Jump to content

Cache adoption


justintim1999
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Is there a searchable database for caches that are up for adoption? If not why? Instead of waiting for a cache to be archived wouldn't it be easier to list caches that are up for adoption and make the list searchable by zip code?

 

If I were a cache owner who was no longer interested in caching it would be much simpler to submit my cache(s) for adoption. Other cachers could search for adoptable caches in there area and locate some they may be willing to take over. If, after lets say 3 months, my cache wasn't adopted it could simply be archived. Making the adoption process easier may encourage cache owners to stop abandoning caches when they are no longer playing the game.

 

Owner maintenance is only going to be done by people who are active in the game. simplifying the adoption and archiving of caches will just speed up the process of getting caches and cache location in the hands of people who love the game.

 

A really nice old multi cache in my area was recently archived. I would have gladly adopted it if I had knew that it was up for adoption. I did place a tribute cache in its place but it's not the same thing.

Link to comment

Not every person wants their caches adopted. If you adopt it out, its no longer tied to your profile. That cache in question, the person may not have wanted it adopted.

 

I do hear you though, it would be interesting to have a place to see caches folks would like adopted. There are forums on this site or other caching sites or even Facebook local caching groups that let folks post what caches they want adopted out.

Link to comment

The adoption of caches is now pretty darn simple.

 

Cache owner can transfer ownership of any cache (or trackable) on the cache adoption page.

 

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

 

When cachers are looking for people to adopt their hides, they tend to post notes to their own cache pages, and to local geocaching boards. Every once in a while, you'll see note here, usually in one of the country or regional forums.

Link to comment

Is there a searchable database for caches that are up for adoption? If not why? Instead of waiting for a cache to be archived wouldn't it be easier to list caches that are up for adoption and make the list searchable by zip code?

 

If I were a cache owner who was no longer interested in caching it would be much simpler to submit my cache(s) for adoption. Other cachers could search for adoptable caches in there area and locate some they may be willing to take over. If, after lets say 3 months, my cache wasn't adopted it could simply be archived. Making the adoption process easier may encourage cache owners to stop abandoning caches when they are no longer playing the game.

 

Owner maintenance is only going to be done by people who are active in the game. simplifying the adoption and archiving of caches will just speed up the process of getting caches and cache location in the hands of people who love the game.

 

A really nice old multi cache in my area was recently archived. I would have gladly adopted it if I had knew that it was up for adoption. I did place a tribute cache in its place but it's not the same thing.

 

I have often wondered if something like that was feasible. There are several caches near me on the "endangered list" so to speak, with owners that appear to be long gone.

 

It's a shame to see them archived, as one or two are very good locations, and have been there for a while.

 

The only way it would work, it seems, is by voluntary participation on the part of owners.

 

Some owners did not intend to abandon their caches, but many times life situations come up that prevent them from closing out the game. I have also seen owners appear after a long absence and perform the necessary maintenance ect. and keep their listing alive.

 

A place to list those caches an owner would like to adopt out would be nice. There may be some that get listed that cachers do not feel are "worthy" , and may not get adopted though, as the value of a placement is very subjective.

 

I think it would generate "some" interest, but do not see GS including it in this site. Maybe you could start something??:D

Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

Link to comment

Assuming that cache owners know about the adoption process, and would be interested in having the cache continue, they could post that they are looking for someone to adopt on the cache page. People who have the cache on their watchlist would receive notification of that message.

 

Posting in local forums, local facebook pages, etc, would draw the attention of local potential adopters.

 

Not all people want their caches to be out of their control, though, and no longer in their stats. So they wouldn't be interested in adopting out their caches.

 

I've seen lots of folks archive their old caches for the express purpose of opening up the area to new cache placements.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Making the adoption process easier may encourage cache owners to stop abandoning caches when they are no longer playing the game.

 

The cache adoption process is excruciatingly easy and simple right now.

 

However, cache owners who leave the game due to lack of interest, or health issues, or death, aren't going to use what's already available.

 

If they don't / can't use what's available now, I don't think another process will be of much use.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

 

I agree with you regarding most caches. But the multi I spoke of was one of the best I've ever done and deserved to be adopted.

Link to comment

Is there a searchable database for caches that are up for adoption? If not why? Instead of waiting for a cache to be archived wouldn't it be easier to list caches that are up for adoption and make the list searchable by zip code? [\b]

 

If I were a cache owner who was no longer interested in caching it would be much simpler to submit my cache(s) for adoption. Other cachers could search for adoptable caches in there area and locate some they may be willing to take over. If, after lets say 3 months, my cache wasn't adopted it could simply be archived. Making the adoption process easier may encourage cache owners to stop abandoning caches when they are no longer playing the game.

 

Owner maintenance is only going to be done by people who are active in the game. simplifying the adoption and archiving of caches will just speed up the process of getting caches and cache location in the hands of people who love the game.

 

A really nice old multi cache in my area was recently archived. I would have gladly adopted it if I had knew that it was up for adoption. I did place a tribute cache in its place but it's not the same thing.

 

How would searching b zip code help me? I'm Canadian.

 

Anyway there are lots of reasons why a cache may not be adopted- I might archive any type of cache to make room for a new one, or maybe the landowner changed and didn't want caches.

Link to comment

Assuming that cache owners know about the adoption process, and would be interested in having the cache continue, they could post that they are looking for someone to adopt on the cache page. People who have the cache on their watchlist would receive notification of that message.

 

Posting in local forums, local facebook pages, etc, would draw the attention of local potential adopters.

 

Not all people want their caches to be out of their control, though, and no longer in their stats. So they wouldn't be interested in adopting out their caches.

 

I've seen lots of folks archive their old caches for the express purpose of opening up the area to new cache placements.

 

 

B.

 

The adoption process could be added right to the geocaching main page as a drop down selection under "play". That way everyone would know about it.

 

I usually don't check the pages of caches I have previously found so If a cache owner posted an adoption note on the cache page of a cache i've already found I probably wouldn't see it. As was the case of the multi I mentioned.

 

I think it would involve a lot of e-mails if I were to "watch" every cache I would consider adopting.

 

the biggest benefit of this would be a searchable list of caches, that if not adopted, would soon be archived. It would allow a cacher like myself to anticipate a particular area becoming available and give me time to design a new cache for the spot.

 

I agree that the majority of caches should probably be archived to make way for new caches. But there are some that should be preserved.

Link to comment

Not every person wants their caches adopted. If you adopt it out, its no longer tied to your profile.

 

This^^

 

IMO...Groundspeak should do more to encourage adoptions. Lots of ways to do this, but at a minimum...let the cache remain on your profile

 

Instead of a red cache with a big line through it (archived) it can be blue (or whatever) and say 'adopted'

 

I'm a big believer of adoptions (I own 17 caches, and only 3 are ones I created), but when somebody approached me on adopting my first cache I though 'heck no, that's mine!'

 

Yes...it would be nice it they were searchable too. Many great caches die that would have had a long future if only people knew. I'd rather find an old, long winded multi over a new film pot any.day.of.the.week.

 

Also, when it look on a map, I'd like to see them as a star, and not a smiley

 

Lots of ways to improve adoptions. I wish GS supported it in their newsletter/FB like other things.

Link to comment

Is there a searchable database for caches that are up for adoption? If not why? Instead of waiting for a cache to be archived wouldn't it be easier to list caches that are up for adoption and make the list searchable by zip code? [\b]

 

If I were a cache owner who was no longer interested in caching it would be much simpler to submit my cache(s) for adoption. Other cachers could search for adoptable caches in there area and locate some they may be willing to take over. If, after lets say 3 months, my cache wasn't adopted it could simply be archived. Making the adoption process easier may encourage cache owners to stop abandoning caches when they are no longer playing the game.

 

Owner maintenance is only going to be done by people who are active in the game. simplifying the adoption and archiving of caches will just speed up the process of getting caches and cache location in the hands of people who love the game.

 

A really nice old multi cache in my area was recently archived. I would have gladly adopted it if I had knew that it was up for adoption. I did place a tribute cache in its place but it's not the same thing.

 

How would searching b zip code help me? I'm Canadian.

 

Anyway there are lots of reasons why a cache may not be adopted- I might archive any type of cache to make room for a new one, or maybe the landowner changed and didn't want caches.

 

I'm sure there are many reasons why a cache owner may or may not want to put a cache up for adopption. Just another tool to help get unmaintained caches maintained again.

Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

 

NJSquirrel:

 

Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me.

 

Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to.

 

Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours.

 

That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

One other question.

 

Lets say that a cache has been abandoned by the cache owner. They just moved away and left the cache too fend for itself. How long do you think it would take from the time the cache was abandoned to the day it was archived. I realize that the quality of the cache will determine how long it remains in good shape, before all the "log is full" and "cache is soaked" logs begin to appear.

 

Lets say we start the countdown from the first "need matainance" log. How long is the average time between that and a cache actually being archived?

Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

 

Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me.

 

Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to.

 

Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours.

 

That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is.

 

Considering you someone I disprove of never crossed my mind. I value your opinion, that's why Ii posted the question in the first place. I think the pending archive list is more of a topic here.

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

 

Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me.

 

Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to.

 

Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours.

 

That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is.

 

Oh absolutely not a "numbers grinder". And this statement does not seem selfish at all.

 

Never mind that I have not found them, you have, so they can be archived now.

 

:blink:

 

 

Link to comment

Justin--OP, the reply by me you quoted was in answer to something NJSquirrel said. It was not directed at you at all, so please don't think that.

 

What's this old multi that you loved--what's the GC, I'd like to take a look at it--

 

The original was Lost at Pine Point (GCV5XW). The tribute cache is Sightseeing at Pine Point (GC4JHQX)

Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

 

Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me.

 

Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to.

 

Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours.

 

That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is.

 

Oh absolutely not a "numbers grinder". And this statement does not seem selfish at all.

 

Never mind that I have not found them, you have, so they can be archived now.

 

:blink:

 

 

Nec/Neph:

 

Not everyone can find every cache. I've missed out on a lot that have been archived before I could find them, but I just shrug--that's life. Are you saying that every cache must remain active until you find it? I'd recommend something be archived if it was abandoned even if I wanted it and hadn't found it. Caches aren't meant to be permanent--long term, a few years, sure. But permanent--no. I'm probably a numbers grinder to some, but not to others--I suppose my average is somewhere in the middle. When I travel across the country in my car, I stop for all the EarthCaches, multi caches, puzzles, virtuals, and Letterboxes that I can. I like a ton of variety, I love all kinds of caches, not just the traditional caches.

 

As for the charge of being selfish--I've put out some really good caches and 10 EarthCaches. I participate by putting them out as well as finding them. All your hides might be by sock puppet accounts, I suppose.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

 

No, no, no. Nothing to do with numbers grinders. There is a general consensus in this forum, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say amongst the volunteer reviewer force, that MOST caches are quite ordinary, and don't need nor "deserve" to be adopted. Let someone place a new cache there if the spot truly deserves one.

 

It's early in the thread, and not many of the general consensus people have shown up yet, that's all. :lol:

Link to comment

Justin--OP, the reply by me you quoted was in answer to something NJSquirrel said. It was not directed at you at all, so please don't think that.

 

What's this old multi that you loved--what's the GC, I'd like to take a look at it--

 

The original was Lost at Pine Point (GCV5XW). The tribute cache is Sightseeing at Pine Point (GC4JHQX)

 

That does look like a good one, I can see why you'd hate to lose it. Have you thought about putting one out yourself there? To get more people to actually visit, you might put out 4 traditionals at key spots, each with part of the coordinates to a puzzle finale. Folks do tend to skip the multi caches--and not only because of numbers, but because you can spend an hour on a multi only to find one of the stages gone.. But putting out some traditionals to make up a real tour with a puzzle at the end can be a good way to go.

Edited by Dame Deco
Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

 

Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me.

 

Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to.

 

Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours.

 

That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is.

 

Oh absolutely not a "numbers grinder". And this statement does not seem selfish at all.

 

Never mind that I have not found them, you have, so they can be archived now.

 

:blink:

 

 

Nec/Neph:

 

Not everyone can find every cache. I've missed out on a lot that have been archived before I could find them, but I just shrug--that's life. Are you saying that every cache must remain active until you find it? I'd recommend something be archived if it was abandoned even if I wanted it and hadn't found it. Caches aren't meant to be permanent--long term, a few years, sure. But permanent--no. I'm probably a numbers grinder to some, but not to others--I suppose my average is somewhere in the middle. When I travel across the country in my car, I stop for all the EarthCaches, multi caches, puzzles, virtuals, and Letterboxes that I can. I like a ton of variety, I love all kinds of caches, not just the traditional caches.

 

As for the charge of being selfish--I've put out some really good caches and 10 EarthCaches. I participate by putting them out as well as finding them. All your hides might be by sock puppet accounts, I suppose.

 

I must admit that when I first started caching in 2010 it seemed to me that all the good places to hide a cache were already taken. I felt like I would be hiding LPC's and guardrail caches my entire life (not that there is anything wrong with those types of caches) but I wanted to do something different. I understand the importance of archiving caches to make room for new cachers to hide new caches. But preserving geocaching history is also important.

Link to comment

Justin--OP, the reply by me you quoted was in answer to something NJSquirrel said. It was not directed at you at all, so please don't think that.

 

What's this old multi that you loved--what's the GC, I'd like to take a look at it--

 

The original was Lost at Pine Point (GCV5XW). The tribute cache is Sightseeing at Pine Point (GC4JHQX)

 

That does look like a good one, I can see why you'd hate to lose it. Have you thought about putting one out yourself there? To get more people to actually visit, you might put out 4 traditionals at key spots, each with part of the coordinates to a puzzle finale. Folks do tend to skip the multi caches--and not only because of numbers, but because you can spend an hour on a multi only to find one of the stages gone.. But putting out some traditionals to make up a real tour with a puzzle at the end can be a good way to go.

 

The tribute cache I listed above is mine. I pretty much kept the basic layout of the original cache but redesigned the waypoints and moved them a little. The original multi just fit the area so well I couldn't bring myself to change it just to add 4 or 5 traditionals.

Link to comment

I agree in a lot of ways--but very much on a cache by cache basis. That means that the idea of a list of adoptable caches--just based on dnfs, etc., doesn't strike me as a good idea. And even if there was a way to say, "only the truly historic ones," you have caches like Mingo that are nothing like the original even though they live on.

Link to comment

I agree in a lot of ways--but very much on a cache by cache basis. That means that the idea of a list of adoptable caches--just based on dnfs, etc., doesn't strike me as a good idea. And even if there was a way to say, "only the truly historic ones," you have caches like Mingo that are nothing like the original even though they live on.

 

This would have to be a voluntary thing. The cache owner would have to place there cache into the queue. You could place it in as "available for a adoption" or "to be archived" it would at least give people interested in adoption a chance. and, like I've already posted, it would give others a heads up on areas that will become available.

Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

Spoken like a true numbers grinder :huh:

 

Old caches are what some of us cachers like to find. I don't want numbers, I want history. To me, nothing is better than finding an old cache, or better yet, an old original container/logbook.

 

I agree with the OP. There should be a way to simply put caches up for adoption if the CO choose to do so. Maybe add adoption as a feature to the notifications function. I believe it would alleviate the abandonment issue, but not solve it completely.

 

Hah hah! Your response makes me laugh! I'm not a numbers grinder, I'm a lover of multi caches, and there aren't enough multi caches around. And I'm not talking about archiving caches with history like The Spot in New York, I'm talking about archiving good caches that have lived long enough. Everyone in the area has found them, only newbies and visitors can find them, and they don't get found often. Archive them and put out a new amazing multi cache. I'd like to cache more within 10 miles of my home with my dog on average days with time for a walk--but there's nothing new that close to me.

 

Just so you know, I've found lots of historic caches with the old logs--Arikaree and Yellow River Stash, both of which have the logs stolen since I found them. But I was thrilled to find the original logs in a lot of 2000-2001 caches (The Spot and others), and I was thrilled every time. Check out my log for this cache, I'm near the top--- http://coord.info/GCGJYE I saved the old log in that one, and was glad to.

 

Why not look at my profile and my cache statistics before automatically labeling me as someone you disapprove of just because I have an opinion different than yours.

 

That said--Mingo was much less than a thrill about a month ago. It's been stolen a bunch of times, nothing original was left, and frankly it was just another cache along the route because of that. Let old, abandoned, unmaintained caches be archived, they've had their day in the sun, time for some new caches. Mingo has in effect been adopted by the caching community--the owner does nothing--but because of that, it's really nothing special. It might as well be a new cache--and really, that's what it is.

 

Oh absolutely not a "numbers grinder". And this statement does not seem selfish at all.

 

Never mind that I have not found them, you have, so they can be archived now.

