Jump to content

Automatically expiring caches


Recommended Posts

I've discussed this with various people. Many seem to hate the idea, but I really like it. :laughing:

 

As this sport has evolved and we have more and more caches, many of the public parks & land start becoming saturated with caches. Some more than others I'm sure.

 

In my opinion, one of the reasons we have had an explosion of quality lamp posts, guardrail and parking lot caches is because people get upset they can't find a spot to hide a cache and contribute to the sport as most of the parks are relatively full. I used to think the solution was to decrease the proximity rule from 0.10 to 0.05, although that could cause a different sort of problem with public perception of geocachers with land managers.

 

In order to open up areas to allow new cachers to come into the sport and hide some caches, and for older cachers to have a reason to visit an area again, I'd like to see caches automatically expire after a set time (I'd like to say 18 months.)

 

No, this wouldn't automatically archive the cache, but it give the owner the option to archive it, or to acknowledge that yes, this cache deserves to stick around, and renew it.

 

Something like:

- 7/23/2008 SomeCacher submits a new cache at a donut place

- 7/25/2008 SomeReviewer publishes the cache

- 1/25/2010 Geocaching.com automatically posts an "expired" note on the cache page stating "This cache has expired. Do you want to keep this cache around? If so, click here. Otherwise, please click here to archive the cache."

- 1/28/2010 SomeCacher slaps self for putting out a lame cache in the first place, and archives the cache

- 2/25/2010 If SomeCacher didn't archive the cache, or follow the automated renewal process, cache automatically gets archived

 

So we have (at least) two problems with this:

 

Historical caches with no owner, that should live "forever"

For historical caches, the community needs to step in. Try and adopt the cache if possible. If adoption isn't possible, create a new log type when the cache is in "pending automatical archival" mode where people can log "don't archive this cache" or "yup - let it die". If there is a positive response, then the cache doesn't get automatically archived.

 

Automatically archived caches don't get picked up

For trash, it's harder. Groundspeak doesn't own the caches, so probably shouldn't be encouraging cachers to pick up other people's expired caches without the cacher's permission, especially as they may be listed on another site. Best bet, have the community try and contact the cache owner and ask if the cache can be picked up. If it gets picked up, then the picker gets a gold star or some icon or find count bumped. Some incentive has to exist to pick up the cache with the permission of the owner.

Link to comment

 

In order to open up areas to allow new cachers to come into the sport and hide some caches, and for older cachers to have a reason to visit an area again, I'd like to see caches automatically expire after a set time (I'd like to say 18 months.)

 

If the cache area is worthy of a re-visit why do you need a new cache there just to visit the area again?

Link to comment

It seems like it would be a good idea to archive a cache if it has not been visited after a set period of time. I would think even if you had been to an area before it would be fun to go back again in search of a new cache. Hopefully the new cache would not be in the exact spot. It seems to me that everyone benefits.

Link to comment

I like the idea.

I'm not in the sport for numbers, so it doesn't bother me.

 

I like the idea for 2 reasons.

1. negligent cache owners/or those that left the sport without saying so

2. saturation issues

 

Some locations/states have tougher laws regarding the locations you can really place a cache.

Basically in Indiana you are left with City parks, Cemeteries and public lands. Anything Private property is iffy at best.

 

Locally we have several negligent cache owners. A couple of them are gone from the hobby, not having logged in, in well over a year or more. You have other owners that are very questionable if they still do the hobby or not. Our local reviewers do a good job on these, but there are several locations that have caches that should just be removed, but won't.

 

These time rules would help bring new people into the hobby with plenty of new locations to place caches.

We have a local cacher that is starting to archive caches when the logs get bad, or caches come up missing and meet the distance rule he has in place because of the gas it takes to get to the caches.

This helps a little.

 

I think it would help open up the area.

Say if "Imcacher" decided to stop doing the sport altogether, and had 5 caches planted, and then the 2 years came up, the person wasn't active the caches are archived no longer to be seen but by reviewers, then fine.

If they leave, then you have the task of trying to adopt which is questionable currently.

