Abandoned Caches!

[+natepen]

Hello all,

I've been caching for a few months now and like most of you, I'm addicted. I've begun making my own caches but I'm finding that in my area there's a huge amount of caches that have about 10 DNF's and the owner seemed to abandon them and doesn't archive them. My main concern is that they were in great areas around historic landmarks in our little town and I've been trying to focus on those areas to show others our hidden gems. I apologize if this is a common question but what exactly do we do if there's been over two years of an actually find and the cache is actually no longer their? Do we have to wait till they're archived by the owner or can we contact someone else to get them taken off so those areas can be used again?

Thanks for your help.

Nate

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

Log a Needs Archived on the cache page. After a few months of caching I found the same thing in my town. I looked for the cache, read the logs, checked on the COs activity (lack thereof), then posted a NA if appropriate.

 

The reviewer then archived them. Simple process. Abandoned caches are a pet peeve of mine. They're just trash if they're not being maintained.

[AZcachemeister]

If the cache is still active, you cannot place a cache within 528 feet.

If the cache is 'active', yet missing, you could post a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

Around here (in Arizona), the reviewer will notice (eventually) and disable the cache. After a while (if the owner does nothing), the reviewer will archive the cache, freeing-up the area for a new hide.

 

If the cache already has 'Needs Maintenance' logs, go straight to a 'Needs Archived' log.

 

Active caches need active owners.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

If it hasn't been found in two years with a string of DNFs, go ahead and log the NA straight away. You can tell usually when a cache is gone or not being cared for. I wouldn't wait.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

As an aside to this, in New Zealand a little while ago there was attention drawn to the large number of abandoned caches around the place. In most cases the owners had obviously lost interest and had not maintained their caches for a considerable period of time. Many were waterlogged and serving no useful purpose. Others had been muggled, the contents strewn about the area.

 

When the subject came up on a local caching forum I suggested that once archived the local reviewers could put out a call for concerned cachers to go and clean them up. The response from the reviewers was that it couldn't be done as a cache, abandoned or not, was still the property of the owner. If anyone removed the remains of an abandoned cache they were technically committing theft.

 

As already pointed out, an abandoned cache is just litter. And it brings unwanted negative attention to our activity.

 

Is it any wonder that I have no confidence in our local reviewers?

[+Bear and Ragged]

As already pointed out, an abandoned cache is just litter. And it brings unwanted negative attention to our activity.

 

Is it any wonder that I have no confidence in our local reviewers?

 

The UK reviewers say the same thing. It's what Groundspeak tell them to say.

It the same reason you can't adopt a cache, without the original cache owner starting the process...

At least they are consistent!

 

(You could always remove the cache, leave a note on the page asking the cache owner to contact you for the return of their cache, should they want it... )

[+Prime Suspect]

As an aside to this, in New Zealand a little while ago there was attention drawn to the large number of abandoned caches around the place. In most cases the owners had obviously lost interest and had not maintained their caches for a considerable period of time. Many were waterlogged and serving no useful purpose. Others had been muggled, the contents strewn about the area.

 

When the subject came up on a local caching forum I suggested that once archived the local reviewers could put out a call for concerned cachers to go and clean them up. The response from the reviewers was that it couldn't be done as a cache, abandoned or not, was still the property of the owner. If anyone removed the remains of an abandoned cache they were technically committing theft.

 

As already pointed out, an abandoned cache is just litter. And it brings unwanted negative attention to our activity.

 

Is it any wonder that I have no confidence in our local reviewers?

Well, yes, I'm wondering what this Groundspeak policy has to do with your "confidence" in your local reviewers. Seems to me it just means they're up to date on current policies. And are you really surprised that a company has a policy of NOT advocating stealing others' property?

[+GeoBain]

As an aside to this, in New Zealand a little while ago there was attention drawn to the large number of abandoned caches around the place. In most cases the owners had obviously lost interest and had not maintained their caches for a considerable period of time. Many were waterlogged and serving no useful purpose. Others had been muggled, the contents strewn about the area.

 

When the subject came up on a local caching forum I suggested that once archived the local reviewers could put out a call for concerned cachers to go and clean them up. The response from the reviewers was that it couldn't be done as a cache, abandoned or not, was still the property of the owner. If anyone removed the remains of an abandoned cache they were technically committing theft.

 

As already pointed out, an abandoned cache is just litter. And it brings unwanted negative attention to our activity.