 

:blink:

 

 

Nec/Neph:

 

Not everyone can find every cache. I've missed out on a lot that have been archived before I could find them, but I just shrug--that's life. Are you saying that every cache must remain active until you find it? I'd recommend something be archived if it was abandoned even if I wanted it and hadn't found it. Caches aren't meant to be permanent--long term, a few years, sure. But permanent--no. I'm probably a numbers grinder to some, but not to others--I suppose my average is somewhere in the middle. When I travel across the country in my car, I stop for all the EarthCaches, multi caches, puzzles, virtuals, and Letterboxes that I can. I like a ton of variety, I love all kinds of caches, not just the traditional caches.

 

As for the charge of being selfish--I've put out some really good caches and 10 EarthCaches. I participate by putting them out as well as finding them. All your hides might be by sock puppet accounts, I suppose.

 

Am I saying every cache should remain active until I find it?? No. That is ludicrous, and hyperbole. When I said "I" haven't found it I was generalizing meaning anyone other than yourself, not just me personally.

 

I am not trying to be contentious in any way. I am offering a different perspective than you have, for your consideration. Please show me the same courtesy you ask for ,and do not "disapprove" of that.

 

Caches aren't meant to be permanent?? That's a new perspective. At least one I am not familiar with.

 

And criticizing me for not having any hides?? Wow... that's quite the double standard you practice, when you just asked someone not to judge. I guess you meant not judge you.

 

In an attempt to avoid argument let me give you as couple examples of "my perspective".

 

A PQ of caches within 10 minutes of my home (by your desire) shows the newest cache to have been placed 05/05/2012. I have found it.

 

No one is placing new caches in my area. Am I ok in wanting some of these older caches to be archived, since, applying your logic, they " have lived long enough"? If so, when can I expect new ones to be placed?? If I place them, can I log them as "Found" to pad my numbers, and again, if so, what fun is there in that for me?? If not, how long must I wait to enjoy a new find within 10 minutes of my home?

 

What assures me once a cache has been archived, a new one will appear? Nothing. Perhaps in your area this is not an issue. (different perspective)

 

Next example: This cache GCYZ3A was archived by a player who quit the game, without offering adoption. This "newer" cache GC38E2B is now blocking three parks, one of which held the first cache. Which one (number grinder not withstanding) would you prefer to find??

 

One was a cache to bring visitors to a Veterans Memorial, and a wind turbine display, the other is a nano bringing people to the parking lot of a Mexican food restaurant.

 

I would much rather have seen the original adopted and maintained, than trade it for a parking lot nano. I have smileys from both.

 

All I am trying to say is... every cache should have the opportunity to be found by cachers other than yourself, and judging a cache's "useful" lifespan by that measure is not fair.

 

If this offends you... I don't know what to tell you.

 

 

edited to remove nonworking links.

 

 

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment
One was a cache to bring visitors to a Veterans Memorial, and a wind turbine display, the other is a nano bringing people to the parking lot of a Mexican food restaurant.

 

I would much rather have seen the original adopted and maintained, than trade it for a parking lot nano. I have smileys from both.

Best case scenario, since the original cache owner archived, was for someone to put out DECENT caches rather than a nano.

 

Archives and new caches placed doesn't always lead to new crappy caches.

Link to comment
One was a cache to bring visitors to a Veterans Memorial, and a wind turbine display, the other is a nano bringing people to the parking lot of a Mexican food restaurant.

 

I would much rather have seen the original adopted and maintained, than trade it for a parking lot nano. I have smileys from both.

Best case scenario, since the original cache owner archived, was for someone to put out DECENT caches rather than a nano.

 

Archives and new caches placed doesn't always lead to new crappy caches.

 

I totally agree. And I am not "downing" the parking lot nano. (I did go and log the smiley) I wish the original had been maintained is all.

 

And I wasn't trying to insult Deco. It's just different where I am. We are somewhat rural, and the "outsiders" coming to our little town to enjoy the few caches here is something I would like to see continue. I was friends with some cachers who never mentioned the game to me, long before I started participating. Some strangers from Nebraska introduced me to the game totally by accident.

 

 

Link to comment

Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.

<_<

 

The reason for an adoption is much different than an archival.

 

I think one of the reasons there isn't a clearinghouse listing on the Geocaching.com website is because of the Owner Maintenance Guidelines, and Geocache Permanence.

 

If you really want to adopt a cache, send an email to the owner and provide the link www.geocaching.com/adopt.

 

If you really want an old cache to be gone, then make sure that you follow the guidelines and report it only if there are clear signs that it should be archived.

 

A new cache for new cache's sake isn't a good reason to archive. See Permanance again... :angry:

Link to comment

Quoting your permanence link:

 

Geocaches are placed for the long term.

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

 

"long term" is not defined. To me, long term would be 1-5 years. The guidelines say nothing about "permanence." You can't be "a little permanent"--you are, or you aren't.

Link to comment

Quoting your permanence link:

 

Geocaches are placed for the long term.

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

 

"long term" is not defined. To me, long term would be 1-5 years. The guidelines say nothing about "permanence." You can't be "a little permanent"--you are, or you aren't.

Keep reading your own quote of the guideline: (Which, by the way, isn't "my" link. It's Groundspeak's.) <_<

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time.

 

Then go ahead and email support@geocaching.com for clarification if you don't agree.

 

I think that, if you read the guidelines as they are (without bending them to meet your agenda) you'll see why you can't just get rid of an old cache because you want more new ones in your area.

 

"Realistic" and "extended" certainly makes me think that your ideal of "once it's lived long enough and the residents in the area have found it, and the find rates slow down it should go away so that there can be new ones close to me that I can find so that I can add more finds without having to expand my search radius from my couch..." just isn't going to play out the way you want it to.

 

The implication alone of the guideline name, "Geocache Permanence," certainly says enough about the intent from Groundspeak. They don't want people hiding caches with the intention of removing them at an arbitrary time later on. They want the listings to last as long as the cache and owner can guarantee that the cache will continue to be findable, logable, and not damaging the surroundings.

 

Now, if you can make the case that any of the caches you want to see "retire" are derelict with an absent owner, causing damage to surroundings, etc, then maybe you'll get some attention from a Reviewer. Just wanting to see caches "retire" because you think they've been there long enough and you want more new finds close to home isn't going to fly. Sorry...it's just right there in the guidelines.

 

Caches are supposed to be placed with the intention that the owner will continue to service and maintain it and the listing, and that it will be there for a long term so that people may continue to find it.

 

This may mean slower find rates for non-traditional and non-park-and-grab caches, but it doesn't change the application of the guidelines.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Is there a searchable database for caches that are up for adoption? If not why? Instead of waiting for a cache to be archived wouldn't it be easier to list caches that are up for adoption and make the list searchable by zip code?

 

If I were a cache owner who was no longer interested in caching it would be much simpler to submit my cache(s) for adoption. Other cachers could search for adoptable caches in there area and locate some they may be willing to take over. If, after lets say 3 months, my cache wasn't adopted it could simply be archived. Making the adoption process easier may encourage cache owners to stop abandoning caches when they are no longer playing the game.

 

Owner maintenance is only going to be done by people who are active in the game. simplifying the adoption and archiving of caches will just speed up the process of getting caches and cache location in the hands of people who love the game.

 

A really nice old multi cache in my area was recently archived. I would have gladly adopted it if I had knew that it was up for adoption. I did place a tribute cache in its place but it's not the same thing.

Back on topic for the OP, try checking in with your local geocaching club or organization. Sometimes there are lists or forums that exist for this specific topic.

 

You could even try posting to the regional forum board for your area here in these forums to try and see what people in your area might have to say.

Link to comment

Quoting your permanence link:

 

Geocaches are placed for the long term.

Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

 

"long term" is not defined. To me, long term would be 1-5 years. The guidelines say nothing about "permanence." You can't be "a little permanent"--you are, or you aren't.

 

That arguement goes both ways to support a definition of permanence... it clearly states that temporary caches (with definition) will not be published... I would argue that it is equally impossible to be a little bit temporary... it's either temporary or permanent (to a reaasonable amount of time). It may eventually need to be archived, but if a cache is both significant and maintained then a reasonable amount of time could be quite long.

 

I hate it when people shut down perfectly good puzzles before I get to log them as finds... most often it doesn't matter since I have the coordinates solved and quite often find the container still in place. <_<

 

One really big problem with the current adoption system is related to the email/Personal messaging problems mentioned in another thread... much of the time it's impossible to contact cache owners, active or not.

 

I'd like to see a secondary process for quasi-adoption to allow for maintenance to continue for locally significant caches by local cachers. There would have to be some strictly enforced rules for that though.

We're not talking about LPC's or GRC's or boxes under rocks... or any 'average' cache. But something that serves to be enjoyed over years... proof would have to be on the prospective adopter though, including a history of involvment with geocaching. Not sure exactly what that would entail, but more than just saying 'can I please!'.

 

There was an adoption thread way back where it was discussed about making some sort of 'Will' regarding a cachers plans for their caches under certain circumstances... Forget who's profile I was on the other day, but it clearly stated on the profile that their caches were open to adoption in the event of..

 

Maybe that could be part of it. But that is just for one circumstance of course. Just dropping out, quite another thing.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

I didn't mean to imply that all old caches should be archived. I simply meant that old caches that belong to cache owners that don't maintain them or are no longer active should be archived rather than adopted unless the cache owner initiates it--i.e., the current system. I don't think we need to go beyond what we have now in terms of having caches adopted.

Link to comment

I didn't mean to imply that all old caches should be archived. I simply meant that old caches that belong to cache owners that don't maintain them or are no longer active should be archived rather than adopted unless the cache owner initiates it--i.e., the current system. I don't think we need to go beyond what we have now in terms of having caches adopted.

What you are saying, then, is simple to handle. If a cache is derelict, then there are steps geocachers can take.

 

  • Does the cache have a long string of DNFs? Post a "Needs Maintenance" (NM)log
  • Is the cache known to be missing? Post a "NM" log
  • Have you already posted a "NM" log for the cache? Email the owner and the local Reviewer, mentioning the situation
  • Does the owner appear to be M.I.A. from the game? Email the owner, and email the concern to the local Reviewer
  • Is the cache missing, has been confirmed missing by the owner/previous finders? Post a NM log. Wait 2-4 weeks. If no response, email the local Reviewer and post a "Needs Archived" log.
  • Has the cache been Disabled for some time with no action from the owner? Email the owner and ask about their cache. Email the Reviewer and inquire about relevant information that might help you understand the cache and related circumstances
  • Is the cache in place, container is intact, has a logbook, the logbook is signable, and the owner is not M.I.A.? Leave it alone.
  • Is the cache in place, container is intact, has a logbook, the logbook is signable, and the owner is M.I.A.? Leave it alone.
  • Is the cache in place, container is intact, has a logbook, the logbook is signable, and the owner is/is not M.I.A., but you want a new cache in that location? Email the owner and see if it might be ok to adopt or take over the site.
  • Does the owner say, "No thanks" to your request? Leave it alone.

 

Seeing the trend and possiblities here? This isn't an exhaustive list of circumstances by any means, but you can see where this is going.

 

If the cache is just fine--even if the owner isn't active enough for your liking--then you can't just post a NA on it without talking it over with your local Reviewer.

 

I know few Reviewers in the 8+ I've dealt with over the years who would archive a cache that is in fine shape.

 

So, if you really want that spot, wait it out. Eventually an opportunity will arise where the cacher will be gone, the cache will go to pot, and you will have your opportunity to post the necessary NM and NA logs to get it "out of your way".

 

That, or you adopt the cache when you get in contact with the owner, you add another hide to your repertoir.

 

I suppose your desire to see more new caches instead of older, less frequently visited caches won't be satiated, but that's what you are going to have to accept.

Link to comment

Well, actually I pretty much just accept things as they are. I'm happy enough. Sure I wish old ones were archived more often, but it's not really a big deal. So, yeah...I accept it. I never suggested archiving a cache in fine shape, just caches that aren't in fine shape. And there are plenty out there. But it's not a big deal to me--sure I wish there were new ones closer, but there aren't--that's life.

Link to comment

Well, actually I pretty much just accept things as they are. I'm happy enough. Sure I wish old ones were archived more often, but it's not really a big deal. So, yeah...I accept it. I never suggested archiving a cache in fine shape, just caches that aren't in fine shape. And there are plenty out there. But it's not a big deal to me--sure I wish there were new ones closer, but there aren't--that's life.

Well, if there are caches that are derelict, start with using the tools Groundspeak provided. NM logs, emails to Reviewers, and eventual NA logs. But, it couldn't hurt to email some of the owners and ask about adoption.

