Historical Caches Clause

[+Taoiseach]

As Groundspeak no longer allows the forced adoption of caches, perhaps the time has come to discuss a method to avoid the death of landmark caches.

 

Every year at about this time, a group of caches that we, as a community, maintain starts to need maintenance. As a direct result of this, a number of people start to argue that we should simply archive them all. Doing so would serve our community absolutely no benefit, and would be considered a great loss by many.

 

I'm quite sure that we are not the only community in this situation.

 

What I am proposing here, is a clause that would permit a region's historical caches to be adopted out to a community account, provided that they meet certain requirements. Those requirements could include, but are of course not limited to;

 

1) The cache must have been placed prior to 1 January, 2006

2) The original owner must have been dormant for a period of more than 1 year, prior to the cache(s) being adopted

3) The cache(s) must be in some way significant to the local community (e.g. a Local 'Challenge' or the first cache in a region)

4) The Operator(s) of the Community Account which adopts the cache(s) must swear that they will return ownership of the cache(s) should the original owner ever return to the game

5) The Community Account that adopts the cache(s) must do everything in their power to maintain the caches, and only archive them in the event that something major occurs (e.g. Change in the Ownership of the Land, or a public safety concern)

 

Of course these caches should be allowed to remain unchanged, even if that means taking into account rule changes that have occurred over the years. They are grandfathered now, and should continue to be.

 

Archiving historical caches does nothing to benefit the game, and really only hurts the local community.

 

Before some of the 'Just archive them and replace them' people come out, think of it this way - Would the pilgrimage to 'The Spot' be made by as many people if it were GC1FEHR, rather than GC39? No, And it certainly wouldn't have the same meaning.

 

Like an historic building that the community protects from demolition, a caching community should have the power to protect their historic caches from archival

 

I ask Groundspeak now, to create a special clause in the rules that would allow us to preserve our history, before it is all lost to the archives.

 

If the need be, I will even volunteer my services to help this programme move forward.

[+StarBrand]

Groundspeak does not own the cache containers and contents - therefore they really have no right to adopt them out to anybody anywhere. All Groundspeak controls is the listing page itself. And that is nothing more than a collection of words and photos on a web page.

 

I would argue that as soon as the community changes the original container and the owner is not around to maintain it - then nothing is really left to maintain and/or adopt - save the words on a page - and that isn't really what this little activity of ours is all about.

 

The words will remain on groundspeaks servers along with the logs and photos. But when the container and the owner are gone - so is the cache. Archive it and place a new one - link to the "history" of the area if you will.

 

I was never so disappointed in my life as when I visited some historic 100+ year old covered bridges - only to learn that nearly 100% of the wood and timbers in the structure I saw are replacements during the last 20 years of the original wood. I am sorry - that just doesn't make it the same thing anymore.

Edited April 22, 2009 by StarBrand

[+Taoiseach]

Groundspeak does not own the cache containers and contents - therefore they really have no right to adopt them out to anybody anywhere. All Groundspeak controls is the listing page itself. And that is nothing more than a collection of words and photos on a web page.

 

I would argue that as soon as the community changes the original container and the owner is not around to maintain it - then nothing is really left to maintain and/or adopt - save the words on a page - and that isn't really what this little activity of ours is all about.

 

The words will remain on groundspeaks servers along with the longs and photos. But when the container and the owner are gone - so is the cache. Archive it and place a new one - link to the "history" of the area if you will.

 

I was never so disappointed in my life as when I visited some historic 100+ year old covered bridges - only to learn that nearly 100% of the wood and timbers in the structure I saw are replacements during the last 20 years of the original wood. I am sorry - that just doesn't make it the same thing anymore.

 

A piece of plastic/metal does not a cache make. If the original container is all that a cache is, people would be finding The Glebe: Rest in Peace every two months, when I have to replace it, archive it, and re-list it. That would just be silly.

 

You're right - Those covered bridges are not their original wood - Caring people take great care to maintain them, so that they can be enjoyed by all. The would be deteriorating, and generally dilapidated if they didn't replace boards and beams

 

I understand that many people don't care about preserving history, and would prefer to simply see a picture of that old bridge on a new steel and cement one, but many of us would prefer to see our heritage preserved.

