When a cache becomes rubbish.

[+choccymandm]

I have on my watchlist about 15 caches quite close to home that have been archived on the grounds of maintainence, not that they've gone awol just purely that they needed new containers or log books or something along those lines but as the owner hasn't responded to any emails it's bye-bye cache.

 

Is archiving on these grounds the right thing to do? You archive it, it drops off the listings, no cachers are aware of it and becomes a piece of rubbish.

 

Not that this is ever likely to happen but would it not be better to give the owner the usual warning but if they don't respond in a reasonble time an open invite (read: plea ) is put out for either a. maintainence by someone else or b. removal of the cache then the listing is archived. For a. I've met enough cachers who carry spare pens, log books and in some case containers and are quite prepared to help out. For b. if the cache is removed it could be re-used or at least disposed of properly.

[Deceangi]

From the Guidelines under which all caches are listed, and the Cache Owner agrees to, all bolding is mine.

 

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 These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan.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.

 

It is extremely rare for a Reviewer to come along and just archive a cache, usually a warning is issued. After which if the owner has ignored it by failing to maintain the cache or post a note or sent a email to the Reviewer explaining why the cache hasn't been maintained, the cache is Archived.

 

One common request over caches in need of Maintenance is "Please Archive this cache, so someone else can place a cache there". In 99.99% of all cases [there is always the occasional exception] the cache is Disabled and a Reviewer note posted giving the owner a period of time in which to action it. The person who made the complaint, is advised of the action taken.

 

If on the other hand the Owner has archived the caches, him or herself rather than maintain them. Then that is something you need to take up with that person.

 

Where a Disabled cache has been Maintained by someone else other than the owner. Then it is up to the owner to enable that cache as part of the Maintenance responsibility. And not for a Reviewer to enable, because when a Reviewer does it, there is a high chance that the cache will fall back into a major need for Maintenance again. And once again be ignored by the owner. This comes from multiple experiences of such situations, across the whole Reviewer Community.

 

One thing which needs changing, is the attitude that posting Needs Maintenance and Needs Archiving logs. Is being the Cache Police, when in fact it is simply a case of using a tool available to the community. If Cache owners Maintain their caches within a reasonable time frame, or post updates to their caches to keep the community advised of the situation. Then there would be no need to use these tools.

 

As for Archived caches, I believe icache has permission off Groundspeak to display these caches on their site. So the future looks different, once the data has been gathered So patience Grasshopper your wish is coming true

 

Deci

[+sssss]

If someone is going to stop caching or have a break then really they should either collect their caches or get them adopted.

 

That does solve the problem.

 

The other option is, you could create a new listing at the location and maintain the cache.

 

I can't condone you using their container as that may be construed as theft, but I am sure if the owner wanted it back you would let them take it back again (if know what I mean!!)

[+martlakes]

See: Hutton Roof Recycled

 

I agree that just archiving the listing is a problem in that it can mean the cache is just left out there to be litter. It would be handy if the reviewers posted a note of the caches they have archived for lack of contact/abandonment on the regional forums. I'm sure local cachers would be happy to visit and remove the remains if they knew about it. Unfortunately, unless you've bookmarked it or are watching it you are unlikely to be aware that it's been archived.

[+Matthew 7:7 Too]

There's a very old cache near me that needed maintenance last year and the cache owner wasn't responding to emails about it. On asking around, it seems that he has stopped caching and no longer monitors his recorded email address.

 

As it was one of the very early caches, and in a location where the authorities seemed reluctant to allow new caches (due to the number already placed there) I decided to find the cache and replace the container and logbook (keeping the old ones in case the owner returned). But I was unable to update the webpage of course to remove the "Needs Maintenance" flag, or to correct other minor errors. I left a note about the changes and contacted a reviewer to see if he could update it for me, but had no reply. I would be quite willing to adopt the cache officially but it seems this cannot be done if the original owner cannot be contacted to give his permission.

 

It seems all I can do is to keep a watch on the cache to keep it safe, and hope that a reviewer doesn't decide to archive it when the owner fails to respond to an email from him. (Are they becoming more active in clearing dead caches from the files??)

 

Chris

[+The Blorenges]

... I decided to find the cache and replace the container and logbook (keeping the old ones in case the owner returned). But I was unable to update the webpage of course to remove the "Needs Maintenance" flag, or to correct other minor errors. I left a note about the changes and contacted a reviewer to see if he could update it for me, but had no reply...

 

Chris

 

Could you let us know which cache it is? MrsB

[+Matthew 7:7 Too]

Email sent to you Mrs B.

 

Chris

[+choccymandm]

It is extremely rare for a Reviewer to come along and just archive a cache, usually a warning is issued. After which if the owner has ignored it by failing to maintain the cache or post a note or sent a email to the Reviewer explaining why the cache hasn't been maintained, the cache is Archived.

 

Err OK, but I hope I never implied that!

 

One common request over caches in need of Maintenance is "Please Archive this cache, so someone else can place a cache there". In 99.99% of all cases [there is always the occasional exception] the cache is Disabled and a Reviewer note posted giving the owner a period of time in which to action it. The person who made the complaint, is advised of the action taken.

 

If the cache is archived those reasons then it would be nice to think that the new placer would clear out the old one.

 

If on the other hand the Owner has archived the caches, him or herself rather than maintain them. Then that is something you need to take up with that person.

 

I would sincerely hope if they archived them they removed them or made arrangements to get them removed. Not me personally, but I would be very tempted to raise the question on the forums "what would you do if ... blah blah blah" or pass it to you guys.

