Is it okay to fix a cache if the CO is long gone?

[+simpjkee]

Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

I wonder myself about that sometimes...even wonder if some actually make maintenance difficult for a current cache owner just so they can place their cache nearby, or in the same spot.

 

For me, that is absolutely not the case. In 3 years of caching, I've only placed 22 caches and as far as know (because I cant search archived caches), none of my caches have been placed where a previous cache was placed.

 

And your second paragraph is Just because some wish people would maintain their busted caches instead of abandoning them for the community to deal with doesn't mean all geocache etiquette goes out the window and some turn in to an amateur cache maggot. Thats ridiculous.

Edited February 24, 2010 by simpjkee

[+simpjkee]

Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

I wonder myself about that sometimes...even wonder if some actually make maintenance difficult for a current cache owner just so they can place their cache nearby, or in the same spot.

 

That's never been my experience. Our team cache locations have been snapped up once we got tired of maintaining them (usually 3-5 years) and then archive them (after putting a note about the impending archive, disabling the cache until we could get out to retrieve the box and then archiving the cache once it was removed), but I have never had the experience of someone deliberately making maintenance difficult for us so that we will give up the spot.

 

What's wrong with opening up a spot so others can enjoy the pleasure of planting a cache in a nice location? Sometimes I think hiders plant a cache like they are planting a flag and claiming that .1 mile radius of land as their own.

 

I am guilty of that.

[+simpjkee]

I can totally appreciate the situation in trondkj's post #49.

 

It really depends from cache to cache. In the OP's post it sounds like were talking about some random cache that has a little time under its belt. I would like to see the cache in question, but anyway.

[Clan Riffster]

you can read archived listings. if a cache was archived it's not deleted from the site or anything.

Of course! That is, if you can find them. Since Groundspeak elected to take archived caches off the map, this has become a lot more difficult. Also, from my entirely biased perspective, it becomes irrelevant, as my goal in preserving old caches is not to just read the cache page. Personally, if there is an historic cache in my home range, I would much rather see my name added to the years long list of other finders, as opposed to seeing my name added to a page with just a few other, recent finds. That puts me smack dab in the middle of the history for the old cache. I see value in that, so long as the cache is still viable. By replacing the container, you open up the opportunity for others to become part of that history. While for some, the value is only in the smiley, that's not the case for everybody who plays this game. For those who only care about the smiley, archiving the existing cache is a perfectly reasonable idea, as it gives them another GC number to hunt for when a new cache is placed at that spot. Neither argument is wrong.

[Andronicus]

I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

If they are, that's awesome!

If they are not, at least the historically significant cache gets to live a few more years.

Either way, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing.

I, too, enjoy pulling up older caches and reading the logs. A new cache in the same spot definately would not have the fun of reading like the originals.

 

you can read archived listings. if a cache was archived it's not deleted from the site or anything.

 

What would be cool is to link to the old cache page from your new cache page. Something like "This cache is a replacement for the unmaintained "Big Blue" cache (visit link)."

 

you can read archived listings. if a cache was archived it's not deleted from the site or anything.

Of course! That is, if you can find them. Since Groundspeak elected to take archived caches off the map, this has become a lot more difficult. Also, from my entirely biased perspective, it becomes irrelevant, as my goal in preserving old caches is not to just read the cache page. Personally, if there is an historic cache in my home range, I would much rather see my name added to the years long list of other finders, as opposed to seeing my name added to a page with just a few other, recent finds. That puts me smack dab in the middle of the history for the old cache. I see value in that, so long as the cache is still viable. By replacing the container, you open up the opportunity for others to become part of that history. While for some, the value is only in the smiley, that's not the case for everybody who plays this game. For those who only care about the smiley, archiving the existing cache is a perfectly reasonable idea, as it gives them another GC number to hunt for when a new cache is placed at that spot. Neither argument is wrong.