 

That is the point of condition #4 - If the original owner cares, it will be immediately returned to them

Edited April 22, 2009 by Taoiseach

[+Renegade Knight]

....Every year at about this time, a group of caches that we, as a community, maintain starts to need maintenance. As a direct result of this, a number of people start to argue that we should simply archive them all. Doing so would serve our community absolutely no benefit, and would be considered a great loss by many....

 

Caches are individually owned. When the onwners quit, move on, and forget about caching, I don't see an issue with a cache community maintaining the cache. That said because caches are individually owned, they all have limited life spans, and for the most part should pass on as their owners interests pass on.

 

Some landmark caches perhaps could be placed and maintained by a community caching organization. The organization itself would be the onwer and should have the resources to not need a forced adoption. Personally I think the landmark historical caches are so very rare that any organization would only have a few at best. Most should be allowed to die. If half the group of locals is ready to pull the plug, that's not really a historical cache of any significance. If most all the group is ready to spend time and money on keeping it alive then maybe it is.

 

My thoughts. Incoherent as they may be.

[+StarBrand]

...You're right - Those covered bridges are not their original wood - Caring people take great care to maintain them, so that they can be enjoyed by all. The would be deteriorating, and generally dilapidated if they didn't replace boards and beams

 

I understand that many people don't care about preserving history, and would prefer to simply see a picture of that old bridge on a new steel and cement one, but many of us would prefer to see our heritage preserved.

...

Just don't continue to advertise it as a hundred year old bridge. It isn't. It was built at most 20 years ago - and that don't make it nearly as historic.

 

Just don't continue to advertise that it is the same cache carefully placed and cared for by a particular owner - lo those many years ago. It isn't - and so should get a new listing. Link the logs and history and former page - it is all still there and not going away - but it is silly to pretend that it is still the original cache at that location.

[+Taoiseach]

....Every year at about this time, a group of caches that we, as a community, maintain starts to need maintenance. As a direct result of this, a number of people start to argue that we should simply archive them all. Doing so would serve our community absolutely no benefit, and would be considered a great loss by many....

 

Caches are individually owned. When the onwners quit, move on, and forget about caching, I don't see an issue with a cache community maintaining the cache. That said because caches are individually owned, they all have limited life spans, and for the most part should pass on as their owners interests pass on.

 

Some landmark caches perhaps could be placed and maintained by a community caching organization. The organization itself would be the onwer and should have the resources to not need a forced adoption. Personally I think the landmark historical caches are so very rare that any organization would only have a few at best. Most should be allowed to die. If half the group of locals is ready to pull the plug, that's not really a historical cache of any significance. If most all the group is ready to spend time and money on keeping it alive then maybe it is.

 

My thoughts. Incoherent as they may be.

 

With our community, I would say that most want to keep these alive. The whole point of this, is that re-listing them makes it a tribute to the original cache ,not the same cache.

 

It's like I said, if 'The Spot' was ever archived and re-listed, would it be the same thing to find it if it was GC1ZEHR, rather than GC39 - I think not.

[+Taoiseach]

Just don't continue to advertise it as a hundred year old bridge. It isn't. It was built at most 20 years ago - and that don't make it nearly as historic.

 

Just don't continue to advertise that it is the same cache carefully placed and cared for by a particular owner - lo those many years ago. It isn't - and so should get a new listing. Link the logs and history and former page - it is all still there and not going away - but it is silly to pretend that it is still the original cache at that location.

 

It is the original Bridge, and the original cache - It has simply been maintained

 

Things deteriorate over time, and will be lost for ever if we don't work to preserve them. My proposal will give us the tools to preserve these

[+StarBrand]

Just don't continue to advertise it as a hundred year old bridge. It isn't. It was built at most 20 years ago - and that don't make it nearly as historic.

 

Just don't continue to advertise that it is the same cache carefully placed and cared for by a particular owner - lo those many years ago. It isn't - and so should get a new listing. Link the logs and history and former page - it is all still there and not going away - but it is silly to pretend that it is still the original cache at that location.

 

It is the original Bridge, and the original cache - It has simply been maintained

 

Things deteriorate over time, and will be lost for ever if we don't work to preserve them. My proposal will give us the tools to preserve these

You and I will have to agree to disagree. Your definition of a historical item just doesn't fit well with mine.

