+dartymoor Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 This is a subject that's come up in a local forum and I would appreciate a wider input. Many cachers will replace logs and dry out caches, even replace containers when they encounter ones in need. I've done this myself and continue to do it (and as a CO myself, I'm always grateful for those who do it on mine!) - but I'm wondering if it's always a good idea? Yes - it'll save a CO a long trip for maintenance, but if the CO has abandoned the cache is it good to artificially keep a cache going that is unloved by its owner, or the owner has given up caching and will neither fix nor remove the cache. My current thinking is to just do it for CO's I know and are active, and not to for people who own few caches or who have been inactive or who have a low find count (Sorry to generalise, but most abandoned caches seem to be from the <150/200 group). I'll raise a NM and follow with a NA if not attended to, to create space for another new and loved cache that will generate new interest from local cachers who have either found the original or not gone there for a reason. But is my thinking right? What do others do who've faced this dilemma? Quote Link to comment
+Chipperlarter Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 This is a subject that's come up in a local forum and I would appreciate a wider input. Many cachers will replace logs and dry out caches, even replace containers when they encounter ones in need. I've done this myself and continue to do it (and as a CO myself, I'm always grateful for those who do it on mine!) - but I'm wondering if it's always a good idea? Yes - it'll save a CO a long trip for maintenance, but if the CO has abandoned the cache is it good to artificially keep a cache going that is unloved by its owner, or the owner has given up caching and will neither fix nor remove the cache. My current thinking is to just do it for CO's I know and are active, and not to for people who own few caches or who have been inactive or who have a low find count (Sorry to generalise, but most abandoned caches seem to be from the <150/200 group). I'll raise a NM and follow with a NA if not attended to, to create space for another new and loved cache that will generate new interest from local cachers who have either found the original or not gone there for a reason. But is my thinking right? What do others do who've faced this dilemma? Hi, Just posted a similar question. I think Groundspeak should have section When You set up a cache that says if you are inactive for a certain period of time as a CO The. The cache will be archived or put up for adoption? Chipperlarter Quote Link to comment
+Matthew 7:7 Too Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 There's a cache near me that was placed way back in 2001. It's in a lovely location, and due to its age a valued historic cache. But the owner seems to have lost interest in geocaching and does not respond to maintenance requests, or offers to have it adopted by a new owner. Strictly speaking, the original cache was the property of the original owner - although in practice the container and log book have both been replaced by local cachers - so Groundspeak won't transfer it to another cacher without the original owner's agreement. You can argue that when the owner has not logged on to the website for a considerable period (ie several years?) Groundspeak should be able to give it to a new owner. But instead their offical guidelines state that the cache should be archived (even if this will leave the container, contents etc in situ) and a new cache placed nearby. For some recent caches this is probably justified, but when the cache is so old that it is of historical interest I would like to see it be transferred to a new owner to maintain its links with the origins of geocaching. Some of my unforgettable caches are the big old ammo boxes hidden in the woods many years ago like GC1C5D (at Glastonbury Tor) and GC2024 (at the Major Oak in Sherwood Forset). I am all for keeping these alive even if the owner abandons them Chris Quote Link to comment
+dartymoor Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 There's a cache near me that was placed way back in 2001. It's in a lovely location, and due to its age a valued historic cache. But the owner seems to have lost interest in geocaching and does not respond to maintenance requests, or offers to have it adopted by a new owner. That's a really good example, and something I hadn't considered. Presumably it must have some uncleared NM flags by now? I think I'll continue judging each on its own merits - although ones that age are few and far between. Quote Link to comment
