How Can I Adopt an Abandoned Cache?

[+PC-Realestacher]

There is an abandoned cache in a wonderful location that I would love to adopt. The CO stopped caching entirely not long after placing this cache and clearly hasn't touched it since (nearly 3 years). The top of the container is missing; the log is a rotting, mildewed mess-- could not sign, could not read; it is nothing but a home to worms and spiders now. I sent a "Maintenance" note to the CO after my find, but nothing has been done. Then I messaged the CO through Geocaching.com and requested that he let me adopt the cache. Again, nothing. Is there a protocol for archiving a cache (or location) when the CO is no longer active or responding to messages?

[+Planet]

You can't adopt it unless the owner sends you an adoption link. If you want, you can email them and ask. If you get no replies, and the cache is in bad shape, post a needs maintenance. If the needs maintenance is not answered, post a needs archived. If it gets archived, hide a cache there. Without the owner offering it up for adoption, you can't adopt it. Kind of like walking down the street, seeing a cute kid and taking it home to adopt. Nobody said you could do that. The cache parent has to want to adopt it out. Right now, it needs maintenance, and if there have been NM logs on it, it is time for a Needs Archived note, which goes to the reviewer's attention. Then you put a watch on the cache and have your cache ready to go out, you will get an email when it is archived. Be ready. Good spots go quick in some places.

[+Ike 13]

The only way you can adopt a cache is with the owners permission. In this case post a Needs Archived log. After a month if the cache owner does not maintain their cache the reviewer will archive that cache clearing the spot. That way you can make the spot your own and hide a cache anywhere in that area.

[+WestSideDaddy]

Is it Wednesday already?

 

In some cases it would be nice if there was a reverse-adoption so that an abandoned cache could be adopted without the CO, but the possibilities of abuse are probably pretty high.

 

If you can't adopt, you could always be a foster CO. Put it on your watchlist and voluntarily maintain it.

 

But it is probably better to get it archived. Part of the agreement to hiding a cache is that you will maintain it, if you don't, and aren't responsive then that's the way it goes.

 

If the spot is great, you can always create a new cache listing in the same spot. Call it "Awesome Cache Name 2" or "Awesome Cache Name Reboot". Reference the old one, get a container ready but don't publish it until the first one gets archived.

[+uxorious]

In some cases it would be nice if there was a reverse-adoption so that an abandoned cache could be adopted without the CO, but the possibilities of abuse are probably pretty high.

 

Groundspeak doesn't own the caches we hide. Therefore, they cannot give a cache to someone else without the consent of the person who does own it. I suspect that for legal reasons, they do not want to have ownership of the caches.

 

If I remember right, they used to adopt out caches, without consent of the CO, but it caused a lot of problems.

[+PC-Realestacher]

You can't adopt it unless the owner sends you an adoption link. If you want, you can email them and ask. If you get no replies, and the cache is in bad shape, post a needs maintenance. If the needs maintenance is not answered, post a needs archived. If it gets archived, hide a cache there. Without the owner offering it up for adoption, you can't adopt it. Kind of like walking down the street, seeing a cute kid and taking it home to adopt. Nobody said you could do that. The cache parent has to want to adopt it out. Right now, it needs maintenance, and if there have been NM logs on it, it is time for a Needs Archived note, which goes to the reviewer's attention. Then you put a watch on the cache and have your cache ready to go out, you will get an email when it is archived. Be ready. Good spots go quick in some places.

 

Okay, so I HAVE sent an emailed request for adoption and a "NEEDS MAINTENANCE" notice. I'll give it a few days, then go for the "NEEDS ARCHIVED" note and get the reviewers involved. Thanks for the great advice!

[+Cardinal Red]

Okay, so I HAVE sent an emailed request for adoption and a "NEEDS MAINTENANCE" notice. I'll give it a few days, then go for the "NEEDS ARCHIVED" note and get the reviewers involved. Thanks for the great advice!

I would start writing up a new cache page now. Just DO NOT enable it yet. Be ready to act quickly if the current cache does get archived. If that falls through though, you could always edit the cache page you created, and use it for something else later.

