Jump to content

Perfectly good caches being archived?


Recommended Posts

If email messages are not making it through to the CO, and they are not logging into the site, then de-listing the cache on this site makes sense. In that scenario, there is no way for them to know when the cache is logged.

 

I bet the email messages are bouncing. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

Link to comment

So are caches that are in perfectly good shape now being eliminated by gs?

 

I realize this one is only disabled, but all that means is the local reviewer will probably archive it after a while.

 

In a situation like this, the CO is not available, for whatever reason. It could be they have health issues, or may even have passed away, and someone has told Groundspeak about this. Who knows. Why not drop the CO a line and see what the reason is?

Link to comment

Now that is very interesting! I wonder how long you have to be inactive before an action like this is taken on your caches? Just curious.

I don't know, but I can probably point to a dozen or more cachers that aren't active anymore, and the caches remain active until there is an issue with the cache itself and then someone finally logs a needs archived.

Link to comment

then de-listing the cache on this site makes sense.

 

I bet the email messages are bouncing. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

Why does it make sense?

 

I can find dozens of caches that the owner doesn't seem to have a valid email or whatever, some for a year or longer, and the caches don't get touched until there is a problem with the cache itself, usually by someone logging a needs archived on it.

 

The surprising thing on this one is how quickly it seems to have been done, and gs is stating its "automatic".

Edited by Potato Finder
Link to comment

Looks like the owner was last active May 16. Less than a month for an automated disable. I've seen other CO's inactive for months with a NM log and the cache is still active. There's got to be more to this than an inactive member.

 

Maybe the location is blocking the placement of a nano on a trail sign and someone sent a note to the reviewer suggesting that the owner is no longer in the game.

Link to comment

My suspicion is that there is a good reason why Groundspeak doesn't go into more detail on the Disable note. I have already developed a theory, but I don't see any value in speculating about it in public.

 

I don't think this is an ordinary situation. I don't think we need to start worrying that Groundspeak has implemented some sort automated script that disables your caches if you go a month without logging in.

Link to comment

That is weird, and I have never seen it before. BUT that is one cache. I'll go with DanOcan and guess there is much more to this story (that is none of our business). If the CO is paying attention they would have gotten an email and should either collect the cache or re-list elsewhere.

Link to comment

I'd be willing to bet that Dianne Kinyey, Deputy Director, Jackson County Parks and Recreation Department has requested the cache to be archived if the owner doesn't respond. Perhaps the permission had a time limit? Perhaps the Rec Dept. has changed their mind about allowing Geocaches?

 

Even perfectly good caches need active owners.

Link to comment

I'd be willing to bet that Dianne Kinyey, Deputy Director, Jackson County Parks and Recreation Department has requested the cache to be archived if the owner doesn't respond. Perhaps the permission had a time limit? Perhaps the Rec Dept. has changed their mind about allowing Geocaches?

 

Even perfectly good caches need active owners.

 

According to the Missouri and Kansas Geocaching a**'n:

 

Jackson County:

ALLOWED with prior permission. Email the Jackson County Parks & Recreation.

 

I still say the use of an automated disabling rather than the action of a reviewer makes this very unusual, in my experience.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

The part that gets me is "This is an automated message.". I have never seen that before. And the cache has been found right up until the time of that note. Also, the cache is only disabled, not archived, so it is still visible and available to be found. Very odd.

 

The "automated message" from Groundspeak, cache is disabled, not archived, and the "inactive member" designation in the profile...

 

very unusual and obviously not a common set of circumstances.

 

I doubt very much that we will know what is going on, even though it could be educational for the rest of the geocaching community.

 

edit: typing at the same time an answer is supplied by Keystone.

 

Thank you, Keystone.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

Oh okay that makes sense. The cacher contacts GS to have their account disabled and when done the system automatically disables their cache(s). My one question is why disable and not archive? The CO cannot adopt since their profile is wiped out and the reviewer will eventually archive it, why not save them a step?

 

To the OP it looks like you have a spot and a fully functional cache that can be soon relisted under your name.

Link to comment

If a cache is disabled, then it is still possible for the CO to allow it to be adopted by someone. But if it is archived, then it is almost impossible to adopt it. I've only seen that happen once and it was a long process, since the CO was deceased. Putting a watch on this cache would answer any questions on how long before it is archived, and how.

 

 

Oh okay that makes sense. The cacher contacts GS to have their account disabled and when done the system automatically disables their cache(s). My one question is why disable and not archive? The CO cannot adopt since their profile is wiped out and the reviewer will eventually archive it, why not save them a step?

 

To the OP it looks like you have a spot and a fully functional cache that can be soon relisted under your name.

Edited by ivhs72
Link to comment

If a cache is disabled, then it is still possible for the CO to allow it to be adopted by someone.