+Pharisee Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 In 2007 I was planning a visit to the Outer Hebrides. There was a cache on Harris that had maintainence problems and the reviewers at the time were going to archive it. They asked me to pick it up and dispose of it, if I could find it. Well fellow cacher "Silver Fox" and I found it but it was in good condition and at such a splendid location that we thought that maybe it should be saved. We spoke to all three reviewers (there were only three reviewers then) on the 'phone and they agreed, eventually, to save it. They added this paragraph to the cache page:- "Please note! The UK Reviewer Team have taken the unusual step of placing this cache into the care of the community. Each finder is asked to treat it as if it is their own cache and perform maintenance on it when found. Please post any issues in your log so that the next visitor may rectify them." The cache is still going strong, has been looked after by visiting cachers when necessary, has a fist full of favourite points and gets great reviews from all who find it. If you're up that way, go and see for yourselves what care in the community can do. The cache is GC6308 - 2002 A Space Odyssey Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 It would be neat if the powers that be could preserve the listing date and code for someone else to take over the cache. It seems hideously legalistic to argue that the abandoned cache is the property of the original owner and so can't be adopted to someone else without the original owner's consent (especially if it can be taken away and disposed of by any passing cacher once it's archived), but the listing itself must belong to Groundspeak, so if a cache has been around for many years it seems like they could transfer the listing to a new owner even if they required that new owner to put out a new cache container. That way it means the original owner still maintains some form of ownership over the physical box they put out (even if it has been removed and destroyed in practice) and older caches that have a loyal following can survive even if in a slightly modified form. Quote Link to comment
+Delta68 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The cache is still going strong, has been looked after by visiting cachers when necessary, has a fist full of favourite points and gets great reviews from all who find it. If you're up that way, go and see for yourselves what care in the community can do. The cache is GC6308 - 2002 A Space Odyssey Well it took me 30 seconds to track down the owner of that cache! In the past I've tried to contact owners who have given up caching but I don't usually have that much luck Mark Quote Link to comment
+Matthew 7:7 Too Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 There's a cache near me that was placed way back in 2001. It's in a lovely location, and due to its age a valued historic cache. But the owner seems to have lost interest in geocaching and does not respond to maintenance requests, or offers to have it adopted by a new owner. That's a really good example, and something I hadn't considered. Presumably it must have some uncleared NM flags by now? I think I'll continue judging each on its own merits - although ones that age are few and far between. It was a "Needs Maintenance" flag that brought it to my attention, but after I had maintained it I got it cleared. cHRIS Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 I agree that cases should be treated on their own merits. If a cache is fairly remote and isolated, then chances are that it's not inconveniencing anyone so should be allowed to remain as long as it has a log book (however scruffy it might be). If a cache owner hasn't logged on for five years; who cares, if their cache is still viable? Eventually, if no-one is bothered about the cache it'll rot away naturally and someone will post a NA so that the listing dies with it. Should a perfectly findable cache should be archived because it hasn't been visited by the CO for a long time? Surely not. Will I be furious if I walk a mile out of my way only to find that the cache is full of water? Not really, I won't be pleased but I'll make the appropriate log and if no-one takes any action then the cache will die off. I've revived a couple of caches recently that are in a series that is being neglected by the CO; it's a very enjoyable series and is now good to go again. As far as I can tell, everyone gains (whether or not that's an "official" way of going on, matters not). Quote Link to comment
+factotem Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 It does seem a shame for good caches to die through neglect. Whilst I would be reluctant to put extra work on our reviewers there is already an automatic (surely) mechanism for notifying nearby cachers of new publications. If there was a similar notification of archives or potential archives then maybe there would be more chance of it surviving or being replaced by a new one if in a particularly appropriate location. (I don't update my found caches very often and would be unlikely to know about an already found cache being archived). Quote Link to comment
I! Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Many cachers will replace logs and dry out caches No, don't. Instead: "KILL IT. KILL IT WITH FIRE." Ha! Quote Link to comment
