Historical Caches Clause

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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.

If the Cache is that important to the community, don't let it fall into a state that would require it to be archived. There's no reason to change the ownership, except for you to avoid the small amount of extra work needed to straighten out the issues. It's not that hard.

 

I see many replies to these kinds of questons that give the impression that the only options are arvhival or adoption? The third option is just to maintain a Cache in working order so that there is no need to consider the other two options. You CAN maintain a Cache that you don't own.

[+Renegade Knight]

...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....

 

There is an unbroken historical chain the ax has as it passed through time to today. The ax may not have a single original part on it and yet the chain matters.

 

To understand the concept of “chain” as I’m using it. Consider this. Your kid has an accident and they are going to die. Thanks to nature of hypothetical choices you have exactly two. They can clone you a new kid from the DNA of the old. It would be your kid in every way that matters. However they can’t transfer the mind because the process takes too long. Or they can transfer the mind into a new body that’s available right now and have a normal life but physically there would no longer be a connection. The DNA chain is dead.

 

The answer doesn’t matter. The choice illustrates that the chain be it mental or physical is important in this case is important.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If the Cache is that important to the community, don't let it fall into a state that would require it to be archived. ...

 

That works ok so long as this site can manage to ignore the "owner hasn't logged in in years so they are not maintaining their cache" SBA logs.

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

Great thread! I'd consider myself a preservationist like the OP. But I strongly agree with Keystone's post, where he said the current policy was carefully considered, and what the OP is proposing would basically be a reversal of much of that policy.

 

I like what Write Shop Robert says above as well, working with the reviewer. But some reviewers can be more overzealous than others and may archive the cache anyways. And that would certainly be a toughie to get overturned. I've already seen some reviewers go out of their way to "go after" grandfathered virtuals and webcams. Who's to say not historic caches with missing owners?

[+gof1]

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.

If the Cache is that important to the community, don't let it fall into a state that would require it to be archived. There's no reason to change the ownership, except for you to avoid the small amount of extra work needed to straighten out the issues. It's not that hard.

 

I see many replies to these kinds of questons that give the impression that the only options are arvhival or adoption? The third option is just to maintain a Cache in working order so that there is no need to consider the other two options. You CAN maintain a Cache that you don't own.

 

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.

[+gof1]

Come on, again!

 

Is this forum ever going to be upgraded?

Edited April 23, 2009 by gof1

[+gof1]

...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....

 

There is an unbroken historical chain the ax has as it passed through time to today. The ax may not have a single original part on it and yet the chain matters.

 

To understand the concept of “chain” as I’m using it. Consider this. Your kid has an accident and they are going to die. Thanks to nature of hypothetical choices you have exactly two. They can clone you a new kid from the DNA of the old. It would be your kid in every way that matters. However they can’t transfer the mind because the process takes too long. Or they can transfer the mind into a new body that’s available right now and have a normal life but physically there would no longer be a connection. The DNA chain is dead.

 

The answer doesn’t matter. The choice illustrates that the chain be it mental or physical is important in this case is important.

 

I still don't see how this is any different than taking the original cache writeup and putting it on a new page. There is still a cache hidden in the same way at the same place and all the page history is still in tact.

 

In truth few, if any, caches are the same as they were when hidden even after only a hand full of cachers have found them. Geotrails wear in. Cammo gets damage and weathered. caches migrate. Logs and containers get replaced. If a cache is adopted the ownership is changed and who knows what the new owner will do to the cache and/or listing?

 

Dealing with the reality we are faced with that still leave few options. Archive, maintain, tribute cache. I just don't see TPTB changing this one.

 

OH, and lets make it YOUR kid, not mine!

[+Renegade Knight]

....

I still don't see how this is any different than taking the original cache writeup and putting it on a new page. There is still a cache hidden in the same way at the same place and all the page history is still in tact.

...

OH, and lets make it YOUR kid, not mine!

 

My kid just totaled my car. She's fine but it makes you think. Anyway the difference is the difference between live and memorex. They are sending around a museum display of King Tut's stuff. Only it's not his stuff. It's a forgery er...copy of his stuff. Some people don't care. Some do. I'm the one who thinks a copy is severed from the history of the orginal. It looses it's appeal. Then again some people wouldn't feel bad about sleeping with the wrong twin...

 

Your right about the limited number of options. I think this is a good discussion though. It used to be as simple as the community keeping up with a cache. Now reviewers hit the archive switch more readily than they used to. We will lose some landmark caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

...If the Cache is that important to the community, don't let it fall into a state that would require it to be archived. ...

 

That works ok so long as this site can manage to ignore the "owner hasn't logged in in years so they are not maintaining their cache" SBA logs.

 

Exactly RK!! There was a historic cache (July 2001 placement I think it was) in distress in my area that I was more than willing to care for (I have a cache about .25 miles away), then some parking lot aficionado had to come along and post an SBA.

 

I have however toyed with the idea of doing the "tribute cache" perhaps this thread will motivate me to get out and do it.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

I like what Write Shop Robert says above as well, working with the reviewer. But some reviewers can be more overzealous than others and may archive the cache anyways. And that would certainly be a toughie to get overturned. I've already seen some reviewers go out of their way to "go after" grandfathered virtuals and webcams. Who's to say not historic caches with missing owners?

Yes, that can be a problem. For example, if one of the persons who says here "just archive it and hide a new one" were a reviewer, then they might be more likely to do just that, rather than working alongside the community to keep it active.

 

I had a similar situation when I tried to adopt a listing, and the reviewer sent me a note to that effect, and archived the Cache. Placing a new one in the same place just wouldn't be the same.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

She's fine but it makes you think.

