Anyway to adopt a archived cache?

[+Pirate Rock]

A cacher in my area has recently archived 25+ caches in our area. About 6 of them where in a 'Needs Maintenance' state, the others where fine and were continued to be logged almost daily.

 

The cacher has archived all the caches with the reason that they will be too busy next year, and as some of them require maintenance, they have archived all of them. Which I think is fine, and think is quite responsible if they are unable to look after them.

 

I tried to contact the cacher with no luck, as I would have liked to adopt them through the adoption tool - they were all placed in kids playgrounds and where great for cacher families, and I would hate to see all their hard work disappear.

 

Is there any way to adopt a archived cache?

[+Viajero Perdido]

It used to be allowed, but Groundspeak changed the rules a few years ago. They no longer unarchive caches for adoption purposes.

[sabrefan7]

No. If I were you I would CITO any abandoned cache material. If the site is worth having a cache make your own new one. Every archived cache may not need to live on. If you don't have the time needed to maintain a cache then its good to archive them. BUT PICK THEM UP

[+briansnat]

As of now the only way to do it would be for the current owner to have the caches unarchived, then initiate the adoption process. Since he is not responding to you, then that is out.

 

Since the caches are archived the areas are all now open for new caches, so the easiest way to proceed would be to hide your own caches at these locations.

 

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

[+Pirate Rock]

 

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

 

Any reason for that? I can understand for cachers that don't have kids.....

[jholly]

 

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

 

Any reason for that? I can understand for cachers that don't have kids.....

Well one reason is the kids playing on the playground find them and take some of the goodies home and scatter the rest. And the looks the mothers give a fat old bearded guy poking around the playground is not exactly welcoming.

[sabrefan7]

 

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

 

Any reason for that? I can understand for cachers that don't have kids.....

Well one reason is the kids playing on the playground find them and take some of the goodies home and scatter the rest. And the looks the mothers give a fat old bearded guy poking around the playground is not exactly welcoming.

SANTA?

[+Don_J]

 

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

 

Any reason for that? I can understand for cachers that don't have kids.....

Well one reason is the kids playing on the playground find them and take some of the goodies home and scatter the rest. And the looks the mothers give a fat old bearded guy poking around the playground is not exactly welcoming.

 

And I though I was being stealthy.

[jholly]

 

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

 

Any reason for that? I can understand for cachers that don't have kids.....

Well one reason is the kids playing on the playground find them and take some of the goodies home and scatter the rest. And the looks the mothers give a fat old bearded guy poking around the playground is not exactly welcoming.

SANTA?

Yeah that might work now, but what about July? Oh, I know, working on my list.

[+dukeofurl01]

The other reason most people frown on that is because people coming around without kids could be seen as weirdos and if they claim they were only geocaching, that can only be bad for all geocachers in the future, as they could all be seen as weirdos. Thank the post-9/11 world...

[+tec_64]

I just reported an abandoned cache (damaged as well). It ended up archived. The location is beautiful and I plan to place a cache there in the early spring.

 

1. Do cache proximity rules apply to placing a new cache near an archived cache?

 

2. Can I remove the archived (abandoned and damaged) cache?

 

Wayne

tec_64

Sudbury

[GOF and Bacall]

I just reported an abandoned cache (damaged as well). It ended up archived. The location is beautiful and I plan to place a cache there in the early spring.

 

1. Do cache proximity rules apply to placing a new cache near an archived cache?

 

2. Can I remove the archived (abandoned and damaged) cache?

 

Wayne

tec_64

Sudbury

 

Once a cache is archived the area is available for a new cache placement. No proximity issues with the defunct cache but any cache near by could still be a problem if you are not placing the cache in the exact same spot. I would try not to place the new cache in the exact same spot just to make the new cache, well, new.

 

If the cache has been archived I would remove it and post a note to the cache page that I have the remains and will be happy to return them if the owner requests in a reasonable time frame. I'd say thirty days and keep it available for sixty.

[+tec_64]

Thanks for the reply. You have verified my assumptions.

 

Wayne

tec_64

Sudbury, ON.

[Lindinis]

Hi,

If you want to adopt archived caches. All you need to do is to copy each cache as a new listing, make any changes necessary (eg your name in place of the previous CO). Then put 'em forward to us reviewers and we'll look at publishing them. Obviously, you don't inherit the previous finders logs, but they then have the chance of finding them all again. All logs are then recorded since you became the owner.

If a cache is archived, the location is then free for another cache at or near the old one.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Lindinis

[+sbell111]

I just reported an abandoned cache (damaged as well). It ended up archived. The location is beautiful and I plan to place a cache there in the early spring. ...

 

2. Can I remove the archived (abandoned and damaged) cache?

You can remove truly abandoned caches. However, you should try to be as certain as possible that it is truly abandoned before you do so. Just because it is no longer listed on GC.com does not mean that the property has been abandoned.

[+Trucker Lee]

 

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

 

Any reason for that? I can understand for cachers that don't have kids.....

Something about an old guy walking out there around a bunch of kids they don't know seems to get folks a bit upset, with good cause.

[+tec_64]

GC52EE it the cache in question for me. Read the last 7 or so logs. Check out the CO's profile and last log in date. (The CO moved to the east coast of Canada a few moons ago.)

 

If we definately don't hear from the CO by the end of April, I have a nice genuine Lok-n-Lok waiting.

 

tec_64

Wayne

Sudbury, ON.

[+Don_J]

GC52EE it the cache in question for me. Read the last 7 or so logs. Check out the CO's profile and last log in date. (The CO moved to the east coast of Canada a few moons ago.)