 

Nice idea.

Link to comment

 

In order to open up areas to allow new cachers to come into the sport and hide some caches, and for older cachers to have a reason to visit an area again, I'd like to see caches automatically expire after a set time (I'd like to say 18 months.)

 

If the cache area is worthy of a re-visit why do you need a new cache there just to visit the area again?

 

Bingo!

 

I hate the idea also. I've found that most of my favorite caches were hidden early 04 to 00. These oldies would be archived under your "cache sanitation system."

 

It seems like it would be a good idea to archive a cache if it has not been visited after a set period of time. I would think even if you had been to an area before it would be fun to go back again in search of a new cache. Hopefully the new cache would not be in the exact spot. It seems to me that everyone benefits.

 

So a cache like Ram Glacier Cache that was not found for almost 6 years, should have been archived long ago? Most remote caches get few visits, and fewer of them ever cause "proximity issues."

 

 

For the most part, the only proponents of this type of "sanitation system" are those that want new caches to find. :laughing:

Link to comment

Looks a little like a way to up someones numbers. The caches and there location make up the history of the sport and its evolution, caches must remain as long as the are viable, if you really want go back and revisit the cache and just log a note or do you really need another smiley

 

I can see where C-head is coming from, and I'm quite certain it's not about people getting their numbers up. :laughing: I reserve the right to change my mind at any time, but I'm just not seeing the need for such a system at this time. It took almost 6 years to get the first 1,000,000 accounts on the website, and they are on a pace to hit 2,000,000 in well under 2 years after that. There are plenty of new people to find these old stale caches. But when the time does come, I will praise him for his innovative thinking. That is if I even remember it. :laughing:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

That would quickly eliminate a lot of hiking caches that might receive a handful of visits per year. Hate is such a strong word... so let me put it this way... Still hating the idea.

 

What if you had the option to continually renew it, as long as you are still active.

 

My issue is with the people that come into the hobby, stay a year and vanish, leaving geojunk to be found later on.

By using something like this, you keep it cleaned up. Allow others to view the archived caches as history, whatever.

 

I don't see it being about smiley faces and added numbers, but more about keeping it cleaned up and so forth.

 

We found a cache last month that hadn't been found in over a year, it was molded, the log wasn't signable, we stocked a new log, cleaned it the best we could. Emailed the owner, nothing, put a needs maintenance, nothing.

This same owner has several (probably 20+) caches that need extreme maintenance or replaced.

These would qualify under the proposed idea.

It would allow new cachers to place a cache there if they wanted.

 

Its a sport based on exploring, new caches represent new ideas and probably not the same location.

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new.

Link to comment

 

In order to open up areas to allow new cachers to come into the sport and hide some caches, and for older cachers to have a reason to visit an area again, I'd like to see caches automatically expire after a set time (I'd like to say 18 months.)

 

If the cache area is worthy of a re-visit why do you need a new cache there just to visit the area again?

 

Bingo!

 

I hate the idea also. I've found that most of my favorite caches were hidden early 04 to 00. These oldies would be archived under your "cache sanitation system."

 

It seems like it would be a good idea to archive a cache if it has not been visited after a set period of time. I would think even if you had been to an area before it would be fun to go back again in search of a new cache. Hopefully the new cache would not be in the exact spot. It seems to me that everyone benefits.

 

So a cache like Ram Glacier Cache that was not found for almost 6 years, should have been archived long ago? Most remote caches get few visits, and fewer of them ever cause "proximity issues."

 

 

For the most part, the only proponents of this type of "sanitation system" are those that want new caches to find. :laughing:

 

To the last line.

Not the way I see it.

The system proposed needs tweaks, but its a starting point. As long as their is a active cache, then no need to archive it. Historical type, no need to lose it.

 

But those caches would need to still be overseen.

The biggest gripe is caches whose owners disappear from the sport, leaving no one to maintain them or archive them if needed. Sure, you can send a note to the reviewer, but its their call on it.

Link to comment

i really hated the idea until i read the part about a one-click renewal for active cachers.

