Jump to content

Slaughtering orphans


Recommended Posts

Of course I understand that Might is Right and that infinite power to destroy is easy to use, especially in a faceless and infinitely powerful bureaucracy.

 

My benign suggestion is that before even contemplating using, or even threatening the use of, the ultimate weapon that a heavily armed bureacuracy has, that they offer orphan caches up for adoption before slaughtering the orphan.

 

The mechanism for merciful relief already exists in the form of the weekly email that many of us recieve. Why not append a weekly appeal, in that weekly email, noting those caches which are being considered for slaughter by the bureaucracy and appealing for adoptive 'parents'. A reasonable timescale for repetition of the adoption section would be the same as for the celebratory gigs, ie five months.

 

Please let's engender a culture of sustenance of orphan caches, rather than the extant culture of reflexive slaugher of orphans.

Link to comment

I'll try and head this analogy off at the pass before the bloodshed gets unbearable.

 

My understanding is that these (caches) are not orphans at all, rather they are the off-spring of neglectful parents, or parents who have lost interest in their welfare. The important bit is that the parents are still around and their off-spring still technically belong to them, therefore the "bureaucracy" (your choice of words, not mine) is not at liberty to offer them up for adoption without the consent of those parents.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

So, are you suggesting that geocachers who get bored with the game, or bored with looking after their caches, should email the GC numbers through to Groundspeak with a scrawled note along the lines of, "I forgot that a cache is for life, not just for my amusement until I find a better spot to toss out another film pot. Please find someone to look after it for me."? :unsure:

 

MrsB

 

:blink:

Link to comment

You seem to want GSP to put out a list of all caches that are likely to be archived in the weekly emails and thus offer them out for adoption first. As I said in my post #5, my understanding is that as GSP are not the owners of the physical caches they don't have the right to do that - the initiative for adoption has to be put forward by the cache owner.

 

(Personally I'd rather see neglected caches put out of their misery, to allow their location to be used by some other cacher.)

 

MrsB

Link to comment

(Personally I'd rather see neglected caches put out of their misery, to allow their location to be used by some other cacher.)

I agree entirely. What's the point of adopting and taking over and old tired cache which all the locals within 50 miles have already logged anyway? A steady stream of new ones is what we need to keep this hobby alive.

Link to comment

the initiative for adoption has to be put forward by the cache owner.MrsB

 

What I am proposing is much less brutal, much less inflexible, much more cache-friendly.

 

What I am proposing is that before execution of the instant death-sentence of the death of the unthinking and unknowing and uncaring functionaries of the GC.com bureaucracy, that they allow those of us who care about caching locally, to do something about it.

 

The damoclean threat is easily levied. Traffic wardens love it. It what what turns them on and it's what makes them what they are. It defines them.

 

What I am suggesting is something much much gentler, something much more benign.

 

I am suggesting that caches NOT be axed reflexively. I am asking that those caches be allowed to exist and that they be assisted to exist, not be axed by those who care nothing about the their existence.

 

It's not much to ask.

Link to comment

We've encountered several caches in the US, some locally, where the Owner is long absent and local cachers have maintained the cache in their absence.

 

On one of these I made a note that the cache needed maintenance not because the cache was physically in need of it but the cache page was some years out of date, needing TBs removing from the listing where the TB owners were similarly 'retired' and other out of date info.

 

There was an immediate Note from another cacher who defended the right of this abandoned cache to survive; perhaps they were the mysterious benefactor maintaining it, clearly it was on their watch list.

 

Another cache was DNF'd several times and a well meaning cacher who frequently hiked that extremely large hill/small mountain went and replaced it as the owner was rather absent.

 

Personally I'd rather see these caches archived and let fresh blood into the area, but it would appear there is a certain latitude in the way abandoned caches are policed around the globe. I could perhaps understand it in specific circumstances, but the ones I've encountered have been nothing special.

Link to comment

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you do criticize them, you're a mile away -- and you have their shoes.

