Cache Renewal - Dealing With Abandoned Caches

38.2k · March 21, 2003

This wasn't my idea (thank Hartclimbs for this), but I thought it was a good one and I'd post it here.

Require every cache owner to "renew" their cache periodically (perhaps every 18 months). An automatic e-mail can be sent asking them to do this, or there can be a button on the cache page, or whatever.

If the cache owner doesn't respond and renew the cache within, say 60 days, the cache is automatically considered abandoned. A note is then posted on the top of the page in red (kind of like archived and disabled caches) saying something like "This cache has been abandoned by its owner. Would the next finder kindly remove the cache and request that it be archived once they have done so."

It could also add instructions for cache adoption, should someone want to adopt the cache if they think its worthwhile.

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

1.5k · March 21, 2003

I agree 100%, with the exception of the adoption part. But, I don't want to turn this into an adoption discussion, so I'll just leave it at that.

My meager show of support.

Want to buy a monkey?

38.2k · March 21, 2003

Who are you and why are you using Mr Snazz's account? The real Mr Snazz would never agree with me!

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

1.4k · March 21, 2003

Just a few weeks ago I went through all the caches near me that had been unvailable for over 6 months and sent e-mails to those people asking is they were going to archive them or not. A few people responded, but not most and I was thing the exact same thing. I think it is very reasonable to ask them to be renewed. I was even thinking of a shorter time frame, but that might make it more computer intensive.

---Real men cache in shorts.

7.4k · March 21, 2003

I believe that this is a really good idea, and one that I'd like to see implemented in some fashion. By the way, I think that BassoonPilot gets the credit for the initial idea, while HartClimbs added some refinements to the concept.

I think that this would go a long way toward convincing land managers that we are responsible, and that caches don't equate to abandoned trash.

6.4k · March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
I believe that this is a really good idea, and one that I'd like to see implemented in some fashion. By the way, I think that BassoonPilot gets the credit for the initial idea, while HartClimbs added some refinements to the concept.

I think that this would go a long way toward convincing land managers that we are responsible, and that caches don't equate to abandoned trash.

Actually, I think Eric O'Connor first brought it up, I think he still has an article he wrote about it on his website at http://www.waypoints.org

If I remember right, he was stomped down pretty hard at the time, but with the number of abandoned caches increasing as the game progresses, the idea might bear looking into again. Maybe Markwell can point out the original thread, I gotta go try and be FTF on a new cache!

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

March 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Require every cache owner to "renew" their cache periodically (perhaps every 18 months).

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

March 22, 2003

I disagree completely. Anyone associated with suggesting, refining, or refloating the idea should be flogged with a wet noodle.

OK - I think it's a good idea, but it's really up to TBTB to see if they'd want the additional administrative workload. Personally, I think it would make 'ownership' of a cache mean more than 'who got to the park first to dump a tupperware container'.

I'll take credit for the 'retrieval' idea (where caches that are not renewed are marked 'retrievable' and the next finder should grab the cache and dispose of it (or adopt it).

Did I mention I also invented the internet?

"If someone did you a favor - something big, something you couldn't do on your own, and instead of paying it back, you paid it forward to three people...and the next day they each paid it forward to three more...and the day after that, those 27 people each paid it forward to another three...and each day, everyone in turn paid it forward to three more people...in two weeks, that comes to 4,782,969 people." - Pay It Forward

March 22, 2003

You've got my vote. I too periodically email the owners of "abandoned" caches in our area; it usually turns out they're gone from the game, and the cache is slowly falling apart. Let's do it.

Charlie

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

March 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
This wasn't my idea (thank Hartclimbs for this), but I thought it was a good one and I'd post it here.

Require every cache owner to "renew" their cache periodically (perhaps every 18 months). An automatic e-mail can be sent asking them to do this, or there can be a button on the cache page, or whatever.

If the cache owner doesn't respond and renew the cache within, say 60 days, the cache is automatically considered abandoned. A note is then posted on the top of the page in red (kind of like archived and disabled caches) saying something like "This cache has been abandoned by its owner. Would the next finder kindly remove the cache and request that it be archived once they have done so."

It could also add instructions for cache adoption, should someone want to adopt the cache if they think its worthwhile.

Wow, I like this idea a lot.

But I'd say that the owner needs to go a click the 'I am maintaining this cache' button every 90 days or so. It's not a big deal to go visit the cache pages of your caches four times a year. I guess I feel that letting an abandoned cache hang for an average of 9 months is a long, long time. If people aren't actively maintaining the cache (or at least going and visiting the cache page, reading the logs, keeping up on what's up with the cache) I say let's yank that puppy.

