+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 In my area recently, a team with a couple hundred caches that had been caching since the dawn of time as far as I'm concerned, suddenly dissolved, archiving all of their caches, regardless of whether or not they were in good shape, and fit the guidlines. This caused a shock in our caching community, to have some of our very first finds suddenly archived. Out reviewer, bless her, stepped up to the plate and took on a project that is above and beyond the call of duty, buy keeping a list of these (over 100) archived caches on her blog, and adopting them out to appropriate owners to keep the caches alive. Locals have been adopting the caches, and heading out and replacing containers in need of tlc, and keeping the "team caches" as they are known viable for future finders. This has done wonders for community pride and spirit, don't get me wrong, but I just want opinions on this aspect... Some of these hides have been really interesting puzzles, or in interesting locations, but the vast majority are lock and locks hidden in stumps on hiking trails. We have lots of lock and locks on hiking trails in the area, and other than the fact that the cache is old, there's nothing remarkable about most of them. (When I say cache, I mean listing, the containers are mostly replacements) There's usually no interesting story on the cache page, it's just a description of the container and it's original contents *yawn* after 100 of those, I don't really care what CD's the original owner stocked the cache with. Some in my community would crucify me for saying this, but I can't hold it in any longer... I would not have missed most of the team caches. Disclaimer: *I'm glad that the community rallied for a cause, and I'm glad we have a wonderful reviewer who obviously cares about the community she is charged with.* Quote Link to comment
+A & J Tooling Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I say, change is good. If they're done caching, let new blood fill those spots with new caches. I don't agree with adopting caches. Let them die an honorable death and then put new ones out. The circle of life and all that gibberish. Quote Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Good cache locations with decent containers should live as long as they are being maintained. In this case they have been adopted by those who will maintain them. Someone felt they were special enough to save, even if you don't agree. I'll say this at the risk of someone local to me hunting me down and killing me. I've thought about archiving the multi-caches that I adopted this last spring. They are great caches, but don't get found often and they take up a fair bit of space. And some days I wish there were some new caches along the river trail. But for the moment they stay. I also have and idea that one of them might need to be shortened by a stage- the darn thing has disappeared 4 or 5 times in the last 18 months. Silly thing. So I might shorten it by a stage and just go from there. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) I think it's a terrible idea and I really don't see the point. Edited July 19, 2011 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 Ok, I didn't make this point clear enough. My community considers these caches sacred, just because of the "age" and proliferation of the hider. here is an example My link Dare I say, this cache page sucks. The cache itself is a good quality lock and lock on a great trail, but it's nothing "special" anyone could have hidden it and there are thousands of others like it. My opinion, I know, subjective. Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I never understood the notion so many seem to have that a cache should be forever. For goodness sake let them live out their lifespan and die. Bring in something new once they have gone. Give someone else a chance to show what they can do with the area and give those who have found it a chance to return. Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 I think it's a terrible idea and I really don't see the point. That and they are not the reviewer's caches to adopt out. I was living in the states when the arrangements were made (after starting my caching career in this community) So I missed the part where permission to adopt was or wasn't handed over. Quote Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 For goodness sake let them live out their lifespan and die. Bring in something new once they have gone. Give someone else a chance to show what they can do with the area and give those who have found it a chance to return. I have a hard time figuring out if a cache is on life support on not. Ideas for a vauge rule of thumb for it? Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I thought it was against the rules to un-archive a cache so it could be adopted. Quote Link to comment
+A & J Tooling Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Ok, I didn't make this point clear enough. My community considers these caches sacred, just because of the "age" and proliferation of the hider. here is an example My link Dare I say, this cache page sucks. The cache itself is a good quality lock and lock on a great trail, but it's nothing "special" anyone could have hidden it and there are thousands of others like it. My opinion, I know, subjective. The CO's shut them down. Who are you people to start them back up? Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 Another disclaimer I'd rather see the majority of the community happy than grumpy old me. I didn't post this to try and change events, but in hopes of finding I wasn't alone in my thinking. Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) Ok, I didn't make this point clear enough. My community considers these caches sacred, just because of the "age" and proliferation of the hider. here is an example My link Dare I say, this cache page sucks. The cache itself is a good quality lock and lock on a great trail, but it's nothing "special" anyone could have hidden it and there are thousands of others like it. My opinion, I know, subjective. The CO's shut them down. Who are you people to start them back up? I dunno. I don't even know why they shut them down, I was out of the country at the time, and was rather surprised to see them gone on my return. The CO's shut them down. Who are you people to start them back up? edited to fix my formatting issue :S Edited July 19, 2011 by dorqie Quote Link to comment
+lamoracke Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 depends on the age. I saw a link to a 2005 cache here. I would not be that concerned about that one historically, but if it was a 2000 year cache, those are so few and far between, I would hate to see any of them go unless they had to go. Quote Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 depends on the age. I saw a link to a 2005 cache here. I would not be that concerned about that one historically, but if it was a 2000 year cache, those are so few and far between, I would hate to see any of them go unless they had to go. I'd also take location into account. Some places don't allow new cache placements, but the existing ones are allowed to stay. Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 If the CO wanted to shut down his/her caches thats exactly what should have happened. Then new CO's could use place caches in the same place. And for number hunters, that just means two smiles for the same location. Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 depends on the age. I saw a link to a 2005 cache here. I would not be that concerned about that one historically, but if it was a 2000 year cache, those are so few and far between, I would hate to see any of them go unless they had to go. I'd also take location into account. Some places don't allow new cache placements, but the existing ones are allowed to stay. my thoughts as well, and a couple of their caches were as such. But hundreds of them were just like this. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I thought it was against the rules to un-archive a cache so it could be adopted. Reviewer's Log Through special arrangement by Groundspeak, many of the caches recently archived by TEAM KFWB GPS will be made available for adoption. Please do not remove or recycle any of these caches or cache containers until all caches which may be chosen for adoption have been processed. A list of caches which may potentially be adopted is currently being prepared and will be posted at www.wizardofooze.com/team hopefully by 9:00 p.m. Sunday, April 3. Please note that not all caches listed may be adoptable, as I have not had time to review each one to ensure that it meets today's geocaching guidelines. I am doing this as a favour to the BC caching community, and ask that you please be respectful of me and your other fellow cachers while this process is underway. While the caches will be adopted on a "first come, first serve", please do not request a large quantity for yourself, as there are many who are interested in owning a part of this BC caching history. Out of respect for others, please select up to three caches and email wiz@wizardofooze with the GC waypoint number and name of your desired caches, along with your cacher name and email address. I will do my best to ensure that you receive at least some of the caches that you have requested. I appreciate your cooperation while we sort through this. If in the unlikely event that things get out of hand, Groundspeak's special arrangments will be terminated and the caches will remain archived, so please be thoughtful and courteous of your fellow cachers and me, your local volunteer reviewer. Thanks, Wizard of Ooze (bolded by me) Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 For goodness sake let them live out their lifespan and die. Bring in something new once they have gone. Give someone else a chance to show what they can do with the area and give those who have found it a chance to return. I have a hard time figuring out if a cache is on life support on not. Ideas for a vauge rule of thumb for it? I have no rule for it. Each cache should be considered on its own merit. I'm not saying that no cache should ever be saved. There are a few caches that are special for one reason or another. The Spot in NY is one of the oldest. There was one called The Other Sister in Niagara falls the I was sorry to see go. Its like will never be seen again. But the rare exception doesn't make them all special. Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I thought it was against the rules to un-archive a cache so it could be adopted. Reviewer's Log Through special arrangement by Groundspeak, many of the caches recently archived by TEAM KFWB GPS will be made available for adoption. Please do not remove or recycle any of these caches or cache containers until all caches which may be chosen for adoption have been processed. A list of caches which may potentially be adopted is currently being prepared and will be posted at www.wizardofooze.com/team hopefully by 9:00 p.m. Sunday, April 3. Please note that not all caches listed may be adoptable, as I have not had time to review each one to ensure that it meets today's geocaching guidelines. I am doing this as a favour to the BC caching community, and ask that you please be respectful of me and your other fellow cachers while this process is underway. While the caches will be adopted on a "first come, first serve", please do not request a large quantity for yourself, as there are many who are interested in owning a part of this BC caching history. Out of respect for others, please select up to three caches and email wiz@wizardofooze with the GC waypoint number and name of your desired caches, along with your cacher name and email address. I will do my best to ensure that you receive at least some of the caches that you have requested. I appreciate your cooperation while we sort through this. If in the unlikely event that things get out of hand, Groundspeak's special arrangments will be terminated and the caches will remain archived, so please be thoughtful and courteous of your fellow cachers and me, your local volunteer reviewer. Thanks, Wizard of Ooze (bolded by me) Ah, thanks. Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 I have no idea what those arrangements with groudspeak are, or why they have been made. I'm simply commenting on the caches themselves. Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) too slow... Edited July 19, 2011 by Isonzo Karst Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I thought it was against the rules to un-archive a cache so it could be adopted. Reviewer's Log Through special arrangement by Groundspeak, many of the caches recently archived by TEAM KFWB GPS will be made available for adoption. <snip> Thanks, Wizard of Ooze (bolded by me) Ah, thanks. Nevertheless, I agree with you about cache adoption. I'd love to see them lose the concept except for a very limited number of very early caches. Quote Link to comment
+ryanr69 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I am torn. One one side i see the value of keeping up spots for the 'finder' community. Finding caches is easy with respect to the amount of time required to find a location, place, and maintain a cache, yet alone do it 10's of times. Not all cachers want the burnden of placing caches, and I would say a majority of cachers are finders rather than placers. Prolonging the life of caches beyond the wishes of the CO or perhaps putting up for adoption keeps the finder community alive and not allowing it to ebb as the OP may be concerned about. That is my 45% of agreement. Overall I have to disagree. Caches carry the personality of the placer. Certain people of certain quirks or schticks that go along with the cache which transforms it from a hidden ammo box to really something special. As an example I point to X Marks the Spot. This cache is a signature item for this placer and for it to be adopted by anyone else would be a dis-service to the spirt of how it was placed. If this cacher were to leave the game, I would expect the spot to be surrendered, thus allowing another placer to put something there. Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I am torn. One one side i see the value of keeping up spots for the 'finder' community. Finding caches is easy with respect to the amount of time required to find a location, place, and maintain a cache, yet alone do it 10's of times. Not all cachers want the burnden of placing caches, and I would say a majority of cachers are finders rather than placers. Prolonging the life of caches beyond the wishes of the CO or perhaps putting up for adoption keeps the finder community alive and not allowing it to ebb as the OP may be concerned about. That is my 45% of agreement. Overall I have to disagree. Caches carry the personality of the placer. Certain people of certain quirks or schticks that go along with the cache which transforms it from a hidden ammo box to really something special. As an example I point to X Marks the Spot. This cache is a signature item for this placer and for it to be adopted by anyone else would be a dis-service to the spirt of how it was placed. If this cacher were to leave the game, I would expect the spot to be surrendered, thus allowing another placer to put something there. That makes no sense. If your goal is to provide caches for those who only want to find them how does not replacing an old cache with a new one near by accomplish that goal? I'd think it would be better to "rotate the stock", so to speak. Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 I am torn. One one side i see the value of keeping up spots for the 'finder' community. Finding caches is easy with respect to the amount of time required to find a location, place, and maintain a cache, yet alone do it 10's of times. Not all cachers want the burnden of placing caches, and I would say a majority of cachers are finders rather than placers. Prolonging the life of caches beyond the wishes of the CO or perhaps putting up for adoption keeps the finder community alive and not allowing it to ebb as the OP may be concerned about. That is my 45% of agreement. Overall I have to disagree. Caches carry the personality of the placer. Certain people of certain quirks or schticks that go along with the cache which transforms it from a hidden ammo box to really something special. As an example I point to X Marks the Spot. This cache is a signature item for this placer and for it to be adopted by anyone else would be a dis-service to the spirt of how it was placed. If this cacher were to leave the game, I would expect the spot to be surrendered, thus allowing another placer to put something there. That makes no sense. If your goal is to provide caches for those who only want to find them how does not replacing an old cache with a new one near by accomplish that goal? I'd think it would be better to "rotate the stock", so to speak. I also don't understand what you meant by that. Could you clarify? If someone else places a cache in a spot where an archived cache used to be, there's still a cache for the "finder" community. I'm also not sure I make the same distinction between hiders and finders that you have here. I'd call them both geocachers. Quote Link to comment
+Semper Questio Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I am also torn on this subject. I have a cache which I adopted from the original owner some years ago. It was placed in December, 2001. It isn't terribly special other than its age. It seldom gets found because it is not in the usual tourist/visitor areas and most of the locals have found it over the past 10 years. I have been thinking of archiving it to open up the area for someone else, but I know there would be an outcry if I did. It seems that every time a "legacy" cache is at risk of archival folks here go into a near panic about saving it, regardless of its relative value in hunting experience, location, or what have you. Personally, I think all caches have a lifespan. At some point every cache should, at some point, come to the end of its useful life. Sometimes due to outside forces, other times just because it is time to free an area for someone else to bring a new hide and, possibly, a new find experience to the game. I simply don't see a need to keep a cache limping along just because it is old. Sure, there may well be other mitigating factors and each cache should be considered on its own merits, but to have a blanket rule of "the older a cache is the more important it is that it must be saved" just makes no sense to me. Of course, the opposite also applies. There is no reason to archive an old cache just because it is old, either. Quote Link to comment
mresoteric Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I thought it was against the rules to un-archive a cache so it could be adopted. Reviewer's Log Through special arrangement by Groundspeak, many of the caches recently archived by TEAM KFWB GPS will be made available for adoption. Please do not remove or recycle any of these caches or cache containers until all caches which may be chosen for adoption have been processed. (bolded by me) I thought it was also against the rules to adopt out caches without permission from the current owner. It also seems that this team archived a bunch of caches and left the containers as trash. Quote Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 It also seems that this team archived a bunch of caches and left the containers as trash. Do we know that for sure? Maybe they just haven't had time to pick them all up yet. Maybe they listed them on another site. At any rate, GS has a long-standing policy that says caches can't be "un-archived" in order to adopt them out, and caches can't be adopted without the owner's consent. I think those are good policies, and I don't see how suspending them in this case is going to be a good thing. The owners, for whatever reason, wanted them archived. They should stay archived. Quote Link to comment
+Viridios Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 My question would be how does this affect the numbers of the original CO? I know that if you look at my numbers, it has 137 found, and 2 hides. Of those hides, one has been archived. What would have happened if someone un-archived my cache, then adopted it out. Would it still say that I have 2 hides? I understand that the original hiding group have dissolved, but I would be upset if my numbers had been decreased because of a reviewer undoing my work and adopting them out. Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Out reviewer, bless her, stepped up to the plate and took on a project that is above and beyond the call of duty, buy keeping a list of these (over 100) archived caches on her blog, and adopting them out to appropriate owners to keep the caches alive. If the CO archived the listings and left the game they should stay archived. Groundspeak will change a rule whenever they please. Quote Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) Maybe, just maybe, there was some communication between the original CO and Groundspeak that facilitated this unique situation? I don't know, do you? Maybe, just maybe, the local community had strong enough feelings about these particular hides? I don't know, do you? That said, I do think that most normal caches do have a reasonable shelf life unless a CO is very active in maintaining them. I have a few older ones out there, and every time I think it's time to archive one of them, someone who is fairly new to the game comments in their log how cool it is to find an old cache. So I don't archive it. Edited July 19, 2011 by wimseyguy Quote Link to comment
+Corp Of Discovery Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'd agree that maybe caches from 2000-2002 may merit special consideration, but 2005? That's just kind of a slap in the face to those of us who wanted the Washington APE cache saved. I seriously doubt any of the caches this team owned (no offence intended) even remotely approaches that one as far as historical caching significance is concerned. Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'd agree that maybe caches from 2000-2002 may merit special consideration, but 2005? That's just kind of a slap in the face to those of us who wanted the Washington APE cache saved. I seriously doubt any of the caches this team owned (no offence intended) even remotely approaches that one as far as historical caching significance is concerned. please don't make this about the ape cache. that has it's own thread. Quote Link to comment
+Corp Of Discovery Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'd agree that maybe caches from 2000-2002 may merit special consideration, but 2005? That's just kind of a slap in the face to those of us who wanted the Washington APE cache saved. I seriously doubt any of the caches this team owned (no offence intended) even remotely approaches that one as far as historical caching significance is concerned. please don't make this about the ape cache. that has it's own thread. Not making it about the APE cache, just pointing out the parallel. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I suspect there is something going on behind the curtain... As I see it, the original owners should have removed their containers before archiving their caches. Perhaps there was some tragic personal event that made that impossible, I don't know and can't tell. The bigger issue is when Groundspeak says 'THIS IS HOW IT IS', and then does/allows the exact opposite. Your cache can't be unarchived for adoption, but theirs can. Your cache can't be published because it it less than 528 feet from that stage of a multi, but this one can. I'm sure keystone will be along shortly to explain how it's all about flexibility, but that doesn't lessen the sting when someone else is allowed something you are denied. Quote Link to comment
+Sharks-N-Beans Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Geocaching tends to treat early caches like some kind if historic artifact. It's easy to get caught-up in that hoopla. We've done it, but honestly, I have tee shirts older than Geocaching. I like finding original containers w/ original logs, but I suspect the majority of the adopted caches to which you refer do not have any original components. Let em live in archival cyberspace and open the real estate to new ideas. Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Geocaching tends to treat early caches like some kind if historic artifact. It's easy to get caught-up in that hoopla. We've done it, but honestly, I have tee shirts older than Geocaching. I like finding original containers w/ original logs, but I suspect the majority of the adopted caches to which you refer do not have any original components. Let em live in archival cyberspace and open the real estate to new ideas. Just to play devils advocate for a moment. Your T-shirts may be older than geocaching but they are out of context. In the context of geocaching 2001 is forever ago. T-shirts have been around for much longer. I'm not one for keeping every cache going forever. But some of them? sure. Let's keep a few special one alive. Quote Link to comment
+cache_test_dummies Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Really old caches are cool. So was Abe Lincoln. And it would also be really cool to see Abe Lincoln's axe, but not so much if the handle had been replaced twice and the head replaced once. I can't decide if these once-archived-now-available-for-adoption caches are like Abe Lincoln's axe, or if they are like something else. According to the Knowledge Books: "Groundspeak will not process a geocache transfer without written permission from the geocache owner." Ok, so maybe in this case Groundspeak obtained written permission from the geocache owner to transfer permission. Maybe before the caches were archived, maybe after. But the caches were, in fact, archived, and according to the Knowledge Books: "Archived caches cannot be transferred, either." Maybe the Knowledge Books are wrong. In any case, I still think Abe Lincoln was cool. Quote Link to comment
+Sharks-N-Beans Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'm not one for keeping every cache going forever. But some of them? sure. Let's keep a few special one alive. I agree...original containers and/or logs are really cool. Protecting GC numbers for future logging doesn't do anything for me. Quote Link to comment
+Sharks-N-Beans Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Really old caches are cool. So was Abe Lincoln. And it would also be really cool to see Abe Lincoln's axe, but not so much if the handle had been replaced twice and the head replaced once. I can't decide if these once-archived-now-available-for-adoption caches are like Abe Lincoln's axe, or if they are like something else. cool. I thought GW (the original one) had the ax. But maybe Abe had one too...he had a log cabin...right? Pancakes are cool. Quote Link to comment
+JL_HSTRE Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Without more details of the CO-Review-Groundspeak communication, knowing more about the nature of the archival (ex: were they archived, but abandoned as geotrash?), and without considering the caches themselves I don't feel like I have enough information to have a fully formed opinion. Old caches have some nostalgic value and old caches with alot of Favorites votes are quite appealing to me, but not every cache needs to live forever. Besides unique containers, high numbers of Favorites, and earliest-days-of-caching hides (2000-2002) another factor would be caches which are the oldest in a region (county or state/province). If the CO had say 20 caches (arbitrary number) and all 20 are still in good condition and meet current guidelines, I am dubious that all 20 are special enough to warrant saving. Quote Link to comment
+cx1 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Ok, I admit I have formed my opinion out of personal bias and greed. So this might go against my normal stance which gets me a "P" label to some folks. But as a cacher who has started this hobby much later then many I would still like a shot at filling in my date grid. Yeah I know it's kinda silly and in the grand scheme of things of very little importance. But yet for me, getting that little grid filled in matters. I don't think it would make me a better cacher and I don't think less of anyone who wouldn't give two wits over when a cache was published. It is just a little personal goal, or challenge for myself that I have set. I will probably never make it to get an APE icon. I will never get the little locationless icon. I thought I was gonna get the 10 year icon but I guess I messed that one up. The older I get the more I doubt that D/T grid is going to get all that lower right corner filled in. But that date placed grid still has a shot. So I'd really like to see some older caches stick around. And I'd like the cacher that starts caching next year to have a chance to get their date placed grid filled in too if that happens to be their thing. But again I admit my desire for this is not really logical and probably a little selfish. Quote Link to comment
+popokiiti Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Knowschad provided the fact that a special arrangement had been made with Groundspeak regarding the TEAM's caches. They had retired and archived them all. Many wanted their caches to remain an important part of BC's caching history, so a special appeal was made. Together with Groundspeak, the agreement of the TEAM and the hard work of the Wizard Of Ooze, the caches were unarchived and adopted out to new and willing owners. Had the Team decided against adoption, the unarchiving would not have happened. Some of the Team's caches have been around for a long time, some are tricky to get to, others were placed as part of the Hide and Go Events. On our local forum, Vancouver Island GPS the team have their own section. See TEAM KFWB/X-treme Team. They organized competitions that teams of cachers had great fun with. I am glad that the caches remain, and in good condition now. Those that are not adopted for whatever reason will remain archived. Part of the pleasure for me is the rejuvenation of the cache containers, but keeping the original descriptions. One thing I still wonder, as do many, many others.....who were TEAM KFWB? Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Knowschad provided the fact that a special arrangement had been made with Groundspeak regarding the TEAM's caches. They had retired and archived them all. Many wanted their caches to remain an important part of BC's caching history, so a special appeal was made. Together with Groundspeak, the agreement of the TEAM and the hard work of the Wizard Of Ooze, the caches were unarchived and adopted out to new and willing owners. Had the Team decided against adoption, the unarchiving would not have happened. Some of the Team's caches have been around for a long time, some are tricky to get to, others were placed as part of the Hide and Go Events. On our local forum, Vancouver Island GPS the team have their own section. See TEAM KFWB/X-treme Team. They organized competitions that teams of cachers had great fun with. I am glad that the caches remain, and in good condition now. Those that are not adopted for whatever reason will remain archived. Part of the pleasure for me is the rejuvenation of the cache containers, but keeping the original descriptions. One thing I still wonder, as do many, many others.....who were TEAM KFWB? "had great fun" They no doubt contributed to the community a lot. I guess I'm just not into the nostalgia as the rest of us. edited to reiterate: what's best for the community is best for me. I in no way want to change any decisions already made. Edited July 20, 2011 by dorqie Quote Link to comment
+popokiiti Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Knowschad provided the fact that a special arrangement had been made with Groundspeak regarding the TEAM's caches. They had retired and archived them all. Many wanted their caches to remain an important part of BC's caching history, so a special appeal was made. Together with Groundspeak, the agreement of the TEAM and the hard work of the Wizard Of Ooze, the caches were unarchived and adopted out to new and willing owners. Had the Team decided against adoption, the unarchiving would not have happened. Some of the Team's caches have been around for a long time, some are tricky to get to, others were placed as part of the Hide and Go Events. On our local forum, Vancouver Island GPS the team have their own section. See TEAM KFWB/X-treme Team. They organized competitions that teams of cachers had great fun with. I am glad that the caches remain, and in good condition now. Those that are not adopted for whatever reason will remain archived. Part of the pleasure for me is the rejuvenation of the cache containers, but keeping the original descriptions. One thing I still wonder, as do many, many others.....who were TEAM KFWB? "had great fun" They no doubt contributed to the community a lot. I guess I'm just not into the nostalgia as the rest of us. And that is fine - it would be boring if we were all the same, wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I suspect there is something going on behind the curtain... As I see it, the original owners should have removed their containers before archiving their caches. Perhaps there was some tragic personal event that made that impossible, I don't know and can't tell. The bigger issue is when Groundspeak says 'THIS IS HOW IT IS', and then does/allows the exact opposite. Your cache can't be unarchived for adoption, but theirs can. Your cache can't be published because it it less than 528 feet from that stage of a multi, but this one can. I'm sure keystone will be along shortly to explain how it's all about flexibility, but that doesn't lessen the sting when someone else is allowed something you are denied. Lot's of things work that way here. I'm sure that the local geocommunity's wishes were granted. I've seen it happen with ownerless listings that some want kept around because they are old. Quote Link to comment
+The_Incredibles_ Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Ok, I didn't make this point clear enough. My community considers these caches sacred, just because of the "age" and proliferation of the hider. The first thing I'm going to say is I know it took a tremendous amount of volunteer time to get these adopted and I appreciate this. However, I'd love to do a poll and see how many in our community see these as 'sacred'. My guess is those who sent emails after the initial archiving were all in favor of the caches being adopted. Those who didn't see the merit, would not have sent an email. I wish that we had as a community at the time had an in-person meeting and democratic vote about this. I'm guessing if we put it to a vote, most of the 'yes' votes would have come from those who had been caching for many years. I can see the nostalgia for cachers who had been around when these caches were new. My family has been geocaching less than a year, so my only impression of these caches before all this happened was a legacy of neglect. Everytime I went looking for one of these caches, I knew to expect a box with broken hinges or a cracked lid, full of mildewy crap, probably with a full log book too. I'm glad some of them were saved, I can see the value in that. I know it took a tremdous amount of volunteer time to get these adopted and I appreciate this. I adopted one myself that had been hidden in 2002, it had been there 9 years (2 replacement containers) and I'm glad I did. I also thought the name was really cool. It was also one of the first of the Team caches I had found. So, for me, adopting this one had significance. However...I don't think so many should have been adopted. I'm going to get crucified for this, but I'm also kind of tired of keeping my 2 bits to myelf. I put a tremendous amount of effort into my caches and cache pages. Proximity frustration is a BIG issue for me. I frequently have to work around one or two of those caches that have recently been adopted. Right now, I'm looking to place a cache in a spot sandwiched between 2 Team caches. Proximity is very tight. 1 of these caches, the new owner has not bothered to check on and has simply enabled it. It needs the dirty junk cleaned out and new swag put in and an updated hint. None of this has been done. The 2nd cache I am working around for proximity has been replaced by a tiny lock n lock and shoved under a rock and barely hidden, no camo job to speak of. And the old cache(geo-junk)was STILL in place when I last checked. There's a 3rd cache nearby which was also enabled without being checked. It's got mold inside. All 3 of these caches have created proximity hell for me in a beautiful park with limited space. Why...because they are old and apparently they have more value than any cache I or another new cacher want to put out. This is just one example. While many adoptive owners have done a great job of fixing up their caches, many have shown minimal interest. I have seen caches that have been adopted months ago still with the original damaged container, with moldy stuff inside, and the new owners have simply enabled the cache and not bothered to fix it up. Sorry, but wouldn't we all rather see a brand new cache that the owner is excited about and has put alot of effort into? Yes, for a time there would be fewer caches to find, but I have a feeling any gaps would soon be filled. Edited July 20, 2011 by The_Incredibles_ Quote Link to comment
