forgotten caches!

[+Peterson_family]

we live in a area where there are alot of caches...but alot of them are in need of maintence and alot of the co's havent logged in, in a few months to a year or more. is there something that can be done to adopt these caches or do they have to be archived?

[Pup Patrol]

Cache adoption can only take place if the cache owner initiates the process:

 

Help Center Geocaching → Caches in General → Adopting or Transferring a Cache

 

3.3. Adopting or Transferring a Cache

 

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

 

The only other option is to do the normal procedure of logging "needs maintenance", and "needs archived" if you choose.

 

Or you can just log your "found it"/"needs maintenance" and not concern yourself with them any longer.

[+Moose Mob]

Don't be afraid to use the NA log. At some point in time neglected caches need to archived so new ones can take their place.

 

Some folks may feel that NA logs are being the cache police, but this isn't reporting someone for driving 65 in a 60 zone.

[Clan Riffster]

...or do they have to be archived?

My personal NA rules, (assuming no gross guideline violations exist):

 

1 ) The cache is in significant disrepair.

2 ) The owner is absent.

3 ) The community is unwilling to babysit the cache.

 

If these three elements exist, post your NA.

[+baloo&bd]

...or do they have to be archived?

My personal NA rules, (assuming no gross guideline violations exist):

 

1 ) The cache is in significant disrepair.

2 ) The owner is absent.

3 ) The community is unwilling to babysit the cache.

 

If these three elements exist, post your NA.

 

I think Clan Riffster has it right, and in the right order of priority.

 

1 is significant because if it is being maintained, not only is it still viable, there is a higher chance of it being listed elsewhere.

[+baloo&bd]

...or do they have to be archived?

My personal NA rules, (assuming no gross guideline violations exist):

 

1 ) The cache is in significant disrepair.

2 ) The owner is absent.

3 ) The community is unwilling to babysit the cache.

 

If these three elements exist, post your NA.

 

I think Clan Riffster has it right, and in the right order of priority.

 

1 is significant because if it is being maintained, not only is it still viable, there is a higher chance of it being listed elsewhere.

[+paleolith]

It's also possible to write a rather positive NA log, something like: This is a great spot and I'll be delighted if the owner gets it up and running again. However, since there's been no cache to find for at least seven years, I think it's time to start the clock running.

 

The only objection I've ever received to a NA log was from a hider whose cache "log" was an old wrecked automobile along a trail, and who had provided the implements for the graffiti. The CO didn't like being told this violated guidelines. Apparently the reviewer was satisfied with a log book being added even though it was obvious that the graffiti materials were still present. I haven't had a chance to go back and look.

 

Edward

[+captnemo]

we live in a area where there are alot of caches...but alot of them are in need of maintence and alot of the co's havent logged in, in a few months to a year or more. is there something that can be done to adopt these caches or do they have to be archived?

While an adoption can only occur if the CO initiates the process, You can get things going by emailing the CO and expressing the desire to adopt the cache. Can't hurt.

[knowschad]

Personally, I wish Groundspeak would drop the concept of cache adoption altogether. I used to think that it wasn't a bad idea for "historic" caches, but as we see historic cache after historic cache fall by the wayside (see the recent Mingo thread, for one example) even that motive doesn't really move me any more. Post an NA and if the area is special enough, hide a new one there when the old one is gone, and bring all those cachers back that found the first one. Keep the area alive, not the cache.

[jkettu]

Stupid question of the day:

 

Suppose there is an abandoned cache, I would like to adopt it, but the CO is unresponsive. If I post a NA, it gets archived and I create a new cache, exactly duplicating the original (only GC code, CO name and date of placement would be different), would there be any copyright issues or other problems?

[+CanadianRockies]

Suppose there is an abandoned cache, I would like to adopt it, but the CO is unresponsive. If I post a NA, it gets archived and I create a new cache, exactly duplicating the original (only GC code, CO name and date of placement would be different), would there be any copyright issues or other problems?