 

i'm still concerned about historical caches that are doing just fine but have lost their owners. i love the ancient and venerable caches and i do not favor any plan that would put them in jeopardy.

Link to comment

[We found a cache last month that hadn't been found in over a year, it was molded, the log wasn't signable, we stocked a new log, cleaned it the best we could. Emailed the owner, nothing, put a needs maintenance, nothing.

This same owner has several (probably 20+) caches that need extreme maintenance or replaced.

These would qualify under the proposed idea.

It would allow new cachers to place a cache there if they wanted.

 

Its a sport based on exploring, new caches represent new ideas and probably not the same location.

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new.

 

There is a system already in place to either get the cache fixed or get rid of these kinds of caches. A time experation system isnt needed. The local reviewer should be taking care of this.

 

These time rules would help bring new people into the hobby with plenty of new locations to place caches.

 

Most forum threads on this subject say newbies shouldnt place caches.

Edited by IBcrashen
Link to comment

[We found a cache last month that hadn't been found in over a year, it was molded, the log wasn't signable, we stocked a new log, cleaned it the best we could. Emailed the owner, nothing, put a needs maintenance, nothing.

This same owner has several (probably 20+) caches that need extreme maintenance or replaced.

These would qualify under the proposed idea.

It would allow new cachers to place a cache there if they wanted.

 

Its a sport based on exploring, new caches represent new ideas and probably not the same location.

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new.

 

There is a system already in place to either get the cache fixed or get rid of these kinds of caches. A time experation system isnt needed. The local reviewer should be taking care of this.

 

These time rules would help bring new people into the hobby with plenty of new locations to place caches.

 

Most forum threads on this subject say newbies shouldnt place caches.

 

problem is, there are other caches worse then this. Doesn't always work, that is the problem.

 

and at what point should one be allowed to place caches. I've had a problem with that theory.

Edited by wapahani
Link to comment

That would quickly eliminate a lot of hiking caches that might receive a handful of visits per year. Hate is such a strong word... so let me put it this way... Still hating the idea.

 

What if you had the option to continually renew it, as long as you are still active.

 

My issue is with the people that come into the hobby, stay a year and vanish, leaving geojunk to be found later on.

By using something like this, you keep it cleaned up. Allow others to view the archived caches as history, whatever.

 

I don't see it being about smiley faces and added numbers, but more about keeping it cleaned up and so forth.

 

We found a cache last month that hadn't been found in over a year, it was molded, the log wasn't signable, we stocked a new log, cleaned it the best we could. Emailed the owner, nothing, put a needs maintenance, nothing.

This same owner has several (probably 20+) caches that need extreme maintenance or replaced.

These would qualify under the proposed idea.

It would allow new cachers to place a cache there if they wanted.

 

Its a sport based on exploring, new caches represent new ideas and probably not the same location.

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new.

 

If you are so certain that the cache is gone post a "should be archived" log. That is what they are for.

I'd hate to be preoccupied with one of life's challenges and miss the deadline to click on the keep it active button. The systems are in place by which a problem cache can be dealt with.

Link to comment

That would quickly eliminate a lot of hiking caches that might receive a handful of visits per year. Hate is such a strong word... so let me put it this way... Still hating the idea.

 

What if you had the option to continually renew it, as long as you are still active.

 

My issue is with the people that come into the hobby, stay a year and vanish, leaving geojunk to be found later on.

By using something like this, you keep it cleaned up. Allow others to view the archived caches as history, whatever.

 

I don't see it being about smiley faces and added numbers, but more about keeping it cleaned up and so forth.

 

We found a cache last month that hadn't been found in over a year, it was molded, the log wasn't signable, we stocked a new log, cleaned it the best we could. Emailed the owner, nothing, put a needs maintenance, nothing.

This same owner has several (probably 20+) caches that need extreme maintenance or replaced.

These would qualify under the proposed idea.

It would allow new cachers to place a cache there if they wanted.

 

Its a sport based on exploring, new caches represent new ideas and probably not the same location.

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new.

