Adopting a Cache

[+nevadanick]

Tried to find a relevant existing thread with no luck. Closest was wanting to adopt an archived cache.

 

There are several caches in our area that have been seemingly abandoned by their owner/s and have had 'maintenance needed' attributes attached for some time. In one case, the owner's last log-in to geocache was 2007. However, none of these caches have been disabled nor archived.

 

How can we go about adopting a cache where the owners are MIA? We were in/near Fallon, NV but have moved permanently to the Palm Springs, CA area for health reasons and are getting back into geocaching on a regular basis.

 

Thanks for any guidance.

Edited August 22, 2011 by nevadanick

[Pup Patrol]

It has to be the cache owner that initiates the adoption process.

 

The Knowledge Books contain a wealth of information:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php

 

Adopting or Transferring a cache:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=54

[+Max and 99]

As far as I know, only the owner of the cache can give you permission to adopt it. If they don't respond to cache maintenance issues, a Needs Archived log can be posted.

[Pup Patrol]

erp...

Edited August 22, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+Walts Hunting]

You can't. Adoption of a cache requires permission of the owner. No owner no adoption. The best thing to do would be file a needs archives log for those that need it and put out a new one in your name.

[+nevadanick]

Thanks for the replies. Much appreciated.

 

Guess we'll have to go the 'needs archived' route since the locations are great, would like the caches there to continue, but really don't want to anonymously maintain someone else's abandoned cache.

Edited August 22, 2011 by nevadanick

[+woodhick803]

I've been anonymously maintaining a cache for almost a year now. While it is a somewhat made-do way of doing things it works OK for me. Once in a while I post a note in the logs that I'm the maintainer. I have added the cache to my watchlist so that I am made aware of any logged visits and maintenance needs. With the many things that Groundspeak does wonderfully well, the lack of a method to transfer ownership or otherwise acknowledge someone willing to go the extra mile to make sure that caches are well cared for and up to date is a sad lack on GS'es part. It is not at all uncommon during my caching trips to find caches that obviously are orphans and in need of a kind and loving parent.

Edited August 22, 2011 by woodhick803

[Narcosynthesis]

I wander about the possibility of adding an 'inactivity clause' to caches - if the owner is inactive for a certain length of time, the cache becomes free for adoption by another.

 

I believe the cache is legally owned by the owner, which is why we cannot adopt uncared for caches willy nilly, so would it be possible/legal to add a tick box when creating a cache page to forfeit ownership under certain condition?

[+Bear and Ragged]

I believe the cache is legally owned by the owner, which is why we cannot adopt uncared for caches willy nilly, so would it be possible/legal to add a tick box when creating a cache page to forfeit ownership under certain condition?

Along the lines of "I placed a cache, why should I look after it? After time someone else can look after it..."

 

Now, if it's a good cache, in a good location, it may be worth someone else looking after it.

But an ill-thought out cache, in a bad location? It only becomes Geo-litter.

[+t4e]

I wander about the possibility of adding an 'inactivity clause' to caches - if the owner is inactive for a certain length of time, the cache becomes free for adoption by another.

 

I believe the cache is legally owned by the owner, which is why we cannot adopt uncared for caches willy nilly, so would it be possible/legal to add a tick box when creating a cache page to forfeit ownership under certain condition?

 

its been suggested but denied by GC

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1176859-automatic-adoption-for-caches-on-maintenance-over-?ref=title

[+Max and 99]

What about the brand-new caches that state on the page: "I will not be able to maintain this cache, so please help by taking care of any problems you encounter".

[jholly]

What about the brand-new caches that state on the page: "I will not be able to maintain this cache, so please help by taking care of any problems you encounter".

Sounds like a cache that definitely get a "Needs Archive" log.

[+briansnat]

I've been anonymously maintaining a cache for almost a year now. While it is a somewhat made-do way of doing things it works OK for me. Once in a while I post a note in the logs that I'm the maintainer. I have added the cache to my watchlist so that I am made aware of any logged visits and maintenance needs. With the many things that Groundspeak does wonderfully well, the lack of a method to transfer ownership or otherwise acknowledge someone willing to go the extra mile to make sure that caches are well cared for and up to date is a sad lack on GS'es part. It is not at all uncommon during my caching trips to find caches that obviously are orphans and in need of a kind and loving parent.

 

A cache is not Groundspeak's to give away. There have been a few instances back when Groundspeak allowed "hostile adoptions", meaning adoptions without the cache owner's permission and the owner eventually came back and was fit to be tied.

 

The best avenue for you would have been to let the cache sink into disrepair, post a NA then place your own cache there. That way you'd get full credit for it.

[knowschad]

I've been anonymously maintaining a cache for almost a year now. While it is a somewhat made-do way of doing things it works OK for me. Once in a while I post a note in the logs that I'm the maintainer. I have added the cache to my watchlist so that I am made aware of any logged visits and maintenance needs. With the many things that Groundspeak does wonderfully well, the lack of a method to transfer ownership or otherwise acknowledge someone willing to go the extra mile to make sure that caches are well cared for and up to date is a sad lack on GS'es part. It is not at all uncommon during my caching trips to find caches that obviously are orphans and in need of a kind and loving parent.

 

Why? Unless it is an extremly old cache that has some historical value, why not see it get archived and put a new one out there. If the spot is so nice, why not give those that found the earlier cache a reason to return?

[+t4e]

 

A cache is not Groundspeak's to give away. There have been a few instances back when Groundspeak allowed "hostile adoptions", meaning adoptions without the cache owner's permission and the owner eventually came back and was fit to be tied.