To add to my previous statment... That is only for ho hum caches. I agree that historicaly significant caches should be perserved as much as reasonable. Average, ho hum caches should be archived when the CO goes AWOL, and maintenence is required.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Andronicus

[+briansnat]

Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

I wonder myself about that sometimes...even wonder if some actually make maintenance difficult for a current cache owner just so they can place their cache nearby, or in the same spot.

 

Nope, never wondered that. I think the people who believe that abandoned caches should be archive don't like the idea of unmaintained caches. Fix it up and you still have an abandoned cache.

 

Why would I want anybody's site for my own cache? There is already a cache there that I and others can enjoy. What's the difference who owns it?

Edited February 24, 2010 by briansnat

[Clan Riffster]

Fix it up and you still have an abandoned cache.

If you maintain it after you fix it, it loses its "abandoned" status.

[+simpjkee]

Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

I wonder myself about that sometimes...even wonder if some actually make maintenance difficult for a current cache owner just so they can place their cache nearby, or in the same spot.

 

For me, that is absolutely not the case. In 3 years of caching, I've only placed 22 caches and as far as know (because I cant search archived caches), none of my caches have been placed where a previous cache was placed.

 

And your second paragraph is Just because some wish people would maintain their busted caches instead of abandoning them for the community to deal with doesn't mean all geocache etiquette goes out the window and some turn in to an amateur cache maggot. Thats ridiculous.

 

Oops. 1 was.

[+briansnat]

Fix it up and you still have an abandoned cache.

If you maintain it after you fix it, it loses its "abandoned" status.

 

Not really. The owner has still abandoned the cache and the person who fixed up has no responsibility for continued maintenance, nor does he have the ability to reset needs maintenance flags, fix hints if for some reason he had to move it a bit or otherwise update the listing.

Edited February 24, 2010 by briansnat

[+Senvies]

I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

If they are, that's awesome!

If they are not, at least the historically significant cache gets to live a few more years.

Either way, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing.

 

who knows how it will ultimately work out. its fun to talk about it though

Well, I really hadn't intended on maintaining it. It's just that the cache is quite old (Placed in 2001!) and I'd like to preserve the history and there aren't really very many caches where I live.

[+briansnat]

I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

If they are, that's awesome!

If they are not, at least the historically significant cache gets to live a few more years.

Either way, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing.

 

who knows how it will ultimately work out. its fun to talk about it though

Well, I really hadn't intended on maintaining it. It's just that the cache is quite old (Placed in 2001!) and I'd like to preserve the history and there aren't really very many caches where I live.

 

The history isn't going anywhere if the cache is archived. The online logs stay there. From the condition you described the log is probably useless anyway, so once you replace the logbook and container you have nothing of the physical "history" left anyway.

[+bittsen]

I wonder if the OP is willing to assume full maintenance responsibilities after replacing the cache?

If they are, that's awesome!

If they are not, at least the historically significant cache gets to live a few more years.

Either way, I'm not seeing this as a bad thing.

 

who knows how it will ultimately work out. its fun to talk about it though

Well, I really hadn't intended on maintaining it. It's just that the cache is quite old (Placed in 2001!) and I'd like to preserve the history and there aren't really very many caches where I live.

Tell you what. Next time I'm in the area, I'll take care of it. It sounds like a pile of trash at a cache site. I will bring my CITO bag with me.

 

Problem solved.

[Clan Riffster]

Not really.

Abandoned, to me, describes a state of being. If the cache is viable, and is being maintained, and found by cachers on a regular basis, it doesn't quite fit the "abandoned" definition that pops to my mind.

[Clan Riffster]

The history isn't going anywhere if the cache is archived.

The history will be buried in the bowels of the Internet. For those who appreciate those kinds of things, archiving the cache forever strips them of the opportunity to have their cache name affixed to the same cache page as those who found it eight years ago. For those who don't care about such things, keeping the cache viable through an informal adoption should have no impact, unless they want the spot for themselves or they want someone else to hide a cache there so they can increase their find count. Personally, I like old caches. I think it's kinda neat to scroll through years of "Found It" logs, seeing who all found it. It's even kewler, for me, if my name is included in the history.

[+Prime Suspect]

The history isn't going anywhere if the cache is archived.