 

Had you taken my hiking boots, you would have felt the raging wrath of an "absent" owner whose cache was adopted out from under him. It turned out he had been maintaining the physical cache all along -- not having much interest in the online part of the job. Wow, did I feel bad for facilitating that adoption! Ditto that for caches that were removed for listing on ObscureAlternativeCachingSite.com. In contrast to the indignant and justified cries from cache owners like those, your words bounced off my kevlar flak jacket like so many pebbles.

 

One good way to solve a neglected cache problem is to adopt the listing through the voluntary cooperation of the cache setter. For step by step instructions, see the article in the Groundspeak Knowledgebase entitled Adopting or Transferring a Cache. That article also explains that involuntary transfers are no longer processed.

 

Careygang discusses another way to prevent a cache from being archived. If it's worth saving, keep the cache maintained with a fresh logbook and a waterproof container. If there is no maintenance issue, then there's no reason for the listing to ever come to the attention of the big, bad bureaucratic volunteer cache reviewer. In fact, that big, bad bureaucratic volunteer cache reviewer may even help you with little things like updating the coordinates or booting off a missing trackable to an unknown location. Just ask nicely.

Link to comment

It has been well established and argued that the cache containers do not belong to Groundspeak so they have no right to decide what is done with the physical container. If you cannot get in contact with the owner, then that is a problem between you and the owner, not you and Groundspeak. This web site is one of many listing services. While the owner of the cache may not be active on this site, they might be active on another one. Groundspeak has no right to remove any cache container, but they do have the right to remove a listing from their web site. If a local land manager demands the removal of a cache, Groundspeak does not remove it. They simply remove the listing from view from the web site since that is all they can do. The container is not their property and is not theirs to remove.

 

The tone of the original post is one of a sort that I would not choose to move the GC.com Web Site Forum. It isn't a web site issue in any case. I think you have done your "cause" a disservice with your tone in your original post. Sad really.

 

If you see a cache that needs help, you don't have to adopt it to fix it. That is a selfish attitude ("If I don't own it I won't fix it."). Feel free to show initiative and fix the cache so it can go on if you feel it needs to. You don't have to own a cache to fix it.

Link to comment

By the way, I will remind you only once about the guidelines...

Groundspeak and the global geocaching community encourage contributors who are courteous, polite and respectful. We discourage those who choose to behave in a disrespectful and/or irresponsible manner. Groundspeak, its staff and volunteer moderators will take appropriate steps to ensure discussions adhere to these guidelines.

 

<snip>

 

Discussion forums are moderated to preserve the spirit of an open, interactive discussion without offending participants. Please understand that we are not attempting to censor any messages or opinions. We (Groundspeak, Groundspeak’s staff, and the volunteer moderators) reserve the right to edit/remove inappropriate messages, or to lock a discussion thread.

 

<snip>

 

Here are some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

2. Foul language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family-friendly. All forum posts must conform to a family-friendly standard and contributors must act accordingly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Link to comment

It has been well established and argued that the cache containers do not belong to Groundspeak so they have no right to decide what is done with the physical container.

 

I presume the cache page is theirs and there's nothing to stop a similar box being placed next to the original.

 

I see the need for new caches to keep the locals happy, but there is also a place for long-term caches with hundreds/thousands of finds.

Link to comment

Surely this one should be livened up as it has been given a new cache and logbook by another cacher:-

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f4-b11709cdca3e

GCT5NC "Monument"

 

This looks like a good example of where "community care" by other cachers has kept this cache in functional state. The owner, who's listed as being in Brisbane, does not appear to be very active in the geocaching world any more.

 

Perhaps they might respond if a local cacher contacted them offering to formally adopt the cache?

 

If there's no response from them I'd suggest you contact the local reviewer for Guernsey, the course of action mentioned by Keystone at the end of his post above.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

Surely this one should be livened up as it has been given a new cache and logbook by another cacher:-

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f4-b11709cdca3e

GCT5NC "Monument"

 

Owners Location: Brisbane, Australia

 

Don't think they'll be popping out to replace it.