 

 

i have the blessing from the CO to adopt one and still can't do it, 5 days later and its still broken, and no updates on the FEEDBACK thread either

[Pup Patrol]

What about the brand-new caches that state on the page: "I will not be able to maintain this cache, so please help by taking care of any problems you encounter".

Sounds like a cache that definitely get a "Needs Archive" log.

 

I'm hoping that it was edited after publication. One would assume that if the reviewer read that, then the cache would have not been published.

 

There's something rotten in Denmark if new caches are getting published with that kind of lame appeal. If you don't want to post a "Should be Archived" log, then you could contact the reviewer directly.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable amount of time – normally a few weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

[+woodhick803]

What Groundspeak is doing is not at all dissimilar to an adoption agency saying that a child cannot be adopted because his/her birth parents are dead/missing/not interested and cannot physically sign adoption papers, therefore the child can never be adopted. Bureaucracy at work in other words. We have always done it this way therefore it can never be changed.

 

Why do I not want the cache to lapse into its own form of death, be archived and then place a cache here? Because it was one of my very first finds and has sentimental value to me. I'll continue to maintain it semi-anonymously until Groundspeak changes thank you very much.

[+Max and 99]

What about the brand-new caches that state on the page: "I will not be able to maintain this cache, so please help by taking care of any problems you encounter".

Sounds like a cache that definitely get a "Needs Archive" log.

 

I'm hoping that it was edited after publication. One would assume that if the reviewer read that, then the cache would have not been published.

 

There's something rotten in Denmark if new caches are getting published with that kind of lame appeal. If you don't want to post a "Should be Archived" log, then you could contact the reviewer directly.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable amount of time – normally a few weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

Did that. 'nuff said.

[+GeoBain]

Thanks for the replies. Much appreciated.

 

Guess we'll have to go the 'needs archived' route since the locations are great, would like the caches there to continue, but really don't want to anonymously maintain someone else's abandoned cache.

 

The best thing is to post the NA. Once it's archived, then you can place your own cache and continue to bring people there AND get the proper log notifications, etc.

[+nevadanick]

Thanks for the replies. Much appreciated.

 

Guess we'll have to go the 'needs archived' route since the locations are great, would like the caches there to continue, but really don't want to anonymously maintain someone else's abandoned cache.

 

The best thing is to post the NA. Once it's archived, then you can place your own cache and continue to bring people there AND get the proper log notifications, etc.

 

Did the NA. Thanks for input from the many ...

 

Reviewer already got back to us and we'll wait a week before replacing the archived ones with new caches. Was impressed with the speed that GS handled this so far.

 

From what we've seen, the procedure currently being used for adoptions/archiving of abandoned caches is quite satisfactory and considers the wishes of current cachers and the property of the CO's.

 

******************************

[+Don_J]

I've been anonymously maintaining a cache for almost a year now. While it is a somewhat made-do way of doing things it works OK for me. Once in a while I post a note in the logs that I'm the maintainer. I have added the cache to my watchlist so that I am made aware of any logged visits and maintenance needs. With the many things that Groundspeak does wonderfully well, the lack of a method to transfer ownership or otherwise acknowledge someone willing to go the extra mile to make sure that caches are well cared for and up to date is a sad lack on GS'es part. It is not at all uncommon during my caching trips to find caches that obviously are orphans and in need of a kind and loving parent.

 

A cache is not Groundspeak's to give away. There have been a few instances back when Groundspeak allowed "hostile adoptions", meaning adoptions without the cache owner's permission and the owner eventually came back and was fit to be tied.

 

The best avenue for you would have been to let the cache sink into disrepair, post a NA then place your own cache there. That way you'd get full credit for it.

 

I forcibly adopted a cache. A few years later the original owner logged a find and thanked me for taking care of business where they couldn't. Not every case has a bad ending.

 

I understand why GS has taken the position that they do, and I don't dispute it. The fact is, we are a society that will abandon a piece plastic in the woods, and then years later, try to sue when we find out someone messed with it. In other words, no good dead goes unpunished.

[+GeoGeeBee]

What Groundspeak is doing is not at all dissimilar to an adoption agency saying that a child cannot be adopted because his/her birth parents are dead/missing/not interested and cannot physically sign adoption papers, therefore the child can never be adopted.

That's a horrible, horrible analogy. A geocache is not a human being. A child has rights on his/her own, a geocache does not. A human must be protected at all costs, while a geocache need not be so protected.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service. They don't own the cache, so it is not theirs to give away. A cache owner who has vanished from this listing service might be active on another listing service, and the cache might be listed on another website. Again, Groundspeak does not own the physical container and its contents, and therefore cannot give it to a user without the owner's permission.

[+mobywv]

I've helped out with some abandoned caches before. One was located in a park that no longer allowed new geocaches. I figured it would be nice to save the cache, especially since a a new one wouldn't get approved. So when the cache container went missing, I replaced it and it's been fine since then. The other case was when the first cache I found fell into serious disrepair. I replaced the cache container and it held up just fine. Since it was the first cache I found, I figured I would try to keep it going. Sentimental reasons, I suppose.

 

I think a lot of it depends on where the cache is located and the quality. I don't necessarily mind performing maintenance on a great cache in a park that has been abandoned. On the other hand, I won't go out of my way to replace a leaky LPC.

Edited August 23, 2011 by mobywv

[+EdrickV]

Aside from issues of cache ownership, permission to have a cache in a specific spot could be another issue, which the idea of "archive the old cache and place a new cache" in theory would respect, since the new CO is supposed to get permission to place a cache there in the first place. (It also seems possible that a CO who hasn't logged in to the site in a long time could still maintain the physical cache, with the exception of removing the NM flag. Assuming they still have a valid e-mail on file.)