The history will be buried in the bowels of the Internet. For those who appreciate those kinds of things, archiving the cache forever strips them of the opportunity to have their cache name affixed to the same cache page as those who found it eight years ago. For those who don't care about such things, keeping the cache viable through an informal adoption should have no impact, unless they want the spot for themselves or they want someone else to hide a cache there so they can increase their find count. Personally, I like old caches. I think it's kinda neat to scroll through years of "Found It" logs, seeing who all found it. It's even kewler, for me, if my name is included in the history.

The person who submits a replacement cache can easily add a link to the old cache page.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

weird triple post...see below

Edited February 25, 2010 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

weird triple post...see post below

Edited February 25, 2010 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

The history isn't going anywhere if the cache is archived.

The history will be buried in the bowels of the Internet. For those who appreciate those kinds of things, archiving the cache forever strips them of the opportunity to have their cache name affixed to the same cache page as those who found it eight years ago. For those who don't care about such things, keeping the cache viable through an informal adoption should have no impact, unless they want the spot for themselves or they want someone else to hide a cache there so they can increase their find count. Personally, I like old caches. I think it's kinda neat to scroll through years of "Found It" logs, seeing who all found it. It's even kewler, for me, if my name is included in the history.

The person who submits a replacement cache can easily add a link to the old cache page.

 

I did this with my own cache (which itself is now archived). I do that because in many cases, folks have neat things to say in their logs comparing the first cache with the second.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...64-745c5aad150f

[Clan Riffster]

The person who submits a replacement cache can easily add a link to the old cache page.

Yup. They sure can. If that's what they want to do.

Or they could replace the cache container, and keep the original going.

The bonus with the second option is that the history remains alive.

Future finders will get to add their logs to those from almost a decade away. That's important to some.

Likewise, there are folks who don't care about being directly linked with an historical cache.

Replacing an aging cache container wouldn't have a negative impact on those folks.

They'd still get their all important smiley.

[+joespaz]

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

My short answer is yes. I think I have decided that the best way to play this game is to play it the way I wish others did. If your cache was in trouble would you appreciate someone else helping it out? Here are some examples I am considering:

 

Clean up a cache that needs help whenever I can.

 

CITO as often as possible.

 

Leave interesting logs at the cache site AND online.

 

Hide the type of caches that I would enjoy looking for.

 

Add a gaol tag to TB's that don't have one.

 

Maybe if I play the game this way, I will enjoy it more.

[+bittsen]

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

My short answer is yes. I think I have decided that the best way to play this game is to play it the way I wish others did. If your cache was in trouble would you appreciate someone else helping it out? Here are some examples I am considering:

 

Clean up a cache that needs help whenever I can.

 

CITO as often as possible.

 

Leave interesting logs at the cache site AND online.

 

Hide the type of caches that I would enjoy looking for.

 

Add a gaol tag to TB's that don't have one.

 

Maybe if I play the game this way, I will enjoy it more.

 

Are you going to write a nice long message regarding these themes and include it in all your logs and asking people to adopt your ideals?

You could even add it to your travel bug tracking mission.

[+simpjkee]

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

My short answer is yes. I think I have decided that the best way to play this game is to play it the way I wish others did. If your cache was in trouble would you appreciate someone else helping it out?

 

I think you missed the point here. In this thread we're talking about an ownerless cache that has been abandoned. There is no owner that knows their cache needs help and no owner to appreciate you helping out. In fact, the nonexistent owner probably doesn't care less and definitely doesn't know if the cache was replaced or archived. If the nonexistent owner gave a hoot about their cache, they would sign in and check it out would they not?

 

Now helping out with maintenance on an active cachers cache (which I think is what you're talking about) is a totally different story for a totally different thread.

[Dj Storm]

The history isn't going anywhere if the cache is archived. The online logs stay there. From the condition you described the log is probably useless anyway, so once you replace the logbook and container you have nothing of the physical "history" left anyway.

