. There is a limit to the exception and the factors surrounding the cache and its listing are considered based on the listing guidelines and other items.

Share this post


Link to post

Great post

 

I doubt that the policy is going to change, so I am just glad I was able to adopt a great spot with a 2002 cache when it was still possible. The cache lives on and on today under my care.

 

Most troubled/missing caches with AWOL owners never get replaced by anyone, and never get adopted out anyway. They just fade into the sunset and eventually get shut down by reviewers. So the policy change is no huge loss to the game - regardless of the reason.

 

Learning Outcomes and Action Plan:

 

1. If I ever quit the game (perish the thought!) I will be sure to adopt out my listings to other active cachers. I know that no one will do it for me later - so that is my job.

 

2. If I archive a listing I will be sure to remove the container. If it was a good enough place to justify a cache that I want to bring others to, it's a good enough place for me to visit one more time to remove the cache.

 

3. I will step up my efforts to locate and remove Archived Caches. While they are harder to see then active caches, they are not impossible to find. The most likely ones to be there are where a cacher just quits and shuts down all thier caches. Good places to look are:

 

a) in one's "found" logs (where I already know what I am looking for and where).

:) in the found lists and hides from profiles of long time prolific cachers (for caches I have not found). Look for an older local cache, go back the the early logs, and look at what else that cacher logged in the area to find archived listings.

 

4. Extra bonus points for finding, logging, and CITOing an abandoned cache.

 

5. If I search for a archived listing and don't find it, I will always log that fact to the old listing so future cachers know the cache is confirmed removed (by owner, muggle, or another cacher).

 

6. I will encourage cache owners to post in their archive logs if they removed the cache or not.

 

There is a big discussion going on in the official thread - but not as interesting as this Canadian thread. Cache On.

Share this post


Link to post

...

You didn't REALLY answer my question did you?

 

I asked what would happen to the cache in an absentee owner scenario where the cache was being maintained by other cachers and the cache location could no longer support the cache.

 

The answer you seek can be found at Listing Guidelines: Cache Maintenance

 

As it stands now, the exception has been given that a person or group might able to maintain a cache on behalf of an absentee owner but this is not always going to be a possibility. There is a limit to the exception and the factors surrounding the cache and its listing are considered based on the listing guidelines and other items.

Oh brother, way to continue to avoid a direct question.

 

Never mind, since you are unwilling to stand by what you said and answer a direct question that refers to your comments.

Edited by nicolo

Share this post


Link to post

...

You didn't REALLY answer my question did you?

 

I asked what would happen to the cache in an absentee owner scenario where the cache was being maintained by other cachers and the cache location could no longer support the cache.

 

The answer you seek can be found at Listing Guidelines: Cache Maintenance

 

As it stands now, the exception has been given that a person or group might able to maintain a cache on behalf of an absentee owner but this is not always going to be a possibility. There is a limit to the exception and the factors surrounding the cache and its listing are considered based on the listing guidelines and other items.

Oh brother, way to continue to avoid a direct question.

 

Never mind, since you are unwilling to stand by what you said and answer a direct question that refers to your comments.

If the cache location can no longer support a cache, then it should be archived, just as it should be if there cache owner were present and properly maintaining their cache. The only difference, I would have to archive the cache for them. Is this the answer you were looking for? I don't want to get into debates and what ifs, each cache will be looked at when required. In reality, how many "historic" caches are we discussing here, a cache is not and should not be forever, once a cache needs to be changed in such a way that is no longer the original cache, then it should be archived to maintain the history of those who found the cache and of whom hid it. It is a shame that some people get into the hobby and then just quit, sometimes for reasons beyond their desire or control, other times, moving onto other activities due to getting bored with the current hobbies. Unfortunately, this means they sometimes leave behind caches and not keeping up their part of the maintenance agreement. Once archived, another cacher can then hide a cache at/near the same location, if it was truly worth it before, most cachers would not mind another visit from a different perspective of a new cacher.

Share this post


Link to post

...

If the cache location can no longer support a cache, then it should be archived, just as it

should be if there cache owner were present and properly maintaining their cache. The only

difference, I would have to archive the cache for them. Is this the answer you were looking for?

Not exactly the answer, but thank you for your comments. In the scenario where the cache owner

is present, they have the option of moving the cache to another location - archiving is NOT the

only option.

 

Now the answer that I was looking for is in the case of the absentee owner, as I asked above ...

 

I asked what would happen to the cache in an absentee owner scenario where the

cache was being maintained by other cachers and the cache location could no longer support the cache.

