abandoned virtual caches with non-photo logging requirements

[+JL_HSTRE]

I've come across some Virtual caches that have some requirement other than just take a photo of yourself at the location; you must instead/additionally email some info to the CO which would be found at GZ.

 

But for some of these caches the CO has been inactive for years. Assuming the cache itself with the information remains intact, does the cache sort of hang in limbo forever? People can still visit it (which is the primary intent), but you can't technically complete the cache anymore.

 

Just curious.

[+DENelson83]

Just slap an SBA on them and be done with it.

[+tozainamboku]

I've come across some Virtual caches that have some requirement other than just take a photo of yourself at the location; you must instead/additionally email some info to the CO which would be found at GZ.

 

But for some of these caches the CO has been inactive for years. Assuming the cache itself with the information remains intact, does the cache sort of hang in limbo forever? People can still visit it (which is the primary intent), but you can't technically complete the cache anymore.

 

Just curious.

Technically a virtual cache that has been abandoned like this is in violation of the guideline for maintaining a virtual. When Groundspeak finds out about these, they are archived. Not only can they not be adopted because of the policy of no forced adoptions but Groundspeak also has made a policy that should the owner be around and be willing to adopt out the cache, because it is grandfathered it is no longer allowed.

 

Groundspeak's policy is to archive all the virtual caches this way.

 

Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived. Of if you agree with Groundspeak that all virtual caches should eventually go away, post an SBA and get rid of these abandoned caches.

[+scorpio_dark]

I've come across some Virtual caches that have some requirement other than just take a photo of yourself at the location; you must instead/additionally email some info to the CO which would be found at GZ.

 

But for some of these caches the CO has been inactive for years. Assuming the cache itself with the information remains intact, does the cache sort of hang in limbo forever? People can still visit it (which is the primary intent), but you can't technically complete the cache anymore.

 

Just curious.

Technically a virtual cache that has been abandoned like this is in violation of the guideline for maintaining a virtual. When Groundspeak finds out about these, they are archived. Not only can they not be adopted because of the policy of no forced adoptions but Groundspeak also has made a policy that should the owner be around and be willing to adopt out the cache, because it is grandfathered it is no longer allowed.

 

Groundspeak's policy is to archive all the virtual caches this way.

 

Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived. Of if you agree with Groundspeak that all virtual caches should eventually go away, post an SBA and get rid of these abandoned caches.

 

Makes sense.

 

Personally I say please don't SBA it unless you plan to follow behind it with a "real" cache. I've enjoyed the few virtual finds I've had. It doesn't hurt anybody to send to info out into cyberspace unanswered.

 

I can't see why one would just "Just slap an SBA on them and be done with it." Not labeling that. Just saying I don't understand the motivation.

[Mr.Yuck]

I've come across some Virtual caches that have some requirement other than just take a photo of yourself at the location; you must instead/additionally email some info to the CO which would be found at GZ.

 

But for some of these caches the CO has been inactive for years. Assuming the cache itself with the information remains intact, does the cache sort of hang in limbo forever? People can still visit it (which is the primary intent), but you can't technically complete the cache anymore.

 

Just curious.

Technically a virtual cache that has been abandoned like this is in violation of the guideline for maintaining a virtual. When Groundspeak finds out about these, they are archived. Not only can they not be adopted because of the policy of no forced adoptions but Groundspeak also has made a policy that should the owner be around and be willing to adopt out the cache, because it is grandfathered it is no longer allowed.

 

Groundspeak's policy is to archive all the virtual caches this way.

 

Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived. Of if you agree with Groundspeak that all virtual caches should eventually go away, post an SBA and get rid of these abandoned caches.

 

What Mr. T said. Why would you want to "slap an SBA on them and be done with it"? You'd be about as popular as Lindsay Lohan is right now if you went around slapping SBA's on grandfathered virtuals.

 

***Lindsay Lohan is the only pop culture reference I can come up with this early in the morning.

[+Borst68]

I've come across some Virtual caches that have some requirement other than just take a photo of yourself at the location; you must instead/additionally email some info to the CO which would be found at GZ.

 

But for some of these caches the CO has been inactive for years. Assuming the cache itself with the information remains intact, does the cache sort of hang in limbo forever? People can still visit it (which is the primary intent), but you can't technically complete the cache anymore.

 

Just curious.

Technically a virtual cache that has been abandoned like this is in violation of the guideline for maintaining a virtual. When Groundspeak finds out about these, they are archived. Not only can they not be adopted because of the policy of no forced adoptions but Groundspeak also has made a policy that should the owner be around and be willing to adopt out the cache, because it is grandfathered it is no longer allowed.

 

Groundspeak's policy is to archive all the virtual caches this way.

 

Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived. Of if you agree with Groundspeak that all virtual caches should eventually go away, post an SBA and get rid of these abandoned caches.

 

What Mr. T said. Why would you want to "slap an SBA on them and be done with it"? You'd be about as popular as Lindsay Lohan is right now if you went around slapping SBA's on grandfathered virtuals.

 

***Lindsay Lohan is the only pop culture reference I can come up with this early in the morning.

 

****Could have used Gov. Patterson as your example but no one outside of NY would get it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived.

 

So if I follow the rules in this instance everyone will hate me for it? Awkward...

 

What if I NA them but then promptly submit them to Waymarking?

 

Really though the point of the Virtual is to see something neat so as long as the purpose of the cache is still there it accomplishes it's point. I'd rather people spend focus on abandoned physical caches than virtual ones.

Edited May 26, 2010 by joshism

[+Happy Bubbles]

If you've visited the location and found the answer to the question, you've certainly fulfilled the spirit of the cache. Many active virtual owners don't even respond to every email they get; if there's a a problem they'll speak up, but if there's no response most people just assume it's all good.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Happy Bubbles

[knowschad]

So if I follow the rules in this instance everyone will hate me for it? Awkward...

What "rule" would that be? The only "rule" that has been mentioned here was the responsibility of the cache owner to be there to answer emails. There is no rule that says that you should report an apparently absentee owner or post an NA log because you didn't get an email from the cache owner.

 

For what its worth, on many of the virtuals that I've done, even when I knew the cache owner was active and availalble, I haven't received a reply when the information I provided was correct. Often I only hear from the cache owner when I did not log the cache correctly.

 

Waymarking? No thanks. Not a substitute for me, at least.

[4wheelin_fool]

Although you are supposed to wait for a reply before logging, I assume that most people post the log at the same time that they send the CO the info. If you start posting Needs Archived logs, you will be as popular as BP.

[Mr.Yuck]

So if I follow the rules in this instance everyone will hate me for it? Awkward...

What "rule" would that be? The only "rule" that has been mentioned here was the responsibility of the cache owner to be there to answer emails. There is no rule that says that you should report an apparently absentee owner or post an NA log because you didn't get an email from the cache owner.

 

For what its worth, on many of the virtuals that I've done, even when I knew the cache owner was active and availalble, I haven't received a reply when the information I provided was correct. Often I only hear from the cache owner when I did not log the cache correctly.

 

Waymarking? No thanks. Not a substitute for me, at least.

 

I have two pretty popular earthcaches, and I certainly don't get around to replying to each email with answers, although I try. I've not received a response from several virtuals and or Earthcaches I myself have done, where I know the owner is active.

 

Basically, I'm saying I'd never "report" a virtual. The Greetings from Germany crowd does just fine as it is getting ones with absentee owners archived.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived.

 

So if I follow the rules in this instance everyone will hate me for it? Awkward...

Yes. Even cops see violations every day that they choose not to pursue. You are not a cache cop. Don't pet the sweaty things.

 

Our Reviewers are pretty sharp folks. There are plenty of Guideline violations out there of which they are aware. I suspect that they know about every abandoned virt. Unless, however, someone directly brings it to their attention they may choose to ignore it. Thus a known abandoned virt can last for years until someone says "Hey Reviewer, this cache needs attention!". Then they will have no choice but to act.