As geocaching grows, the number of people who give it a try, hide a few caches, then give it up will increase. This suggestion (especially with a shortened time base) would go a long way toward dealing with that problem.

Let's do it!

March 23, 2003

Yup, I like the idea a lot, too! I think maybe 90 days is a little too often, but 18 months isn't nearly often enough. And I guess if it's just a matter of a little click to renew the cache, then I'd prefer TPTB err on the side of too often, and I certainly wouldn't complain if I needed to renew my caches every 90 days.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

March 24, 2003

My numbers:

6 months for owner renewal,

60 days after no owner response the cache goes "dark"(or red note as the case may be)

Swanlakers

24.7k · March 24, 2003

Just because the cache owner is ignoring their emails doesn't mean they don't love and cherish their cache.

Further, what if you adopt a cache on geocaching.com that is on one of the other sites. Now you got two owners and only one cache to go around.

The purpose of this suggestion is to nudge the owner while he's sleeping and say "are you awake".

Snat is right. we do need something in place to deal with 'abandoned' caches and caches left behind by cachers who have gone on to the great caching grounds in the sky. That last bit is not meant as a joke. If I manage to kill myself off my wife will have no idea what to do to deal with my caches. Some of my caching friends will though.

It's a problem and there does need to be a solution.

dadgum, this geocaching website is starting to sound like a full time job.

Wherever you go there you are.

March 24, 2003

(Well, it's somewhat orthogonal to the discussion, but it's not really off-topic.)

Having some sort of "ping" to keep somewhat loose track of the cache owner sounds like a possibly worthwhile function. It is worth noting that the original purpose of Watcher was to enable someone to know which caches needed to be checked on (and either verified good, maintained, or archived).

It could potentially prove positive (perhaps) to have some sort of automated "ping" system, but in the meantime, at least you can use Watcher to check up on caches. (It would be even more useful if Pocket Queries included deactivated caches, but I suppose that's a topic for another thread, eh?)

[Watcher Downloads] - [Official Geocaching Chat]

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Just because the cache owner is ignoring their emails doesn't mean they don't love and cherish their cache.

Doesn't matter how much they love and cherish it, if they are ignoring the emails they get when people post problems with the cache, and so don't go do something to correct the problem.

A major part of the responsibility of maintaining a cache falls into recognizing when there is a problem (by reading the logs people post), and doing what needs to be done to fix it. You can't do that if you're ignoring your emails, and therefore have essentially abandonded the cache. time to let somebody else, who doesn't ignore their email to pick up the torch.

quote:
Further, what if you adopt a cache on geocaching.com that is on one of the other sites. Now you got two owners and only one cache to go around.

New owner can go adopt the same cache on the other site, if they want to. Either way, I don't think that's Jeremy's responsibility to worry about. If we hold up improvements to this site, because someone thinks they need to be coordinated with the wannabe sites, then we can immediatly kiss a lot a great upgrades goodbye.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

March 24, 2003

I'd mentioned this thread in an email to Jeremy - so maybe he'll weigh in on the idea.

I'd agree with points made earlier - if someone doesn't respond to emails or check in on the site in 6 months, they may be 'geocaching' but they're not participating in gc.com. The site's not the only place to play the game (although it does seem to be the most popluar) - the suggestion was on how to handle the site listings (and possibly eliminate some of the trash left behind by abandoned caches).

I think - if you don't respond to emails, you don't sign onto the site, you don't just confirm every 6 months or so (you pick the timeframe) 'yes, I still want to play', your gamepieces should be reclaimed and reused!

24.7k · March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by skydiver:
Doesn't matter how much they love and cherish it, if they are ignoring the emails they get when people post problems with the cache, and so don't go do something to correct the problem.

I'm not with you on this one. We have active cachers in my area who have ignored all my emails (asking about a cache of theirs that was smashed up by a bulldozer that I found.) they continue to place new caches, they also took care of the problem with the smashed cache.

No email reply ever.

It's not as simple as saying "if they don't answer their email they are MIA"

Also insofar as the other cache pages, they don't need to be active here to be active there.

Wherever you go there you are.

1.1k · March 24, 2003

As a listing service, geocaching.com doesn't really have an authority either way for maintaining a cache. It is each user's responsibility to maintain their own caches.

The only time the site steps in is if it is completely clear by other geocachers that a specific cache has been plundered/damaged/missing. After every attempt has been made to contact the cache owner we temporarily transfer ownership of the *listing* on the site so it can be maintained. If the owner comes back and asks for their cache listing to be returned to them, we do so.

