Adopting a cache. Can it be done?

[+Ben 'n' Tesh]

I was just wondering if anyone could help me regarding cache adoption.

Can a cache even be 'adopted'?

A recent cache that I visited was extremely water damaged. Upon logging my find I realised that many people before me had reported the damage also.

I emailed the cache owner and received a reply back saying that he has been swamped with work and has been unable to give the cache any attention and that he would be happy for me to adopt it if I could find a way.

 

Now that I have permission, I plan to fix it and give it a shiny new container and some nice new swag as well, however, for future damage complaints etc, adoption would be a good idea as emails would come to me and not the current cache owner.

 

This cache is literally around the corner from where I live and is in a great location, so I am more than happy to give it some TLC occasionally.

 

Does anyone know a way for me to do this?

Thanks

[+gpsfun]

You can ask the cache owner to do this

 

To have another geocacher adopt your cache, please go to this web page: www.geocaching.com/adopt

 

Once there, enter the waypoint number (GC?????) of the cache and the geocaching account name of the person you want to take ownership. The system will generate an e-mail to the prospective new owner, and once that person clicks on the acceptance link the ownership transfer is complete.

[+gof1]

Here's your link.

[+whistler & co.]

The adoption rules have changed a bit recently. In the past, one could apply to adopt "abandoned" caches (those that needed maintenance and whose owners had not logged on to gc.com for a long time), but now all adoptions MUST be approved by the cache owner. The easiest way to adopt the cache would be for the cache owner to fill out the form listing you as the adoptee, then when you adopt the cache, ownership will be transferred to you. You can change the listing to show that it was "hidden by Sir Cache-a-Lot, adopted by Ben 'n' Tesh" or you can just change it to show your name by removing the original owner's name.

[+Headhardhat]

As shown above there is a link that can be used for not only adopting caches but travel bug/coin items as well. As living proof I have adopted over thirty caches over the past couple of months.

 

Have fun!

 

-HHH

[+gof1]

And each and every one of those caches was so special that they needed to be continued. Protected for posterity. They will all be passed on to others when you hang up your gps. As apposed to opening up an area so that others may try their hand at hiding a creative cache.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

What's the point of adopting a cache? If the original owner can't or won't take care of it, archive it. You can place your own cache however you like and not take credit for someone else's hide.

[+gof1]

Some few caches may have enough significance to warrant adopting. The first cache in a state. A cache that is grandfathered for some odd reason. Most times, though, there is no need to adopt caches. Just start over.

[+whistler & co.]

We have a few in our area that were adopted by local cachers after the original owner passed away at a very young age. They keep them going in his memory.

 

Edited to add: We almost adopted (but deferred to people who lived closer to the cache) a cache that belonged to a friend of ours. It was her first hide, and had only been out for a couple of months when she had to suddenly move to another state. It's a nice hide at a historically significant spot, and by adopting it out rather than archiving it, it allows her to watch "her" cache from afar. I agree that in most instances it is better to just archive the old cache and open up the area for a new one, but each case is unique and should be judged independently.

Edited August 11, 2008 by whistler & co.

[+Renegade Knight]

What's the point of adopting a cache? If the original owner can't or won't take care of it, archive it. You can place your own cache however you like and not take credit for someone else's hide.

Conservation of fuel, time, money, energy, effort.

 

Why archive it and place another containr in exactly the same spot and call it a new cache? It's not. It's a recycled old one. Adoption makes sence if the cache has life left in it.

[Skippermark]

Some few caches may have enough significance to warrant adopting. The first cache in a state. A cache that is grandfathered for some odd reason. Most times, though, there is no need to adopt caches. Just start over.

Exactly. Unless the cache is a "classic," (whatever classic is), just let it get archived and open up the space for either you or someone else to place one.

 

From what I've seen there are very few caches that truly warrant adoption.

[Skippermark]

Double post

Edited August 11, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Mule Ears]

What's the point of adopting a cache? If the original owner can't or won't take care of it, archive it. You can place your own cache however you like and not take credit for someone else's hide.

 

I've adopted about a dozen caches in my area (SE Arizona) that were originally placed by "Wily Javelina," a local Geocaching pioneer who has since left the activity. The caches are mostly on remote desert peaks and receive only a few visitors a year. Why adopt rather than archive and replace?

 

- Keeping Wily's name on the cache pages honors a guy who set positive precedents for caching in these parts and delayed our inevitable slide toward mediocrity.

- Preserving the original logbooks means that in a few years finders will be seeing signatures that are 10 years old--an eternity in this activity.

- Archiving a cache and starting over would risk non-approval of the replacement cache. Interpretations of the guidelines drift over time, and we have some local vigilantes who have still stricter interpretations that they impose by posting "needs archived" on new caches they don't like. I would hate to take down a viable cache listing only to have its replacement denied.

- I enjoy revisiting these caches; they're all great adventures in scenic country.

 

Archive and replace is probably appropriate for trivial caches, but not so much for backcountry caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

What's the point of adopting a cache? If the original owner can't or won't take care of it, archive it. You can place your own cache however you like and not take credit for someone else's hide.

 

I've adopted about a dozen caches in my area (SE Arizona) that were originally placed by "Wily Javelina," a local Geocaching pioneer who has since left the activity. The caches are mostly on remote desert peaks and receive only a few visitors a year. Why adopt rather than archive and replace?

 

- Keeping Wily's name on the cache pages honors a guy who set positive precedents for caching in these parts and delayed our inevitable slide toward mediocrity.

- Preserving the original logbooks means that in a few years finders will be seeing signatures that are 10 years old--an eternity in this activity.

- Archiving a cache and starting over would risk non-approval of the replacement cache. Interpretations of the guidelines drift over time, and we have some local vigilantes who have still stricter interpretations that they impose by posting "needs archived" on new caches they don't like. I would hate to take down a viable cache listing only to have its replacement denied.

- I enjoy revisiting these caches; they're all great adventures in scenic country.

 

Archive and replace is probably appropriate for trivial caches, but not so much for backcountry caches.

 

Very Nice.

[Skippermark]

What's the point of adopting a cache? If the original owner can't or won't take care of it, archive it. You can place your own cache however you like and not take credit for someone else's hide.

Conservation of fuel, time, money, energy, effort.

 

Why archive it and place another containr in exactly the same spot and call it a new cache? It's not. It's a recycled old one. Adoption makes sence if the cache has life left in it.

I see your point, RK. When I made my reply, I was thinking about a standard ammo box in the woods or "nothing special" caches, figuring someone would hide a different style cache.

 

There's an annual event around here. The park is so full of caches that there's no room for anymore, so every year about half of them get archived and new ones get placed in the same general area.

 

I understand the need to have new caches for people to find, but at the same time, it's always struck me as odd to take a perfectly good cache, archive it and rehide it on the other side of a trail in a slightly different fashion, like under a log instead of under some rocks.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Skippermark