Hence GS guidelines on placing "Holiday Caches" -not allowed!

 

Needs to be moved -it gets muggled - needs someone to look after it.

Either owner adopts it over to someone, or Archive, and someone sets a new cache.

Link to comment

As the Cache owner is clearly not in a position to maintain the cache, and there does not seem to have been any arrangements for a local maintainer. It would be best if a local Geocacher was to adopt this cache.

 

Oh and I'm the local Reviewer for Guernsey, taking over after Lactodorum resigned.

 

Deceangi

Link to comment

I'm not picking a fight here, or anywhere else.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the trafficwardens who police caches try to be just a little bit humane before they wield their immensely powerful axes.

 

What I'm suggesting is that they they be just a teensyweensy bit easyweesie bit human before they swing that axe.

 

It's not too much to ask is it?

Link to comment
I'm not picking a fight here, or anywhere else.

Coulda' fooled me.

 

What I'm suggesting is that you be just a teensyweensy bit easyweesie bit human before you swing that insult.

 

It's not too much to ask is it?

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

May I be permitted to but into a private discussion of which I have no real strong feelings either way. What strikes me is that Mr (Mrs?) Forester has expressed a critical opinion about Groundspeak

...... of the unthinking and unknowing and uncaring functionaries of the GC.com bureaucracy,

 

He was not abusive, his language, though flowery, was perfectly proper and conformed to the apparent "6am to 9pm acceptable on TV" requirement here.

 

I'm not picking a fight here, or anywhere else.

Coulda' fooled me.

Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes...

Despite this, two representatives of Groundspeak leap upon him for daring to criticise the status quo. Lighten up a bit chaps (chapesses?), allow a member to express their opinion. Surely not every post on the admittedly Groundspeak forums necessarily have to support TPTB. It is not a crime to dissent so let's be allowed to continue to hear "non-conformist" views.

Link to comment

As one of the Traffic Wardens Policing caches, I have to be aware of several factors regarding issues with the Non Maintenance of caches.

 

i: Owners are given a reasonable period in which to maintain their caches, and in the majority of cases are given a warning [in many cases when you take into account Needs Maintenance Logs, several warnings]

 

ii When a cache is submitted, the owner agrees to the Guidelines. Which specifically state

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing.

 

It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area. These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan. It is not uncommon for caches to go missing, areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for multi-cache or puzzles to be moved or removed, etc. Your maintenance plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems.

 

The territory in which a geocacher is able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from one person to the next. An active geocacher who regularly visits areas hundreds of miles apart can demonstrate their ability to maintain a cache 100 miles from home. A geocacher whose previous finds and hides are all within 25 miles of their home would likely not see their cache published if placed 250 miles away from their home.

 

If you have special circumstances, please describe your maintenance plan on your cache page. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.

 

There is no mention of just abandoning the cache in the expectation that a Stranger will maintain it for you.

 

iii: Many Landowners monitor GC, or after discovering caches on their land without permission visit GC. A cache which is not being maintained by the Owner, is not a good impression to those landowners. And can result in them requiring the removal of the container, making the turnaround of the situation harder.

 

In the last week I have had to Archive over 20 caches [as this is a on going situation, the No's will rise] at the request of one Landowner, who discovered that the caches had been placed without permission. There is a possibility that this situation, can be reversed and a Landowner Agreement negotiated. This will not be possible if the Landowner sees a situation where the cache owner will abdicate Maintenance on their caches, in the hope that the 1st visitor or the 20th visitor after the cache has been reported as In Need of Maintenance will maintain it.

 

The days when Geocaches in the UK were few and far apart, has long gone. That was a period when Community Maintenance was acceptable, especially is virtually no Landowners were aware of Geocaching. Today we have 44086 active caches, that No is increasing by 50-100+ caches every day. And a large No of Landowners are now aware of Geocaching, meaning that the hobby has to move forward with the times. However unpalatable it is.

 

We don't take pleasure out of Archiving caches due to Non Maintenance, in fact it just shows that the cache owner has failed to keep to their obligations not only to their cache. But also to the geocaching community who found or searched for their cache.