The history will be buried in the bowels of the Internet. For those who appreciate those kinds of things, archiving the cache forever strips them of the opportunity to have their cache name affixed to the same cache page as those who found it eight years ago. For those who don't care about such things, keeping the cache viable through an informal adoption should have no impact, unless they want the spot for themselves or they want someone else to hide a cache there so they can increase their find count. Personally, I like old caches. I think it's kinda neat to scroll through years of "Found It" logs, seeing who all found it. It's even kewler, for me, if my name is included in the history.

 

I side with Clan Riffster in this case. The cache has been placed in 2001, the owner went missing in 2002, the cache needs maintenance in 2010. It survived for 9 years with no maintenance, it will most likely survive another 9 once the container has been replaced. The logbook can be dried and put in a ziploc (or scanned and reprinted if it's in a really bad shape), and the history will be preserved. The location is worth visiting, and having a GC+3 cache at the end of the hike makes the hunt more exciting, and the trip more memorable!

 

(Full disclosure: Since 2007 I'm also the unofficial maintainer of a cache placed in 2001, whose owner went missing.)

[+sbell111]

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

This is usually how it turns out.

A few cachers following right after you are appreciative, but eventually something else happens, and the cache gets archived anyway.

 

Why prolong the agony?

The answer to your question is in bold.

 

If a cache is in need of repair at some future time (regardless of whether someone performed some maintenance today or whether that person was the owner or some random cacher), the issue can be addressed at that point. In the time between today and the point at which the cache (any cache) is in need of maintenance, the cache is jake regardless of whether the cache owner is 'active' at that moment.

 

As an aside, I am amused that some of the people that would suggest that no maintenance should be done by others and the caches should simply be archived are the same people who bellyache about having to do maintenance on their caches.

 

I have never gotten that impression. More so the opposite impression. I hover over my caches and make sure their in tip top shape at all times. To see an ownerless cache turning in to trash rubs me the wrong. Disrespectful to the game, the community, the environment, etc. etc. That kind of cache has to go. If an owner can't keep their cache in even a halfway decent condition should they really own it? Why should I reward them by replacing their cache (that they've abandoned) for them?

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that you did not maintain your caches or that you should be required to maintain the caches of others. That being said, some posters in this thread who are firmly behind the idea of archiving the old cache also bellyache about their being forced to do maintenance on their own caches. I find that amusing.

 

In order to direct the issue back to my original posts main point rather than to continue debating this off-topic idiosyncracy, I am reposting my main point below:

 

If a cache is in need of repair at some future time (regardless of whether someone performed some maintenance today or whether that person was the owner or some random cacher), the issue can be addressed at that point. In the time between today and the point at which the cache (any cache) is in need of maintenance, the cache is jake regardless of whether the cache owner is 'active' at that moment.

Edited February 25, 2010 by sbell111

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Ok, here is the scenario.

 

A local person becomes obsessed with Geocaching. They quickly become very good at both hiding and finding caches. Their hides get progressively better and better by being both challenging and interesting. The other local cachers look forward to seeking these caches. The hider gets a reputation for his hiding skills and the caches are the subject of many conversations on the train and at events. The logs for these caches reflect how much people enjoy them.

 

Then, sadly, an event in the hiders life takes him away from caching abruptly. A few local cachers take it upon themselves to maintain these top quality caches because they feel that it would be a loss to the geocaching community if the caches were archived. They also feel that they are giving something back to the hider in return for the effort he made while he was still able to participate. Adopting the caches is not possible because the hider is out of contact.

 

The caches remain in play for those who haven't found them yet. The logs and cache descriptions are readily accessible for anyone who is interested.

 

Why would anyone not want these to stay around?

Edited February 25, 2010 by Wooden Cyclist

[+L0ne.R]

Then, sadly, an event in the hiders life takes him away from caching abruptly. A few local cachers take it upon themselves to maintain these top quality caches because they feel that it would be a loss to the geocaching community if the caches were archived. They also feel that they are giving something back to the hider in return for the effort he made while he was still able to participate. Adopting the caches is not possible because the hider is out of contact.

 

The caches remain in play for those who haven't found them yet. The logs and cache descriptions are readily accessible for anyone who is interested.

 

Why would anyone not want these to stay around?

 

Personally, should I suddenly drop out of the game (likely because of a sudden death, can't think why else I'd suddenly stop playing) I'd want all my caches picked up and archived.

 

I take pride in a regular maintenance schedule, replenishing of cache swag and a quick visit if I get any reports about issues. I would not be happy if the caches lingered in disrepair. It would reflect badly on me. Not everyone who visits is going to know that I have passed away, my demise being the reason the messy cache contents and soggy logbook hasn't been taken care of in 2 months.

 

I would prefer to open up the area to a "live" active CO who could enjoy the pleasure of hiding their own cache. If people want to honor my cache hides they could post their own box there, mention it is there to replace a cache that I once placed there and post a link to the archived cache.

[+sbell111]

Then, sadly, an event in the hiders life takes him away from caching abruptly. A few local cachers take it upon themselves to maintain these top quality caches because they feel that it would be a loss to the geocaching community if the caches were archived. They also feel that they are giving something back to the hider in return for the effort he made while he was still able to participate. Adopting the caches is not possible because the hider is out of contact.

 

The caches remain in play for those who haven't found them yet. The logs and cache descriptions are readily accessible for anyone who is interested.

 

Why would anyone not want these to stay around?

 

Personally, should I suddenly drop out of the game (likely because of a sudden death, can't think why else I'd suddenly stop playing) I'd want all my caches picked up and archived.

 

I take pride in a regular maintenance schedule, replenishing of cache swag and a quick visit if I get any reports about issues. I would not be happy if the caches lingered in disrepair. It would reflect badly on me. Not everyone who visits is going to know that I have passed away, my demise being the reason the messy cache contents and soggy logbook hasn't been taken care of in 2 months.

 

I would prefer to open up the area to a "live" active CO who could enjoy the pleasure of hiding their own cache. If people want to honor my cache hides they could post their own box there, mention it is there to replace a cache that I once placed there and post a link to the archived cache.

So give the instruction to a loved one to make sure that happens.

[+briansnat]

The history isn't going anywhere if the cache is archived. The online logs stay there. From the condition you described the log is probably useless anyway, so once you replace the logbook and container you have nothing of the physical "history" left anyway.

The history will be buried in the bowels of the Internet. For those who appreciate those kinds of things, archiving the cache forever strips them of the opportunity to have their cache name affixed to the same cache page as those who found it eight years ago. For those who don't care about such things, keeping the cache viable through an informal adoption should have no impact, unless they want the spot for themselves or they want someone else to hide a cache there so they can increase their find count. Personally, I like old caches. I think it's kinda neat to scroll through years of "Found It" logs, seeing who all found it. It's even kewler, for me, if my name is included in the history.

 

I side with Clan Riffster in this case. The cache has been placed in 2001, the owner went missing in 2002, the cache needs maintenance in 2010. It survived for 9 years with no maintenance, it will most likely survive another 9 once the container has been replaced. The logbook can be dried and put in a ziploc (or scanned and reprinted if it's in a really bad shape), and the history will be preserved. The location is worth visiting, and having a GC+3 cache at the end of the hike makes the hunt more exciting, and the trip more memorable!

 

(Full disclosure: Since 2007 I'm also the unofficial maintainer of a cache placed in 2001, whose owner went missing.)

 

So what happens if say the stump it was hidden in disintegrated to the point where you need to move it to a boulder 15 feet away? How do you update the hint that says "In the stump"? What if someone posts a "Needs maintenance" and you fix it. How do you remove the needs maintenance flag? How about if you replace the original flimsy Gladware with an ammo box, but the text on the page says "...in a Gladware container"? How will the land owner/manager contact you if there is an issue with the cache?

[+simpjkee]

The cache has been placed in 2001, the owner went missing in 2002, the cache needs maintenance in 2010.

 

The owner went missing in 2002? Where did you see that? I've been hoping to see a gc code since this thread started but have yet to see one. Of the found caches in the OP's profile none of them were placed in 2001.