[+roundnround we go]

I am also from Panama City and if you can send me a PM though my profile and give me cache owners name I might be able to help you get in contact.

[+roundnround we go]

Just saw the cache you are talking about and I wouldn't be able to help you with that on as that cacher was never really very active. Not sure if they ever showed up to any of the events we use to have in town. your best bet is to follow the advice above. it will take a little longer but you could eventually take over the site and place a new cache. just write up your cache page now to somewhat hold the spot if it gets archived.

[+jellis]

Is it Wednesday already?

 

In some cases it would be nice if there was a reverse-adoption so that an abandoned cache could be adopted without the CO, but the possibilities of abuse are probably pretty high.

 

If you can't adopt, you could always be a foster CO. Put it on your watchlist and voluntarily maintain it.

 

But it is probably better to get it archived. Part of the agreement to hiding a cache is that you will maintain it, if you don't, and aren't responsive then that's the way it goes.

 

If the spot is great, you can always create a new cache listing in the same spot. Call it "Awesome Cache Name 2" or "Awesome Cache Name Reboot". Reference the old one, get a container ready but don't publish it until the first one gets archived.

Yes it's Wednesday

And I will add how I sent a request to someone for adopting and the owner agreed. But never followed through with the adoption. I will keep bugging her til she does it. (don't worry, I know her)

[+OZ2CPU]

we have a similar case here in my area,

but a little bit different,

a very good cache was made many years ago,

many loved it, it was SUPER !!

however the CO died, and no one is able to get his passwords or access his profile,

so adoption the normal way is not possible,

many people are very interested in keeping his historic cache healty and online,

also as a tribute to a very loved CO,

how ever, so far no one will let us get access to his page or profile so we can edit or update the cache page...

 

------

 

Normal caches, with out any special historic about the cache or the CO

should be marked N.A. as soon as people feel a cache is in bad shape and clearly neglected its service from CO..

(it is the best way to UP the quality avarage of caches listed as enabled)

Edited June 14, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+PC-Realestacher]

Thanks for the advice and I'm doing just that. The original cache was a good idea at the time and it has held up relatively well, considering the fact that I don't think it has been touched by the CO since it was set. But now it is no longer waterproof and is just a big mess! Such a great spot deserves a cache that will bring visitors-- or at least give them a log that they can sign.

[knowschad]

I really wish this whole "cache adoption" thing would simply vanish. There are very few caches that, in my opinion, are worth adopting, and these would be caches of very historic value (defined arbitrarily as from within the first year or two of geocaching). I'm not even sure that those are all that important, actually. A new cache in the same spot will bring old visitors back there. An adopted cache will only bring new geocachers to it.

 

The procedure mentioned of trying to contact the owner, followed by an NA, is indeed the correct route to go.

[+CanadianRockies]

I really wish this whole "cache adoption" thing would simply vanish. There are very few caches that, in my opinion, are worth adopting, and these would be caches of very historic value (defined arbitrarily as from within the first year or two of geocaching).

I don't think it's only historic caches that are worthy of adoption. I have several easy-to-find but tricky-to-access custom-built caches. If I moved away, I'd adopt them out. Suppose I instead archived them and gave to local geocachers who created new cache listings for them. Probably most people who returned to find them again would do so simply to get a second smiley and to remove the icons from their maps. They've already had the experience of figuring out how to get inside these caches, which is really the main point.

 

Edit to add: Many desk puzzles, letterbox-hybrids, Earthcaches, and cleverly hidden traditionals also are worth adopting out for similar reasons.

Edited June 14, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Ohiosiouxfan]

We have a similar cache in our town. It was set by a CO with about 15 finds and hasn't logged on to GC.com since 2/11. The placement is in a park woods area that makes setting other caches difficult because of saturation, and the cache itself is placed in a rather ugly area off a trail in the back of the woods. No response to emails and no maintenance either to replace logs by the CO. Logs get replaced by finders but nothing more. Oh yeah, and it's a micro/film canister in the woods, where a good sized container could be placed. So the cache doesn't necessarily need maintenance, but it would be nice to have it adopted to be placed better and with a better container.