We may create "aging" of caches in the future so people know how long it has been since someone has visited the web site and checked in on it. However, if the cache is in good shape there is no need for someone to have to log in to the web site periodically to say that they checked in on it. It's a nice gesture, certainly, but I don't think it's my position to enforce this rule. Worst case is the cache listing is removed from the site and becomes a cache with new listing.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
We have active cachers in my area who have ignored all my emails (asking about a cache of theirs that was smashed up by a bulldozer that I found.) they continue to place new caches, they also took care of the problem with the smashed cache.

Then they didn't ignore your email or the problem, they just didn't choose to personally respond to you. These people would almost certainly renew their cache when the time came, just like they fixed the smashed cache when it was necessary.

The owner of this cache on the other hand, was ignoring all the emails people sent to him.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
As a listing service, geocaching.com doesn't really have an authority either way for maintaining a cache. It is each user's responsibility to maintain their own caches.

The only time the site steps in is if it is completely clear by other geocachers that a specific cache has been plundered/damaged/missing. After every attempt has been made to contact the cache owner we temporarily transfer ownership of the *listing* on the site so it can be maintained. If the owner comes back and asks for their cache listing to be returned to them, we do so.

We may create "aging" of caches in the future so people know how long it has been since someone has visited the web site and checked in on it. However, if the cache is in good shape there is no need for someone to have to log in to the web site periodically to say that they checked in on it. It's a nice gesture, certainly, but I don't think it's my position to enforce this rule. Worst case is the cache listing is removed from the site and becomes a cache with new listing.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

I don't think it's too much to ask people that part of maintaining a cache is simply confirming that they are still alive and paying attention to the logs.

And I don't think anybody is suggesting that this be a method of guaranteeing that the owner has physically gone and checked up on the cache, just that they're paying attention.

This, to me, just seems like an ideal method of identifing 'At Risk' caches BEFORE they become a problem and start to reflect poorly on the sport. And I doubt anybody would think this feature would equate to geocaching.com overstepping their bounds of authority. Geocaching.com already rightfully has the authority to approve/reject/archive/transfer cache listings as necessary. This would just help make the archive/transfer part happen BEFORE any land managers or anticachers had a reason to get upset.

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

1.1k · March 24, 2003

I'm rewriting the web site from scratch. Once I'm done we can get down to a good solution. I do think the ideas are good as long as it doesn't result in abandoned caches.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

38.2k · March 24, 2003

I think the point of this idea is to eliminate, or reduce the number of abandoned caches.

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

March 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I think the point of this idea is to eliminate, or reduce the number of abandoned caches.

Brian's right on the money here. The idea is to have any abandoned caches 'retrieved' by other players (or adopted) rather than having them turn into tupperware-trash under a log somewhere.

I understand GC.COM is *just* a listing service, but if it's possible to have caches marked as 'retrievable' if the owner no longer maintains contact, I think it'd be good for the game to have these abandoned caches treated responsibly.

March 29, 2003

Just because a cache isn't maintained doesn't always equate to a problem. If the container needs replacing, containers are messed up or partially plundered, contents get wet, etc, well thats another story. In an ideal world the notification (or requirement) would force people to maintain their caches, although technically in an ideal world they'd do it without being asked. (to be honest, in a perfect world they wouldnt need to be maintained, but now I'm getting downright utopian...)

I personally don't see it doing much. But an email from geocaching.com every 6 months as a reminder wouldn't be a bad thing. What if the system emailed you 6 months from the last time you made a note on your cache page? It's non-intrusive, non-threatening and serves as a gentle reminder to check up on your cache.

Now caches that state 3 NF in a row 8 months ago, THAT's irritating. If your cache is possibly MIA/plundered, the owner should be checking up on it. i have no practical solution other then to say that if you see it use the "this cache should be archived" button.

www.gpswnj.com

5.3k · March 31, 2003

I have e-mailed cache owners in which the caches were no where to be found, one of these caches had not been found by other cachers. I never got a reply, after going back a second time I place my own cache very close to the one in question, maybe 200 or 300 feet. When posting my cache I mentioned I was placing at the location so other cacher would no be disapointed, My cache was approved, the owner of the other cache archived his miising one.

A second cache owner I am waiting to here from, this owner just placec another cache just a few minutes form a miising and has bothered to do anything about that one. I may place another one there next week.

I check all my caches every 4 to eight weeks, If I hear of a problem, I go check it out asap.

Cache Renewal - Dealing With Abandoned Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment