Time to clean up.

[+Roman!]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

[+Don_J]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

You started early tonight?

[4wheelin_fool]

Don't think that will ever happen. Auto archive will upset most and create litter, rather than cleaning up.

 

However in a few cases I've noticed a few that were archived when Groundspeak received word that the cacher passed away. It doesn't happen in all cases though.

[+Roman!]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

You started early tonight?

 

I have been blessed with intelligence and although I use it for work and my personal life my brain is always working and sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better. I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I don't think an inactive owner is a reason to archive a cache. If people are finding and enjoying a cache, let's just keep it there.

 

Also, this would create alot of geo-litter.

[+Roman!]

I don't think an inactive owner is a reason to archive a cache. If people are finding and enjoying a cache, let's just keep it there.

 

Also, this would create alot of geo-litter.

 

On the contrary, as people place caches in the now vacant spots they would remove the geolitter and replace it with managed caches. As for the other unattended caches archived/not archived, it's still trash.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I don't think an inactive owner is a reason to archive a cache. If people are finding and enjoying a cache, let's just keep it there.

 

Also, this would create alot of geo-litter.

 

On the contrary, as people place caches in the now vacant spots they would remove the geolitter and replace it with managed caches. As for the other unattended caches archived/not archived, it's still trash.

 

No, it's not trash as long as it's on the geocaching.com map. And no, these caches wouldn't necessarily be picked up.

[+Roman!]

I don't think an inactive owner is a reason to archive a cache. If people are finding and enjoying a cache, let's just keep it there.

 

Also, this would create alot of geo-litter.

 

On the contrary, as people place caches in the now vacant spots they would remove the geolitter and replace it with managed caches. As for the other unattended caches archived/not archived, it's still trash.

 

No, it's not trash as long as it's on the geocaching.com map. And no, these caches wouldn't necessarily be picked up.

 

I disagree, a lot of stuff posted on he geocaching.com map is trash, just ask the old-timers.

[+SwineFlew]

Good bye ownerless virtual.

[+Roman!]

Good bye ownerless virtual.

 

That's a good thing, no?

 

After all who is verifying the requested and correct info is being submitted?

 

At least we'd be able to curtail the German's find count.

 

It's a win, win, win situation.

[+Don_J]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

You started early tonight?

 

I have been blessed with intelligence and although I use it for work and my personal life my brain is always working and sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better. I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

 

How would archiving perfectly viable caches make geocaching so much better?

[+Roman!]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

You started early tonight?

 

I have been blessed with intelligence and although I use it for work and my personal life my brain is always working and sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better. I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

 

How would archiving perfectly viable caches make geocaching so much better?

 

If a CO is inactive how is a cache perfectly viable? All it takes is one bad cacher, one muggle or a good rain storm and that perfectly viable cache is trash.

[+Don_J]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

You started early tonight?

 

I have been blessed with intelligence and although I use it for work and my personal life my brain is always working and sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better. I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

 

How would archiving perfectly viable caches make geocaching so much better?

 

If a CO is inactive how is a cache perfectly viable? All it takes is one bad cacher, one muggle or a good rain storm and that perfectly viable cache is trash.

 

Then you post a needs archived. Why would you want a cache archived before any of that happens? It sounds to me like you may be running out of caches to find.

[+Roman!]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

You started early tonight?

.

 

I have been blessed with intelligence and although I use it for work and my personal life my brain is always working and sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better. I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

 

How would archiving perfectly viable caches make geocaching so much better?

 

If a CO is inactive how is a cache perfectly viable? All it takes is one bad cacher, one muggle or a good rain storm and that perfectly viable cache is trash.

 

Then you post a needs archived. Why would you want a cache archived before any of that happens? It sounds to me like you may be running out of caches to find.

 

Nah, there's lots of puzzle caches around, I'm just trying to be proactive

[+SwineFlew]

Good bye ownerless virtual.

 

That's a good thing, no?

 

After all who is verifying the requested and correct info is being submitted?

 

At least we'd be able to curtail the German's find count.

 

It's a win, win, win situation.

I been on the road again and found my share of virtuals but most arent ownerless.

 

So...how would you felt if Mingo get archived?

 

BTW, I found it the other week.

[+Roman!]

Good bye ownerless virtual.

 

That's a good thing, no?

 

After all who is verifying the requested and correct info is being submitted?

 

At least we'd be able to curtail the German's find count.

 

It's a win, win, win situation.

I been on the road again and found my share of virtuals but most arent ownerless.

 

So...how would you felt if Mingo get archived?

 

BTW, I found it the other week.

 

I thought the owner logged in every once in a whie, if not, especially with all the throwdowns maybe it's time to archive.

 

That's the beauty of my idea, only ownerless caches would be archived.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Roman!

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

If a CO is inactive how is a cache perfectly viable? All it takes is one bad cacher, one muggle or a good rain storm and that perfectly viable cache is trash.

 

If the cache is trashed, then either someone local can help fix it up or post a Needs Maintenance, followed by a Needs Archived if nothing gets done.

[+sparklefingers]

yeah this isn't a smart idea. What about those people that take a break, my friend for instance took almost a year out as she was pregnant and was having issues... would she come back to find her account shut down? Not on.

[+-CJ-]

A cache that obviously needs maintenance but there's no one to do it, that's an "ownerless cache". Should it be archived? Most probably. A cache that is OK and continues to bring pleasure to dozens of people - is it really necessary to archive it? I'd say no.

 

I believe that such decisions should be make individually and "on the cache basis", not "on the owner basis".

[+Roman!]

yeah this isn't a smart idea. What about those people that take a break, my friend for instance took almost a year out as she was pregnant and was having issues... would she come back to find her account shut down? Not on.

 

Her account would not be shut down, just her neglected caches would be archived. If she took a year of from taking care of her kids what would happen?

Edited July 4, 2013 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

A cache that obviously needs maintenance but there's no one to do it, that's an "ownerless cache". Should it be archived? Most probably. A cache that is OK and continues to bring pleasure to dozens of people - is it really necessary to archive it? I'd say no.

 

I believe that such decisions should be make individually and "on the cache basis", not "on the owner basis".

 

Still an ownerless cache, no?

 

Just one DNF away from your "most probably".

Edited July 4, 2013 by Roman!

[+sparklefingers]

yeah this isn't a smart idea. What about those people that take a break, my friend for instance took almost a year out as she was pregnant and was having issues... would she come back to find her account shut down? Not on.

 

Her account would not be shut down, just her neglected caches would be archived. If she took a year of from taking care of her kids what would happen?

 

thats not the same and you know it. A cache can be out longer than a year and not need maintenance. Just because the owner hasn't been online does not mean their perfectly good and in working order caches should be archived.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Speaking of maintenance issues, you've got a soggy loggy, Roman!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0a2f9591-13c4-4277-beff-851d756bb781

[+sparklefingers]

Speaking of maintenance issues, you've got a soggy loggy, Roman!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0a2f9591-13c4-4277-beff-851d756bb781

 

maybe as you haven't paid it any attention for 2 months since the NM log someone should post a NA on it? as it's not being maintained by and active user after all.

[+-CJ-]

Just one DNF away from your "most probably".

 

Actually, this is not about how to explain an "ownerless" term - it's about the balance between harm and profit from wide-scale archiving geocaches that are believed to be "ownerless" because their COs didn't respond to some email messages.

 

It's simple. There's a geocache in e.g. town of Murmansk. (Perhaps the only one there). You go, find it and log happily. I bet that in this situation you won't care to check if its CO is responsive to your email messages. Now someone suggests to make a clean-up. The cache disappears from geocaching maps. You have nothing to hunt for. No game.

 

The cache is a real living piece of the game. You should not remove it just because someone is not responding to an email.

 

You talked about throwdowns. Now imagine that hundreds (thousands?) of active geocaches were archived and people started to place new geocaches around the same places. The number of duplicates will increase by no means - and you won't be able to blame anyone for making a throwdown.

 

How many geocachers will miss these emails just because their email clients filter them in thrash?

 

I think that your suggestion raises more problems then there are.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Speaking of maintenance issues, you've got a soggy loggy, Roman!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0a2f9591-13c4-4277-beff-851d756bb781

 

maybe as you haven't paid it any attention for 2 months since the NM log someone should post a NA on it? as it's not being maintained by and active user after all.

 

And let's not forget this one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=264fa32a-e368-4103-8ed7-e0b43c3a7b4c

 

Those are 2 neglected geocaches. Definitely grounds for NAs.

Edited July 4, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+Fiver1]

Mr. Roman - Since you are obviously blessed with an immense intelligence, maybe you should focus on more important things like world peace, hunger, or a cure for cancer and quit worrying about insignificant things like someone not logging into GS for a year or so. Perhaps this self appointed Judgeship you claim is wrinkling your brain.

 

If caches need something I've seen the community react fairly quickly. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. The key is to not worry about it. It's only a game.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Fiver1

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Physician, heal thyself:

 

I might suggest you hop on over to The Drunken Clam for a beer or two and lighten up, you'll live longer.

[cezanne]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

One of the problems with that approach is that one does not need to log in to the site in order to maintain caches and to log caches.

 

It can well happen that someone has logged a found it each day during the last three months and the last login date shown on the site could still be back in 2012.

 

Moreover, as an active cacher I see no reason at all to verify my info page as long as I take care of my caches and cachers can reach me. Parts of the entries on my info page (viewable to Groundspeak only) is bogus on purpose.

 

There are also lots of caches that are owned by accounts that are not used regularly for geocaching (group hiding accounts, accounts of children etc) - the cache are well maintained and someone takes action if maintenance is required, but the owning accounts are not used regularly (there is no obligation to so in effect).

 

BTW: I have crosslisted many of my caches on another platform and it can easily happen that I do not log into that site for a couple of months or so.

If a log arrives, I get a notification anyway. So why I should log into the site?

 

Cezanne

Edited July 4, 2013 by cezanne

[4wheelin_fool]

Speaking of maintenance issues, you've got a soggy loggy, Roman!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0a2f9591-13c4-4277-beff-851d756bb781

 

maybe as you haven't paid it any attention for 2 months since the NM log someone should post a NA on it? as it's not being maintained by and active user after all.

 

There are caches which haven't been visited in 10 years by the CO which are in better condition than that one. It was reported wet and unsignable in April? Think of all the Germans Canadians who can log fake finds on that because the signature cannot be verified. Where the CO? Drinking a bottle of Molson Golden and trying to get people riled up in the forums?

[+sparklefingers]

Speaking of maintenance issues, you've got a soggy loggy, Roman!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0a2f9591-13c4-4277-beff-851d756bb781

 

maybe as you haven't paid it any attention for 2 months since the NM log someone should post a NA on it? as it's not being maintained by and active user after all.

 

There are caches which haven't been visited in 10 years by the CO which are in better condition than that one. It was reported wet and unsignable in April? Think of all the Germans Canadians who can log fake finds on that because the signature cannot be verified. Where the CO? Drinking a bottle of Molson Golden and trying to get people riled up in the forums?

 

I never thought about that. Seriously in need of something happening to it.

[Clan Riffster]

This is not the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. That award would have to go to something Rosie O'Donnell said a few years ago. But it's pretty darn close. There is a quote about never arguing with an idi... Never mind. I don't want to rile the bannination monster.

 

If a cache has blatently obvious issues, and is not being properly maintained, (like the two examples given), I could see where they might be considered trash. Folks who are too lazy to do maintenance on their own hides really have no place criticizing the hides of others. If a cache is archived, not listed elsewhere, and is not removed, that could be considered trash. But a cache with no issues, that is being found and appreciated by the community, does not suddenly become trash simply because the owner does not log into a website.

[+rjb43nh]

Roman!

I have been blessed with intelligence and although I use it for work and my personal life my brain is always working and sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better. I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

 

[AZcachemeister]

A cache that obviously needs maintenance but there's no one to do it, that's an "ownerless cache". Should it be archived? Most probably. A cache that is OK and continues to bring pleasure to dozens of people - is it really necessary to archive it? I'd say no.

 

I believe that such decisions should be make individually and "on the cache basis", not "on the owner basis".

 

+1

 

Thanks -CJ-, you summed it up nicely.

[Dj Storm]

I also consider that caches shouldn't be archived just because the owner seems inactive.

 

What I would like to see and fully support, an opt-in option for automatic adoption of caches in case of inactivity.

Example: I check the box for automatic adoption, and set the timer to, say, 3 months. If I don't log into the site for (3 months - 7 days), I receive an email "Yo, log in within a week or lose your caches!". Once the time is up, my caches would become free to adopt. The process can be done the same way "forced adoptions" were done until 2008, through the reviewer.

[+Roman!]

Speaking of maintenance issues, you've got a soggy loggy, Roman!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0a2f9591-13c4-4277-beff-851d756bb781

 

maybe as you haven't paid it any attention for 2 months since the NM log someone should post a NA on it? as it's not being maintained by and active user after all.

 

And let's not forget this one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=264fa32a-e368-4103-8ed7-e0b43c3a7b4c

 

Those are 2 neglected geocaches. Definitely grounds for NAs.

 

This thread is not about caches that need maintenance, you're free to start one if you like but it's a different topic, it's about ownerless caches and about verifying a CO is still active.

 

For the record the soggy one has been confirmed dry by a friend (both have RITR logs) and the second one needs a specialty part I have not been able to get.

[+Roman!]

Physician, heal thyself:

 

I might suggest you hop on over to The Drunken Clam for a beer or two and lighten up, you'll live longer.

 

Let me get this straight, you're recommending I drink beer?

[+suchanana]

methinks Roman seeks the prime real estate, not necessarily for himself, but for fresh, new caches...concept idea is good, work with your local reviewer to aid her/him in weeding out the unmaintained, unsafe caches, but not because the owner is inactive...we have quite a few old timers inactive for many reasons here in NW Ohio but they still maintain their caches, or "we" help them to keep the caches in good steed, it's what a community of geocachers do... pay $ to Groundspeak for my annual premium membership - that's enough verification for me...

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Physician, heal thyself:

 

I might suggest you hop on over to The Drunken Clam for a beer or two and lighten up, you'll live longer.

 

Let me get this straight, you're recommending I drink beer?

 

I'm recommending you lighten up.

[+Roman!]

Physician, heal thyself:

 

I might suggest you hop on over to The Drunken Clam for a beer or two and lighten up, you'll live longer.

 

Let me get this straight, you're recommending I drink beer?

 

I'm recommending you lighten up.

 

I may need to do many things but I guarantee lightening up is not one of them.

[+dprovan]

This thread is not about caches that need maintenance, you're free to start one if you like but it's a different topic, it's about ownerless caches and about verifying a CO is still active.

The point is that "ownerless" is a completely irrelevant characteristic. Needing maintenance is only justification for using authority to archive a cache. As long as it doesn't need maintenance, I have no interest at all in whether you think there's something "wrong" about an owner. To me -- and I don't think I'm alone -- "inactive" is no better than "not good looking enough" to treat someone's caches differently.

[+Beach_hut]

Well, geocaching has been around for a few year now and there are a lot of inactive members with caches taking up prime real estate. I have seen other sites ask you periodically to verify or update your personal info and maybe it's time Groundspeak did the same. I propose that next time one logs in they are take to an update/verify your info page and once this is done all is good but if it isn't done in a timely manner (1 month, 3 months, 6 months?) then all the geocaches placed under that account are archived.

 

Thoughts?

 

One of the problems with that approach is that one does not need to log in to the site in order to maintain caches and to log caches.

 

It can well happen that someone has logged a found it each day during the last three months and the last login date shown on the site could still be back in 2012.

 

Moreover, as an active cacher I see no reason at all to verify my info page as long as I take care of my caches and cachers can reach me. Parts of the entries on my info page (viewable to Groundspeak only) is bogus on purpose.

 

There are also lots of caches that are owned by accounts that are not used regularly for geocaching (group hiding accounts, accounts of children etc) - the cache are well maintained and someone takes action if maintenance is required, but the owning accounts are not used regularly (there is no obligation to so in effect).

 

BTW: I have crosslisted many of my caches on another platform and it can easily happen that I do not log into that site for a couple of months or so.

If a log arrives, I get a notification anyway. So why I should log into the site?

 

Cezanne

 

Some very good points made here. *awaits Roman's response*

[+ShaunEM]

Owner-less caches that are not maintained eventually get archived.

 

The system works.. just fine.

 

Shaun

[+captnemo]

Roman!

I have been blessed with intelligence and although I use it for work and my personal life my brain is always working and sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better. I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

 

+1 but who is "Ben"?

[AZcachemeister]

 

+1 but who is "Ben"?

 

Ben Dover, surely you've met him.

 

A nice enough guy...until you get on his bad side.

[+The Jester]

<snip>sometime I come up with brilliant ideas that will make geocaching so much better.

This isn't one of those times...

 

I can not dictate where or when these brilliant ideas will come to me.

But you can 'dictate' what you do with junk like this idea - and not cluttering up the forums with drivel should be high on the list.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Physician, heal thyself:

 

I might suggest you hop on over to The Drunken Clam for a beer or two and lighten up, you'll live longer.

 

Let me get this straight, you're recommending I drink beer?

 

I'm recommending you lighten up.

 

I may need to do many things but I guarantee lightening up is not one of them.

 

Remember that next time to come here complaining about something that isn't to your liking.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

I may need to do many things but I guarantee lightening up is not one of them.

 

Remember that next time to come here complaining about something that isn't to your liking.

 

Good one!

[+Off Grid]

I don't think an inactive owner is a reason to archive a cache. If people are finding and enjoying a cache, let's just keep it there.

 

Also, this would create alot of geo-litter.

There already is Geo litter when the owner never maintains the cache I don't know how many caches I've been to that has not one logbook but up to four.the owner won't come get them or hasnt been active in ages. They should be cleared up for other people. Just recently we waited over two years for a person to just change their cache container because they didn't sign on and forgot_? And haven't signed on since changing it what will happen next time?

 

The hag event caches should be removed after a few months to those end up being Geo trash

[+Off Grid]

I don't think an inactive owner is a reason to archive a cache. If people are finding and enjoying a cache, let's just keep it there.

 

Also, this would create alot of geo-litter.

 

On the contrary, as people place caches in the now vacant spots they would remove the geolitter and replace it with managed caches. As for the other unattended caches archived/not archived, it's still trash.

 

No, it's not trash as long as it's on the geocaching.com map. And no, these caches wouldn't necessarily be picked up.

They are Geo litter if no one is maintaining them