+Seaglass Pirates Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) I offered to take over a cache. The not on the cache page from the reviewer was this: "have archived this cache because it has been abandoned by the cache owner. This location is now free if anyone wants to place a new cache here. I would appreciate any cacher removing the cache to avoid leaving geo-litter." I replied via email "Hi, I will happily take that cache in those woods it on, as its near me" And I named the cache but not the GC code. Reviewer "Hi I am sorry but because you did not include the GC code I cannot see which cache you are talking about. I see hundreds of caches every day so if you supply me the GC code I can see which cache you are on about. If you mean you would like to adopt the cache I am afraid this is not our job. Our job is ...... reams of cut and paste ..... and so therefore you will have to contact the cache owner directly. However you can always wait until its archived and place a cache there yourself. Regards "Reviewer". Slightly confusing but agree with previous post that a reviewer should have the ability to transfer ownership. But as for the OP I would do as you suggest, maintain your friends caches on a pick and choose basis and the rest .... well they will have to dwindle I suppose. I just maintain whatever I come across because I think that is the community spirit. I have always had an email to say thanks, well almost always. Its what I would like for my one and only cache should anyone find it, so I do the same for others. Edited October 4, 2012 by Seaglass Pirates Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Slightly confusing but agree with previous post that a reviewer should have the ability to transfer ownership The reason that neither the Reviewers nor Groundspeak, do not have the ability to do "Forced Adoption", is due to the fact that the Owner of the Cache, remains ownership at all times, and as such, Groundspeak do not have a legal right to transfer ownership to a new owner. Geocaching.com is a Listing Site, that means it only Lists the details of the Geocache, and nothing else. In all the years I've been a Reviewer, the only time I've seen Groundspeak action the Transfer of Ownership, has been in cases where the Owner has Passed Away, and the Family have made the request that the ownership is transferred over. One major case, well known by many in the Community is that of Ewan-Billy Twigger. I was involved in that I gathered a List of Adopter's for all of his caches at the request of his family., But Groundspeak only actioned the Transfers, with the full permission of the family. Deci Quote Link to comment
+Seaglass Pirates Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The reason that neither the Reviewers nor Groundspeak, do not have the ability to do "Forced Adoption", is due to the fact that the Owner of the Cache, remains ownership at all times, and as such, Groundspeak do not have a legal right to transfer ownership to a new owner. Geocaching.com is a Listing Site, that means it only Lists the details of the Geocache, and nothing else. Ahhhhh I see what you have done there. You've gone and bandied the word legal around lol. No. The site belongs to Groundspeak/geocaching and we adhere to the rules within it if we want to play. So if the rules say forced adoption will take place if you do not maintain a cache etc, Groundspeak/geocaching are covered as it is part of the terms and conditions. As to the claim that legally the physical cache belongs to the original CO thats true. It is their property. However it is placed in accordance with the T&C's of geocaching. If for whatever reason they lose that right for breaking the T&C's the cache is now placed in the public domain but without the consent of Groundspeak/geocaching. It would therefore become .... lost property. Which can be retrieved and must be returned to the owner by all means possible. So therefore handed into a police station. The same as if you found a wallet. Otherwise if you accept what you have written as fact then archiving a persons cache when they do not respond is breaking the same rules. Requests to retrieve archived cache containers to avoid geolitter - collusion to break those rules. Then we get into the whole legal drama of different laws for different countries. No, when you say legal you mean "policy" and policies can be changed. Legal is a whole different ball game. Quote Link to comment
+Delta68 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think you will find that Deceangi never* asks other cacher to retrieve Geolitter Other reviewers might, but but not Deci (This is not a comment on the rights or wrongs of leaving geolitter - just a statement of fact!) Mark *I could be wrong though Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The reason that neither the Reviewers nor Groundspeak, do not have the ability to do "Forced Adoption", is due to the fact that the Owner of the Cache, remains ownership at all times, and as such, Groundspeak do not have a legal right to transfer ownership to a new owner. Geocaching.com is a Listing Site, that means it only Lists the details of the Geocache, and nothing else. Ahhhhh I see what you have done there. You've gone and bandied the word legal around lol. No. The site belongs to Groundspeak/geocaching and we adhere to the rules within it if we want to play. So if the rules say forced adoption will take place if you do not maintain a cache etc, Groundspeak/geocaching are covered as it is part of the terms and conditions. As to the claim that legally the physical cache belongs to the original CO thats true. It is their property. However it is placed in accordance with the T&C's of geocaching. If for whatever reason they lose that right for breaking the T&C's the cache is now placed in the public domain but without the consent of Groundspeak/geocaching. It would therefore become .... lost property. Which can be retrieved and must be returned to the owner by all means possible. So therefore handed into a police station. The same as if you found a wallet. Otherwise if you accept what you have written as fact then