 

How is a CO going to allow someone else to adopt their cache if their account is inactive? It would seem to me that an account with an inactive status be be prevented from logging in to access the "Adopt a Cache" form.

Link to comment

Oh okay that makes sense. The cacher contacts GS to have their account disabled and when done the system automatically disables their cache(s). My one question is why disable and not archive? The CO cannot adopt since their profile is wiped out and the reviewer will eventually archive it, why not save them a step?

 

To the OP it looks like you have a spot and a fully functional cache that can be soon relisted under your name.

 

The spot and the listing may well now be vacant, on this site - but surely the cache itself still belongs to the original CO, doesn't it?

Link to comment

Oh okay that makes sense. The cacher contacts GS to have their account disabled and when done the system automatically disables their cache(s). My one question is why disable and not archive? The CO cannot adopt since their profile is wiped out and the reviewer will eventually archive it, why not save them a step?

 

To the OP it looks like you have a spot and a fully functional cache that can be soon relisted under your name.

 

The spot and the listing may well now be vacant, on this site - but surely the cache itself still belongs to the original CO, doesn't it?

Actually the listing and the spot are not vacant. The listing will never be vacant and until the cache is archived the spot is not vacant. It seems to me the messy part about this action is the user profile is "disabled" and his cache is disabled, but under the rules of the game it is still tying up that 528 foot circle. Try to publish a cache at the same locations and see what the reviewer says about the proximity rules. Another interesting question is what would a reviewer do if a NA is posted against this cache?

Link to comment

Another interesting question is what would a reviewer do if a NA is posted against this cache?

I don't think that's a particularly interesting question. It seems the reviewer would have no choice but to disable the cache. It can't be adopted, and it has no active owner.

 

In fact, the interesting question is "why is it disabled instead of archived?"

Link to comment

All the CO has to do is contact Groundspeak, either through email, snail mail or telephone. My brother tried to adopt one in southern Oregon that the CO had not been online for over 6 years, but GS would not allow him to since they couldn't verify that the CO would okay it. Obviously he wasn't in the game anymore but without some form of communication, GS wouldn't let it transfer.

 

 

If a cache is disabled, then it is still possible for the CO to allow it to be adopted by someone.

 

How is a CO going to allow someone else to adopt their cache if their account is inactive? It would seem to me that an account with an inactive status be be prevented from logging in to access the "Adopt a Cache" form.

Link to comment

I was the last person to log that cache, just about a week ago in fact. When I found it it was in very good condition and was loaded with swag. It is located along a trail system in an area that is definitely not lacking for caches. There was nothing particularly special about the spot or the immediate 528' circle around it, so I am not concerned about it blocking another cache placement for the moment, especially since there are numerous better spots available in the park.

 

I mountain bike this trail quite often so here's what I'll do. If it does indeed get archived I'll check on the cache each time I'm out. If the owner doesn't remove it within a month of it's archive date, I'll remove it and recycle it's contents into some of the other caches nearby as many of them are really lacking in the swag department. Does that sound feasible?

Link to comment

I mountain bike this trail quite often so here's what I'll do. If it does indeed get archived I'll check on the cache each time I'm out. If the owner doesn't remove it within a month of it's archive date, I'll remove it and recycle it's contents into some of the other caches nearby as many of them are really lacking in the swag department. Does that sound feasible?

 

Sure. Unless the owner listed it on another site. If it's listed elsewhere, then what you are describing would make you a cache thief.

Link to comment

I was the last person to log that cache, just about a week ago in fact. When I found it it was in very good condition and was loaded with swag. It is located along a trail system in an area that is definitely not lacking for caches. There was nothing particularly special about the spot or the immediate 528' circle around it, so I am not concerned about it blocking another cache placement for the moment, especially since there are numerous better spots available in the park.

 

I mountain bike this trail quite often so here's what I'll do. If it does indeed get archived I'll check on the cache each time I'm out. If the owner doesn't remove it within a month of it's archive date, I'll remove it and recycle it's contents into some of the other caches nearby as many of them are really lacking in the swag department. Does that sound feasible?

 

No, don't do anything.

 

In addition to the possibility that it's listed on another site, is the fact that none of us know what is going on behind the scenes, if anything.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak is in communication with the cache owner. We don't know, and can't assume anything.

Link to comment

I was the last person to log that cache, just about a week ago in fact. When I found it it was in very good condition and was loaded with swag. It is located along a trail system in an area that is definitely not lacking for caches. There was nothing particularly special about the spot or the immediate 528' circle around it, so I am not concerned about it blocking another cache placement for the moment, especially since there are numerous better spots available in the park.