 

In my experience, it sometimes takes a NM or NA log to wake up a missing cache owner. Suddenly you have their attention, and a NA log will also have the Reviewer's attention. So long as the logs are justified, you are simply performing a service to the geocaching community by reporting caches that need attention.

 

Again, eventually the caches with M.I.A. owners will fall into such a state of disrepair, they will end up getting reported and archived.

Link to comment

I'm having a hard time reconciling this:

 

If I were a cache owner who was no longer interested in caching it would be much simpler to submit my cache(s) for adoption.

 

...with this:

 

Groundspeak will not process a geocache transfer without written permission from the geocache owner.

 

Link for reference:Adopting or Transfering a Geocache

What's to reconcile? The cache owner is the one who must adopt out the cache; it cannot be adopted without them taking the action.

Link to comment

"Realistic" and "extended" certainly makes me think that your ideal of "once it's lived long enough and the residents in the area have found it, and the find rates slow down it should go away so that there can be new ones close to me that I can find so that I can add more finds without having to expand my search radius from my couch..." just isn't going to play out the way you want it to.

 

 

Here's my perspective.

 

I don't have the luxury of travelling far and wide. I mostly do in-town caches, occasionally do day trips, and rarely get out further then a couple of hundred kilometers. So I enjoy and appreciate re-visiting nice local places every 2-3 years for a new cache. In saturated locations, there isn't much left to find when parks/trails/landmarks fill up with old caches.

 

We have been hiding caches since 2002. Planted some of the first caches in our town. They were well received. We were hesitant to archive at first, but it was getting tiresome going to the same landmark or trail multiple times over 6+ years. We worried that someone might plant a crappy cache at the nice locations but finally we did it. And every time we archive, some very decent caches have been placed. So fortunately, in our case, everybody wins - some keen responsible cache owners got to place caches in nice locations, cachers got to re-visit these areas +/-5 years later to enjoy the trail/park/landmark again and have fun finding new and different cache hides. Should old caches go away, no not necessarily, but every few years one might consider whether it's time to open the area for a new hide, especially if the location has been saturated for awhile with no new caching opportunities in 3+ years.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

One other question.

 

Lets say that a cache has been abandoned by the cache owner. They just moved away and left the cache too fend for itself. How long do you think it would take from the time the cache was abandoned to the day it was archived. I realize that the quality of the cache will determine how long it remains in good shape, before all the "log is full" and "cache is soaked" logs begin to appear.

 

Lets say we start the countdown from the first "need maintenance" log. How long is the average time between that and a cache actually being archived?

 

That will depend on, well everything. Could be three hours, could be three years. An NM log says the cache is still there and may just need a new logbook, or it's leaking.(I could mean it's gone but I think NA is ore suitable then) So we'll say after the first NM, there's a couple more. A reviewer might post a note on the page for the CO to fix it, then in 2 weeks archived it. Or they may not do anything as long as it's still there and findable. It might be years after a NM log is posted to the cache being archived.

 

Now if you log a NA-Needs Archived-that sends a notification directly to the reviewer. The reviewer may give the CO a chance to do something, or if it's really bad, it may get archived soon as the reviewer looks at it. Perhaps less than 24 hours. But in my experience a NA log will get a reviewers attention right away.

Link to comment

The NW forums has a pinned thread specifically for people to post caches that they would like to have adopted out.

 

Sorry but what is the NW forum? Is it searchable by zip code and radius?

 

Since it's about 3AM there, and none of them will answer for several hours, :lol: she means the NorthWest Forum, a subforum of these forums under Geocaching by Region/State. There I do see the Cache Rescue/adoption thread pinned.

 

Not that I agree with their "cache rescue" efforts (fixing up the caches of long gone owners), and always thought them having a thread, and doing such was a regional thing.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

The NW forums has a pinned thread specifically for people to post caches that they would like to have adopted out.

 

Sorry but what is the NW forum? Is it searchable by zip code and radius?

 

Since it's about 3AM there, and none of them will answer for several hours, :lol: she means the NorthWest Forum, a subforum of these forums under Geocaching by Region/State. There I do see the Cache Rescue/adoption thread pinned.

 

Not that I agree with their "cache rescue" efforts (fixing up the caches of long gone owners), and always thought them having a thread, and doing such was a regional thing.

 

We've rescued some pretty amazing, old, neglected caches here. And we're quite proud of it TYVM!

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...