 

There are a couple billion (maybe not that many) examples of "abandoned" caches. That looks like it was placed by a previously very active cacher, who stopped caching very suddenly. I'm sure something much more important in life came up. I'd try contacting one of their known caching partners. There has to be a few of them, what with the cache owner having almost 3,000 finds. :laughing:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

 

What if you had the option to continually renew it, as long as you are still active.

 

My issue is with the people that come into the hobby, stay a year and vanish, leaving geojunk to be found later on.

By using something like this, you keep it cleaned up. Allow others to view the archived caches as history, whatever.

 

I don't see it being about smiley faces and added numbers, but more about keeping it cleaned up and so forth.

 

We found a cache last month that hadn't been found in over a year, it was molded, the log wasn't signable, we stocked a new log, cleaned it the best we could. Emailed the owner, nothing, put a needs maintenance, nothing.

This same owner has several (probably 20+) caches that need extreme maintenance or replaced.

These would qualify under the proposed idea.

It would allow new cachers to place a cache there if they wanted.

 

Its a sport based on exploring, new caches represent new ideas and probably not the same location.

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new.

 

If memory serves me correctly, the cacher in question here has been having some health problems as she has not been to any of the events that were in that area recently either.

 

There are a few other options to this idea that I thought were already being implimented as well.

 

Indiana was running what was called the "Lonely Cache Game" in which any cache that hadn't been visited in 6 months or so, was checked on by someone who had already found it before to see if it needed maintenance, or replaced altogether if it was missing.

 

The IDNR also requires a yearly renewal on cache permits for all of them on their property. If the permit expires they are now archiving them which will allow new ones to be placed. Some of the cache owners have pulled their old caches to place new ones in a new location on IDNR property with the intent to only keep the caches active for that year and then start the process over again to keep geocachers coming out to the state parks and reservoirs.

Link to comment

Add me to the list that would not support this idea. If a cache is being neglected it can be archived under the current system. If cachers in a particular area are experiencing problems with hides by a particular cacher they can work through those problems with a local reviewer. Active management of this potential problem should be a far better solution than auto archiving.

Link to comment

Hmm... I'm going to say the idea has some merit, but not for the reasons you stated and not usually automatic.

 

1. The ability to allow the cache owner to set an expiration date (at their choosing) would be handy. This would be readily available on the writeup page for all to see. We have a number of locations where the land owner has allowed placement, but has stipulated that the placement may only last until a certain date (these are largely in State Parks where they are concerned about environmental impact and want to force a review of the placement every three years to determine if it should be removed or relocated).

 

2. An expiration timer if someone posts a "Needs maintenance" where the cache owner must perform that maintenance and reset the flag or somehow say it shouldn't expire else it automatically goes into the SBA bucket (perhaps first going into an automatically disabled state). We have loads of caches that get placed by people who then disappear from the game leaving an unmaintained cached. The process today is to throw the "needs maintenance" flag and eventually it might get noticed by a reviewer if it lingers in that state for a few months who will then post a note to the cache owner to fix the issue or have it archived. Why not make this automatic ... throw the flag and start a clock ticking. If the cache owner doesn't fix the issue or reset the timer within say one month it gets archived automatically. Same for disabled caches. Now I know there are reasons things sometimes take longer than a month to be resolved -- that's why the cache owner can always ding the timer for another 30 day extension. The idea here is simply to get unmaintained or disabled caches automatically out of the game. Maintained caches by active players can essentially stay around forever as far as I'm concerned if that's what they choose.

Link to comment

 

To the last line.

Not the way I see it.

The system proposed needs tweaks, but its a starting point. As long as their is a active cache, then no need to archive it. Historical type, no need to lose it.

 

But those caches would need to still be overseen.

The biggest gripe is caches whose owners disappear from the sport, leaving no one to maintain them or archive them if needed. Sure, you can send a note to the reviewer, but its their call on it.

 

The last login for the owner of the Ram Glacier cache was in 2005. Would this mean (under your proposed sanitation system) that the cache should have been archived due to an owner not being active?