[+uxorious]

We have a similar cache in our town. It was set by a CO with about 15 finds and hasn't logged on to GC.com since 2/11. The placement is in a park woods area that makes setting other caches difficult because of saturation, and the cache itself is placed in a rather ugly area off a trail in the back of the woods. No response to emails and no maintenance either to replace logs by the CO. Logs get replaced by finders but nothing more. Oh yeah, and it's a micro/film canister in the woods, where a good sized container could be placed. So the cache doesn't necessarily need maintenance, but it would be nice to have it adopted to be placed better and with a better container.

 

This is an excellent example of a cache that needs to have a NM, and later a NA. If it needs to be placed better, and a better container, adopting is not the way to go with it.

[knowschad]

I really wish this whole "cache adoption" thing would simply vanish. There are very few caches that, in my opinion, are worth adopting, and these would be caches of very historic value (defined arbitrarily as from within the first year or two of geocaching).

I don't think it's only historic caches that are worthy of adoption. I have several easy-to-find but tricky-to-access custom-built caches. If I moved away, I'd adopt them out. Suppose I instead archived them and gave to local geocachers who created new cache listings for them. Probably most people who returned to find them again would do so simply to get a second smiley and to remove the icons from their maps. They've already had the experience of figuring out how to get inside these caches, which is really the main point.

 

Edit to add: Many desk puzzles, letterbox-hybrids, Earthcaches, and cleverly hidden traditionals also are worth adopting out for similar reasons.

 

Take them with you. Expose your new caching friends to your old ideas. I suppose there are some that really can't be moved, because they fit the environment in one way or another, but you see what I mean, I'm sure.

 

Its pretty common to hear a geocacher say, "I never knew this great park was here!", but a lot less common to hear, "I always love caching in this great park!". There was a time when most parks still had room for new caches without old ones being archived, but in many places, those days are pretty much gone. Cache adoption keeps those spots filled when perhaps they should be refilled instead.

[+CanadianRockies]

I really wish this whole "cache adoption" thing would simply vanish. There are very few caches that, in my opinion, are worth adopting, and these would be caches of very historic value (defined arbitrarily as from within the first year or two of geocaching).

I don't think it's only historic caches that are worthy of adoption. I have several easy-to-find but tricky-to-access custom-built caches. If I moved away, I'd adopt them out. Suppose I instead archived them and gave to local geocachers who created new cache listings for them. Probably most people who returned to find them again would do so simply to get a second smiley and to remove the icons from their maps. They've already had the experience of figuring out how to get inside these caches, which is really the main point.

 

Edit to add: Many desk puzzles, letterbox-hybrids, Earthcaches, and cleverly hidden traditionals also are worth adopting out for similar reasons.

Take them with you. Expose your new caching friends to your old ideas. I suppose there are some that really can't be moved, because they fit the environment in one way or another, but you see what I mean, I'm sure.

Many cleverly hidden traditionals, letterbox-hyrids, and Earthcaches are fairly tailored to the environment. If they are so-so caches, then archiving them probably would be the thing to do. But if they have plenty of favorite points, then why deprive future cachers of an excellent finding experience?

 

Desk puzzles and field puzzles might be more mobile, but some are easily duplicated at the place where the owner relocates. So, I'd still prefer to see the more popular ones adopted rather than archived. I'm in favor of quality caches.

 

Its pretty common to hear a geocacher say, "I never knew this great park was here!", but a lot less common to hear, "I always love caching in this great park!". There was a time when most parks still had room for new caches without old ones being archived, but in many places, those days are pretty much gone. Cache adoption keeps those spots filled when perhaps they should be refilled instead.

I'm not suggesting that every soon-to-be-abandoned cache should be adopted instead of archived. Indeed, I think most should be archived. But there certainly are some high-quality caches I'd prefer to see adopted. If "this whole 'cache adoption' thing would simply vanish," then that wouldn't be possible.

Edited June 15, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[knowschad]

I really wish this whole "cache adoption" thing would simply vanish. There are very few caches that, in my opinion, are worth adopting, and these would be caches of very historic value (defined arbitrarily as from within the first year or two of geocaching).