That's good to hear!!

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

...If the Cache is that important to the community, don't let it fall into a state that would require it to be archived. ...

 

That works ok so long as this site can manage to ignore the "owner hasn't logged in in years so they are not maintaining their cache" SBA logs.

That's true, and where the communication comes in(with the reviewer and the one who posted SBA). It's not fail proof, but it should cover most situations.

[+gof1]

Cars can be replaced. I am truly happy to hear she's ok. Let's hope she, and you, never goes through that again.

 

Perhaps there is at least some good that can come from this thread. Maybe, just maybe, some reviewers will be a bit less diligent in hitting the archive switch.

 

While I can appreciate the desire to keep a legendary or historical cache alive I still don't see a way to avoid the ownership questions. Groundspeak does not own the caches. By administrating forced adoptions they are claiming that they have the right to transfer ownership. In order to transfer ownership they need to be the owner. Groundspeak does not own the caches. It's a circle, no ends. I suspect that a lawyer or three started the circle but we're stuck in it none the less.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

...If the Cache is that important to the community, don't let it fall into a state that would require it to be archived. ...

 

That works ok so long as this site can manage to ignore the "owner hasn't logged in in years so they are not maintaining their cache" SBA logs.

 

Exactly RK!! There was a historic cache (July 2001 placement I think it was) in distress in my area that I was more than willing to care for (I have a cache about .25 miles away), then some parking lot aficionado had to come along and post an SBA.

 

I have however toyed with the idea of doing the "tribute cache" perhaps this thread will motivate me to get out and do it.

This is where it comes into play that GS benefits more from having more and newer listings, rather than keeping older ones active. There's no gain for them in doing that. Growing the numbers of Caches and Players is the best way for them to make money, regardless of the quality of the Caches or of the Players or the "good of the game".

 

More Caches and more Players increases the readership, and thus the income from advertisers and subscribers. It will never matter the quality of the reading, as long as more eyes are seeing it.

 

Anyway, that's a whole different discussion. The reason it matters here is that replacing the old Cache with a new listing will generate more hits on the site, and more hits makes the site more valuable to advertisers.

[Keystone]

Maybe, just maybe, some reviewers will be a bit less diligent in hitting the archive switch.

Maybe, just maybe, the reviewers are already doing that, in light of the change in Groundspeak's adoption policy. I know that's been true for my own judgments over the past several months.

[+gof1]

Maybe, just maybe, some reviewers will be a bit less diligent in hitting the archive switch.

Maybe, just maybe, the reviewers are already doing that, in light of the change in Groundspeak's adoption policy. I know that's been true for my own judgments over the past several months.

 

And I thank you all.

[+Frank Broughton]

Jeremy is not retired yet, let him retire, get old (and cantankerous) and he will start posting like so many with nothing to say as I am doing right now.

[+Lil Devil]

Jeremy is not retired yet, let him retire, get old (and cantankerous) and he will start posting like so many with nothing to say as I am doing right now.

Do a search on some of his old posts. You'd find he can be pretty cantankerous now, and he's not yet old or retired

[AZcachemeister]

As near and dear as an 'old' cache may be to the hearts of the locals, it is not an historic site.

An ammo can that has lain in the woods for ten years is nothing more than an ammo can that has lain in the woods for ten years.

The owner's part is as important as the perception of the community, and if the owner is AWOL, there is nobody to maintain what the owner owns.

Like a beloved pet, their time is necessarily limited.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

As near and dear as an 'old' cache may be to the hearts of the locals, it is not an historic site.

An ammo can that has lain in the woods for ten years is nothing more than an ammo can that has lain in the woods for ten years.

The owner's part is as important as the perception of the community, and if the owner is AWOL, there is nobody to maintain what the owner owns.

Like a beloved pet, their time is necessarily limited.

So...when my Grandma becomes a shut in, and the neighbors band together to care for her garden, then it ceases to be a garden?? Just because the LISTED owner is not maintaining a Cache does not mean that there's NOBODY to maintain it. In these times of so many forclosed homes getting abandoned, there are places where the neighbors are maintaining the yards of homes that are empty, to keep up the community standard.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I know the OP refers to "Historic" Caches, but the subject is really "Landmark" Caches. as an example, it would be a shame to see the first Cache placed in any particular state get archived just because the person who hid it has quit playing. That standard would probably lead to the archival of almost every "First" Cache in each state. That would be a big disappiontment.

[+gof1]

What we call 'em isn't going to change the anything.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

What we call 'em isn't going to change the anything.

That's true. I'm just making the point since some people keep saying that nothing in this game is old enough or important enough to be "Historic". We're talking about Landmarks, not History. They may not be Historic, but there are some Landmark Caches

[+gof1]

It's all moot anyway. It is unlikely we will see any changes in the guidelines on this subject. TPTB have made that fairly clear.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

It's all moot anyway. It is unlikely we will see any changes in the guidelines on this subject. TPTB have made that fairly clear.

I think the discussion has moved beyond that.

[+paleolith]

The current system seems to be working. In the cases I've followed, reviewers have been helpful in modifying the web pages for old caches when necessary, and have respected old caches rather than insisting on archiving.

 

Before the policy change, I was considering attempting non-consensual adoption of a couple of caches. After the change, I eventually managed to contact one of the owners and adopt the cache normally. Before that, I adopted a couple of old caches where it required several attempts to contact the owner. Of course there are also owners I have not been able to contact, but the experience has tipped me toward agreeing with the new policy.

 

Edward