 

[flamesuit]The only "sanitation system" I would support is the removal of most "1/1 park and grabs" hidden in lamppost covers, on green power transformers, and on guardrails. [/flamesuit] :laughing:

Link to comment

That would quickly eliminate a lot of hiking caches that might receive a handful of visits per year. Hate is such a strong word... so let me put it this way... Still hating the idea.

 

What if you had the option to continually renew it, as long as you are still active.

 

What if I was called to war and had no access? What then?

 

As pointed out by many now, there are already tools in place to instigate an archival. There are too many problems that would have to be solved by implementing this idea. The variables involved would make the implementation very heavy handed. Bad idea. Bad BAD BAD

 

What it looks to me as well as a numbers game is to take the responsibility away from the peers to ensure the caches remain in good shape which is what this game was designed around.

 

Still hating this idea.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

 

In order to open up areas to allow new cachers to come into the sport and hide some caches, and for older cachers to have a reason to visit an area again, I'd like to see caches automatically expire after a set time (I'd like to say 18 months.)

 

If the cache area is worthy of a re-visit why do you need a new cache there just to visit the area again?

Because this is geocaching, and not geoworthyarea. I don't use this site as a means to find cool places to visit, only as a means to find caches to visit.

 

I don't like the idea of an automatically expiring cache either, but for different reasons.

Link to comment

....

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

 

It's possible that the owner has passed away. There was plenty of activity up until the last day that he logged on.

 

What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so.

Link to comment

....

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

 

It's possible that the owner has passed away. There was plenty of activity up until the last day that he logged on.

 

What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so.

This idea is sane. I can get behind that as having merit.

Link to comment

....

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

 

It's possible that the owner has passed away. There was plenty of activity up until the last day that he logged on.

 

What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so.

This idea is sane. I can get behind that as having merit.

 

Now thats a good idea.

 

If a cache is neglected and in need of looking after and the owner and no one else is looking after it then its an SBA other wise leave them alone. In our area there are classic rights of passage caches that form the history of how caches build up over time and just what early placements were about.

 

To archive this history is like saying the houses of parliament (UK) are a bit old lets get rid of them we lose that history.

 

We have few old caches and when a new cacher hits the area its nice to see them logged.

 

If you had not worked this out its a NO. We would end up losing an ammo box and gaining a micro.

Link to comment

The cache mentioned..... Its just an example, not the rule.

The owner has an illness, she is still with us, just not caching. Under the current system she would have to start the adoption process. No one can take over it for her under the current system.

So other then us keeping an eye on them for her, they just sit.

Unless we constantly keep an eye on them, we don't see they may need maintenance.

 

There are several caches that are MIA or need extreme maintenance, some of those have been taken care of, but its impossible to keep up with them all.

 

Many people have tried contacting said cacher to take on caches, but its not happening.

 

We have a couple local cachers that I know of that went to Iraq and have given their caches to other to take over. So the theory of them just going off to war doesn't cut it.

Link to comment

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new.

 

If the location has been destroyed and the owner has not responded to a needs maintenance in a reasonable time frame, it would be appropriate to post and SBA on this cache.

 

There is a real problem which perhaps the OP is trying to solve. There are many caches placed by owners who later stop geocaching for one reason or another. They get bored; they get sick; they move away; other things are more important and they don't have time to cache. We don't need a new solution as Geocaching.com already has a system to deal with these caches:

 

If a cache is "abandoned", people will keep looking for it. Eventually, however, the cache will need maintenance or will disappear. The people looking for these caches will post a needs maintenance log or many DNF logs. Someone in the geocaching community may feel that the cache is worth keeping despite the fact that the owner is absent. They fix or replace the cache and post a note saying so. Other times someone may want to place another cache nearby or may simply want to get a "dead" cache off their nearby unfound list. That person will post an SBA or contact a reviewer. The reviewer will try to contact the cache owner and will probably post a reviewer note saying the cache will be archive if they don't hear from the owner. If no maintenance is done the cache is archived.

