Lapsed cachers / abandoned caches.

[+Pink Paisley]

With the increase in popularity of the game we seem to have an increase in people who have a bit of a go, hide a couple of 35mm film cans in unremarkable urban locations and then lose interest.

 

Then we start to see logs that suggest that the scrap of paper inside is full / wet and needs to be replaced.

 

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

 

Additionally, there are a few nice caches that need to be adopted. Round here we have one or two in nice locations that could do with being adopted but where the owners gave up years ago. As a result, they don't respond to requests to adopt their cache. How about a 'would like to adopt' option too where the owner appears to be an ex cacher?

 

PP

[+kunarion]

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

The best way to do this is with a "Needs Maintenance" log (where you might note the cache's apparent abandonedness) once the log sheet fills up (or if it's soaked). That can start a kind of countdown as you mentioned, when the reviewers see no Cache Owner activity.

 

If the container's really in a bad spot, you could do a "Needs Archived" instead. Otherwise, the NM is enough to get the ball rolling.

Edited April 28, 2011 by kunarion

[GOF and Bacall]

As far as the adoption of abandoned caches is concerned I doubt you will ever see it. There are legal issues involved. If GS were to facilitate adoptions without the cache owners permission they would, in effect, be saying that they hold an ownership stake in the caches they list. If that is the case then any issues that happen do to a cache placement could be legally their responsibility. Can you imagine what it would do to geocaching if Groundspeak were held liable for every bomb scare or injury that happened at a cache site? The defense costs alone would probably put 'em out of business.

[knowschad]

What is it with the concept of cache adoption, anyway? Sure, I can see a few very old caches being adopted to preserve the historical foundation of the activity, or very rarely, perhaps a unique container that can't be replicated, but in general, why not simply replace it with a new cache once the old one gets archived? An adopted cache is not likely to bring people back to the spot like a new cache would.

[+tmwed4]

One of the things around here, caches in cemeteries are illegal. Only grandfathered ones are allowed and there are at least two that have been abandoned. If they are allowed to be archived, they can't be replaced. However, the CO has just quit, so adopting isn't an option either.

[knowschad]

I don't know why I didn't pick up on it sooner... I think that your idea is already being discussed in depth in another thread.

[+Touchstone]

How about a 'would like to adopt' option too where the owner appears to be an ex cacher?

 

Adopting or Transferring a Cache

 

Probably the most relevant portion of the Policy to your question:

 

Groundspeak will not process a geocache transfer without written permission from the geocache owner. Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com.

[+fizzymagic]

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

 

Why do you care so much? Seriously. Why? If there are bad caches, can't you just ignore them and do other caches?

[+StarBrand]

Post your concerns about any cache in your find log and/or via a Needs maintenance log and if the issue has risen to the level of zero maintenance for a very long time - issue a 'needs archived' log type and explain the reasons(s) clearly. Then just let it go.....

[+Walts Hunting]

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

The best way to do this is with a "Needs Maintenance" log (where you might note the cache's apparent abandonedness) once the log sheet fills up (or if it's soaked). That can start a kind of countdown as you mentioned, when the reviewers see no Cache Owner activity.

 

If the container's really in a bad spot, you could do a "Needs Archived" instead. Otherwise, the NM is enough to get the ball rolling.

 

You are a little off in your sequencing. Reviewers DO NOT EVER see the NM log. It just sits there until the owner does a maintenance log. If you want to start a countdown you have to do a NA log. IMHO (well maybe not so humble) I think the NA log is underused. You see all kinds of complaints about neglected caches but no one willing to step up and do one.

[+TeamDadcubed]

I did my first NA log the other day. A good place for a cache and all but the cache and the CO has been off site for almost 6 months and a list a mile long of NM or DNF. I finally did the NA on it. So I hope things work out.

[+Student Camper]

The way I understand the Guidelines. we can post a NM or if it is warranted, a NA, these are the only options, it is not going to be offered for adoption by any other than the owner.

If there is a cache you think is abandoned but worthy, post a NA and if it is archived, you could have a cache prepared and place it yourself in the same spot, thus, in effect, adopting it.

[+Walts Hunting]

Most excellent plan Student Camper

[+Sol seaker]

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

The best way to do this is with a "Needs Maintenance" log (where you might note the cache's apparent abandonedness) once the log sheet fills up (or if it's soaked). That can start a kind of countdown as you mentioned, when the reviewers see no Cache Owner activity.

 

If the container's really in a bad spot, you could do a "Needs Archived" instead. Otherwise, the NM is enough to get the ball rolling.

 

If I'm not mistaken (and I'm sure if I am I'll be corrected shortly), a "Needs Maintenance" just sends an email to the cache owner, not the local reviewer, so does not really start the countdown, except on the cache page where other cachers may post a "Needs Archived".

 

A "Needs Archived" will send an email to the local reviewer, which will start the countdown.

[+Sol seaker]

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

 

Why do you care so much? Seriously. Why? If there are bad caches, can't you just ignore them and do other caches?

 

I thought we had to get them all

[+J the Goat]

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

The best way to do this is with a "Needs Maintenance" log (where you might note the cache's apparent abandonedness) once the log sheet fills up (or if it's soaked). That can start a kind of countdown as you mentioned, when the reviewers see no Cache Owner activity.

 

If the container's really in a bad spot, you could do a "Needs Archived" instead. Otherwise, the NM is enough to get the ball rolling.

 

If I'm not mistaken (and I'm sure if I am I'll be corrected shortly), a "Needs Maintenance" just sends an email to the cache owner, not the local reviewer, so does not really start the countdown, except on the cache page where other cachers may post a "Needs Archived".

 

A "Needs Archived" will send an email to the local reviewer, which will start the countdown.

 

Correct on the NM logs not reaching the reviewer, however it does show a lack of CO activity/maintainence. I read that as the point trying to be made.

[+Student Camper]

How about a new log type - 'Seems to be abandoned' leading to a countdown to a reviewer archiving it?

 

Why do you care so much? Seriously. Why? If there are bad caches, can't you just ignore them and do other caches?

 

I thought we had to get them all

 

I don't have enough caches in my area that I can afford to ignore any, even bad ones.

[+GrateBear]

You have to wonder how many GPS units are lying around out there from people who thought this would be a fun thing to do and got bored. If only they would offer them up at a decent price--it would sure help a lot of people who need units but don't have a lot to spend.

[+Lieblweb]

Post your concerns about any cache in your find log and/or via a Needs maintenance log and if the issue has risen to the level of zero maintenance for a very long time - issue a 'needs archived' log type and explain the reasons(s) clearly. Then just let it go.....

 

At what point does it reach NM vs NA? What's a good time frame?

 

And in terms of maintenance, I've seen non-cache owners put new logs sheets in the caches and move on. I bring extra log sheets with me, however...there's a reluctance to change out a log (micros) knowing the CO may want to keep the original log and the fact its NOT mine to fix. There's that fine line of (for me)'stepping on toes' (if you know what I mean).

 

Because afterall, as a cacher - you come into the situation blind. All you see are a bunch of logs DNF's, maintenance, etc. If I'm bored, I might look up the CO and see if they've been logging in (do I even know how to do that?) and/or do you stay out of the sitaution completely that you don't want to ruffle feathers?

 

However, I completely understand the NEED of the community to keep the hobby 'organized' and free of clutter. It won't be enjoyable if there's a lot of active caches that should be archived. Sorry, just a newbie trying to do the right things.