Yes, there would be copyright issues. See Groundspeak's Terms of Use Agreement. The original owner has the copyrights to the listing page text that they write. (See section 6.) And you agree not to infringe upon anybody else's copyrights. (See section 4(d).)

[+Totem Clan]

Stupid question of the day:

 

Suppose there is an abandoned cache, I would like to adopt it, but the CO is unresponsive. If I post a NA, it gets archived and I create a new cache, exactly duplicating the original (only GC code, CO name and date of placement would be different), would there be any copyright issues or other problems?

Nope. None at all.

 

There was one in North Dakota that was placed by a family. It was in a park that was once a neighborhood. It was flooded out and turned into part of the flood protection area for the city. In fact the cache was in a tree that was in their old backyard. He ended up getting the account in a divorce and moved to Californa. She maintained it for a long time until she moved as well. It was finally archived and I hid a new cahce on the same spot in the same way. It was done as a tribute cache to them and the cache that was there first.

[+SwineFlew]

Personally, I wish Groundspeak would drop the concept of cache adoption altogether. I used to think that it wasn't a bad idea for "historic" caches, but as we see historic cache after historic cache fall by the wayside (see the recent Mingo thread, for one example) even that motive doesn't really move me any more. Post an NA and if the area is special enough, hide a new one there when the old one is gone, and bring all those cachers back that found the first one. Keep the area alive, not the cache.

 

Thats best quote I heard for a long time!!

[+Totem Clan]

 

Suppose there is an abandoned cache, I would like to adopt it, but the CO is unresponsive. If I post a NA, it gets archived and I create a new cache, exactly duplicating the original (only GC code, CO name and date of placement would be different), would there be any copyright issues or other problems?

Are you going to copy the cache page as well? If so +1 to the below.

Yes, there would be copyright issues. See Groundspeak's Terms of Use Agreement. The original owner has the copyrights to the listing page text that they write. (See section 6.) And you agree not to infringe upon anybody else's copyrights. (See section 4(d).)

[+Lieblweb]

Stupid question of the day:

 

Suppose there is an abandoned cache, I would like to adopt it, but the CO is unresponsive. If I post a NA, it gets archived and I create a new cache, exactly duplicating the original (only GC code, CO name and date of placement would be different), would there be any copyright issues or other problems?

 

Don't copy it..... and I mean, make your own listing and personalize it the way YOU want it.

 

You'll claim that spot for yourself. Make it YOURS and be proud of it!!

[+Moose Mob]

For the most part, there is no problem with copying the cache page. As TOU section 6 states, when you submit a listing or post a log, it belongs to Groundspeak. You can't enforce copyright the cache name "top of the hill" or "end of the road". The cache page content would also be hard to copyright/enforce.

 

But I would suggest you make it your own.

[+Ike 13]

The question becomes what kind of maintenance is needed. Are we talking about the entire cache missing or destroyed? Then yes a NA is needed. Does it just need dried out and a new log? Then probably not. I like Clan Rifster's 3 part list.

 

Recently one of my favorite multis was reported as missing. The original owner is in Colorado, the adopting owner is local, log in, but not an active cacher. 3 of us have all contacted her to let her know that we will check on it and maintain it if necessary. Why? The spot is nice but the history and the style are very unique to the area.

[+CanadianRockies]

For the most part, there is no problem with copying the cache page. As TOU section 6 states, when you submit a listing or post a log, it belongs to Groundspeak. You can't enforce copyright the cache name "top of the hill" or "end of the road". The cache page content would also be hard to copyright/enforce.

No, the TOU section 6 states that the cache page listing (and log posts, for that matter) belong to the original author:

 

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, "Submissions") remain the property and copyright of the original author.

And the copyright should be very easy to enforce. Simply follow the instructions found in section 7 of the TOU.

 

You are correct that the cache title is not subject to copyright.

Edited February 3, 2012 by CanadianRockies