 

Instead of castigating Reviewers for doing their jobs, try contacting cache owners who are not Maintaining their caches. And get them to either Maintain their caches, or put them up for adoption. Which can be done by a note on the cache page, in this forum or the Local Geocaching forum.

 

Deceangi

Link to comment

It has been well established and argued that the cache containers do not belong to Groundspeak so they have no right to decide what is done with the physical container.

 

I presume the cache page is theirs and there's nothing to stop a similar box being placed next to the original.

 

I see the need for new caches to keep the locals happy, but there is also a place for long-term caches with hundreds/thousands of finds.

 

I'll try again....

 

What is to stop Groundspeak allowing the adoption of the cache PAGE and the physical cache being replaced with another.

 

If a cache is maintained by the Community can it remain active ?

 

Do Groundspeak only get involved when asked to or is the activity pro-active ?

Link to comment

Instead of castigating Reviewers for doing their jobs, try contacting cache owners who are not Maintaining their caches. And get them to either Maintain their caches, or put them up for adoption. Which can be done by a note on the cache page, in this forum or the Local Geocaching forum.

I don't see The Forester castigating reviewers in this thread in the slightest. The OP seems to be a reasonable idea, and worthy of a straight answer.

Due to his use of irony and humour, some people seem to have missed the point, however.

 

Apologies to The Forester if I've also misunderstood, but I think the jist of the request is;

 

"would Groundspeak care to consider giving warning of forthcoming cache archiving in the weekly e-mail? This will give local cachers due notice, and allow them to attempt adoption of caches before it's too late.".

 

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other; it's probably a question only a reviewer can answer. But there seems to be a little unnecessary aggravation here so I hope this helps clarify matters.

Link to comment

Instead of castigating Reviewers for doing their jobs, try contacting cache owners who are not Maintaining their caches. And get them to either Maintain their caches, or put them up for adoption. Which can be done by a note on the cache page, in this forum or the Local Geocaching forum.

I don't see The Forester castigating reviewers in this thread in the slightest. The OP seems to be a reasonable idea, and worthy of a straight answer.

Due to his use of irony and humour, some people seem to have missed the point, however.

 

Apologies to The Forester if I've also misunderstood, but I think the jist of the request is;

 

"would Groundspeak care to consider giving warning of forthcoming cache archiving in the weekly e-mail? This will give local cachers due notice, and allow them to attempt adoption of caches before it's too late.".

 

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other; it's probably a question only a reviewer can answer. But there seems to be a little unnecessary aggravation here so I hope this helps clarify matters.

You are right as far as The Forester has a valid question and deserves a straight answer, which I do believe he has had.

 

However, his precise selection of words to make his point and his already known views on how he thinks Groundspeak should be doing things, then for me it is very easy to see his castigation of the reviewers.

 

When I first read this thread, I thought the tone and wording was in fact extremely borderline, hence my first post with reference to his tone.

Link to comment

I don't see The Forester castigating reviewers in this thread in the slightest. The OP seems to be a reasonable idea, and worthy of a straight answer.

Due to his use of irony and humour, some people seem to have missed the point, however.

 

 

Yep - that did it for me - straight over my head.. :ph34r::o

 

I had to reread the OP at least twice to even get the gist of what he was trying to say.

If he feels that strongly about the topic, why not just phrase it in plain English / Scots English / Welsh - or any other language that people not on his particular wavelength might understand???

Link to comment

You are right as far as The Forester has a valid question and deserves a straight answer, which I do believe he has had.

Sorry, I might be wrong, but I haven't spotted a clear answer. Although there have been attempts to answer a different question.

 

However, his precise selection of words to make his point and his already known views on how he thinks Groundspeak should be doing things, then for me it is very easy to see his castigation of the reviewers.

 

When I first read this thread, I thought the tone and wording was in fact extremely borderline, hence my first post with reference to his tone.

