Jump to content

Cull the cripples or rejuvenate the rundown?


Cache! Eh?
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Personally I approve :blink: ! Cache maintenance is good essential practice and while it is the owners responsibility I think we all have a duty of care, if nothing more to protect the environment. I also have a soft spot for the earlier caches I found and would not like to think them assigned to room 101 :o if I could have prevented it! But if a CO is not happy with this I would, if asked, :D undo what I have done. But for the good of the community carry on caching and well done you altruistic person you.

Link to comment

I dropped by a local cache today and carried out the following:

 

Neighbourly Maintenance

 

I would be interested to know other cachers' views on this action. Am I being hopelssly naive and sentimental, or is there a place for this kind of behaviour?

 

BTW, this cache is not blocking a significantly better location.

 

Thanks, Cache! Eh?

My own feeling is that every cache should have an active owner who cares about it. In this case I believe the best course of action would be to try to adopt it. If the owner is no longer active and doesn't respond, file a Needs Archived log on the old cache, explaining that the cache owner is no longer active, and being quite upfront that your preferred result would be that the current owner maintained the cache, but if that didn't happen and it was archived by a reviewer, you would hide a replacement in the same place, with the same name.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

looks like an account for a kid whilst the parents are semi active at least (looks like the parents responded)

 

personally, I agree with Andy, if you can't maintain it, it shouldn't be there.

this time the CO responded, most times nothing well happen, and it'll carry on and on.

 

from your log :

 

""I have mixed feelings about this cache. Firstly it isn't a great choice of location, the container was inadequate and the Cache Owner has gone AWOL.""

 

Cull seems a pretty simple answer to me.

Link to comment

I've often thought that cache owners should be obliged to log onto the website every 6 or 12 months or so and confirm that they are still active and maintaining their caches. If they didn't give the confirmation their caches would be automatically archived by Groundspeak.

 

That would sort a few problems out!

 

It would also create a lot of geo-litter. Groundspeak could automatically archive caches where the cache owner hasn't logged on for 6 months but who would automatically go out and collect the cache boxes that were archived?

Link to comment

It would also create a lot of geo-litter.

 

A valid point, but caches that are not being actively maintained tend towards geo-litter reasonably quickly anyway. I've found a couple over the last few weeks that are in wonderful spots but are soaked and in terrible condition. At least if they were archived someone else could use the same place.

Link to comment

It would also create a lot of geo-litter.

 

A valid point, but caches that are not being actively maintained tend towards geo-litter reasonably quickly anyway. I've found a couple over the last few weeks that are in wonderful spots but are soaked and in terrible condition. At least if they were archived someone else could use the same place.

 

And these are a perfect example to hit the needs archiving log. If you don't want to pick up the batten, I'm not saying we should be obliged to, but neither should we demonise those who do (word a little strong please edit as applicable). I hear talk around the forums and other caching circles of great caches that exist now only because of voluntary maintenance project APE anyone?

Link to comment

I support your actions, maintaining a cache that would otherwise die.

 

I keep a watch on, and maintain as necessary, a simple little micro cache GC10G5N. It's a poignant story, and I wouldn't want the cache to disappear. The CO hasn't been around since April 2008. I have at times pondered whether I should log a "needs archived", and then create a new listing. However, I prefer to leave the listing as it is, so the original placer is known.

Link to comment

I support your actions, maintaining a cache that would otherwise die.

 

I keep a watch on, and maintain as necessary, a simple little micro cache GC10G5N. It's a poignant story, and I wouldn't want the cache to disappear. The CO hasn't been around since April 2008. I have at times pondered whether I should log a "needs archived", and then create a new listing. However, I prefer to leave the listing as it is, so the original placer is known.

 

Nothing stopping you from placing your own, and under 'placed by' putting originally by ??? now looked after by ???

 

As it is now, how can you remove any 'Needs Maintenance' or 'Needs Archived' logs?

Link to comment

Nothing stopping you from placing your own, and under 'placed by' putting originally by ??? now looked after by ???

This may seem silly, or sentimental perhaps, but that would feel like I was "stealing" the listing.

 

As it is now, how can you remove any 'Needs Maintenance' or 'Needs Archived' logs?

That is when I will be forced into a decision.