archiving a persons cache when they do not respond is breaking the same rules. Requests to retrieve archived cache containers to avoid geolitter - collusion to break those rules. Then we get into the whole legal drama of different laws for different countries. No, when you say legal you mean "policy" and policies can be changed. Legal is a whole different ball game. From the Archive logs I use Please avoid geolitter by removing any remaining traces of your cache or contact a local cacher to do so for you. If you are having difficulty doing so then please contact me via my profile and I will try to get someone to assist. This is particularly important if your cache appears to contain Travelbugs or Geocoins. I've made Bold the sections which make it clear it is the Cache Owner who is requested to uplift their property, or give me permission to find someone to do so. And you have ignored a very important point when you claimed As to the claim that legally the physical cache belongs to the original CO thats true. It is their property. However it is placed in accordance with the T&C's of geocaching. If for whatever reason they lose that right for breaking the T&C's the cache is now placed in the public domain but without the consent of Groundspeak/geocaching. It would therefore become .... lost property. Geocaching.com is just one of several Listing Sites, and in fact one particular one, owned by a Billion Dollar Company, has made it possible to easily transfer all the information held on Geocaching.com for any cache you own, on to their Listing Site, So Dual Listing it. In fact they actively encourage doing so. Which would argue contrary to your point that Archived caches on GC, now come into the Public Domain. You seem to have misunderstood, exactly what a Listing Site is. Deci Quote Link to comment
+Seaglass Pirates Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Hi Deci I think you need to reread the posts. It changes nothing. Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Hi Deci I think you need to reread the posts. It changes nothing. Since you believe you have identified a Legal Issue over Archived caches, please contact Groundspeak directly. At the same time, make sure that your fully up to speed with the laws of Washington State USA, because in regards to the Website, that is the applicable laws which you agree applies. Local Laws, apply to the Physical Geocache Container, and the actions of Geocachers. That is why The Physical Container remains solely the Property of the Owner, and not Groundspeak, under any circumstances. Because we could face another Searcher trying to make a Claim for Personal Injury, for a Injury sustained whilst searching for or retrieving a Geocache. If Groundspeak, in some way could become the Owners of the Physical Container, they then could be deemed Legally Liable. And yes the above truly happened here in the UK, before you became a member. The CO and Landowner went through 12 months of hell, before the claim was dropped. Do you believe that Groundspeak, would open themselves to risk of such Liability. Especially when one of the Owners, is Legally Qualified? Groundspeak have 12 years experience of running a Geocache Listing Site, a Multi Billion Dollar Company is now also running a Listing Site, do you really believe either will ever open them selves up to such a Liability? Deci Quote Link to comment
+Seaglass Pirates Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Well the temptation to describe how to extract something is almost overwhelming lol but i'll resist. No I suggested you reread the posts because you have misread exactly what I did write. And then you went off on a little tangent which normally I would let slide but seeing as you have altered the subject quite badly i'll redirect you. But gird your loins cause it will have to be a longun. First let me apologise for explaining myself poorly. I missed out a couple of words one of which was "if" but I had assumed it was clear enough. Assumption being the mother of all f ... mistakes. So sorry bout that. So lets clear that one up first. Ahhhhh I see what you have done there. You've gone and bandied the word legal around lol.No. The site belongs to Groundspeak/geocaching and we adhere to the rules within it if we want to play. So "if" the rules say forced adoption will take place "IF" you do not maintain a cache etc, Groundspeak/geocaching are covered as it is part of the terms and conditions. Oh .... I didnt miss the word if out I thought maybe I had. So to explain further ... IF, IF, IF the terms and conditions were changed to reflect that any non maintained cache could be handed over to an adoptive cacher then Groundspeak/geocaching would be covered as the CACHER would have accepted those rules when they joined. So they could not really complain could they. As to the claim that legally the physical cache belongs to the original CO thats true. It is their property. However it is placed in accordance with the T&C's of geocaching. If for whatever reason they lose that right for breaking the T&C's the cache is now placed in the "PUBLIC DOMAIN" but without the consent of Groundspeak/geocaching. It would therefore become .... lost property. Which can be retrieved and must be returned to the owner by all means possible. So therefore handed into a police station. The same as if you found a wallet. This was my mistake - by public domain I meant, though again assumption etc, PUBLIC SPACES. I did think it was obvious but I cannot hand on heart say it wasn't confusing. And by public spaces I mean wherever the tupperware is placed. Now - as to Since you believe you have identified a Legal Issue over Archived caches, please contact Groundspeak directly. At the same time, make sure that your fully up to speed with the laws of Washington State USA, because in regards to the Website, that is the applicable laws which you agree applies. iffy english aside lol (and I am only poking fun at you) I do not need to adhere to the laws of Washington State USA because they do not apply to me as I am a British Citizen. Unless I am on US soil. And I am not. Not likely to ever be either. The WEBSITE has to abide by those laws if it is based in the US. But not me. I DO however have to abide by the T&C's. They btw are not laws. They are policy. Oh sure they may be written whilst taking the LAW into account. BUT they are T&C's. And nothing more. I cannot go to prison for not abiding to groundspeaks T&C. I hope that clears that up ... Ish. I dont quite know why you keep mentioning a billion dollar company for. I am guessing that big bucks means the legal team associated or contracted by them are second to none or at least pretty snappy dressers. And whilst that may well be true - I have no idea why you keep bringing it up. Unless it is in reference to my comment about archived caches .... So - this is how I see it. A cache is Archived by a reviewer. THEN - the cache can be removed. Preferably by the CO (Agree there as it is their property), and everyone is happy. A space opens up for a new cache ... YAY. Under no circumstances can we give a cache site to someone else though unless it has gone through the archive process because of this LAW you mention. Now American law does not count here in the UK, so OUR laws say that you cannot remove property which does not belong to you. It is considered theft here. Unless covered by some other law, or contract. Now here is where its ok. "IF, IF, IF" we as UK cachers were to agree through the T&C (CONTRACT NOT LAW) of Groundspeak to allow our caches to be removed by anyone if we fail to maintain a cache, then IF IF IF that were to happen. Groundspeak would be well within their rights to do so by whichever means possible. And please do not say a reviewer does not ask for a cache to be removed because that would be a lie. I have already cut and paste an example. Again if the whole "you undertake geocaching at your own risk etc" blurb is enough to cover groundpeak when we go caching the same blurb can cover retrieval. IF IF IF in the Groundspeak T&C's it said that the LISTING of the CACHE can be transferred to another cacher if a cache is not maintained, then again geocachers would not have anything to complain about. And we could keep great caches going and going. Like oldest caches etc. I really do not think I can make it any clearer as to what I meant. But I do think that you rush read what I did write and assumed I was moaning about Groundspeak. No. I was moaning about your attempt to use this LAW you mentioned in order to appear correct as to why a geocache cannot simply be adopted by another cacher if the original cacher failed to maintain his cache.It has to go through this mysterious Archive process first and that made it all above board and legal. Like money laundering but for tupperware. Well I hope you see my point now. No doubt you will reply with something, either good or bad, but I am not prepared to continue. It appears from your tone that you are getting agitated and I dont want that. I just wanted to be able to keep excellent caches going easily when the cacher fails to do so. If thats impossible because of some LAW, I like to see LAWS. I love LAWS. But I dont like hearsay becoming a "LAW" when it isnt. And please dont think I am being aggressive, really not. I just want the best for groundpeak but more importantly, those that use it. Hence the suggestion of how to go about it. Best Wishes Me. Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Whilst a cache can be Archived on Groundspeaks listing site, it can still be listed -and active- on any of the other listing sites. It could well be being maintained, just not logged as being maintained on Groundspeak site. Hence Groundspeaks reluctance to 'adopt' the cache to another cacher... (Legal reasons aside!) Quote Link to comment
+Seaglass Pirates Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Whilst a cache can be Archived on Groundspeaks listing site, it can still be listed -and active- on any of the other listing sites. It could well be being maintained, just not logged as being maintained on Groundspeak site. Hence Groundspeaks reluctance to 'adopt' the cache to another cacher... (Legal reasons aside!) Now see that is perfectly clear and reasonable. But in no way the majority of caches. And could also be covered in the T&C's. And after reading what I wrote i'll add, of course if one were to be adopted, the physical cache would have to be handed into the police station as lost prpoerty and replaced with the adoption cache. The only meagre argument might be - that the intellectual property of the cache owner (the one who has failed to maintain their cache), meaning the listing page details, might belong to them and must be changed in order that intellectual property is not infringed. Well ... cut and paste from wikipedia and various other sites into a cache page aside lol, I would say thats a small price to pay to take on a cache. And of course if they wanted to adopt the cache they would have to attend the cache and therefore their own responsibility while there for their own well-being. But to be honest even their rights to intellectual property could be removed in the T&C's. And that is already done on Pathtags. When you submit a design you have to tic a box that says you give up your rights to the design and that it does not belong to you, before you can order your design. Don't tic the box, and you go no further. Quote Link to comment