 

I mountain bike this trail quite often so here's what I'll do. If it does indeed get archived I'll check on the cache each time I'm out. If the owner doesn't remove it within a month of it's archive date, I'll remove it and recycle it's contents into some of the other caches nearby as many of them are really lacking in the swag department. Does that sound feasible?

 

No, don't do anything.

 

In addition to the possibility that it's listed on another site, is the fact that none of us know what is going on behind the scenes, if anything.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak is in communication with the cache owner. We don't know, and can't assume anything.

 

Even if it is listed on another site I see nothing wrong with hanging a NA on the cache and once the listing is archived plopping your cache down 50 feet away. The other sites don't recognize GS proximity circles so why should we be bound by theirs, assuming they even have one.

Link to comment

The cache is not listed on Terracaching, Navicache, Opencaching.us or Opencahing.com, nor has it been converted to a letterbox. If the CO does list it on another site then no problem. But if it gets archived by GS and remains in place for an extended period of time not listed elsewhere and clearly identified with geocaching.com, then it becomes litter and needs to be removed. That is not theivery IMO, it is CITO.

 

The other reason it needs to be removed if it gets archived is because it can interfere with a future placement. Being very familiar with the area, it seems quite likely to me that a new cache would be placed in the same place because it is in a spot that is a popular place for people on the trail to stop for a break. The cache is about 50' off the trail and there are numerous hiding spots along a rock face right behind the cache. I can easily see someone placing a new cache here not knowing about this one and then having their finders stumble upon the wrong cache and think they had found the active one.

Link to comment
But if it gets archived by GS and remains in place for an extended period of time not listed elsewhere and clearly identified with geocaching.com, then it becomes litter and needs to be removed. That is not theivery IMO, it is CITO.

 

At the very least, it is sticking your nose into somebody else's business.

 

The other reason it needs to be removed if it gets archived is because it can interfere with a future placement.

 

That is so nonsensical it is funny. A future cache placer who wants to use the same spot can just remove the old container themselves, because at that point it is their business.

 

Your argument sounds like a desperate attempt to justify to yourself that it's OK to get into everybody else's business and be the local "cache cop." Good luck with that.

Link to comment

 

Even if it is listed on another site I see nothing wrong with hanging a NA on the cache and once the listing is archived plopping your cache down 50 feet away. The other sites don't recognize GS proximity circles so why should we be bound by theirs, assuming they even have one.

 

That's not exactly accurate.

 

Opencaching Guidelines

Don’t oversaturate an area

Caches should be placed at least 0.1 miles from other geocaches on OpenCaching.com. If there are geocaches in the area that aren’t listed on OpenCaching.com, keep your cache far enough away that people are unlikely to confuse the two.

In some sensitive ecosystems, caches might need to be further spread apart than these guidelines.

 

Strictly speaking Opencaching doesn't recognize GS's proximity circle, but they are respectful of existing caches such that they don't want people confusing the 2. I haven't checked out any of the other sites.

Link to comment

Fizzy, you are assuming that the next cache placer knows about this one. More than once I've read about cache owners getting "found it" logs on their new cache and then discovering that some of the finders didn't find their cache at all but found an old abandoned one nearby. There is no way for the average user to search for or log an archived cache, so unless you know about it prior, you have no way to know it even existed in the first place. If a cache can't be searched or logged, then what good is it? It simply becomes trash littering up the environment. And not just anonymous litter, but litter that literally says "geocachers did this".

 

I find it utterly amazing that a sport/activity that promotes cleaning up after yourself and not trashing the environment and hosts CITO events all over the place, how quickly people will jump down your throat at the mere suggestion of cleaning up after a fellow cacher who didn't (or couldn't) clean up after themselves. If I'm not mistaken, when a cache is archived an email is sent instructing the CO to remove any cache remains anyway.

 

I'm not trying to justify anything or be anybodies geo cop, hell I didn't even start this thread. I could care less if the cache gets archived or not. But when the elements eventually take their toll on the container and all of the contents wash down the hill side into the creek and some non geocacher or a stream team crew come across the wet moldy log book and other items, it's a huge black eye on the entire geocaching community, and that is something that every geocacher should be concerned with.

Link to comment
But if it gets archived by GS and remains in place for an extended period of time not listed elsewhere and clearly identified with geocaching.com, then it becomes litter and needs to be removed. That is not theivery IMO, it is CITO.

 

At the very least, it is sticking your nose into somebody else's business.

 

The other reason it needs to be removed if it gets archived is because it can interfere with a future placement.

 

That is so nonsensical it is funny. A future cache placer who wants to use the same spot can just remove the old container themselves, because at that point it is their business.

 

Your argument sounds like a desperate attempt to justify to yourself that it's OK to get into everybody else's business and be the local "cache cop." Good luck with that.

 

Boy, that sure seems like a harsh conclusion to jump to! He didn't even start the thread. He only joined it because he was the last one to find it.