 

The OP may be making this request for another reason. That is that some cachers have never considered the question "When should I archive my caches?" Some people have read to much into the cache permanence guideline. Caches are not permanent. They should be archived and removed from the environment after they have outlived their purpose - or if the cache is having a negative impact on the area it is hidden. Some land managers require that caches be archived an removed after a certain period. Active cachers should assess their caches from time to time to decide if they should be keeping them. Is the cache serving its purpose? Is the cache having a negative impact on the area? Are there new cachers who might be interested in finding this cache, or would it be better to open the area up for new cachers to hide a cache? There is no set time for a cache to last. Instead of an automatic expiration date, I would just start encouraging cachers to review their hides and see if there are any that need archiving.

Link to comment

 

In order to open up areas to allow new cachers to come into the sport and hide some caches, and for older cachers to have a reason to visit an area again, I'd like to see caches automatically expire after a set time (I'd like to say 18 months.)

 

If the cache area is worthy of a re-visit why do you need a new cache there just to visit the area again?

 

Stop making sense.

Link to comment

....

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

 

It's possible that the owner has passed away. There was plenty of activity up until the last day that he logged on.

 

What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so.

 

Which would only support the concept of community maintained caches. Ugh. No thanks.

Link to comment
This cache is NOT abandoned. The owners may be long gone but the cache is cared for.

This was a note on a cache we found this weekend. The writer of the note spoke the truth; it was well cared for.

 

I am against the idea.

 

I am curious, however, what does TotemLake think about it? :laughing:

Link to comment
For the most part, the only proponents of this type of "sanitation system" are those that want new caches to find. :laughing:

Yeah, those new cache wanting fools. I can't believe they're not content with the caches they've already found.

 

I wouldn't call them "cache wanting fools" like you did, but I would label them as being selfish. Anyone who wants cachers to lose the caches they took the time to hide and maintain, so there are more new caches to find is selfish. If you want more caches to find, then take the time to hide great caches in great locations.

 

Be more selfless, and actually hide caches rather than wanting our caches to disappear because you want more smilies.

Link to comment
For the most part, the only proponents of this type of "sanitation system" are those that want new caches to find. :laughing:

Yeah, those new cache wanting fools. I can't believe they're not content with the caches they've already found.

I wouldn't call them "cache wanting fools" like you did, but I would label them as being selfish. Anyone who wants cachers to lose the caches they took the time to hide and maintain, so there are more new caches to find is selfish. If you want more caches to find, then take the time to hide great caches in great locations wait for someone to hide some because you can't Find caches that you own.

 

Be more selfless, and actually hide caches rather than wanting our caches to disappear because you want more smilies.

Fixed it for ya. :laughing:

 

And I wouldn't call them "selfish" like you did, but I would suggest that wanting more caches to find is pretty much why the site exists. If all the caches in an area have been found (hard to do in most areas I'm sure) then why wouldn't someone want more caches to be hidden?? I don't agree that existing caches have to be archived for this to happen, and am against the automatic archive suggestion, but I do think that wanting more caches to find can be about wanting to have more fun geocaching and have nothing to do with "the smilies".

Link to comment

....

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

 

It's possible that the owner has passed away. There was plenty of activity up until the last day that he logged on.

 

What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so.

 

Which would only support the concept of community maintained caches. Ugh. No thanks.

 

Most caches early on were community maintained and it worked out well.

 

After a while there were just TOO many caches which were just abandoned and which were assumed that the community would maintain them, so they created the "needs maintenence" log with the emphasis being on the cache owner to be responsible for their mess.

 

This is a good idea if most cachers were active, however the majority of accounts are not used on a daily or weekly basis. Some people take a few months off, or go caching only a few months of the year. Others lose interest for a bit and then return. Some are called out for military duty.

 

Now from what I am seeing it seems there may be TOO much perception on the emphasis on the owner being responsible for their caches.

 

Cache was lying on the ground at the posted coordinates. Couldn't figure out where it was supposed to be hidden, so left it there.

 

In this case the cache is in an area which it could have been very easily hidden to prevent muggles from finding it, but it was expected for the owner to run out and rehide it. The hint tells how it was hidden and it could have been very easily put back there. Since the owner is no longer active, the cache is toast.