I'm aware of certain Forester transgressions in the past (!), but I believe that posts should be taken in the current context unless directly linked to another recent thread. In this case the tone simply looks like heavy tongue-in-cheek irony to me (the irony being heavy, rather than the tongue!). I can see how it might be taken the wrong way, of course, but the key word is "wrong". Anyway, let's leave the man himself to explain further if he feels the need.

Link to comment
"would Groundspeak care to consider giving warning of forthcoming cache archiving in the weekly e-mail? This will give local cachers due notice, and allow them to attempt adoption of caches before it's too late.".

 

What your talking about would require Site Coding, something not the responsibility of Reviewers. As such I'd suggest a new topic is started in the Main Site Forum, to bring it to the attention of the Lackeys who are responsible for doing so.

 

There is nothing to stop anyone putting local caches on a Watch/Bookmark list, so that they are notified of new posts to any cache which it appears the owner is not maintaining. As already stated very few caches are immediately Archived. The majority of these are Landowner Requests that the container is removed or they have already removed the container.

 

Needs Maintenance & Needs Archiving Logs, flag up cache issues. Which lets those watching the caches who might be interested in adopting them,know that they need to attempt to contact the cache owner with the aim of adopting them. Or lets them post details of the cache to their local forum to let others know.

 

Deceangi

Link to comment

The thing that bothers me about all this is the number of archived caches that are left in place. We are all aware that caches are being placed, in ever increasing numbers, by folk with the best intention of keeping their caches maintained. We are all also aware that for whatever reason, a fair number of caches are 'abandoned'. Some go on for years and are still going on without a problem. It's only when a situation arises like water ingress or a full log book arises that a 'Needs Maintenance' log is posted. The cache owner either never sees it because the email address has changed or chooses to ignore it. Eventually, a SBA log is posted. Our Reviewers do their stuff and if no response is forthcoming, the caches are duly archived. Fine... they're off the system and nobody looks for them again... but they're still out there, sitting under a pile sticks on somebody's land and will stay there until the cows come home. Is it not possible for our reviewers (and I know they all work really hard on our behalf and this is NOT a criticism) to post a list of such owner-less and abandoned caches once a week or once a month, whatever, on the forum so that caring, local cachers can go and retrieve them? If somebody then chooses to place another cache in that vicinity then so much the better.

Edited by Pharisee
Link to comment

:blink:

The thing that bothers me about all this is the number of archived caches that are left in place. We are all aware that caches are being placed, in ever increasing numbers, by folk with the best intention of keeping their caches maintained. We are all also aware that for whatever reason, a fair number of caches are 'abandoned'. Some go on for years and are still going on without a problem. It's only when a situation arises like water ingress or a full log book arises that a 'Needs Maintenance' log is posted. The cache owner either never sees it because the email address has changed or chooses to ignore it. Eventually, a SBA log is posted. Our Reviewers do their stuff and if no response is forthcoming, the caches are duly archived. Fine... they're off the system and nobody looks for them again... but they're still out there, sitting under a pile sticks on somebody's land and will stay there until the cows come home. Is it not possible for our reviewers (and I know they all work really hard on our behalf and this is NOT a criticism) to post a list of such owner-less and abandoned caches once a week or once a month, whatever, on the forum so that caring, local cachers can go and retrieve them? If somebody then chooses to place another cache in that vicinity then so much the better.

 

I have got to agree with this one.

 

The only other addition is if some one thinks a cache is that worth while they could adopt it... I know there is one multi, I found as much by luck than by good managment that has a question to answer that no longer works...

 

It was going down the bad route several DNF's etc

 

Having found the cache and enjoyed it I left a note in my cache log to help future finders... Instead of 7 logs in one year it has had 10 nice logs so for this year on a cache thats 4 years old... I would adopt it, just because it was such a good walk, a cache I would be proud to set...

 

Do I want more caches there, no I know its a walk I can go back and do enjoy and dont need a cache to enjoy...

 

GerritS

Link to comment

so that caring, local cachers can go and retrieve them? If somebody then chooses to place another cache in that vicinity then so much the better.