I do appreciate that "what if scenarios" are difficult to give a definitive answer to as the situation

may differ from cache to cache.

 

I just wanted CacheDrone to respond to my questions which were based on his own comments - his unwillingness

to answer them is enough of an answer to me.

 

Thanks for your comments.

Share this post


Link to post

...

If the cache location can no longer support a cache, then it should be archived, just as it

should be if there cache owner were present and properly maintaining their cache. The only

difference, I would have to archive the cache for them. Is this the answer you were looking for?

Not exactly the answer, but thank you for your comments. In the scenario where the cache owner

is present, they have the option of moving the cache to another location - archiving is NOT the

only option.

 

Now the answer that I was looking for is in the case of the absentee owner, as I asked above ...

 

I asked what would happen to the cache in an absentee owner scenario where the

cache was being maintained by other cachers and the cache location could no longer support the cache.

I do appreciate that "what if scenarios" are difficult to give a definitive answer to as the situation

may differ from cache to cache.

 

I just wanted CacheDrone to respond to my questions which were based on his own comments - his unwillingness

to answer them is enough of an answer to me.

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

In the case of an absentee owner and the cache could not longer stay at the current location then the listing would likely be archived.

 

I hope that answers your question. At least we have the option for people to tend to caches and continue to preserve the ones that can be. As has been stated before, not every cache will be available for others to look after them on behalf of the absentee owner.

Share this post


Link to post

In the case of an absentee owner and the cache could not longer stay at the current location then the listing would likely be archived.

 

Correct....

 

And this is the PROBLEM with this policy. If it was an owned cache, it would be moved to a new functional location nearby and the cache logs and history are maintained. Just becuase it is moved and there are changed to the page does not mean the cache loses its history. The history is in the LOGS. If the cache was adopted, the same thing could happen. Moving a cache to a new hiding location is an extremely common and necessary practice.

 

When archived and re-created, you lose the history and everyone that has found it now needs to return and re-find this "new" cache that is 10 feet from where the old one was hidden. A waste of everyone's time.

 

Let's say there is this cache and it is one of the first caches in the area. It has hundreds of found logs and they are very interesting reading and history for the area. The location is "muggled" and it needs to move slightly as the hiding spot is compromised. The owner has moved on in life, heck maybe he died, who knows. Adoption allow the cache to remain alive and to be adjusted as needed to allow it to continue.

 

It is obvious that the people arguing FOR this policy care little about cache history. IMO, most of the serious players that I know think it is very important and something worth preserving.

Share this post


Link to post

I care about history, if the cache needs to be moved because it was "muggled", then really the only thing most likely left are the online logs. If someone has to replace and relocate the cache, then it is not the original cache, that is lost, so the only thing preserved is the online listing, which should be archived to preserve the history of those finds and cache hider. If a new cache would be a waste of everyone's time to revisit, even years later, then was the original cache worth a visit in the first place? I don't know how many locations I have logged "going to have to return and explore more another day, thanks for bringing me here", so a return visit might not be a waste of time if the location is worthy of a cache. For the record, I am a very serious player, that is why I volunteered 5 years ago, I care a great deal about this activity.

Share this post


Link to post

The history is in the online logs. When archived, these still "exist" but for all intents and purposes are lost to the world. Archived is not preserving anything as you can't search for archived caches. They are lost to new cachers who when finding the old cache can look at the history. Cache history INCLUDES changes to location and to the container. Many people really enjoy reading the old logs. It is always interesting seeing what the find logs from way back when looked like.

 

I did not say you were not serious, I said: "most of the serious players that I know", OK, ALL, not most. We had an event the other night and people just rolled there eyes on this subject. Everyone thought it was so far beyond ridiculous that there is not even a point on talking about it.

 

I suppose from your persective "archiving" is so common, you do not even give it a second thought. To most the "players" that I know, archiving is the worst thing that can ever happen. Everything should be done to make caches live forever. There are way too many, placed quickly, no thought, archive in a month caches being placed as it is and THEY are ruining the past time. Losing more and more options for keeping the good and historical caches alive is very sad.

Edited by Red90

Share this post


Link to post

I care about history, if the cache needs to be moved because it was "muggled", then really the only thing most likely left are the online logs. If someone has to replace and relocate the cache, then it is not the original cache, that is lost, so the only thing preserved is the online listing, which should be archived to preserve the history of those finds and cache hider.