 

Where a Disabled cache has been Maintained by someone else other than the owner. Then it is up to the owner to enable that cache as part of the Maintenance responsibility. And not for a Reviewer to enable, because when a Reviewer does it, there is a high chance that the cache will fall back into a major need for Maintenance again. And once again be ignored by the owner. This comes from multiple experiences of such situations, across the whole Reviewer Community.

 

Fair point and fully understood

 

One thing which needs changing, is the attitude that posting Needs Maintenance and Needs Archiving logs. Is being the Cache Police, when in fact it is simply a case of using a tool available to the community. If Cache owners Maintain their caches within a reasonable time frame, or post updates to their caches to keep the community advised of the situation. Then there would be no need to use these tools.

 

No offence but that's not my point ... kindly stick on topic ... joking aside I know SBA's have a bit of a bad rep but for the times we've used them they've worked OK.

 

As for Archived caches, I believe icache has permission off Groundspeak to display these caches on their site. So the future looks different, once the data has been gathered

 

OK new tech I wasn't aware of! But you'd still have to look for the data wouldn't you? I'm on about stopping the problem from happening in the first place.

 

Don't get me wrong I don't dispute the guidelines, what I believe we're dealing with is a failure to follow those guidelines that we, as responsible cachers, should be doing something about. I teach my 2 yr old to tidy up his mess once he's finished with it!?! Would it be really that much trouble to say "This cache has outstanding maintenance issues and as the owner has not responded to logs nor logged into geocaching.com for sometime I requesting the cache to be removed from its site and after which I will archive it. " Cacher removes it, posts SBA to say that its gone, cache archived ... simples.

 

Out of interest ... if I was to take it upon myself to remove these caches what would people think of me? Cache-cleaner-upperer or would it be, as sssss mentions, construed as theft?

 

 

 

 

So patience Grasshopper your wish is coming true

This weeks lottery numbers? I wish!

[The Royles]

I thought the main problem was that the cache could be still listed on another site, so you shouldnt remove it without the owners permission.

[Deceangi]

Don't get me wrong I don't dispute the guidelines, what I believe we're dealing with is a failure to follow those guidelines that we, as responsible cachers, should be doing something about. I teach my 2 yr old to tidy up his mess once he's finished with it!?! Would it be really that much trouble to say "This cache has outstanding maintenance issues and as the owner has not responded to logs nor logged into geocaching.com for sometime I requesting the cache to be removed from its site and after which I will archive it. " Cacher removes it, posts SBA to say that its gone, cache archived ... simples.

 

Geocaching.com is a Listing Site, it does not have any Legal Ownership over the Physical Container. So is not in a position of requesting anyone to uplift a container not owned by them. It was for this reason that Forced Adoptions were stopped.

 

As have been pointed out, the Owner could have dual listed the cache on any of the other listing sites [currently there are 3 other listing sites, Listing caches placed in the UK]

 

What actions that anyone other than the owner takes over a container, listed on this site which has been archived. Is down to that person, Geocaching.com and it's representatives [that includes the Volunteer Reviewers] may not make any request or suggestion over the disposal of the container.

 

Deci

[+d-dixon]

What actions that anyone other than the owner takes over a container, listed on this site which has been archived. Is down to that person, Geocaching.com and it's representatives [that includes the Volunteer Reviewers] may not make any request or suggestion over the disposal of the container.

Deci

 

My opinion: Because removing somebody else's caches might be construed as theft, Groundspeak, its reviewers, etc. have no choice but to publicly state that abandoned caches shouldn't be removed, as per Deceangi's response. In practice, where it is obvious that the owner has abandoned the cache and it has been archived, I'd see removing the cache as a good deed, preventing geo-litter from accumulating. I have removed abandoned caches for "safe-keeping" 5 or 6 times recently, and have posted a note on the cache mentioning it. I will happily return the smashed tupperware and mouldy log books if requested by the owner. In other words, do what you think to be right, but don't shout too loudly about it...

 

David

[+choccymandm]

Hmm OK ..... not that I'm going to dispute that cross listing maybe a problem but I don't really think there are that many that are cross listed on other sites* ... maybe back "in the old days" when caches were listed in every place possible in an attempt to drum up any visitors. This day and age it appears to be you list soley one or the other, in either support of the alternative or as a two finger salute to GC.com! Having said that though I have a small series close to home that I checked its cross listing only to find it's been on the other site since 2002 and never been found according to them!! FTF for anyone? Oddly enough it's just had a maint note posted on GC.com and as the owner hasn't logged in for a couple of years I strongly suspect it (and all the subsiquent caches connected with it) will be archived without removal ... sigh!

 

Anyway, as has been pointed out GC has no legal this, that or the other over caches placed and much that I respect Deci's opinions he is just another Groundspeak lakey so must represent their opinions/views/rules (oh s**t! have I just turned it into another Groundspeak bashing thread! ooops I'll accept my ban and serve my time!!!! ) so I'm going to let it drop and learn to live with it.

 

Just one final thought though ... The GAGB has done some sterling work on getting approval from The NT, The FC and numerous county councils I really wonder how they'd react knowing that should an owner of a cache decide they're not playing anymore there is a risk that it'll just get left behind? Also I wonder if at any point during the negotiations to place the caches this was ever mentioned or even thought of?

 

 

* someone is now going to come back with a great long list of cross listed caches .................

Edited January 27, 2010 by choccymandm