I know of several caches (I've found a couple of them this year) which are viable, maintained caches but are also archived on GC.com (the listings having been, effectively, withdrawn). I think that the owner would be most annoyed if they were muggled in this way and then replaced by another cache!

Link to comment

so that caring, local cachers can go and retrieve them? If somebody then chooses to place another cache in that vicinity then so much the better.

I know of several caches (I've found a couple of them this year) which are viable, maintained caches but are also archived on GC.com (the listings having been, effectively, withdrawn). I think that the owner would be most annoyed if they were muggled in this way and then replaced by another cache!

 

Given that the owner has let them get to the state where they have become archived in the first place, I doubt it!

Link to comment
I'm aware of certain Forester transgressions in the past (!), but I believe that posts should be taken in the current context unless directly linked to another recent thread. In this case the tone simply looks like heavy tongue-in-cheek irony to me (the irony being heavy, rather than the tongue!).

When using irony in electronic communication, it's generally a good idea to sprinkle smileys around. Otherwise, when one comes to plead "sorry guv, I was being ironic" later, the casual reader is entitled to wonder how sincere they are now being. The word "faceless" in the original post strikes me as fairly borderline (yes, I am being ironic here; what I actually mean is "gratuitously rude"), especially since the identity of the three UK reviewers is widely known. If Deceangi or Graculus or Alba15 archives a cache then it says "Archived by <their name>" and I'm sure if anyone sent the reviewer in question a polite e-mail asking what had happened, they would get an explanatory answer.

 

On the substance of the OP's request: archiving of apparently abandoned caches is done by the same faceless, uncaring, inconsistent reviewers who publish your caches (with the same degree of faceless, uncaring inconsistency) and is not centralised by Groundspeak. To do so, with the thousands of caches which the reviewers archive every month, would take an enormous amount of effort to coordinate.

 

"Forced" adoption is no longer possible, at the direct request of Groundspeak to the reviewers. The reasons for this have been dealt with above by my learned reviewer colleagues. In general, if a cache owner has left the game but their cache is not causing any other problem, perhaps being maintained by the community, the reviewers will not generally intervene. Indeed, they probably won't even be aware of the situation.

Link to comment

You are right as far as The Forester has a valid question and deserves a straight answer, which I do believe he has had.

Sorry, I might be wrong, but I haven't spotted a clear answer. Although there have been attempts to answer a different question.

Happy Humphrey, let me give the other part which you refer to an explanation.

 

First of all, understand that the possibility of this happening is any case is negated by the context of my first post saying that forced adoptions won't happen to begin with. But, if it were possible, consider the following.

 

Once again you have to think globally. Think of the shear numbers of caches that are dealt with weekly across the globe. That is the first part of the puzzle here. Now, get your seat belts on for the following.

 

The weekly newsletter goes out to everyone across the globe. Parts of it are specific to the user, but that is coded in. That coding is an automatic function. No one at Groundspeak has to put any cache information in there. The only thing they add is the "Geocaching in the News" part and the beginning part that has the "News and Updates" part. Local events and local caches to you are put in via scripting based on the user's location set on their profile. To implement what The Forrester suggests, all of the reviewers from all over the globe would have to start sending in a weekly update to Groundspeak of caches that are slated for archival. This information would have to be formatted properly so someone from Groundspeak can take it in. Someone from Groundspeak would then have to be assigned the task of adding all of these caches into some sort of database so the newsletter could grab the appropriate caches and send them to the appropriate location. The coding for this would have to be written and tested. Once this information goes out across the globe, you then have the people that want to adopt the caches writing into Groundspeak. Someone from Groundspeak would have to be assigned the task of verifying that the user is in the proper area to maintain the cache. Someone from Groundspeak would then have to process the adoption. Someone from Groundspeak would also have to respond to all of the people that asked to adopt the cache after the first cacher to request it has adopted the cache and tell all of the other people that the cache has already been spoken for. Then someone from Groundspeak has to get back into the database of adoptable caches and remove the cache from that database. The person from Groundspeak would then have to email the reviewer to let them know that the cache has been adopted so the reviewer can take it off of their list of caches under consideration for adoption.