Then if the cache owner moves a cache for, say, "muggled" reasons ... it is not the original cache? If he/she has to replace the cache ... it is not the original cache?

 

If this is what you believe then it is a much stricter definition of "original cache" than mine.

 

For me, moving a cache, replacing a cache ... that's a part of a cache's life, its history. We have a local moving cache, Stash n' Dash, that has had the container replaced at least four times. It's probably the most favorite cache of the Calgary area cachers and we don't consider it to be a different cache just because the cache container has changed. BTW, I know that you only mentioned moving a cache, not replacing it, but it seems to be the same thing ... changing it somehow. However, if needed, I am sure that I could find an example of an older cache that had to be moved and where we all still consider it the same cache.

Share this post


Link to post

...

I suppose from your persective "archiving" is so common, you do not even give it a second thought. To most the "players" that I know, archiving is the worst thing that can ever happen. Everything should be done to make caches live forever. There are way too many, placed quickly, no thought, archive in a month caches being placed as it is and THEY are ruining the past time. Losing more and more options for keeping the good and historical caches alive is very sad.

I agree Red90, opening up a "good place" because a cache "has to be" archived because the cache owner is AWOL is not necessarily a good thing. Nowadays, I am finding that a lot of new people are hiding crap : micros in trees, poor containers ( Glad containers, for example ... I've even seen zip-lock baggies as containers! ), etc. that it a shame that an excellent location, and excellent cache, has to make way for the trend of crappy, "I don't care" caches just because GS won't allow the "AWOL-cacher hider" geocache to be adopted.

Share this post


Link to post

However, if needed, I am sure that I could find an example of an older cache that had to be moved and where we all still consider it the same cache.

 

Here is one of my adopted caches, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4d-5613306dd3e6

 

Not that old, but I've moved it and replaced the container three times. The history of those changes and the 198 finds is ALL there. The description has been kept as original as the changes allow. It is still the same cache as when placed 5 years ago.

 

Here is one of my non-consensual adoptions from 2002, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...26-313fa888d48d Only 12 finds. A great spot and a decent trip to get to it. I love reading about the finders from 6 years ago that may or may not still play the game.

 

Or ths one from 2001, that I've moved and replaced the container, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8b-570b1a986f53 How can you want to lose a log like this, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...e9-48891941737f from one of the founding cachers in Calgary.

Share this post


Link to post

By way of this thread and a different topic, it appears we might not have a problem with losing older caches, we have a trend with the way new caches are being hidden. Not all new caches are crappy, not all old caches the greatest hides ever. If an active cache owner drops in, maintains their cache, replaces and relocates slightly, it is still their hide, done with their style so to speak. If someone else does the same, then really, it should be a new listing, giving it new life, a new style which might even be better then the old cache.

 

One thing I did note lost with the example of caches that were adopted, when I clicked on the placed by "The Parkers", I did not get their profile. When I did find their profile, I don't get any sense of history attached to that profile regarding their contribution to geocaching. That was lost during the adoption of the cache(s), I see 2 in their profile for hides, the one mentioned here indicates they had 3, were there more that was adopted, I don't know. We can get nostalgic when it comes to old caches, trust me, I know, I really don't like having to archive anyones caches, I hate seeing caches become trash and I dislike having cachers and friends depart the hobby without so much a word.

Share this post


Link to post

Not all new caches are crappy, not all old caches the greatest hides ever.

 

Of course not. Why do people think the world is black and white???

 

We are talking about the opportunity that used to exist to keep the old and good caches alive.

 

Of course you did not get their profile, I adopted the cache.................. One of their other caches is here: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...08-6751e4ac5d4a In this case "The Parkers" left a note on their pages asking that someone take them over. When we went to adopt them, they could not be found, so an non-consensual adoption took place. With the new rules, this could not happen, even thoughthe owners made it clear that they wanted the caches adopted......

 

The Parkers, http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=7b...a0-8d80fad8736a

 

Yes, things change, yes it is not 100% the same way it was before. Yes it has a new owner who may do things differently. The world is NOT black and white!!!!! Most of the cache's history is there in the logs and the descritption.

Edited by Red90

Share this post


Link to post

I have a suggestion. Its pretty obvious that Groundspeak isn't going to change their policy, so its useless debating it. I think its been made pretty clear here that there are lots of people against the change, and some (albeit fewer) people for the change. There are pros and cons.

 

So, how about we start thinking about ways to live with the change that might satify everyone?

 

There have already been some attempts to come up with ways of dealing with the potential geo-litter problem. These of course assume that the archival is noticed by locals, and dealt with.

 

The main remaining problem is one of history. On the one side, people hate to see old caches die. I hate it too. On the other side a cache adopter has the option to modify a cache page as they see fit. I don't think anyone really likes a cache getting an 'extreme makeover'.

 

So what's the problem with archival? Finding the archived cache becomes very difficult due to the structure of the site. The solution seems to be to make the archived cache listing easier to find. I'm not about to suggest that Groundspeak implement a search function for archived caches. I'm not that stupid. But perhaps we could make the process easier on a one at a time basis by encouraging 'tribute' listings.

 

What I mean by this would be a listing in roughly (or possibly even exactly) the same location as the original with a link to the original cache listing.

 

This keeps everything from the original cache intact (except the GC#), but it also ensures the integrity of the original listing.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
I have a suggestion. Its pretty obvious that Groundspeak isn't going to change their policy, so its useless debating it. I think its been made pretty clear here that there are lots of people against the change, and some (albeit fewer) people for the change. There are pros and cons.

 

So, how about we start thinking about ways to live with the change that might satify everyone?

 

There have already been some attempts to come up with ways of dealing with the potential geo-litter problem. These of course assume that the archival is noticed by locals, and dealt with.

 

The main remaining problem is one of history. On the one side, people hate to see old caches die. I hate it too. On the other side a cache adopter has the option to modify a cache page as they see fit. I don't think anyone really likes a cache getting an 'extreme makeover'.

 

So what's the problem with archival? Finding the archived cache becomes very difficult due to the structure of the site. The solution seems to be to make the archived cache listing easier to find. I'm not about to suggest that Groundspeak implement a search function for archived caches. I'm not that stupid. But perhaps we could make the process easier on a one at a time basis by encouraging 'tribute' listings.

 

What I mean by this would be a listing in roughly (or possibly even exactly) the same location as the original with a link to the original cache listing.

 

This keeps everything from the original cache intact (except the GC#), but it also ensures the integrity of the original listing.

 

Thoughts?

I like the idea and I actually have a cache like that. It's a memorial cache in honor of one of the old time cachers in our area that pasted away at the young age of 44 a few years ago. His cache was my first cache find and when he passed away so did that cache. So I created a memorial cache which is located very close to the original location of his cache and the cache page has a link to his original cache page. It's easy to find an archived cache page if you've found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Thoughts?

Best post yet.

 

Great idea.

 

Ditto.

 

Let me see if I follow this. Instead of adopting caches when thoe owner no longer wants to play, or can't play any more, the original listing is archived. Then a new listing is created in honor of the original cache and provides a link to the original cache. Container may or may not be replaced.

 

Do I have it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Thoughts?

Best post yet.

 

Great idea.

 

Ditto.

 

Let me see if I follow this. Instead of adopting caches when thoe owner no longer wants to play, or can't play any more, the original listing is archived. Then a new listing is created in honor of the original cache and provides a link to the original cache. Container may or may not be replaced.

 

Do I have it right?

 

Yes and no. Using your post as a template the wording would go like this: italics are my words. strikethrough are changes.

 

Instead of adopting caches when the owner no longer wants to play, or can't play any more, the original listing is might be archived. If it is archived then a new listing is may be created in honour of the original cache and the new listing may provides a link to the original cache. Container may or may not be replaced.

 

Groundspeak does not have any authority for the container, to the best of my understanding.

 

Of course, the best method is still the /adopt tool which the use of is strongly encouraged above and beyond any other methods. And also please remember that some caches may not be eligible to be taken care of 'by proxy'. This is decided on a case by case basis in the same fashion that caches were adopted through Groundspeak. Some were adopted and some were declined from being adopted.

Edited by CacheDrone

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not about to suggest that Groundspeak implement a search function for archived caches. I'm not that stupid.

 

I am. :) Actually, many people are because it comes up many times in the forums -- "How do I search for archived cache listings?" Whether it is because of geo-litter or to research the history of an area to determine how appropriate it is for a new cache, there are many valid reasons to look for Archived caches.

 

What I mean by this would be a listing in roughly (or possibly even exactly) the same location as the original with a link to the original cache listing.

 

This keeps everything from the original cache intact (except the GC#), but it also ensures the integrity of the original listing.

 

Thoughts?/

 

Naturally I think it is a great idea -- see Post #3 :lol:

 

Sorry for dragging this topic which had gone inactive back to the top -- I need to check the Canada Forum more often.

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

×