+dorqie Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Ok, I didn't make this point clear enough. My community considers these caches sacred, just because of the "age" and proliferation of the hider. The first thing I'm going to say is I know it took a tremendous amount of volunteer time to get these adopted and I appreciate this. However, I'd love to do a poll and see how many in our community see these as 'sacred'. My guess is those who sent emails after the initial archiving were all in favor of the caches being adopted. Those who didn't see the merit, would not have sent an email. I wish that we had as a community at the time had an in-person meeting and democratic VOTE about this. I'm guessing if we put it to a vote, most of those who had been caching for many years would have voted yes. I can see the nostalgia for cachers who had been around when these caches were new. My family has been geocaching less than a year, so my only impression of these caches before all this happened was a legacy of neglect. Everytime I went looking for one of these caches, I knew to expect a box with broken hinges or a cracked lid, full of mildewy crap, probably with a full log book too. I'm glad some of them were saved, I can see the value in that. I know it took a tremdous amount of volunteer time to get these adopted and I appreciate this. I adopted one myself that had been hidden in 2002, it had been there 9 years (2 replacement containers) and I'm glad I did. I also thought the name was really cool. It was also one of the first of the Team caches I had found. So, for me, adopting this one had significance. However...I don't think so many should have been adopted. I'm going to get crucified for this, but I'm also kind of tired of keeping my 2 bits to myelf. I put a tremendous amount of effort into my caches and cache pages. Proximity frustration is a BIG issue for me. I frequently have to work around one or two of those caches that have recently been adopted. Right now, I'm looking to place a cache in a spot sandwiched between 2 Team caches. Proximity is very tight. 1 of these caches, the new owner has not bothered to check on and has simply enabled it. It needs the dirty junk cleaned out and new swag put in and an updated hint. None of this has been done. The 2nd cache I am working around for proximity has been replaced by a tiny lock n lock and shoved under a rock and barely hidden, no camo job to speak of. And the old cache(geo-junk)was STILL in place when I last checked. There's a 3rd cache nearby which was also enabled without being checked. It's got mold inside. All 3 of these caches have created proximity hell for me. Why...because they are old and apparently they have more value than any cache I or another new cacher want to put out. This is just one example. While many adoptive owners have done a great job of fixing up their caches, many have shown minimal interest. I have seen caches that have been adopted months ago still with the original damaged container, with moldy stuff inside, and the new owners have simply enabled the cache and not bothered to fix it up. Sorry, but wouldn't we all rather see a brand new cache that the owner is excited about and has put alot of effort into? Yes, for a time there would be fewer caches to find, but I have a feeling any gaps would soon be filled. I agree Quote Link to comment
+addisonbr Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'm going to get crucified for this Not necessarily. You make several valid points, and you do so respectfully. I thought it was a very good post. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 My question would be how does this affect the numbers of the original CO? I know that if you look at my numbers, it has 137 found, and 2 hides. Of those hides, one has been archived. What would have happened if someone un-archived my cache, then adopted it out. Would it still say that I have 2 hides? I understand that the original hiding group have dissolved, but I would be upset if my numbers had been decreased because of a reviewer undoing my work and adopting them out. An interesting point. There was a local, well respected cacher in my area that had about 100 hides and took great care in maintaining them. I couple years ago all of them were either archived or adopted out. In this case, however, he wasn't leaving the game but was moving about 500 miles away, and has been actively geocaching and placing caches near their new home. The archived caches in my area still show up in their "Caches Owned" list (which is up to 213 now) both those that they adopted out are in someone elses caches owned list. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.