+RoadRoach58 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Whilst a cache can be Archived on Groundspeaks listing site, it can still be listed -and active- on any of the other listing sites. It could well be being maintained, just not logged as being maintained on Groundspeak site. Hence Groundspeaks reluctance to 'adopt' the cache to another cacher... (Legal reasons aside!) The Billion Dollar Company thing, as I perceive it, had nothing to do with whether or not it's people can afford Armani suits. I think it was more an avoidance of the other "G"word. If listed on another site, and the owner is active on the other site, and has some grievance with Groundspeak, then, he/she/they should archive the listing on Groundspeak. However, some reviewers, as pointed out in above posts, will actively recruit other cachers to remove the cache as geolitter. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. That is the CO's property, and RESPONSIBILITY. If the CO is active on the other site and not on Groundspeak that is none of Groundspeak's business, and they certainly have no right to approve another hide on top of the existing one listed on another page, but due to all the legal dodging and weaving done by both sites, there's NOTHING to stop me from putting a cache on the other site with in 5 feet of a Groundspeak hide. Other than an angry CO, I have nothign to fear doing it. I can see where dual listing is a good idea to prevent this problem. but when someone gets in a frump and divorces themself from one or the other site, they will typically disable/archive their caches to take them away from the site's community. Face it, we all act like 8 year olds sometime. So, what's the solution? I'm not real sure there is one, other than never allowing the site to be used again, or perhaps, just anything within 264 feet of it, but still adhering to the 528 foot rule for active caches. That's just my opinion and suggestion, though, and I'm not looking for a debate. What typically breeds this type of discussion, and it's common to EVERY maintenance thread I've read, is the actions of an irresponsible or perhaps incapable owner. Be it because the cache was placed with no intention of ever maintaining it, or because the CO became a quadraplegic after placing it, the end result is the same, and ownership becomes a burden. We all like to thump the GC GUIDELINES bible when it suits our needs and call them RULES. If you poke the Help button on any GC page, it will take you to GUIDELINES. I haven't found any RULES yet. They are NOT rules, and even GC themselves encourage the maintenance of someone elses geotrash, which is COMPLETELY contrary to their own GUIDELINES regarding cache ownership. I call some of it geotrash, because the CO isn't interested enough to take care of it, and EXPECTS the community to do it for them. I object to being expected to do it. Yeah, I know I was going that way anyway, but it was to FIND caches not to FIX them while the CO is out being an FTF hound or dream up more challenges that only people with 5000 finds can accomplish. We have some in our area that own HUNDREDS of caches, have found THOUSANDS of caches, but do very little maintenance to their own stuff because it would take away from their caching time. DUUUUUUUH. There's your sign! (or guard rail, or lamp post). WHY is it assumed that it is my responsiblity to maintain something the OWNER no longer has any interest in other than something that affects his numbers or kharma? Or maybe, it's just his private fire hydrant and he doesn't want anyone else peeing on it. Stuff like that SHOULD die on the vine, but there are those that have been convinced they are promoting goodwill and enhancing the game by throwing down another pill bottle at the cache site if they think the original is missing. If the cache is of historic value, then typically, it is a nice cache, good container, popular area, nice scenery, great hike, grueling bicycle trail, or any combination of all of those. Yes, atttempts to preserve this type of cache should be made through all efforts to contact the CO and get it adopted. If the CO cannot be found, then the decision making process needs a couple different paths. Does Groundspeak start making us list a "next of kin" e-mail address? A Co-Owner that can speak for us? Yes, Groundspeak SHOULD incorporate a forfeiture clause in the GUIDLINES or T's & C's, or what ever you want to call them, as long as it isn't RULES. BUT, what if the CO IS active on "that other site" and wants to keep the cache liste on Groundspeak if for no other reason than to keep someone from dumping another on top of it? Chances are, they'll respond with that reply. Should Groundspeak continue the listing? Probably