[+simpjkee]

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

 

If the CO is no longer active, add a Needs Archived log to the cache and let nature take it's course.

 

You could fix it but then someday someone else will have to fix it.

It's like taking a stray cat to the vet. Sure you can get it all fixed up but then just let it go stray again? Why?

 

This is usually how it turns out.

A few cachers following right after you are appreciative, but eventually something else happens, and the cache gets archived anyway.

 

Why prolong the agony?

The answer to your question is in bold.

 

If a cache is in need of repair at some future time (regardless of whether someone performed some maintenance today or whether that person was the owner or some random cacher), the issue can be addressed at that point. In the time between today and the point at which the cache (any cache) is in need of maintenance, the cache is jake regardless of whether the cache owner is 'active' at that moment.

 

As an aside, I am amused that some of the people that would suggest that no maintenance should be done by others and the caches should simply be archived are the same people who bellyache about having to do maintenance on their caches.

 

I have never gotten that impression. More so the opposite impression. I hover over my caches and make sure their in tip top shape at all times. To see an ownerless cache turning in to trash rubs me the wrong. Disrespectful to the game, the community, the environment, etc. etc. That kind of cache has to go. If an owner can't keep their cache in even a halfway decent condition should they really own it? Why should I reward them by replacing their cache (that they've abandoned) for them?

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that you did not maintain your caches or that you should be required to maintain the caches of others.

 

I never said you said that. I did say that I've never gotten that impression and more so have gotten the opposite impression.

[+Moose Mob]

Today I found a cache that's container is cracked and rainwater has leaked in. A lot of the logs are damaged. If the CO is no longer active on the site is it OK to change the container to a new one?

Summarizing the posts that I agree with.... replacing the container is perfectly acceptable.

 

Step 1: post a Needs Archived log.

Step 2: wait for archival.

Step 3: replace container

Step 4: submit a new listing.

 

Please note that there were not any steps that included petty squabbles, but there are folks that feel they have to include it in this thread. If the bickering continues, then we will address that as a different issue.

 

Remember... we are all supposed to have fun here. If we are not having fun, then we need to change our behavior.

[knowschad]

As I mentioned above... posting a NA log in no way, shape, or form, archives the cache.

Ah yeah...I know. I'm not sure why you quoted me and had to clarify that.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in what I was responding to. I posted that in regards to your rhetorical question:

Anyone wonder if some folks that say that it should be archived just have that mind set because they place a lot of caches and if they see a good cache likely to be archived, they might snatch the spot for themselves.

 

What I was trying to point out what that posting a NA log just so you can open a spot up for yourself isn't going to work, if the reviewer is doing their job. They will not archive the cache simply because someone posted a NA log.

[+simpjkee]

Ok, here is the scenario.

<snip>

Why would anyone not want these to stay around?

 

First and foremost, for the most part nobody wants to see caches get archived. It's not like me or anyone else with this viewpoint are going out looking for caches to archive.

 

That being said, in my view, and I believe Groundspeak would agree if they have an opinion on the matter, when you decide to place a geocache you are making a commitment to that geocache. You agree that once the geocache is placed you will care for and maintain that geocache. If at any point you feel you can't follow through with that commitment, you have 2 options:

 

1. You archive the cache and remove it.

2. You adopt the cache to someone who will continue to care for and maintain the geocache. And maintaining the geocache includes maintaining the listing of the geocache on the internet.

 

Neglecting and abandoning the geocache is not an option. With a lot of commitments, there is a period of initial excitement when the geocache is placed but inevitably the initial excitement can wear off. Regardless of your excitement level, the responsibility of maintaining and caring for your geocache remains. In the scenario you introduced, the person who placed the geocache terminated the agreement and instead of doing one of the two options stated above, they disappeared, abandoned the cache, and burdened the community with addressing their litter. That is completely irresponsible of them. Though I can't control how people feel, this idea that responsible cachers are 'helping out' the original owner is nonsense. By abandoning the cache without at least attempting to adopt it out, they've shown that really could care less what happens to it. I can't comprehend why someone would want to help someone who has unfairly burdened them with a responsibility they did not agree to or ask for. When you come across a geocache that the owner has irresponsibly neglected and abandoned, the responsible thing to do is log the NM or NA and if it is archived, make up for the irresponsibility of the original owner and remove it before it helps trash up our community.