 

Maintenance is not the same thing as replacement.

 

I have a 140 year old copy of Robinson Cursoe that I bought 34 years ago at a Garage sale. In those 34 years I have watched the edges of that acid filled paper continue to curl and brown and even crumble ever so slightly. If I tear out those pages - retype them and stick the replacent back in the book -- It just isn't the same thing my friend.

[+Taoiseach]

Just don't continue to advertise it as a hundred year old bridge. It isn't. It was built at most 20 years ago - and that don't make it nearly as historic.

 

Just don't continue to advertise that it is the same cache carefully placed and cared for by a particular owner - lo those many years ago. It isn't - and so should get a new listing. Link the logs and history and former page - it is all still there and not going away - but it is silly to pretend that it is still the original cache at that location.

 

It is the original Bridge, and the original cache - It has simply been maintained

 

Things deteriorate over time, and will be lost for ever if we don't work to preserve them. My proposal will give us the tools to preserve these

You and I will have to agree to disagree. Your definition of a historical item just doesn't fit well with mine.

 

Maintenance is not the same thing as replacement.

 

I have a 140 year old copy of Robinson Cursoe that I bought 34 years ago at a Garage sale. In those 34 years I have watched the edges of that acid filled paper continue to curl and brown and even crumble ever so slightly. If I tear out those pages - retype them and stick the replacent back in the book -- It just isn't the same thing my friend.

 

I will agree to disagree. And I like your second analogy better.

 

As for the bridge, if you were to tear it down and replace it, then it would be a new bridge, but it you're only occasionally replacing logs, then it is not.

 

More than anything with this thread, I'd like to hear from Jeremy on the matter

[+tozainamboku]

I'm all in favor of historic preservation when it makes sense. Old building representative of a particular architectural movement or neighborhoods that have become associated with a city's character are wonderful things to preserve. Preserving something just because it is old is not, IMO, enough to stand in the way of progress. The problem with trying to designate which geocaches are worthy of preservation is that, like virtual cache 'wowness', it is subjective. Many old caches are not special in any way other than perhaps this was first LPC in the area. If a cache is so cool that new cachers are being drawn to find the "legendary" cache they hear about from the old timers at events, and the cache really is still that cool, then I suspect people in the community will see to it that the cache is maintained so it is a viable cache to find. When the new adoption rules were announced, I asked about caches like these. The response I got from Brian was that these caches would generally not be archived and some reviewers followed up to convinced me this is the policy.

 

I don't seen the need for a new policy to allow a community group to take ownership. First it would dilute Groundspeak's position that it is just a listing service if they start to change the ownership of caches with the original owner's permission. Even if the original owner is allowed to object or take back ownership at anytime, we are talking about owners who have stopped geocaching (and in some cases owners who are no longer alive to object or take back ownership), so essentially this is a force adoption. I'd worry that a policy like this would encourage people to preserve caches just for the sake of preserving caches. I sometimes think historic preservationist try to preserve everything, even those buildings that are nothing but urban blight, simply because they've decide that their job is to preserve everything. By not having an official recognition of historic preservation caches we are more like to only preserve the most worthy caches. If people stop doing the maintenance and newbies go to find deteriorated containers or caches that stay missing for weeks with out being replaced, then the cache may not be so special and the reviewer could decide to archive it.

Edited April 22, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Taoiseach]

These particular caches have an entire local culture associated with them. These are quite possibly the reason that Ottawa has as much of a puzzle culture as it does.

 

Yes, effectively what I'm proposing is a forced adoption, however all this will do is give us the tools to maintain these without requiring the help of a local reviewer to clear things such as 'Needs Maintenance,' when these caches get checked on within hours of a single DNF

[+baloo&bd]

As for the bridge, if you were to tear it down and replace it, then it would be a new bridge, but it you're only occasionally replacing logs, then it is not.

 

I got an axe in the garage that my grandfather gave me. His grandfather gave it to him. It was an axe originally owned by Abraham Lincoln. The head has been replaced twice and the handle broke and was replaced ("maintained") several times. Wonder what I could get for it?