not. Should they respect the owner's hide on a different site? I won't even go there, but the "nice" thing to do would be to archive the listing, and lock the spot. Ain't happening though. Some of the GC GUIDELINES need some serious overhaul. The reviewers only look at the guidelines that pertain to hiding a cache, or sometimes use the ones regarding FINDING the caches in their decisions to publish or not. They use their own interpretation of what the guideline means, and being appointed and annointed by Groundspeak, that is really their job. But, sometimes, they get carried away, or just get a twitch in their eyelid when they see a particular cacher name, and wont' approve anything by that cacher. I'm not pointing fingers nor crying foul, just stating what I've seen in a lot of posts in this forum.Perhaps some sort of sponsorship or co-ownership is in order, so that if BOTH owners disappear from Groundspeak, then perhaps it should be archived. But, if you want 5 only ways to run a listing service, just ask 5 geocachers. Why have guidelines, though, if there is no intention to enforce them ALL, equally, and fairly? Oh, that would make them rules. I keep forgetting that.I have decided that unless I'm with the CO and they ask me to, or if the CO asks me in advance, I will NOT maintain ANY cache for ANYONE I do not personally know. I WILL put a NM on the cache if I FIND it and it NEEDS MAINTENANCE. This will assuredly piss of some owners, but it's their property, and I have no presumptions about how they want it hidden or what they want it to look like, or any other feature that made the cach unique. I went there to find it, not fix it. If I am feeling particularly generous, I'll clean leaves and debris out of the container, and perhaps CITO any litter I find in the immediate area. I will ALWAYS put it back as I found it. To me, that is being a responsible and respectful cacher. I can offer no more according to the GUIDELINES. Quote Link to comment
+dartymoor Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 Maybe there should be a cap on the number of caches a person can place-After all is it realistic to provide maintenance on such a large number of caches? But who says what is a reasonable number? 370 caches to maintain is a large number, and one I would personally find very hard to do. Yet in North Devon, kevham1 (with ceekay1) do exactly that and to a very high standard for a number of long trails and individual caches. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Legalistic nonsense apart, I can see that for practical reasons Groundspeak can't transfer a cache from one user to another without the consent of both parties. As mentioned above, the physical cache may be listed elsewhere and there's no guarantee that anyone can find the alternative listing (even if they want to). Whatever the condition of the cache, there's always an element of doubt that it's abandoned. On the main point, I'd say that you can't have a blanket rule for what you should do about an apparently abandoned cache. You have to look at the merits of each case individually. Just as an aside, why can't we say "Garmin" on this thread? The name is mentioned all over the forum. Quote Link to comment
+martlakes Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 People always mention the cache still being 'active' on another site. Well, if so, all the CO has to do is either respond to the Reviewer's log asking for maintenance or some communication before it gets archived, or simply archive it themselves. I don't know the exact figures obviously but I would guess that most forced archiving is done because the COs just disappear into the electronic void. No response, not signing into their account, not maintaining the cache, reports of it being wet, etc etc etc. Just how "active" is it going to be on some other site then???? If it's wet and log full on GC.com it is still in the same sorry state on OC.com or OC.org or whatever! If you want to ignore Groundspeak's site, then archive your cache listing and carry on doing whatever you do on whatever other site you wish. But most situations aren't like this. The CO just disappears leaving a soggy wet box behind them. The problem is, by just archiving the listing Groundspeak have the effect of creating litter and bringing the game into disrepute with normal people. De-listing doesn't solve the problem of a crappy bit of litter left in the hedge. I have suggested before that local groups of cachers should be notified of forced archives and also be able to search the database for them. Then, all legalities aside from GC's pov, the locals can decide if the box has been abandoned and go and collect it at some point. Also not being a multi-billion dollar company, local 'anonymous' cachers aren't worth suing in the highly unlikely event someone wanted their old Chinese take-away container back! At present, once delisted, the cache fades from memory and sits and rots. I think the attempts some reviewers make in trying to solve the litter problem are good. How useful they are when the cache has been archived for non-contact is debatable. Groundspeak should make forced archived caches searchable and flash in red on the map for 3 months, thus letting the community take care of the litter! I'm perfectly happy doing my bit, as per this cache in 2008: http://coord.info/GC18FYX Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.