 

Is it any wonder that I have no confidence in our local reviewers?

 

That's odd since that is precisely what MIGO does.

 

MIGO Cache Rescue Mission

 

I don't know that it's necessarily the reviewer's job to put out that call, but I see nothing wrong with picking up obviously abandoned caches that it's clear are not even suitable to be cross listed elsewhere.

[+Vater_Araignee]

As an aside to this, in New Zealand a little while ago there was attention drawn to the large number of abandoned caches around the place. In most cases the owners had obviously lost interest and had not maintained their caches for a considerable period of time. Many were waterlogged and serving no useful purpose. Others had been muggled, the contents strewn about the area.

 

When the subject came up on a local caching forum I suggested that once archived the local reviewers could put out a call for concerned cachers to go and clean them up. The response from the reviewers was that it couldn't be done as a cache, abandoned or not, was still the property of the owner. If anyone removed the remains of an abandoned cache they were technically committing theft.

 

As already pointed out, an abandoned cache is just litter. And it brings unwanted negative attention to our activity.

 

Is it any wonder that I have no confidence in our local reviewers?

 

That's odd since that is precisely what MIGO does.

 

MIGO Cache Rescue Mission

 

I don't know that it's necessarily the reviewer's job to put out that call, but I see nothing wrong with picking up obviously abandoned caches that it's clear are not even suitable to be cross listed elsewhere.

Not exactly, last I knew you had to (A)be a MIGO member (B)ask for inclusion or ©state your intention to abandon the cache.

[+GeoBain]

As an aside to this, in New Zealand a little while ago there was attention drawn to the large number of abandoned caches around the place. In most cases the owners had obviously lost interest and had not maintained their caches for a considerable period of time. Many were waterlogged and serving no useful purpose. Others had been muggled, the contents strewn about the area.

 

When the subject came up on a local caching forum I suggested that once archived the local reviewers could put out a call for concerned cachers to go and clean them up. The response from the reviewers was that it couldn't be done as a cache, abandoned or not, was still the property of the owner. If anyone removed the remains of an abandoned cache they were technically committing theft.

 

As already pointed out, an abandoned cache is just litter. And it brings unwanted negative attention to our activity.

 

Is it any wonder that I have no confidence in our local reviewers?

 

That's odd since that is precisely what MIGO does.

 

MIGO Cache Rescue Mission

 

I don't know that it's necessarily the reviewer's job to put out that call, but I see nothing wrong with picking up obviously abandoned caches that it's clear are not even suitable to be cross listed elsewhere.

Not exactly, last I knew you had to (A)be a MIGO member (B)ask for inclusion or ©state your intention to abandon the cache.

 

I didn't say MIGO members picked up caches in New Zealand. But they do go and pick up abandoned containers once the cache has been archived. This is in contrast to the statement that doing so is equivalent to stealing. If it's stealing in New Zealand, it's stealing in Michigan too.

[+GeoBain]

Here is the main mission page. LINK

 

Reading through it is apparent that the approvers (can only assume they're using old term for reviewers here) are the ones that compile the list. So it IS odd that the New Zealand reviewers take the stance that it is stealing. This is another area where consistency among reviewers would help.

 

How do caches get on this list?

 

When a Geocache is archived in Michigan, MiGO makes a commitment to tracking those archived caches where the removal of the cache container cannot be confirmed.

 

When a cache is archived on geocaching.com, the approver reads the logs and tries to determine if the container for the cache has been properly removed. If the information is inconclusive as to the fate of the geocache, it will be listed here to ensure that it is on our "radar screen" and eventually a MiGO member will visit the site, verify that it is gone, and it will turn green. Having your cache on this list is not a derogatory comment about anyone's ability to maintain their caches. It is simply a list that is maintained to ensure that no geocaches in Michigan become "geotrash".

 

MiGO members will go out to cache sites and verify that the containers have been removed or they will collect them if still present and recycle them. This ensures that no Geocache in Michigan ever becomes litter.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I didn't say MIGO members picked up caches in New Zealand. But they do go and pick up abandoned containers once the cache has been archived. This is in contrast to the statement that doing so is equivalent to stealing. If it's stealing in New Zealand, it's stealing in Michigan too.

I said nothing about NZ, what I am saying is that here in Michigan you have to state intention to be on the RM list or state that you have abandoned the cache. So what MIGO does is not stealing.

