Jump to content

Take over ownership of an abandoned cache?


Bowleybagpuss
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Ok so I have found a cache about a mile away from my home and it has been reported as "needs maintenance" lots of times. Basically the box was never suitable, its always wet and everyone is logging as such. I have tried to contact the owner (Including offering to look after it for them) but they do not respond and have never maintained the cache.

 

As I see it I could

1/ just replace the cache and just let them have credit for it.

2/ Log the cache as "needs archiving" and put my own down in the same location.

 

Or is there a more official or legitimate way?

 

Opinions please.

Link to comment

Have you logged it as "found", yourself? If so, have you returned to it to personally check on its' condition? Have you (yourself) filed a Needs Maintenance log?

 

If yes to those three things -- then option #2 is the route to take.

 

Maintaining a cache for an unresponsive cacher owner really isn't all that good. If they are just lazy, well -- you are enabling their laziness. If they moved away and didn't archive it, well that sort of resorts to the previous statement. If they passed away -- not much anyone can do about that -- but they certainly can't maintain the cache, either. If they are too busy with other aspects of life, well -- that does happen from time-to-time.

 

In order to adopt a cache, you need the assistance of the owner. If they are unresponsive, well... whatchagonnado?

Link to comment

I agree with the above in 99% of the cases. There is always the exception.

 

There is a cache here that the owner was/is an older gentlemen that got to the point he could not care for the cache. I found it years ago while on leave and visiting my parents. I have sinced moved back to the area and the cache was being "cared for" by cachers that happen to 'find' it. In agreement with the reveiwer I now maintain the cache as though it were mine, it just shows the other gentleman as CO on the cache page.

Link to comment

agree with the above.

if its an older cache then put it on your watch list and if something needs done to it

keep it up.

there is a cache in my area that is at the end of a walking trail. its been out for 4-5 years.

it was placed in the state park without permission years ago. last year i worked with the parks and placed

caches on the walking trail. i went ahead and added those cords to that cache to the permission page from the park

and as i said placed it on my watch list. if it needs help i fix it as i do my own.

 

thats after i had emailed the c/o with no response. but i couldnt see archiving an older cache its easier

to just keep it up. and keep some of the history.

Link to comment

I'm currently on a road trip around the U.S. and I can't tell you how many soggy log books I have signed or replaced, fortunately my pen writes on wet paper. Clearly there are caches that are neglected out there and some owners are worse than others. I have reported some of my finds as NM and more than one of my DNFs as needs Archive but only when I am absolutely sure about the situation.

 

While I have been competitive about many cache statistics my number of hides is not one of them. I have caontainers in the planning and in process building atage that are on hold until my return. I am working on creating a power run in my area.

 

Point is I would rater see quality caches out there. I appreciate all types, puzzel, creative containers, multi, micros, and yes even power runs. I do not care to sink my hands into gooy masses of bio-gook. I wish the owner of a cache which receive a wet log notice would be proactive and redesign their hide to eliminate that issue, it can be done.

 

Some caches just will not or can not maintain their hides, when those are identified by repeated NM logs I agree something needs to be done. I really like the Needs Archive option and have used it when I thoughtit was appropriate. I'm glad there is a way to clear the unmaintained hides. The process for this should be a little complicated to give the owner every chance to respond.

 

I do not favor the ability of "taking over" a hide without the owners approval. I just know the process would be abused by someone. We do not need any turf wars over hides.

Link to comment

I have a similar problem with a series of caches near home (Granite Trail 1 - 10, Okehampton, Devon, UK)

 

They lead to a mystery cache, and they're all on a cycle trail - it'd be a shame to lose the series but some are missing now.

 

My question is - if I were to set for example 'Granite Trail 3A' at or near the original location of 'Granite Trail 3' which has been archived, is that ok?

 

The down side is that all of the history of Granite Trail 3 is lost, but I do at least get control of the cache.

 

However since the owner of the cache hasn't logged in for nearly 2 years, I think it ought to be possible to for me to apply for a 'caretaker' status - the cache owner still owns the cache, but I can maintain it. Then if the owner re-appears they can say 'thank you and goodbye' to me. Clearly the original cache (container and contents) belongs to the cache owner, but the listing on GC.com belongs to GC.com.

 

What do you think?

JamesOke

Link to comment

I have a similar problem with a series of caches near home (Granite Trail 1 - 10, Okehampton, Devon, UK)

 

They lead to a mystery cache, and they're all on a cycle trail - it'd be a shame to lose the series but some are missing now.

 

My question is - if I were to set for example 'Granite Trail 3A' at or near the original location of 'Granite Trail 3' which has been archived, is that ok?

 

The down side is that all of the history of Granite Trail 3 is lost, but I do at least get control of the cache.

 

However since the owner of the cache hasn't logged in for nearly 2 years, I think it ought to be possible to for me to apply for a 'caretaker' status - the cache owner still owns the cache, but I can maintain it. Then if the owner re-appears they can say 'thank you and goodbye' to me. Clearly the original cache (container and contents) belongs to the cache owner, but the listing on GC.com belongs to GC.com.

 

What do you think?

JamesOke

I think you may be jumping the gun with your proposal here -- IF it could be done (having control "assigned" to you).

Because you stated that some are missing, I checked the series to see what you meant by "missing".

 

You are correct on a number of accounts: Some are missing; the CO appears inactive; and certainly the history of the series is probably lost.

BUT, it appears as though the reviewer is keeping tabs on these caches as he/she has disabled some and posted that unless the CO makes an appearance and does something, archival is soon to be forthcoming (those that are disabled).

 

Granite Trail No. 3 and No. 9 are already archived. It appears that those locations may well be open for cache placement as it is. There is no need to ask permission to place a cache in those locations -- assuming that the saturation guidelines are not violated.

 

Previous posts in this thread delineate a process, which by all accounts appears to be working well in this particular instance. Why would you still try or want to skirt that process? It is a proven method that does maintain some stability and order with adoptions, removals and "take-overs" (akin to the last sentence of klipsch49er's post).

 

Place caches (in the openings) along that series as you see fit. If you so desire, there is nothing to prohibit your using the same or similar names (it does however, create confusion for some cachers).

 

Good luck. It does appear that eventually, you will be able to re-establish that series. Just don't try to do so swimming upstream as that gets very tiring. :)

 

EDIT: Context

Edited by Gitchee-Gummee
Link to comment

(.... trimmed)

Place caches (in the openings) along that series as you see fit. If you so desire, there is nothing to prohibit your using the same or similar names (it does however, create confusion for some cachers).

 

Good luck. It does appear that eventually, you will be able to re-establish that series. Just don't try to do so swimming upstream as that gets very tiring. :)

 

 

That sounds like a plan. As you say, the caches that have been archived are available for replacement - I went to the location of the mystery cache yesterday, so I can now re-set the clues for that one in any caches I replace in (or near) the original locations.

 

I have no wish to upset anyone or bypass any process, but it does seem a bit of a pity to lose the history. Also it gives people an opportunity to visit the newly replaced cache and count that in their total too which seems a bit of a cheat!

 

But I suppose in the grand scheme of things it is better that way than to create a problem with people taking over other peoples caches simply because they don't like they way they're run!

 

Thanks for your advice! :)

 

James.

Link to comment

Have you logged it as "found", yourself? If so, have you returned to it to personally check on its' condition? Have you (yourself) filed a Needs Maintenance log?

 

If yes to those three things -- then option #2 is the route to take.

There is a series of four caches very near to where I live that get regular visits every month. I've been monitoring them since last year.

Three of the four caches have legitimate NM logs.

 

Yes, I have logged a find for all of them.

Yes, I have returned to check on them (and even added a new log to one of them).

No, I have not logged a NM, but others have repeatedly.

 

I contacted the inactive CO two months ago to see about adopting them, but have had no response.

 

I am tempted to log 'Needs Archived' on two of them, as they really need to be maintained now (damaged containers, bug infested) and place my own nearby.

Link to comment

I see a couple of posts where the history of the archived cache is in question.

 

If you (someone) places a cache as a tribute or replacement of a cache that was archived, you can always include a link to the original cache page so others can enjoy the history as well.

 

Caches may be placed at historical locations, but few (if any, in reality) caches have any truly historical value themselves.

Link to comment

but few (if any, in reality) caches have any truly historical value themselves.

 

Does GC80D Toronto Outer Harbour count? This is the oldest cache in Toronto and it got bulldozed. The CO hasn't been on since 2008. It would be a shame to see this one go.

The cache is gone - so (apparently) is the owner. There is nothing terribly historical about a page of text on the Internet. Link to the prior cache when you hide a new one of your own.

Link to comment

The cache is gone - so (apparently) is the owner. There is nothing terribly historical about a page of text on the Internet. Link to the prior cache when you hide a new one of your own.

 

It isn't the page of text, it is the three-digit GC code.

 

I'll have to go back when they're done construction and see if there's a spot to hide a new container. One of the things I like about this area is that the landform is being extended out into the lake by dumping of demolition waste and other stuff. Further out on the peninsula, there are literally tonnes of objects that are perfect camouflage for building urban cache hides.

Link to comment

but few (if any, in reality) caches have any truly historical value themselves.

 

Does GC80D Toronto Outer Harbour count? This is the oldest cache in Toronto and it got bulldozed. The CO hasn't been on since 2008. It would be a shame to see this one go.

The cache is gone - so (apparently) is the owner. There is nothing terribly historical about a page of text on the Internet. Link to the prior cache when you hide a new one of your own.

 

It's a shame to see these go, but if the owner isn't around to deal with the situation there is little question of the final outcome.

 

In Geocaching terms, it's an ancient relic.

In the general terms of 'Historical', not even close.

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...