Link to comment

Nothing stopping you from placing your own, and under 'placed by' putting originally by ??? now looked after by ???

This may seem silly, or sentimental perhaps, but that would feel like I was "stealing" the listing.

 

As it is now, how can you remove any 'Needs Maintenance' or 'Needs Archived' logs?

That is when I will be forced into a decision.

 

What happens if the CO has stopped caching, you get bored or move away and the cache falls into a poor state again. The reviewers remove it from the listing and it becomes geo-litter because the owner no longer cares or for whatever reason is no longer able to collect the container.

Link to comment

Mixed views on this. As identified, it could be the best first effort from a kid who is proud as punch of his/her achievement (or maybe not even a kid!), and it is easy to appear to be patronising. That said, it's a nice altruistic gesture and if conveyed in the right manner, shouldn't offend. Sometimes one gets logs which really put the back up, and perhaps I can be guilty of that too - if done, not meant from this end though!

 

It can be difficult to convey the correct tone in writing, as we all know.

 

But nice of you to bother, to take pics, and to try and keep in touch with the CO.

 

Regarding the cache maintenance, I thought it was an agreement that all COs should check their caches at least once a year, so if there are problems with non-response, reviewers can be alerted to the problem (as if they don't have enough to be doing in the first place!).

 

It's all about attitude really, isn't it?

 

B)

Link to comment

Please do not replace a container, unless you previously have obtained the Cache Owners Permission, Drying out a Container or adding a new log book is fine. But replacing a container without the Cache Owners Permission and agreement , risks opening a can of worms that you don't wish to find out about.

 

The UK so far is the only Country, where a Searcher sustained a injury, whilst searching for a cache. Who then went directly to a Personal Injury Claims Company, said Company then contacted both the Cache Owner and Landowner, who has given permission for the cache. The intention to obtain a settlement off both of them.

 

The Cache Owner alone, went through 12 months of sheer hell, before the claim was dropped.

 

If you replace a container without a Cache Owners Permission, you are opening yourself up to legal issues. As in the event of there being any sort of issue either with the Landowner or heaven to bid a repeat and a Personal Injury Claims Company is involved. The Owner of the Cache, can deny all responsibility for the Cache and all issues with it. Given that all caches are Listed at the Owners own Risk, which means that Neither Groundspeak or the Sites Volunteer Reviewers have any responsibility for it. If the CO denies all responsibility, pointing out that they did not place the Container, nor did they give permission for the Container to be placed on their behalf. Then the person on who responsibility will fall, will be the person who replaced the Container.

 

Also if you replace a container without a CO's Permission, and there is a outstanding Needs Archived log on it, or someone subsequently posts a Needs Archived log to it. It will be Archived! Due to the CO not Maintaining it.

 

Please if the cache is in desperate need of Maintenance, post a Needs Archived log to it. Either the CO will actually maintain it, or the cache will be Archived.

 

Deci

Link to comment

I'm not sure that we should worry too much about personal injury claims. Unfortunate though that incident was, I don't recall it being caused by cache replacement. Nor was it remotely successful; and what percentage of caches have had such incidents occur? It's important to keep a perspective on such things otherwise we end up with a form-filling, health-and-safety, rules-and-regulations approach that stifles creativity.

 

I've visited several caches that are being maintained "by the community" and sometimes are left in a Disabled status for a long time, due to problems that have since been rectified by strangers. It often happens when a cache is in a remote location and is well thought of. I found one of these only yesterday.

 

Over time the log book gets replaced, a new pen added, and the leaky old container replaced. If one was really worried about liability there's no need to admit to helping.

 

However; if a cache is NOT well thought of and is being neglected by the CO I'd have no hesitation to leave it to rot. In fact I'd be pleased if someone binned it. Perhaps a cacher will find a better location less then 0.1 miles away and set up a really good cache instead.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

 

If you replace a container without a Cache Owners Permission, you are opening yourself up to legal issues.

Deci

 

And so by placing a cache we are at the same risk. Does that mean we should stop putting them out and remove the ones we have out there just in case?

 

If I didn't know better I'd think somebody has only just read the rulesguidelines. As the claim was unsuccessful, and those vampires can suck blood out of a stone, It's fair to say none will be. Do we not find caches at our own risk?

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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...