What you have done is used a terribly inaccurate example and in the process called me and the other members thieves when we are not.

[+GeoBain]

I didn't say MIGO members picked up caches in New Zealand. But they do go and pick up abandoned containers once the cache has been archived. This is in contrast to the statement that doing so is equivalent to stealing. If it's stealing in New Zealand, it's stealing in Michigan too.

I said nothing about NZ, what I am saying is that here in Michigan you have to state intention to be on the RM list or state that you have abandoned the cache. So what MIGO does is not stealing.

What you have done is used a terribly inaccurate example and in the process called me and the other members thieves when we are not.

 

Where did I call you or other members thieves???

 

I was pointing out that it seems to be perfectly acceptable in Michigan. It should also be perfectly acceptable in New Zealand. The reviewers in New Zealand are the one's teling UNCLE it's stealing. I think once it's archived and abandoned you should be able to retrieve the abandoned containers. Again, how is that calling you a thief?

[+GeoBain]

I said nothing about NZ, what I am saying is that here in Michigan you have to state intention to be on the RM list or state that you have abandoned the cache.

 

And BTW, the actual rules MiGO members use to get caches on the list may be different from those posted on the MiGO site. But on the site it says nothing about having to state your intention to be on a list or state you have abandoned the cache. The site says, which I quoted earlier but I will quote again for clarification, "When a cache is archived on geocaching.com, the approver reads the logs and tries to determine if the container for the cache has been properly removed. If the information is inconclusive as to the fate of the geocache, it will be listed here to ensure that it is on our "radar screen" and eventually a MiGO member will visit the site, verify that it is gone, and it will turn green"

 

There is a second paragraph that tells you how to get your cache off the list. But from what is posted it seems that all that needs to happen to get your cache on the list is to not mention removal of your cache.

 

Again, I agree that we SHOULD be able to remove abandoned caches. OTHERS, including the New Zealand reviewers are the ones calling the practice stealing.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I said nothing about NZ, what I am saying is that here in Michigan you have to state intention to be on the RM list or state that you have abandoned the cache.

 

And BTW, the actual rules MiGO members use to get caches on the list may be different from those posted on the MiGO site. But on the site it says nothing about having to state your intention to be on a list or state you have abandoned the cache. The site says, which I quoted earlier but I will quote again for clarification, "When a cache is archived on geocaching.com, the approver reads the logs and tries to determine if the container for the cache has been properly removed. If the information is inconclusive as to the fate of the geocache, it will be listed here to ensure that it is on our "radar screen" and eventually a MiGO member will visit the site, verify that it is gone, and it will turn green"

 

There is a second paragraph that tells you how to get your cache off the list. But from what is posted it seems that all that needs to happen to get your cache on the list is to not mention removal of your cache.

 

Again, I agree that we SHOULD be able to remove abandoned caches. OTHERS, including the New Zealand reviewers are the ones calling the practice stealing.

In order for the approver to bother reading the page you still have to meet 1 of three things

Be a member

Ask to be included

State the intention to abandon.

If one of those conditions has not been met then your cache will not be included. To claim that MIGO members remove caches outside of those conditions is to claim MIGO members are thieves. It gets no simpler than that.

 

By the way, I call removal outside of those practices stealing because it is.

 

Lets say I archived a cache.

You come along 2 years later and find my archived cache and decide to take it.

Did you check every single listing service?

Did you go to every forum I participate in to see if I left it in place for them to use?

Did you contact me to see if it is a cache where I drop the coords into other caches? Or use it as a teaching tool? Or any of a multitude of uses? You just cant guarantee that a cache is abandoned unless the CO has stated intent.

A cache is not geolitter unless abandonment intention has been stated or it is obviously nonfunctional for quite some time.

 

 

Why does this subject always seem to pop up in pairs?

[+GeoBain]

In order for the approver to bother reading the page you still have to meet 1 of three things

Be a member

Ask to be included

State the intention to abandon.

If one of those conditions has not been met then your cache will not be included. To claim that MIGO members remove caches outside of those conditions is to claim MIGO members are thieves. It gets no simpler than that.

Can you point out where those rules are stated? That is not what is stated on the Rescue Mission page.

 

And seeing as I still haven't seen those rules stated, I can only go by what is stated on the public facing page. Based on what is stated there, I am NOT calling you thieves. But feel free to feel insulted anyway.