 

If we definately don't hear from the CO by the end of April, I have a nice genuine Lok-n-Lok waiting.

 

tec_64

Wayne

Sudbury, ON.

 

Look, understand, the cache has been archived. If you want to place a cache, DO IT. You do not need to wait four months on someone that abandoned their cache. Just go and do it.

[+Pirate Rock]

Hi,

If you want to adopt archived caches. All you need to do is to copy each cache as a new listing, make any changes necessary (eg your name in place of the previous CO). Then put 'em forward to us reviewers and we'll look at publishing them. Obviously, you don't inherit the previous finders logs, but they then have the chance of finding them all again. All logs are then recorded since you became the owner.

If a cache is archived, the location is then free for another cache at or near the old one.

 

It's a pity that there is no way to adopt the old archived cache. I was hoping to avoid the double up for a lot of cachers. Oh well....

[+Markwell]

It's a pity that there is no way to adopt the old archived cache. I was hoping to avoid the double up for a lot of cachers. Oh well....

 

A couple of premises that I use that many people don't seem to grasp. While an over-simplification, I believe that people can fall under two major groups. Of course these reasons are not mutually exclusive, of course there are minor sub-groups, and of course this is a spectrum, but here goes:

1. Some people believe that caches should bring people to interesting places
   
2. Some people don't care about the location, but instead are concerned about increasing their find count as a competition
   

If you are in group A, if the now-archived caches is in a good place would it really bother you to re-visit the cool location? If it's worth keeping up a spot, I would think it would be a great invitation for people to revisit the place. If you are in group B, this is a prime opportunity to revisit a known location and hide and increase your find count.

 

The only people that I see having an archived cache re-listed as a new would be people who have some type of OCD belief that you MUST go out to find every single cache. Once you shed that belief*, I don't think that a newly listed cache that's a tribute from an old historic archived cache has any problems.

 

I'm not advocating the other end of the spectrum - archiving and re-listing a cache every year. But if an owner goes by the wayside, I firmly believe it's much better to re-list the cache as a new one with the correct owner. To do otherwise on Groundspeak's part essentially indicates that Groundspeak has the right to reassign ownership of cache containers to someone else. They only claim partial ownership of the cache LISTING, not of the container.

 

*The greatest cathartic moment in my enjoyment of geocaching came the moment that I realized that if a particular type of cache doesn't suit my fancy, I am under absolutely no obligation to go out and find the cache. There are 23 caches within two miles of my home. I have only found three of them. Of the unfound ones, two are regular traditionals, one is a regular multi, three are small traditionals and the rest are micros of some variation of multi, puzzle or traditional. Within 5 miles, there are 138 caches and I have only found or placed 9 of them.

[Dj Storm]

... I believe that people can fall under two major groups. Of course these reasons are not mutually exclusive, of course there are minor sub-groups, and of course this is a spectrum...

 

I'm part of the subgroup that wants old caches to remain active. GC52EE was an old cache, placed before the second anniversary of geocaching. When an old cache gets archived, even if a new cache is placed in the same place, with the same container, logbook, listing, and a link to the old listing, the new cache won't have the "aura" of the old one. If the cache is not very old or the first cache in the county/region/country, I have no problem getting it archived.

For newer caches (GC+5 digits), even if the owner wants to adopt them out, I'm not eager to adopt them. In case noone steps forward and adopts them, I would prefer to see them archived, and if the location is worth a cache I might place one myself.

 

Answering the OP, it looks like those caches weren't "historic" ones. In those cases archiving and replacing seems to be the right move.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Hi,

If you want to adopt archived caches. All you need to do is to copy each cache as a new listing, make any changes necessary (eg your name in place of the previous CO). Then put 'em forward to us reviewers and we'll look at publishing them. Obviously, you don't inherit the previous finders logs, but they then have the chance of finding them all again. All logs are then recorded since you became the owner.

If a cache is archived, the location is then free for another cache at or near the old one.

 

It's a pity that there is no way to adopt the old archived cache. I was hoping to avoid the double up for a lot of cachers. Oh well....

 

Always worth looking at WHY the cache was archived... If it kept getting muggled, there's no point in replacing it with a 'new' cache, just for it to get muggled again!

[+narcissa]

It's a pity that there is no way to adopt the old archived cache. I was hoping to avoid the double up for a lot of cachers. Oh well....

 

Why?

[+Sagefox]

Regarding caches on children's playgrounds, you'll find that much of the geocaching community isn't as thrilled with them as you are.

 

You can say that again. I cringe when I get close to ground zero and find it is a playground. Male cachers out caching alone can be cause for a certain amount of discomfort (to parents and to the male cacher) when there are children playing around the equipment the cache is hidden on.

[+FireRef]

They only claim partial ownership of the cache LISTING, not of the container.

 

As I understand it, they claim complete ownership of the cache listing, as evidenced by the TOS which forbid us from doing whatever we want with that said listing, even as the actual owner of the cache.

 

Unless I understand it wrong.

 

I don't think there was ever any debate that they don't own the cache itself.

[Keystone]

Unless I understand it wrong.

For the benefit of others reading along, yes, you understand it wrong.

[+hzoi]

Seems to me there's just one less hoop for you to go through -- just publish your own cache listing using the same information as before. You can even reference or link the old cache page in yours. And if the old cache container is still there, you don't even need to leave the house -- just tell the old cache owners not to pick up the cache container. (Which apparently isn't high on their priority list, if these caches are still being logged.)

[+Pirate Rock]

I've actually decided to abandon the idea, as almost all of them were in playgrounds.