 

Either way, if you think the idea of the cache was awesome and want to see it stick around, recreate it!

[+simpjkee]

Personally, should I suddenly drop out of the game (likely because of a sudden death, can't think why else I'd suddenly stop playing) I'd want all my caches picked up and archived.

 

I take pride in a regular maintenance schedule, replenishing of cache swag and a quick visit if I get any reports about issues. I would not be happy if the caches lingered in disrepair. It would reflect badly on me. Not everyone who visits is going to know that I have passed away, my demise being the reason the messy cache contents and soggy logbook hasn't been taken care of in 2 months.

 

I would prefer to open up the area to a "live" active CO who could enjoy the pleasure of hiding their own cache. If people want to honor my cache hides they could post their own box there, mention it is there to replace a cache that I once placed there and post a link to the archived cache.

 

I totally agree.

[+Prime Suspect]

The person who submits a replacement cache can easily add a link to the old cache page.

Yup. They sure can. If that's what they want to do.

Or they could replace the cache container, and keep the original going.

The bonus with the second option is that the history remains alive.

Future finders will get to add their logs to those from almost a decade away. That's important to some.

Likewise, there are folks who don't care about being directly linked with an historical cache.

Replacing an aging cache container wouldn't have a negative impact on those folks.

They'd still get their all important smiley.

It also has a negative impact on those who expect the info on the cache page to correct and up-to-date. The "informal adopters" don't have the ability to update the description, remove Needs Maintenance flags. I'd put that ahead of which cache your log is attached to. Caches die, new caches are put out. It's the circle of life. You can't fight it.

 

[Clan Riffster]

Why would anyone not want these to stay around?

I would love for them to stay around. We had a similar situation in North Florida, when a local legend suddenly passed away. Some locals took it upon themselves to keep as many of his hides viable as was practical. Knowing the original owner, it's a special treat for me to make the occasional trip up there to hunt for his hides.

 

So what happens if.....

None of those scenarios would make a cache non-viable. Since the hypothetical cache would be on my watchlist, I would see any issues that others posted to it. The local reviewer would know that I was taking care of the cache, fixing any maintenance issues, so any NM flags on the cache page could stay right where they are. Since I'm on a first name basis with the land managers around here, they would also know that I would be the contact.

 

Still not seeing this as a problem.

 

I can't comprehend why someone would want to help someone who has unfairly burdened them

Gotta call a strawman on that one. If I decide to try keeping an historic cache alive, I have placed the "burden", (if that's what you really think cache maintenance is), on myself. No one has done this for me or to me.

 

It also has a negative impact on those who expect the info on the cache page to correct and up-to-date.

That's true. I suppose if the cache logs started to reflect angst from folks who hiked out to a beautiful location, looked for a stump, didn't see one, then walked away without looking behind the rock 5' away, I could pull my replacement cache myself, then post an SBA. To date, the caches that I've found that did not precisely match the cache page haven't generated heaps of scorn, but I suppose anything is possible.

 

Either way, perhaps that's a bridge that could be crossed if the hypothetical cache did experience such problems?

[+Chrysalides]

I'm with Clan Riffster on this. On the other hand, if someone doesn't want to repair / replace the cache, and files a SBA, I don't see anything wrong with it either.

[AZcachemeister]

Even if you maintain the cache, eventually someone comes along who isn't willing to help out, and instead posts a 'Needs Maintenance' log. Around here, un-cleared 'Needs Maintenance' logs eventually result in cache archival. If the owner isn't around to post an 'Owner Maintenance' log, the cache is doomed. I have never asked, but perhaps a reviewer can clear the 'Needs Maintenance' attribute if a non-owner does the maintenance, but I'd be willing to bet they'd more likely archive the existing cache and suggest you put your own there.