Edited April 22, 2009 by baloo&bd

[Keystone]

I doubt very much that you'll "hear from Jeremy," though he's welcome to prove me wrong. This is because the current adoption policy was decided upon after a great amount of deliberation. You are asking for a partial reversal of that decision. I think this is unlikely.

 

Keep maintaining the caches so that there's no risk of them ever being archived. Thank you for doing that!

[+baloo&bd]

Yes, effectively what I'm proposing is a forced adoption, however all this will do is give us the tools to maintain these without requiring the help of a local reviewer to clear things such as 'Needs Maintenance,' when these caches get checked on within hours of a single DNF

 

Have you taken into consideration that the cacher left geocaching.com and went to another listing site?

[+Taoiseach]

I doubt very much that you'll "hear from Jeremy," though he's welcome to prove me wrong. This is because the current adoption policy was decided upon after a great amount of deliberation. You are asking for a partial reversal of that decision. I think this is unlikely.

 

I too doubt that I'll actually hear from him, but it's still worth a shot

 

Keep maintaining the caches so that there's no risk of them ever being archived. Thank you for doing that!

 

Will Do!

 

Have you taken into consideration that the cacher left geocaching.com and went to another listing site?

 

Yes, He's nowhere to be found. There are only a couple of Navicaches around here (Well, listed as being around here), and all of one terracache (it's a virtual, no less). Every last one of the Letterboxes listed as being around here is missing as well.

[+baloo&bd]

Yes, He's nowhere to be found. There are only a couple of Navicaches around here (Well, listed as being around here), and all of one terracache (it's a virtual, no less). Every last one of the Letterboxes listed as being around here is missing as well.

 

Am I correct that you want to change the guidelines for 1 cache? Let us know how that works out for ya.

[+Taoiseach]

Yes, He's nowhere to be found. There are only a couple of Navicaches around here (Well, listed as being around here), and all of one terracache (it's a virtual, no less). Every last one of the Letterboxes listed as being around here is missing as well.

 

Am I correct that you want to change the guidelines for 1 cache? Let us know how that works out for ya.

 

No - There's many of them here. I also want to protect historical caches everywhere.

[GOF and Bacall]

The old adoption policies always made me wonder. The caches are owned by the hider. GC.com is a listing service. What gave them the right to transfer ownership from one person to another. I suspect that the lawyers that Groundspeak uses had the same questions. By allowing and facilitating such transfers of ownership they open themselves up to liability issues as well as theft charges. By not allowing these transfers without owner consent they remain only the listing service. It's like a thief selling stolen goods in the classified adds of the local paper. When the cops show up they aren't gonna take the editor to jail.

[+Taoiseach]

The old adoption policies always made me wonder. The caches are owned by the hider. GC.com is a listing service. What gave them the right to transfer ownership from one person to another. I suspect that the lawyers that Groundspeak uses had the same questions. By allowing and facilitating such transfers of ownership they open themselves up to liability issues as well as theft charges. By not allowing these transfers without owner consent they remain only the listing service. It's like a thief selling stolen goods in the classified adds of the local paper. When the cops show up they aren't gonna take the editor to jail.

 

I somehow doubt that if Groundspeak decided to claim partial ownership of caches, that many of us would baulk at the idea...

 

Ah... I digress

 

As far as I'm concerned, if a player leaves the game for an extended period of time, and makes absolutely no attempt to make people aware that he is still around, then they are making it quite clear that they no longer care. If they suddenly do decide to care, We'll gladly give them back.

 

Theft charges? C'mon - I highly doubt that that would fly on this side of the border.

[GOF and Bacall]

What you and I think has little to do with what lawyers think. I doubt theft charges would stand either, but they could tie things up in court for a while and cost large sums in legal fees. And that still leaves liability issues. If GS has ownership interest in a cache and someone twists an ankle who is responsible? As a listing only service it is like someone getting hurt at the local mall and suing the phone book because they have a listing for the malls phone number.

[+Taoiseach]

What you and I think has little to do with what lawyers think. I doubt theft charges would stand either, but they could tie things up in court for a while and cost large sums in legal fees. And that still leaves liability issues. If GS has ownership interest in a cache and someone twists an ankle who is responsible? As a listing only service it is like someone getting hurt at the local mall and suing the phone book because they have a listing for the malls phone number.