Link to comment

 

Even if it is listed on another site I see nothing wrong with hanging a NA on the cache and once the listing is archived plopping your cache down 50 feet away. The other sites don't recognize GS proximity circles so why should we be bound by theirs, assuming they even have one.

 

That's not exactly accurate.

 

Opencaching Guidelines

Don’t oversaturate an area

Caches should be placed at least 0.1 miles from other geocaches on OpenCaching.com. If there are geocaches in the area that aren’t listed on OpenCaching.com, keep your cache far enough away that people are unlikely to confuse the two.

In some sensitive ecosystems, caches might need to be further spread apart than these guidelines.

 

Strictly speaking Opencaching doesn't recognize GS's proximity circle, but they are respectful of existing caches such that they don't want people confusing the 2. I haven't checked out any of the other sites.

Well, the cache in question won't be listed on GC.com anymore if the NA is executed, otherwise how would I be able to place a cache there? So I'm suppose to worry about caches that use to be around here somewhere? If I'm not aware of caches listed on the other sites how am I going to worry about them?

Link to comment

The cache is not listed on Terracaching, Navicache, Opencaching.us or Opencahing.com, nor has it been converted to a letterbox. If the CO does list it on another site then no problem. But if it gets archived by GS and remains in place for an extended period of time not listed elsewhere and clearly identified with geocaching.com, then it becomes litter and needs to be removed. That is not theivery IMO, it is CITO.

 

+1

And if a CO lists their cache on multiple sites they should mention it in their description.

We list most of our letterboxes on GC and AQ and mention it in the description.

Link to comment

 

Even if it is listed on another site I see nothing wrong with hanging a NA on the cache and once the listing is archived plopping your cache down 50 feet away. The other sites don't recognize GS proximity circles so why should we be bound by theirs, assuming they even have one.

 

That's not exactly accurate.

 

Opencaching Guidelines

Don’t oversaturate an area

Caches should be placed at least 0.1 miles from other geocaches on OpenCaching.com. If there are geocaches in the area that aren’t listed on OpenCaching.com, keep your cache far enough away that people are unlikely to confuse the two.

In some sensitive ecosystems, caches might need to be further spread apart than these guidelines.

 

Strictly speaking Opencaching doesn't recognize GS's proximity circle, but they are respectful of existing caches such that they don't want people confusing the 2. I haven't checked out any of the other sites.

Well, the cache in question won't be listed on GC.com anymore if the NA is executed, otherwise how would I be able to place a cache there? So I'm suppose to worry about caches that use to be around here somewhere? If I'm not aware of caches listed on the other sites how am I going to worry about them?

 

Then why bother moving your new cache at all. Just put it right where the old one used to exist. You mentioned moving the cache 50' and that other sites don't recognize GS's proximity and I just supplied a little more information.

Link to comment

If you want to place a cache at that location, please do! ({Once the other is archived} a seeming inevitability).

 

If it were me, I'd put out my own container and hold the original in case the actual owner wants it back.

 

No, I am not interested in putting a cache of my own in this spot, but I'm sure someone else will. I actually just recently placed a cache about 3/4 mile from this one that I haven't activated yet though.

Link to comment

I was the last person to log that cache, just about a week ago in fact. When I found it it was in very good condition and was loaded with swag. It is located along a trail system in an area that is definitely not lacking for caches. There was nothing particularly special about the spot or the immediate 528' circle around it, so I am not concerned about it blocking another cache placement for the moment, especially since there are numerous better spots available in the park.

 

I mountain bike this trail quite often so here's what I'll do. If it does indeed get archived I'll check on the cache each time I'm out. If the owner doesn't remove it within a month of it's archive date, I'll remove it and recycle it's contents into some of the other caches nearby as many of them are really lacking in the swag department. Does that sound feasible?

 

I say you are on the right track.

Geolitter needs to be cleaned up.

If the owner doesn't do it, then someone else should.

 

We are all about CITO, but afraid to pick up after ourselves? :blink:

Link to comment

I both agree and disagree with the action. It will get rid of a lot of inactive accounts and caches not being maintain as well with some sock puppet accounts that are wasted. But at the same time a lot if really old caches from the early years that the owners are inactive despite being maintained by others will disappear.

Link to comment

I both agree and disagree with the action. It will get rid of a lot of inactive accounts and caches not being maintain as well with some sock puppet accounts that are wasted. But at the same time a lot if really old caches from the early years that the owners are inactive despite being maintained by others will disappear.

 

The "action" only occurs if the cache owner requests it. Rather than actually being inactive, the cache owner is telling Groundspeak that they plan to be inactive, so then at that point the caches get archived by TPTB. Its just a nice way of saying that the owner is not planning to maintain them anymore or be active, and has told TPTB about it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...