[+briansnat]

As a listing service Groundspeak's official stance has to be that caches are solely the property of the cache owner. To do otherwise would intimate that they own more than the digital listing and I'm sure that would open them up to a host of legal issues.

 

As such, reviewers treat caches as private property and framing the taking of an abandoned cache as "technically theft" is in line with that.

 

Joe Geocacher can make his own decision however. At what point does a bicycle left in the woods change from private property to litter? If I were to find a bicycle in good condition in the woods it would be obvious to me that someone probably owns it and wants it back. I would try to reunite it with its owner. If I were to find the rusty, decrepit remains of a bicycle in the woods it would be reasonable for me to assume that it is abandoned. I wouldn't feel guilty of being a thief if I were to trash it out. Could you blame Joe Geocacher if he applied a similar standard to geocaches?

Edited August 9, 2011 by briansnat

[+GeoBain]

Seems North Carolina cachers have adopted a similar rescue mission to MiGO's.

 

They DO list CO request as one of the ways to get on the list. But like MIGO's public page, they do say anything about being a member or stating your plan to abandon the cache.

 

Again, line 3 involves a volunteer reviewer making the determination that the information is inconclusive as to the fate of the geocache. Seems that in North Carolina all that needs to occur is that the status not be know for it to be placed on their list.

 

Are you calling them thieves?

 

I call them good stewards.

 

How do caches get on this list?

When a Geocache is archived in North Carolina, NCGO makes a commitment to tracking those archived caches where the removal of the cache container cannot be confirmed.

 

When a cache is archived on geocaching.com, it can come to our attention one of 3 ways.

 

1. The cache owner can contact us if he/she is unable to retrieve a cache after archival

2. Any cacher can contact us on an archived cache if they have good reason to believe an archived cache has not been removed

3. The volunteer reviewer who archives the cache reads the logs and tries to determine if the container for the cache has been properly removed. If the information is inconclusive as to the fate of the geocache, the volunteer reviewer can contact us and the cache will be listed here

 

A cache is listed here to ensure that it is on our "radar screen" and eventually an NCGO member will visit the site, verify that it is gone, and it will turn green in the list below. Having your cache on this list is not a derogatory comment about anyone's ability to maintain their caches. It is simply a list that is maintained to ensure that no geocaches in North Carolina become "geotrash". This is a vital step in maintaining good relations with the various land management agencies in this state.

 

NCGO members will go out to cache sites and verify that the containers have been removed or they will collect them if still present and recycle them. This ensures that no Geocache in North Carolina ever becomes litter.

 

To submit an archived cache for possible inclusion on the rescue mission list, please send an email with the details.

Before listing a member submitted cache here, we will verify that the cache is archived, check to see if it is now listed on any listing service other than Groundspeak and try to contact the owner.

[+GeoBain]

As a listing service Groundspeak's official stance has to be that caches are solely the property of the cache owner. To do otherwise would intimate that they own more than the digital listing and I'm sure that would open them up to a host of legal issues.

 

As such, reviewers treat caches as private property and framing the taking of an abandoned cache as "technically theft" is in line with that.

 

Joe Geocacher can make his own decision however. At what point does a bicycle left in the woods change from private property to litter? If I were to find a bicycle in good condition in the woods it would be obvious to me that someone probably owns it and wants it back. I would try to reunite it with its owner. If I were to find the rusty, decrepit remains of a bicycle in the woods it would be reasonable for me to assume that it is abandoned. I wouldn't feel guilty of being a thief if I were to trash it out. Could you blame Joe Geocacher if he applied a similar standard to geocaches?

 

The problem with Groundspeaks official stance is that in at least 2 states, reviewers ARE active in the rescue process. They are doing precisely what the reviewers in New Zealand are calling technical theft.

 

Again, I call it good stewardship. But I see inconsistencies here that should be addressed.

[+GeoBain]

Make that 3 states. Seems like Colorado just adjusted MiGO's statement slightly to include their name.

 

LINK

 

How do caches get on this list?

 

When a Geocache is archived in Colorado, GCCO makes a commitment to tracking those archived caches where the removal of the cache container cannot be confirmed.

 

When a cache is archived on geocaching.com, the approver reads the logs and tries to determine if the container for the cache has been properly removed. If the information is inconclusive as to the fate of the geocache, it will be listed here to ensure that it is on our "radar screen" and eventually a GCCO member will visit the site, verify that it is gone, and it will turn green. Having your cache on this list is not a derogatory comment about anyone's ability to maintain their caches.