I don't think it's only historic caches that are worthy of adoption. I have several easy-to-find but tricky-to-access custom-built caches. If I moved away, I'd adopt them out. Suppose I instead archived them and gave to local geocachers who created new cache listings for them. Probably most people who returned to find them again would do so simply to get a second smiley and to remove the icons from their maps. They've already had the experience of figuring out how to get inside these caches, which is really the main point.

 

Edit to add: Many desk puzzles, letterbox-hybrids, Earthcaches, and cleverly hidden traditionals also are worth adopting out for similar reasons.

Take them with you. Expose your new caching friends to your old ideas. I suppose there are some that really can't be moved, because they fit the environment in one way or another, but you see what I mean, I'm sure.

Many cleverly hidden traditionals, letterbox-hyrids, and Earthcaches are fairly tailored to the environment. If they are so-so caches, then archiving them probably would be the thing to do. But if they have plenty of favorite points, then why deprive future cachers of an excellent finding experience?

I'm not so sure I would use the word, "many". But yeah... some. Earthcaches are by their very nature (unintentional pun) limited to a specific area. I wasn't even thinking of those. So, leaving EC's out of the equation, how many ABANDONED cleverly hidden traditionals, letterbox-hyrids, and Earthcaches are fairly tailored to the environment do you think are out there?

[+CanadianRockies]

I really wish this whole "cache adoption" thing would simply vanish. There are very few caches that, in my opinion, are worth adopting, and these would be caches of very historic value (defined arbitrarily as from within the first year or two of geocaching).

I don't think it's only historic caches that are worthy of adoption. I have several easy-to-find but tricky-to-access custom-built caches. If I moved away, I'd adopt them out. Suppose I instead archived them and gave to local geocachers who created new cache listings for them. Probably most people who returned to find them again would do so simply to get a second smiley and to remove the icons from their maps. They've already had the experience of figuring out how to get inside these caches, which is really the main point.

 

Edit to add: Many desk puzzles, letterbox-hybrids, Earthcaches, and cleverly hidden traditionals also are worth adopting out for similar reasons.

Take them with you. Expose your new caching friends to your old ideas. I suppose there are some that really can't be moved, because they fit the environment in one way or another, but you see what I mean, I'm sure.

Many cleverly hidden traditionals, letterbox-hyrids, and Earthcaches are fairly tailored to the environment. If they are so-so caches, then archiving them probably would be the thing to do. But if they have plenty of favorite points, then why deprive future cachers of an excellent finding experience?

 

Desk puzzles and field puzzles might be more mobile, but some are easily duplicated at the place where the owner relocates. So, I'd still prefer to see the more popular ones adopted rather than archived. I'm in favor of quality caches.

I'm not so sure I would use the word, "many". But yeah... some. Earthcaches are by their very nature (unintentional pun) limited to a specific area. I wasn't even thinking of those. So, leaving EC's out of the equation, how many ABANDONED cleverly hidden traditionals, letterbox-hyrids, and Earthcaches are fairly tailored to the environment do you think are out there?

It's not just ABANDONED caches. There are plenty of people who move or exit geocaching who adopt out their caches or archive and remove their caches. I'm glad owners have the option to adopt out high-quality caches rather than archive them.

 

And it's not just the caches that are tailored to their environment. There are owners with excellent desk and field puzzles who easily could archive these caches when they move, take the containers with them, and recreate these puzzles near their new homes. But I'd prefer to see these adopted out at their old locations and then recreated at the owners' new locations. Why not increase the number of good puzzles that are out there for people to enjoy?

[+Baad Daata]

Along this line of thought: I have a friend that has placed some caches. He has passed away. I am the only person that would have access to his password. I adopted several of his caches shortly after his passing. I have tried to adopt some of his other caches and have been denied access to his account. How do I resolve this issue? I am certain of his access code but it seems to be non-functional. It could be a result of "baad daata".

[Keystone]

From the Knowledge Book Page about Adoptions:

 

Groundspeak will not process a geocache transfer without written permission from the geocache owner. Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com. Decisions about caches belonging to someone who is deceased need to be made by the cache owner's family since that cache is now part of the estate.

 

Have the family write to contact@Groundspeak.com with authorization/instructions on how to handle the account.