 

It would never tie things up in court. A 'stolen' electra-sol tub would get thrown right out of court. Not to mention that under my proposal, it would be settled with the point of returning the listing without any hassle

 

I'll agree with you on the point of Civil Trials though. A 'Find this cache at your own peril' disclaimer would clear that right up though

[GOF and Bacall]

Hmm, In many places those liability wavers aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The point I am trying to make is that the easiest way out of legal trouble is not to get into it in the first place. I'm not a lawyer though. I suspect you will never get anyone from GS to discuss legal issues, especially of all in an open forum. I also believe that many more of their decisions are based in legal concerns than you'd suspect.

[+Taoiseach]

Hmm, In many places those liability wavers aren't worth the paper they are printed on. The point I am trying to make is that the easiest way out of legal trouble is not to get into it in the first place. I'm not a lawyer though. I suspect you will never get anyone from GS to discuss legal issues, especially of all in an open forum. I also believe that many more of their decisions are based in legal concerns than you'd suspect.

 

I'd tend to agree with that. More proof that courts everywhere (and particularly in the States) have set far too many dangerous precedents...

[GOF and Bacall]

Who knows. Maybe I'm completely wrong and TPTB are, even as we speak, putting together a plan to institute the changes you have suggested.

[+Taoiseach]

Who knows. Maybe I'm completely wrong and TPTB are, even as we speak, putting together a plan to institute the changes you have suggested.

 

One can hope!

[+Prime Suspect]

1) The cache must have been placed prior to 1 January, 2006

 

2006? HAHAHAHAHA!!! That's hysterical! You call a cache placed in 2005 historical? Get real. Make it prior to 2002, and I'll think about taking this seriously.

[+Taoiseach]

1) The cache must have been placed prior to 1 January, 2006

 

2006? HAHAHAHAHA!!! That's hysterical! You call a cache placed in 2005 historical? Get real. Make it prior to 2002, and I'll think about taking this seriously.

 

I was trying to make it such that caches could make it in on something other than just age

 

2000 and 2001 are not the only years in which historical caches were placed.

 

I was thinking about making it prior to 1 January, 2006 and then moving the date forward occasionally

[sam]

I'm sorry but Prime is right. the first two years is historical. People don't search for caches with 5 characters just for the fact. GC15 they would go out of the way to find. Stick to the first two years and I'll at least think its an idea that might work if you kill the adoption part. Before 2006 and it is just an attempt to get around the adoption policy. There are ways to solve this without having a cache adopted.

[+Taoiseach]

I'm sorry but Prime is right. the first two years is historical. People don't search for caches with 5 characters just for the fact. GC15 they would go out of the way to find. Stick to the first two years and I'll at least think its an idea that might work if you kill the adoption part. Before 2006 and it is just an attempt to get around the adoption policy. There are ways to solve this without having a cache adopted.

 

Well, under my plan, pretty much everything from the first two years would be protected

 

But caches from later than that can have historical merit as well. If you take out the adoption part, you run into exactly what we're faced with now - Needing a reviewer to do simple things like taking off 'Needs Maintenance' icons, etc.

 

So what are these methods to do this without adoption? Give a community organisation administrative powers over such caches without adopting them? Perhaps something along the lines of giving them access to reviewer tools, only without the ability to publish or archive caches? I'd be ok with that.

[+Parabola]

There's a couple of caches near me, that the owner is gone, but they are awesome caches. All of us local's I think do keep tab's on them and handle if maintace is needed. It would be nice though to make a "preformed maintance log" on it, but just posting a note has worked out good.

[+Taoiseach]

There's a couple of caches near me, that the owner is gone, but they are awesome caches. All of us local's I think do keep tab's on them and handle if maintace is needed. It would be nice though to make a "preformed maintance log" on it, but just posting a note has worked out good.

 

Hey - Now there's a good idea for a website feature - Allow other users to post a 'Performed Maintenance log' that would clear off that icon!

 

Excellent! We're starting to have some helpful people come out of the woodwork!

[sam]

You do not need to adopt the cache to care for it. Remember when you adopt the cache you change its history and the history of everyone that found it. Its never a good thing to change history.