 

1. The process would be more complex than the original post in this topic.

2. Frankly, I think there are bigger and better things for Groundspeak to be working on than this.

3. None of this matters anyway for the reasons I stated here in post 15.

 

Does that answer the question now totally or are other clarifications needed?

Can the clarifications needed be explained in a clear manner please? :blink:

Link to comment

I actually see this working quite nicely. The reviewer normally (at least in our part of the world he does) posts a note on the cache page to the effect that if he/she does not hear from the owner within a set time it will be archived. This already happens.

 

Now if this log by the reviewer were to set a flag on the page, the system could add these caches to the weekly email, in the same fashion as you get recently published caches local to your area in that email.

 

It would then be up to the locals to investigate either by doing some voluntary maintenance and stating on the page that the cache is fine, or to instigate the adoption process by contacting the owner themselves.

 

The reviewers have to do nothing different except set a "to be archived" flag. If, after the set time, nobody has responded the he/she archives it as usual. The only difference is that locals get to be alerted on caches that will be archived shortly. It is up to them to do anything about it if they want to - the reviewers do not have to do any extra admin.

Link to comment

Given that the owner has let them get to the state where they have become archived in the first place, I doubt it!

Well, the caches are there in the field and well-maintained. They're listed elsewhere, which is why it would be poor form to remove them on the basis of a gc.com archiving.

That's my concern too. They could be on terracaching.com, navicache.com or other similar sites. Nobody here has the right to remove a physical container without the owner's consent apart from the landowner or his agent.

Link to comment

Given that the owner has let them get to the state where they have become archived in the first place, I doubt it!

Well, the caches are there in the field and well-maintained. They're listed elsewhere, which is why it would be poor form to remove them on the basis of a gc.com archiving.

That's my concern too. They could be on terracaching.com, navicache.com or other similar sites. Nobody here has the right to remove a physical container without the owner's consent apart from the landowner or his agent.

 

Surely if someone wishes to keep their cache in the field at the same location as already published on one site, they should put a note on the page and archive it themselves. If they were in communication, in anyway, with the reviewers it wouldn't get archived, so they are just 'defaulting' to the other sites, which perhaps don't have the same archiving policy. If you can't be bothered to communicate, why be surprised if 'problems' result?

To avoid any problems, just communicate with the reviewers or write a short note on the page.

 

The main problem, I suspect, is when people leave the game entirely and emails to them get no response. The cache deteriorates and eventually get's archived. The BIG problem is then all the geo-litter left despoiling the country. Not a good aspect of our game.

 

Rather than worrying about adoptions, local cachers should volunteer to go and pick up the box of a defunct cache. I've done this twice now and I'm very happy to have done it. I've put notes on the pages saying that if the owner wants their cache box back I'll happily send it to them/arrange collection. I'm not 'stealing it' just picking up, what has now become rubbish. Not heard from either, by the way.

 

One cache I immediately re-cycled near by as it was in good form. See: Hutton Roof Recycled

 

So, yes, I believe other people do have the 'right' to move/remove boxes if you abandon them. :blink:

Link to comment

Given that the owner has let them get to the state where they have become archived in the first place, I doubt it!

Well, the caches are there in the field and well-maintained. They're listed elsewhere, which is why it would be poor form to remove them on the basis of a gc.com archiving.

That's my concern too. They could be on terracaching.com, navicache.com or other similar sites. Nobody here has the right to remove a physical container without the owner's consent apart from the landowner or his agent.

Exactly, which would appear to be a very good reason for Groundspeak's present stance. There are also personal listing sites such as Jacobite's. All of his caches are archived on GC.com, but most of the caches are still there and listed on his own site. Does anyone who doesn't know about his site have the right to go and remove one of his caches or take it over just so they can use it for their listing on GC.com? No they can't, they would have to place their own, if that causes confusion due to two containers being close to each other then so be it, but no one has the right to do anything else with another's cache.

