Archiving Really Old Caches

[+tanner_scout]

I am not that familiar with posting in the fourms, so if this was already posted somewhere, sometime, me culpa

 

What to do with really old caches, 2000, 2001, etc that the owner is no longer involved...

And do we care if the old ones go away?

IS there a PQ to run to see if any owner is active or last time they logged in?

Any thoughts? Here goes.

[+t4e]

why archive them if they are still in good shape?

some people, myself included, i take it upon myself to fix up the old caches if owners are not around anymore, that to a certain extent though

its nice to have all the old caches around, i see it as a treat to find them and to see them surviving the test of time

 

no, there is no PQ about Co's, what use would that be?...not to mention someone will complain that its a Privacy violation ...click on their profile from the cache page to get any info on their last log in

Edited December 23, 2010 by t4e

[+The Foote]

I always enjoy finding a cache from the original days of caching. As a cacher that has been around since 2003 myself I have been known to archive my own caches after they have been around for a certain amount of time. BUT I always like finding a cache and seeing that it was hidden in 2001 or 2003 wether the cache owner is active or not. If it needs a new log I jsut put one in myself. I do this even if the cache owner IS active. As long as I have what they need I just fix it.

[+tanner_scout]

why archive them if they are still in good shape?

some people, myself included, i take it upon myself to fix up the old caches if owners are not around anymore, that to a certain extent though

its nice to have all the old caches around, i see it as a treat to find them and to see them surviving the test of time

 

no, there is no PQ about Co's, what use would that be?...not to mention someone will complain that its a Privacy violation ...click on their profile from the cache page to get any info on their last log in

 

The reviewer has noted several DNFs, the cache needs maint, etc. If no response, then the reviewer archives. I agree it would be nice to be able to keep the old ones around.

[+t4e]

The reviewer has noted several DNFs, the cache needs maint, etc. If no response, then the reviewer archives. I agree it would be nice to be able to keep the old ones around.

 

well if its at the point where its just using up the space, it should indeed be archived

[+FlagMan]

why archive them if they are still in good shape?

some people, myself included, i take it upon myself to fix up the old caches if owners are not around anymore, that to a certain extent though

its nice to have all the old caches around, i see it as a treat to find them and to see them surviving the test of time

 

no, there is no PQ about Co's, what use would that be?...not to mention someone will complain that its a Privacy violation ...click on their profile from the cache page to get any info on their last log in

 

The reviewer has noted several DNFs, the cache needs maint, etc. If no response, then the reviewer archives. I agree it would be nice to be able to keep the old ones around.

If you want it to be kept alive, go and fix whatever is wrong with it -- after attempting to contact the cache owner, that is. There are lots of caches that are sort of informally adopted by the caching community when a cache owner goes inactive. If you can get in touch with an inactive cache owner, offer to formally adopt the cache. If you can't reach the cache owner, it should be OK to replace the cache to keep it alive.

[+Let's Look Over Thayer]

What to do with really old caches, 2000, 2001, etc that the owner is no longer involved...

And do we care if the old ones go away?

Unless there is something of significance to the cache, I see little point in keeping poorly maintained caches around merely because they are old. But this is something that tends to take care of itself. If there is significance to the cache, there is almost always someone who cares enough to maintain the cache...

 

IS there a PQ to run to see if any owner is active or last time they logged in?

Any time I see a cache that is obviously not being maintained, one of the first things I do is to click on the owners profile link. The last time they visited the Geocaching.com is prominantly displayed. If it's been a year since the last time they logged in, it's a pretty good bet that the cache owner is not going to do much to maintain the cache.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I am not that familiar with posting in the fourms, so if this was already posted somewhere, sometime, me culpa

 

What to do with really old caches, 2000, 2001, etc that the owner is no longer involved...

And do we care if the old ones go away?

IS there a PQ to run to see if any owner is active or last time they logged in?

Any thoughts? Here goes.

 

The question becomes, If you get a reviewer to archive an old cache because the owner is no longer active does that cache then become Geolitter? Who removes it or does it just stay out there forever?

 

John

[+Let's Look Over Thayer]

I am not that familiar with posting in the fourms, so if this was already posted somewhere, sometime, me culpa

 

What to do with really old caches, 2000, 2001, etc that the owner is no longer involved...

And do we care if the old ones go away?

IS there a PQ to run to see if any owner is active or last time they logged in?

Any thoughts? Here goes.

The question becomes, If you get a reviewer to archive an old cache because the owner is no longer active does that cache then become Geolitter? Who removes it or does it just stay out there forever?

Generally speaking, if the cache is still there and being found, the reviewer will not archive it.

 

Most of the time, it will only get archived if the cache goes missing -- in which case, there is nothing to pick up.

 

But there are exceptions and sometimes the cache (or the remains of it) does become geolitter -- unless the person who reported the problem to the reviewers, takes it upon him or herself to go clean it up. In theory, the job should belong the cache owner -- after all, they promised, when they placed the cache, to maintain it. But if the cache owner were maintaining it, then the cache wouldn't be archived.

 

Catch-22.

[+Kosh Naranek]

GC1CA8 appears to be the cache that brought up the question. It was hidden by Vagabond and Yrium back in 2001 and disappeared in November of last year. Except for the fact that it is old, there doesn't appear to be anything special about the cache. It was a nice, old cache in a park that required a bit of a hike--certainly a spot worthy of a cache, but nothing really special.

 

There was a year of DNFs that eventually caused a cacher to post a "needs archived" log. Yrium (the named owner)is no longer with us, but there was a year when anyone in the caching community could have repaired the cache and kept it going. As it was, it died a natural death. All things die, including caches. Hopefully, at least some of the 226 cachers who found the cache will have some fond memories of the find. Let it rest in peace.

[+ShowStop]

Bah humbug!

[vagabond]

There was nothing exceptional about that cache it was in a spur off of the main trail in Marion Bears park, you didn't even have to enter the main park to get to it let it rest in peace

[+SD Rowdies]

I'm really old now and this topic gives me the shakes.

[BlueRajah]

I'm really old now and this topic gives me the shakes.

 

The thread is titled - Archiving really old caches... not cachers... so you can feel safe for now. :laughing:

Edited January 5, 2011 by BlueRajah