 

You are requesting a service for a problem that will be made worse by the proposed fix. Groundspeak does not own the cache. Therefore they can not give it away to someone else. Until you find a way to fix that your solution will not work.

 

Hey - Now there's a good idea for a website feature - Allow other users to post a 'Performed Maintenance log' that would clear off that icon!

We don't need this. The reviewers can already do that. No need to program something that is not needed. The developers are busy enough without adding something that doesn't need to be fixed. It can already be cleared by the reviewer.

 

What you have is a solution in search of a problem.

[GOF and Bacall]

Just let them be archived. Then put a cache in the same place called (historic cache name) Revisited. Link to the original page on the new page. This keeps the history and brings cachers back to visit the area again.

[+Tequila]

Just let them be archived. Then put a cache in the same place called (historic cache name) Revisited. Link to the original page on the new page. This keeps the history and brings cachers back to visit the area again.

 

This seems like the perfect solution.

 

The only reason to keep the original would be so finders could have a "very old" cache on their resume. Since none of us care about that, a tribute cache that brings you back to the original spot, serves the original cache's purpose of bringing you to that area.

[+Renegade Knight]

...It's like I said, if 'The Spot' was ever archived and re-listed, would it be the same thing to find it if it was GC1ZEHR, rather than GC39 - I think not.

 

I agree with this. The moment they archive the cache and bring it back it looses something. The tribue plaqu while worthy, isn't the orginal bucket.

 

Where we differ is that perhaps you are more liberal with what you would consider historic and worthy of caching veneration.

[+baloo&bd]

This seems like the perfect solution.

 

The only reason to keep the original would be so finders could have a "very old" cache on their resume. Since none of us care about that, a tribute cache that brings you back to the original spot, serves the original cache's purpose of bringing you to that area.

 

A good example of why Jeremy may not be so quick to answer in these threads. Let the discussion go and a solution will sometimes present itself without a bunch of heartburn.

[+Renegade Knight]

1) The cache must have been placed prior to 1 January, 2006

 

2006? HAHAHAHAHA!!! That's hysterical! You call a cache placed in 2005 historical? Get real. Make it prior to 2002, and I'll think about taking this seriously.

 

EBR 1 was historical the day it went online. The Berlin wall the moment it started coming down and there was no turning back the tide was historical (man I've love a piece of that wall for my curio shelf).

 

While I see a lot of old "crap" that's historical for no better reason than being old. It takes some kind of historical moxie to be worthy. Sometimes it takes time to see the reason and sometimes it's obvious on day one. While it's not likely with any one cache there are some that break ground and should be worthy immedialy.

[+StarBrand]

This seems like the perfect solution.

 

The only reason to keep the original would be so finders could have a "very old" cache on their resume. Since none of us care about that, a tribute cache that brings you back to the original spot, serves the original cache's purpose of bringing you to that area.

 

A good example of why Jeremy may not be so quick to answer in these threads. Let the discussion go and a solution will sometimes present itself without a bunch of heartburn.

Something wrong with the way I stated the same thing --- pack in post #2!!!

 

[+baloo&bd]

This seems like the perfect solution.

 

The only reason to keep the original would be so finders could have a "very old" cache on their resume. Since none of us care about that, a tribute cache that brings you back to the original spot, serves the original cache's purpose of bringing you to that area.

 

A good example of why Jeremy may not be so quick to answer in these threads. Let the discussion go and a solution will sometimes present itself without a bunch of heartburn.

Something wrong with the way I stated the same thing --- pack in post #2!!!

 

 

Nope, it was sound when you made it. Just has a consensus now. Look at post #12.

Edited April 23, 2009 by baloo&bd

[+Renegade Knight]

This seems like the perfect solution.

 

The only reason to keep the original would be so finders could have a "very old" cache on their resume. Since none of us care about that, a tribute cache that brings you back to the original spot, serves the original cache's purpose of bringing you to that area.

 

A good example of why Jeremy may not be so quick to answer in these threads. Let the discussion go and a solution will sometimes present itself without a bunch of heartburn.