 

Unless you for some reason feel the need to 'fix' things (and some things DO need fixing) perhaps just letting them slide is best.

 

As with so much in life it's a judgment call.

Edited May 26, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+KoosKoos]

I'd compare it to a traditional cache where the owner has left the game. Those owners are no longer meeting the requirements to perform maintenance either.

 

Would you post a NA on every traditional you find where the owner hasn't logged onto the site in several months?

 

If the cache is running ok on its own - no missing pieces, destroyed container, obvious bogus logs - then what harm is there to the geocaching community to keep it active even if the owner isn't actively playing?

[+BulldogBlitz]

If the cache is running ok on its own - no missing pieces, destroyed container, obvious bogus logs - then what harm is there to the geocaching community to keep it active even if the owner isn't actively playing?

 

i've actually run in to a few of those traditionals - missing for three years and still getting logged. that was an active cache owner too.

[+tozainamboku]

Cachers who enjoy virtuals caches simply log their finds and don't tell TPTB that there is nobody to answer their email. Because if you do, the cache will be archived. I am sure that we will be seeing fewer virtual caches in the days to come. If you love virtual caches just keep your mouth shut and no one has to know these should be archived.

 

So if I follow the rules in this instance everyone will hate me for it? Awkward...

Yes. Even cops see violations every day that they choose not to pursue. You are not a cache cop. Don't pet the sweaty things.

 

Our Reviewers are pretty sharp folks. There are plenty of Guideline violations out there of which they are aware. I suspect that they know about every abandoned virt. Unless, however, someone directly brings it to their attention they may choose to ignore it. Thus a known abandoned virt can last for years until someone says "Hey Reviewer, this cache needs attention!". Then they will have no choice but to act.

 

Unless you for some reason feel the need to 'fix' things (and some things DO need fixing) perhaps just letting them slide is best.

 

As with so much in life it's a judgment call.

What generally happens is that someone in Germany decides to log a find from their armchair and some puritan gets upset about the bogus smiley. So they report a NA and the cache gets archived. The couch potato logger gets to keep his smiley (usually) and the local geocachers who visit the cache after it is archived find the page has been lock so they can't log it.

 

It seems there are some violations the cache cops won't ignore.

 

*** niote: DISCLAIMER: Germany is used as an example only. Couch potato loggers don't all come from one country of origin. The majority of German geocachers understand that you are supposed to have visited the virtual cache in order to log a find online.

Edited May 26, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+DragonsWest]

The owner of the virtual isn't responding?

 

Did you enjoy where the virtual took you?

 

Did you learn anything?

 

Does it still seem to have value?

 

I'd keep quiet.

 

If the area has changed and there's no point in having the virtual then it should be archived.

[+geodarts]

Just what most of the others have said. Think of virtuals as a precious resource that is dwindling and do your best to conserve them. There are those of us who will go out of our way for virtuals, or who enjoy finding virutals in places where traditionals cannot be placed, who enjoy them as part of this game with their unique features that are distinct from Waymarking. Since they cannot be adopted, they perhaps can be "maintained" with the support of the community.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Erickson

[+Bear and Ragged]

What if I NA them but then promptly submit them to Waymarking?

Nothing stopping you from Waymarking it anyway.

It can still remain as a Virtual on Geocaching.com.

[4wheelin_fool]

They initially were able to be adopted out.

 

I am aware of at least one virtual in which the owner sent to a second account they owned with a second e-mail address, so they would not be bothered with the daily verification e-mails.

[+thedeadpirate]

Really though the point of the Virtual is to see something neat so as long as the purpose of the cache is still there it accomplishes it's point. I'd rather people spend focus on abandoned physical caches than virtual ones.

 

Good choice.