 

Edit to add a link to Jacobite's site

Edited by Haggis Hunter
Link to comment

Given that the owner has let them get to the state where they have become archived in the first place, I doubt it!

Well, the caches are there in the field and well-maintained. They're listed elsewhere, which is why it would be poor form to remove them on the basis of a gc.com archiving.

That's my concern too. They could be on terracaching.com, navicache.com or other similar sites. Nobody here has the right to remove a physical container without the owner's consent apart from the landowner or his agent.

 

In such a case, and to be honest, I suspect that they're in the minority, surely the cache owner would have archived the cache him/herself and it would not have been left it in a 'Needs Maintenance' state and apparently abandoned. It was only those caches that eventually have a SBA note posted on them that I was concerned about.

 

Even if they were left in a 'Needs Maintenance' condition, (which is not good practise on any listing site), then the cache owner should have at least replied to the Reviewer's request for action by informing him/her that the cache in question is now listed on an alternative site and should be archived on geocaching.com. That way, the reviewer would know not to list it as 'abandoned'. If the cache owner chose to ignore the Reviewer's email, then said Reviewer would have to assume that the cache really has been abandoned and as such, could be legitimately 'cleared up' by a member of the caring and ecologically friendly group that we are.

Link to comment

My opinion on this topic - I think the GC.com guys are perfectly right to archive caches no longer being maintained. And Forester needs to use less flowery language as not all have such a rich vocabulary. You can convey the same message in less words and much fewer syllables.

Link to comment

Given that the owner has let them get to the state where they have become archived in the first place, I doubt it!

Well, the caches are there in the field and well-maintained. They're listed elsewhere, which is why it would be poor form to remove them on the basis of a gc.com archiving.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood the post at first, you are quite correct !

Link to comment

Happy Humphrey, let me give the other part which you refer to an explanation....

...Does that answer the question now totally or are other clarifications needed? ...

...None of this matters anyway for the reasons I stated here in post 15....

Can the clarifications needed be explained in a clear manner please? :D

Thanks for the attempt, but note that post #15 addressed a different question from the one originally posted.

The Pooks seem to have interpreted the question perfectly, and have outlined what appears to be a fairly simple solution. If The Forester wants to put that to Groundspeak, perhaps he could ask the Pooks to re-word the request, for reasons of clarity.

 

So, as I'm a tad alabandical after a very pleasant barbecue, and suspect that The Forester has been rather fallaciloquent, I'll be mulcible and not quaeritate further.

Link to comment

Actually, the pooks solution would not work. The site doesn't know if the "Needs Archived" log comes from a reviewer or not. A new type of log would then have to be created for this to actually work. The parts I mention about work involved with transferal of the cache, verification that the person who wants to adopt the cache is qualified to actually take care of it, notification to people that write in and are not allowed to adopt the cache because they were not quick enough and notification back to the reviewer still stand.

 

Still, what people here seem to be ignoring is that the cache does not belong to Groundspeak. It isn't theirs to forcefully transfer from the owner. That's a fact and cannot be ignored as advocates of forced transference seem to be doing.

Link to comment

Actually, the pooks solution would not work.

 

... The parts I mention about work involved with transferal of the cache, verification that the person who wants to adopt the cache ...still stand.

 

Still, what people here seem to be ignoring is that the cache does not belong to Groundspeak. It isn't theirs to forcefully transfer from the owner. That's a fact and cannot be ignored as advocates of forced transference seem to be doing.

That's the point, though. It's not being proposed that the cache, or even Groundspeak's cache listing, is forcibly transferred in any way. Not in this thread, anyway. The adoption process would be no different from how it is now.

 

The idea is simply to publish a monthly list of local cache listings that have had their "final warning", so to speak. That's all that The Forester was proposing, and which the Pooks clarified. Nothing to do with any change to the archiving procedure. If no-one is interested in any of the caches in the list, then the listings get archived, just the same as always.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...