 

Alas, this wasn't that solution. History has roots. Starting over even by replicating something exactly severs the roods. I work about 3 blocks from the "Fort Hall Replica" The ruins of Fort Hall are on the Res. I'd rather see the ruins than the replica. I once saw a replica of "the Wall". Nope wasn't feeling it. I need to see the real thing. Maybe I can't say why it matters, but it matters.

 

Take that with a grain of salt as I think the vast majority of caches and probably most of the ones that others would think historical are merely caches that can come and go with no loss the the larger activity of caching.

[GOF and Bacall]

This seems like the perfect solution.

 

The only reason to keep the original would be so finders could have a "very old" cache on their resume. Since none of us care about that, a tribute cache that brings you back to the original spot, serves the original cache's purpose of bringing you to that area.

 

A good example of why Jeremy may not be so quick to answer in these threads. Let the discussion go and a solution will sometimes present itself without a bunch of heartburn.

Something wrong with the way I stated the same thing --- pack in post #2!!!

 

 

Absolutely not. Like many of these, discussions, things tend to go around in circles with no conclusions.

[+Renegade Knight]

As for the bridge, if you were to tear it down and replace it, then it would be a new bridge, but it you're only occasionally replacing logs, then it is not.

 

I got an axe in the garage that my grandfather gave me. His grandfather gave it to him. It was an axe originally owned by Abraham Lincoln. The head has been replaced twice and the handle broke and was replaced ("maintained") several times. Wonder what I could get for it?

 

More than the axe that you just got from the hardware store that was made in China last tuesday.

 

There is more value in the orginal axe if it had been maintained intact, but there is still value in the axe that has the roots over one that doesn't have any at all.

[+baloo&bd]

Alas, this wasn't that solution. History has roots. Starting over even by replicating something exactly severs the roods. I work about 3 blocks from the "Fort Hall Replica" The ruins of Fort Hall are on the Res. I'd rather see the ruins than the replica. I once saw a replica of "the Wall". Nope wasn't feeling it. I need to see the real thing. Maybe I can't say why it matters, but it matters.

 

Take that with a grain of salt as I think the vast majority of caches and probably most of the ones that others would think historical are merely caches that can come and go with no loss the the larger activity of caching.

 

Fair enough, let me rephrase "Let the discussion go and the reasons for the decision will be made many times over without Jeremy and TPTB having to suffer a bunch of heartburn.

 

Let's face it, While I know RK was not doing this, comparing a cache placed in 05, 04 or even 01 to an almost 200 year old structure, does tend to water down the term "historical".

 

Putting this back to the OP. If I list my house with a Realtor and during that period I abandoned the house because I can not make the payments, the Realtor is not allowed to simply give, or for that matter sell, my house to someone else. GC is the Realtor, listing my cache and even maybe helping me "sell" it to perspective finders, but they are not the bank. THe realtor's only recourse is to remove the listing.

[+baloo&bd]

As for the bridge, if you were to tear it down and replace it, then it would be a new bridge, but it you're only occasionally replacing logs, then it is not.

 

I got an axe in the garage that my grandfather gave me. His grandfather gave it to him. It was an axe originally owned by Abraham Lincoln. The head has been replaced twice and the handle broke and was replaced ("maintained") several times. Wonder what I could get for it?

 

More than the axe that you just got from the hardware store that was made in China last tuesday.

 

There is more value in the orginal axe if it had been maintained intact, but there is still value in the axe that has the roots over one that doesn't have any at all.

 

REALLY! I know that I just repeated an old joke, however what "roots" are there?

 

All this is sort of moot. GC appears to have no desire to (nor for that matter should they) be involved as anything more than a listing service.

[GOF and Bacall]

As for the bridge, if you were to tear it down and replace it, then it would be a new bridge, but it you're only occasionally replacing logs, then it is not.

 

I got an axe in the garage that my grandfather gave me. His grandfather gave it to him. It was an axe originally owned by Abraham Lincoln. The head has been replaced twice and the handle broke and was replaced ("maintained") several times. Wonder what I could get for it?

 

More than the axe that you just got from the hardware store that was made in China last tuesday.

 

There is more value in the orginal axe if it had been maintained intact, but there is still value in the axe that has the roots over one that doesn't have any at all.