You can't really blame the cacher who left it there because he is only doing what he thinks is correct.

 

Too much emphasis being place on cache owners to maintain their caches is just as bad as too much emphasis being placed on the community to fix them. There is a good medium somewhere..

Link to comment

....

 

Example, this cache

GC14X6X

 

The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered.

 

It's possible that the owner has passed away. There was plenty of activity up until the last day that he logged on.

 

What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so.

 

Which would only support the concept of community maintained caches. Ugh. No thanks.

That IS the original concept of this game.

 

I don't like the idea of auto-expiring. I read that as automatically creating geotrash that doesn't get picked up because peers won't take responsibility to CITO. The SBA notice provides a heads up ot the community there is 1) a problem iwth the cache and 2) the possible need of retrieving or adopting the cache.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

The cache mentioned..... Its just an example, not the rule.

The owner has an illness, she is still with us, just not caching. Under the current system she would have to start the adoption process. No one can take over it for her under the current system.

So other then us keeping an eye on them for her, they just sit.

Unless we constantly keep an eye on them, we don't see they may need maintenance.

 

There are several caches that are MIA or need extreme maintenance, some of those have been taken care of, but its impossible to keep up with them all.

 

Many people have tried contacting said cacher to take on caches, but its not happening.

 

We have a couple local cachers that I know of that went to Iraq and have given their caches to other to take over. So the theory of them just going off to war doesn't cut it.

So you're assuming that's the rule and not the exception? Kinda double-sided there.

Link to comment

The cache mentioned..... Its just an example, not the rule.

The owner has an illness, she is still with us, just not caching. Under the current system she would have to start the adoption process. No one can take over it for her under the current system.

So other then us keeping an eye on them for her, they just sit.

Unless we constantly keep an eye on them, we don't see they may need maintenance.

 

There are several caches that are MIA or need extreme maintenance, some of those have been taken care of, but its impossible to keep up with them all.

 

Many people have tried contacting said cacher to take on caches, but its not happening.

 

We have a couple local cachers that I know of that went to Iraq and have given their caches to other to take over. So the theory of them just going off to war doesn't cut it.

So you're assuming that's the rule and not the exception? Kinda double-sided there.

never mind.... I guess you think they just get sent off over night.

Edited by wapahani
Link to comment

The cache mentioned..... Its just an example, not the rule.

The owner has an illness, she is still with us, just not caching. Under the current system she would have to start the adoption process. No one can take over it for her under the current system.

So other then us keeping an eye on them for her, they just sit.

Unless we constantly keep an eye on them, we don't see they may need maintenance.

 

There are several caches that are MIA or need extreme maintenance, some of those have been taken care of, but its impossible to keep up with them all.

 

Many people have tried contacting said cacher to take on caches, but its not happening.

 

We have a couple local cachers that I know of that went to Iraq and have given their caches to other to take over. So the theory of them just going off to war doesn't cut it.

So you're assuming that's the rule and not the exception? Kinda double-sided there.

never mind.... I guess you think they just get sent off over night.

 

No. You're merely making assumptions everybody plays the same way. I'm pointing out they don't.

Link to comment

And I wouldn't call them "selfish" like you did, but I would suggest that wanting more caches to find is pretty much why the site exists. If all the caches in an area have been found (hard to do in most areas I'm sure) then why wouldn't someone want more caches to be hidden?? I don't agree that existing caches have to be archived for this to happen, and am against the automatic archive suggestion, but I do think that wanting more caches to find can be about wanting to have more fun geocaching and have nothing to do with "the smilies".

 

One of the Groundspeak decisions I disagreed with most was the banning of "pay it forward/ seed cache" style hide. A cache hidder would supply a large number of ready made caches, and a requirement to place a cache nearby within a certain area in order to get to log a find.

 

This was a great way to encourage new hides in an area. Could a moderator chime in as to why these were banned? Was it because too many cachers complained that they would have to maintain a cache rather than simply be a finder?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...