[Clan Riffster]

Even if you maintain the cache, eventually someone comes along who isn't willing to help out, and instead posts a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

Yeah, not sure how to correct that one. Can a reviewer remove a "Needs Maintenance" icon, or would that level of editting have to come from the Lily Pad? I don't think I'd have to worry about the hypothetical cache being archived by any of our three local reviewers just because of the icon, as all three of them would be aware that any real issues would be addressed and corrected by me.

[knowschad]

I've given this thread a lot of thought, and I think I can settle it once and for all.

The question was, "Is it okay to fix a cache if the cache owner is long gone?"

The answer is, "Yes. If you are the cache owner".

[Clan Riffster]

The answer is, "Yes. If you are the cache owner".

Another answer is, "Yes, if you are willing to assume the duties inherent with cache ownership".

[+Chrysalides]

I've given this thread a lot of thought, and I think I can settle it once and for all.

The question was, "Is it okay to fix a cache if the cache owner is long gone?"

The answer is, "Yes. If you are the cache owner".

I disagree (every thread needs this ) - the answer is obviously "definitely perhaps".

[knowschad]

The answer is, "Yes. If you are the cache owner".

Another answer is, "Yes, if you are willing to assume the duties inherent with cache ownership".

Oh, come one! Stop kidding around and get serious!!!

 

[+briansnat]

None of those scenarios would make a cache non-viable. Since the hypothetical cache would be on my watchlist, I would see any issues that others posted to it. The local reviewer would know that I was taking care of the cache, fixing any maintenance issues, so any NM flags on the cache page could stay right where they are. Since I'm on a first name basis with the land managers around here, they would also know that I would be the contact.

 

I guess if you contacted them and advised them that you are now responsible for the cache they would, but I suspect that wouldn't be the case for most of these fixer uppers. In fact the OP wanted to fix it and had no intent to continue maintenance.

[Clan Riffster]

So it only lives on as a viable cache another 9 years. I'm OK with that.

[+simpjkee]

I can't comprehend why someone would want to help someone who has unfairly burdened them

Gotta call a strawman on that one. If I decide to try keeping an historic cache alive, I have placed the "burden", (if that's what you really think cache maintenance is), on myself. No one has done this for me or to me.

 

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

[+simpjkee]

The answer is, "Yes. If you are the cache owner".

Another answer is, "Yes, if you are willing to assume the duties inherent with cache ownership".

 

An accurate answer is "Yes, if you are willing and able to assume the duties inherent with cache ownership", because maintaining the listing is part of maintaining the cache.

Edited February 26, 2010 by simpjkee

[+Taoiseach]

I can't comprehend why someone would want to help someone who has unfairly burdened them

Gotta call a strawman on that one. If I decide to try keeping an historic cache alive, I have placed the "burden", (if that's what you really think cache maintenance is), on myself. No one has done this for me or to me.

 

Maintaining my own cache as the cache owner is not at all a burden. Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

 

You are not obligated to maintain another cacher's cache. If you choose to do so, you are placing the burden upon yourself. If you are willing to take that burden on, then it is perfectly acceptable to unoficially maintain a cache.

[Clan Riffster]

Having to maintain someone else's cache because they disappeared and abandoned it is a burden.

Where you're drifting away from reality is your interjection of the words "Having to" and the words "because they disappeared". In the hypothetical scenario, you would be choosing to maintain the previously abandoned cache, not being forced to do so. So long as you are still a creature of free will, nothing that you choose to do can ever be mandatory. As for the reasons behind why you might choose to maintain a hypothetical previously abandoned cache? It's not because the previous owner disappeared. That's just the event that led to your making a choice. The reason for maintaining it would be your own, whatever it may be, and could include things like, the find was somehow special to you, or the cache has some historical significance which you wish to preserve in an active state.

[Clan Riffster]

...because maintaining the listing is part of maintaining the cache.

Which could be done with notes, posted to the cache page.