 

And that statement seems to add credence to the new cache linked to the old cache argument. There is no part of the original axe left yet you say it has a connection to the roots.

 

Yes, it may be best to keep an original historic cache in tact but it isn't always possible. The original owner gone. The original cache gone. All that is left is the original page. With the current adoption requirements in place the options are limited at best. As TPTB have made it fairly clear that they aren't going to revisit this any time soon, and I have doubts about what they can legally do, I don't see why the two approaches that have been working should not suffice. The first being community maintenance and the second being linking a new cache to the old.

[CoyoteRed]

I somehow doubt that if Groundspeak decided to claim partial ownership of caches, that many of us would baulk at the idea...

I'd bet you would be wrong.

 

Consider way back in the early days when Jeremy thought it would be a good idea to start listing the letterboxes from LbNA. Didn't work out so well. Consider this very conversation and the resistance to forced adoptions.

 

Yeah, I do think Groundspeak claiming ownership wouldn't go over very well.

[CoyoteRed]

What I am proposing here, is a clause that would permit a region's historical caches to be adopted out to a community account, provided that they meet certain requirements.

Groundspeak is only a listing service. Any adoptions should only take place between the present and prospective owners. If historical, or legacy, caches are abandoned by the owners then you need to work with the owner to get the listing switched over. Otherwise, it should be archived.

 

I don't particularly care for any legacy cache to be adopted. There are no controls over what the new owner can do with it. There was a prime example a few weeks ago where the new owner, a relative newbie, changed the cache into something significantly different than the original. It's now pretty much a different cache--only the cache page has the same name and all of those old logs.

 

If you don't want an old cache to die, maintain it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...REALLY! I know that I just repeated an old joke, however what "roots" are there?...

 

That's a fair question.

 

Historical Significance is really nothing more than the value we give to whatever historical thing we are contemplating.

 

Locally there is a Massacre Site (Bear Lake Massacre). The site itself looks like a bunch of farm fields. It’s been mostly ploughed up and farmed over. I’m not even sure that I’m looking at the right location whenever I drive through. They built a new pull out with a display and it’s pretty much meaningless to me though the NW Band of Shoshoni worked hard to get the recognition. The old pull out has a plaque. Again meaningless to me. There is a tree off to one side. I don’t know why that tree, when there are others, but it doesn’t matter. It’s decorated with various objects. Some bought, some hand made, some faded, some new. Descendants of the survivors and relations of the dead have chosen that tree and honor their loss in this way. That tree is connected with the massacre site. To me more than anything seeing the reflection of the past in today’s people through that tree provides a solid link to the past location of something that happened to a people. They are not my own ancesters yet it matters. The tree, the fields, the air all have roots, and I swear I can feel something there that I can’t quite put a finger on, but it’s more than I’d ever get from the plaque. There are plenty of other locations were people died that are nothing more than the ground I walk on and never think twice about. Not there though. In my world, that place is different.

 

Maybe the ax for you is like the plaque for me. For some though the connection provided in that their grandfather cherished the gift from Lincoln, enough to replace the handle, and their father cherished it enough to replace the head, and in turn pass it on to them is enough. The time and caring are the roots that make the difference. Others would want the busted handle and the broken head re-assembled and they would call that the “ax”. It may be closer to historically true, but I’m not sure it would be closer to the original gift that was given. Perspective matters quite a bit with history.

 

By and large most caches fall so short of even the Ax that they should just go away when the owners give up and drop out. They don’t even need a tribute cache. Some few where we all look at and feel the roots and weight…maybe they deserve something more. This is rare. I’d estimate a couple dozen. Mabye. Off the top of my head I can only think of one.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I think that your goals can be acheived by staying in communication with the local reviewers. If they remain aware that there is a community of people caring for the Cache then they will be less likely to archive it. You can keep the Cache on your watchlist, and whenever anyone posts one of the Needs Maintenence/SBA logs, you can add a note immediatly afterward that the issue will be adressed, or even send the logger a note through the system. I have a few Caches that I thought were worthy of taking care of even though I do not own the listing. This method has worked well for me so far, and the biggest threat to it would be if the listed owner comes back and archives it themselves.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

If you don't want an old cache to die, maintain it.

That's the simplest way to put it.