 

GCCO members will go out to cache sites and verify that the containers have been removed or they will collect them if still present and recycle them. This ensures that no geocache in Colorado becomes "geotrash".

[+GeoBain]

Wisconsin has a cache rescue mission. But it seems you do have to be a member of WGA to submit a cache. I can't find their rules.

 

LINK

[+GeoBain]

Maryland has a rescue mission.

 

Theirs does not seem to involve reviewers directly.

 

The MGS is committed to the principle of "leaving no trace". In addition to not tearing up the environment while searching for caches, "leave no trace" also means not leaving anything behind when a cache is archived. Cache owners are responsible for physically removing all caching related items when archiving a geocache and stating in the archive log that this has been accomplished. In the event that this verification is not apparent in the final logs, the cache will be listed in the Rescue Mission thread as needing verification. With the help of our membership, the MGS is determined to keep our public lands free from abandoned cache remnants.

 

NOTE: While the purpose of the Rescue Mission is to ensure that all archived geocaches not confirmed as removed are checked on, our highest priority is the safety of our members and other geocachers! Please DO NOT attempt to confirm any geocache that is in a location that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable for any reasons. Please notify us at rescuemission@ mdgps.org if you encounter any caches you feel are unsafe for Rescue Mission participants or that are on land that is off limits. The MGS will continue to work through our land management contacts to verify the removal of these caches, but we do not want to encourage people to take risks to life, limb, or law.

 

How do caches get on this list??

When a Geocache is archived in Maryland, the MGS makes a commitment to tracking those archived caches where the removal of the cache container cannot be confirmed.

 

MGS members will go out to cache sites and verify that the containers have been removed or they will collect them if still present and recycle them. This ensures that no Geocache in Maryland ever becomes litter.

[+L0ne.R]

As a listing service Groundspeak's official stance has to be that caches are solely the property of the cache owner. To do otherwise would intimate that they own more than the digital listing and I'm sure that would open them up to a host of legal issues.

 

As such, reviewers treat caches as private property and framing the taking of an abandoned cache as "technically theft" is in line with that.

 

Joe Geocacher can make his own decision however. At what point does a bicycle left in the woods change from private property to litter? If I were to find a bicycle in good condition in the woods it would be obvious to me that someone probably owns it and wants it back. I would try to reunite it with its owner. If I were to find the rusty, decrepit remains of a bicycle in the woods it would be reasonable for me to assume that it is abandoned. I wouldn't feel guilty of being a thief if I were to trash it out. Could you blame Joe Geocacher if he applied a similar standard to geocaches?

 

Exactly! As usual, a very good explanation Briansnat.

[WanderingWoodsman]

I am also wrestling with this issue as I have had many reports of an archived and seemingly abandoned cache very near to one of mine. It has been mistakenly confused for my cache in several instances. I have not been able to search for the archived cache and so have let the logs stand even though I believe some folks have found the archived cache instead of mine.

[+Fianccetto]

If a cache had been long archived (based on non-maintenance by the CO and neglect for over a year) near to where I was wanting to put a new one, I would do a CITO of the area and that would include looking to see if the old cache were still there and taking a photo, picking up anything left of it, taking it home, moving on any trackables or just binning the broken box. After a year of neglect the CO had plenty of time to collect it for themselves and I would contact them and leave a note on the cache page, but I wouldn't wait to hear back from them after that long. If I found a log or any other part of the cache that was in reasonable condition, I'd keep it for a bit longer, give the CO 3 more months and then dispose of it.

 

CITO is a part of being a geocacher and I can understand that Groundspeak are not going to put themselves in a position of having to provide storage for old archived caches, nor expect anyone else to. We still don't want caches to end up as litter strewn across the earth's surface, so if the CO is inactive, I don't see why another local active geocacher can't go and clean it up.

[+Markwell]

I was out caching one day and found a lid for a letterbox container. I looked on Letterboxing.org to find anything that might be similar to that spot - nothing. The lid was chewed and the container was busted up with no contents. I did a CITO on that container. I have no qualms with that.

 

If I had found the same container, but could not find it online in any known sites, but it was well-maintained, with a stamp in it, a good container with an airtight seal, I wouldn't have trashed it out.