 

*** Yeah, even though I didn't care for the first sentence either, I did read the entire post.

[+debaere]

I've come across some Virtual caches that have some requirement other than just take a photo of yourself at the location; you must instead/additionally email some info to the CO which would be found at GZ.

 

But for some of these caches the CO has been inactive for years. Assuming the cache itself with the information remains intact, does the cache sort of hang in limbo forever? People can still visit it (which is the primary intent), but you can't technically complete the cache anymore.

 

Just curious.

 

I normally claim the find anyway with a note saying I tried to pass along the answers required, but was unable to, and will be happy to provide the answers should the owner ask for them.

 

Never had a problem with it (probably because no one noticed).

[+9Key]

 

 

*** note: DISCLAIMER:<snip>The majority of German geocachers understand that you are supposed to have visited the virtual cache in order to log a find online.

Do they?

[+BulldogBlitz]

 

What generally happens is that someone in Germany decides to log a find from their armchair

 

darn! i gotta move to germany to armchair log it? i thought ALRs were against the rules.

 

[+wimseyguy]

As a finder your responsibility is to visit the object at the posted coords and follow any verification instructions on the cache page. If the CO doesn't respond to your email, that isn't your problem.

[+ADTCacheur]

 

What generally happens is that someone in Germany decides to log a find from their armchair

 

darn! i gotta move to germany to armchair log it? i thought ALRs were against the rules.

 

they are, but AALRs (additional armchair logging requirements) aren't

[+roziecakes]

 

What generally happens is that someone in Germany decides to log a find from their armchair

 

darn! i gotta move to germany to armchair log it? i thought ALRs were against the rules.

 

 

Virtual caches are a different animal, they're a grandfathered cache type and the ALR rules don't apply to them, especially since they can't be placed anymore.

[Mushtang]

Although you are supposed to wait for a reply before logging,

I don't think that is true at all.

 

I assume that most people post the log at the same time that they send the CO the info.

That makes more sense, and it how I've always done it.

[+roziecakes]

Although you are supposed to wait for a reply before logging,

I don't think that is true at all.

 

I assume that most people post the log at the same time that they send the CO the info.

That makes more sense, and it how I've always done it.

 

I've also always done it that way. If you know you've fulfilled the requirements, it's not a problem, just log it and send it at the same time.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Although you are supposed to wait for a reply before logging, I assume that most people post the log at the same time that they send the CO the info. If you start posting Needs Archived logs, you will be as popular as BP.

 

I usually log the cache just after sending email to the CO rather than waiting for the response. I always try to post logs on caches in the order that I found (or Did Not Find) them. As I see, if I find (or search for) more than one cache a day sometimes the journey from one cache to another is as interesting as the experience from a specific cache. I have on a couple of occasions linked logs on caches and it's just easier to keep track of things if I keep my logs in order. I know that it's possible to log a note then change it to find later but I'd rather take my chances that I didn't satisfy the requirements and would just delete the log if that happened.

[+WRASTRO]

I've come across some Virtual caches that have some requirement other than just take a photo of yourself at the location; you must instead/additionally email some info to the CO which would be found at GZ.

 

But for some of these caches the CO has been inactive for years. Assuming the cache itself with the information remains intact, does the cache sort of hang in limbo forever? People can still visit it (which is the primary intent), but you can't technically complete the cache anymore.

 

Just curious.

Just because the owner has not logged in to the particular account on GC.com does not mean they are not still active. I would log my find, send the email and be done with it. No need for other actions.

[+narcissa]

Although you are supposed to wait for a reply before logging, I assume that most people post the log at the same time that they send the CO the info. If you start posting Needs Archived logs, you will be as popular as BP.

 

There's no rule that says you have to wait for a reply before logging. Some cache owners specify that they prefer this, but it's not a rule.

[+Gamaliel]

I send my email when I log, and note in the log "email sent". Sometimes I get a nice reply. Occasionally I do not get a reply at all. I don't keep track of when I do and when I don't get a reply, and I don't understand why anyone else would bother.