Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
toonburner

Suggestion:Prevention of old caches being archived

Recommended Posts

This will have been discussed before, but I can't see a thread. I'd like to offer a suggestion that caches of a certain age, say at least 10 years old, are not archived by reviewers on the grounds the CO does not cache any more and the cache is missing, and instead are automatically offered for adoption on a site like http://www.adoptacache.guilduk.com/ There are many reasons why a cache of this age would still be archived such as landowner permission changes, but preserving old caches for future players would seem like a good idea to me. This would be simple to implement by GC; just leave the decision up to local reviewers who I'm sure could use common sense on deciding what should be archived. Cache owners could be sent an email by a reviewer stating if the cache isn't maintained with a certain time frame, it will be put up for adoption. We need to preserve as many old caches we can.

Share this post


Link to post

The cache is owned by someone regardless of maintenance. There are also other caching sites out there, which is why there are no force adoptions. If someone posts a picture of their car on Facebook, the a tops using Facebook, that doesn't mean Facebook can go and give ownership of that car to someone else. It's literally the exact same thing- Facebook provides the hosting for the picture, just like Groundspeak provides the listing of the cache, neither owns the contents, be it car, geocache, or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't get why folks want to hang on to old caches that have been abandoned. Aside from filling in a silly grid, there is no valid reason. What would the arbitrary cut-off date be? Ten years? So an abandoned cache that is nine years and 364 days old should be archived but a cache that is a day older shouldn't be?

 

Caches have a natural life span and should be archived when the owner abandons it and doesn't opt to let someone adopt it.

Share this post


Link to post

TDM 22, that's a poor analogy. A car owner doesn't abandon a car in the countryside for 10 years and expect it still to be theirs. We're talking tupperware, not cars. What's wrong with a reviewer emailing a CO of their intention to offer the cache for adoption, instead of an email saying they are archiving it? If they still wanted it, they would have chance to either reply or bring it in. J.Grouchy: everyone plays the game differently. What is a 'silly grid' to you, is the way some play the game. Wouldn't it be good if this hobby is still going in 40 years time, and people can still look for caches placed 50+ years previously? I and many others get a buzz out of finding old caches, look how many people search for the oldest caches placed worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post

There doesn't need to be an arbitary cut off date, why not leave that to a reviewers discretion? Lots of things have cut off dates; try submitting your income tax forms a day late and see where that gets you.

Share this post


Link to post

My gut feeling is to agree with toonburner. There are old caches which many of our community enjoy looking out for and then finding. Some of these are in out-of-the-way locations. Having a cut-off date can be left until later in the discussions. There is only 1 real question - to preserve or not to preserve. I always feel it is sad to see a cache I have searched for and found disappear from the list. I agree that owners should have the opportunity to archive caches that they own but any that are disowned in any way should be allowed to be adopted by the community.

 

I vote Preserve.

Share this post


Link to post

as long as a cache is maintained then it should be active, caches that are not maintained should be automatically put up for adoption if the owner shows no interest. If no one adopts the cache within 1 month then a note should be placed asking the next finder to remove the cache then inform the reviewer it is ready for archive.

Share this post


Link to post

J.Grouchy: everyone plays the game differently. What is a 'silly grid' to you, is the way some play the game. Wouldn't it be good if this hobby is still going in 40 years time, and people can still look for caches placed 50+ years previously? I and many others get a buzz out of finding old caches, look how many people search for the oldest caches placed worldwide.

 

Just like I can't tell others how to play the game, you can't force those cache owners to play the game you want. If they abandon the cache and aren't willing to let someone adopt it, then it gets archived. Otherwise you are just hijacking it for your own purpose.

Edited by J Grouchy

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak does not own our caches. Groundspeak does not own our listings. And for liability reasons, Groundspeak does not want to own either.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service. A listing service can disable a listing (either temporarily or permanently), but they can't give away things that they don't own. I don't see this changing anytime soon, because Groundspeak does not want to own our caches or our listings.

 

And personally, I think it's better to archive a missing, unmaintained cache. If it's a significant location, then someone else can hide a new cache with some sort of tribute reference to the original one. Then you have the best of both worlds: the tribute maintains the history, and the new cache has an active owner who can maintain it.

Share this post


Link to post

as long as a cache is maintained then it should be active, caches that are not maintained should be automatically put up for adoption if the owner shows no interest. If no one adopts the cache within 1 month then a note should be placed asking the next finder to remove the cache then inform the reviewer it is ready for archive.

You are over complicating the process. The present system works fine. If it falls into disrepair and a NA is filed it gets archived.

No need for adoption of old caches. Just place a new one. Given all the complaints about saturation it makes more sense to clear out the old and let someone else try.

 

Getting back to the OP why would there be any reason just because it is 10 years old that it be kept. I would reverse that procedure and all caches over 10 years old should be automatically archived if the CO doesn't respond to an automatic email generated by GC. And I would only give them a week to respond otherwise GONE.

Share this post


Link to post

My caching partner and I unofficially adopted an old cache in our area. The CO hadn't been active for over 8 years and it was just something we decided to do because the cache was one of the oldest in the state. One of the problems we had was that we couldn't clear the NM flag but that really didn't bother us too much.

 

After replacing the container three times, and the last container had been attached to a tree with a cable, we decided no more. It was time to let it go so we contacted our reviewer and explained the situation to them. 60 days later it was archived.

 

For the caching community it was the loss of an old cache, but it opened up a spot for a new cache. For the cache thief, and yes it was another cacher that was stealing the containers, it was the loss of a cache for them to steal. The cache had run its course and now is part of geocaching history and tall tales at events.

 

Every cache has a life span and they need to die off so that others can be placed.

Edited by ngrrfan

Share this post


Link to post

Well, yes. It is a sentimental problem. We all (at least some of us) love those old caches! Wed love to see them stay around forever! But, all things come to an end. Caches belong to the cache owner. There was a period of time where adoption was permitted for those old caches. But that didn't last long. Caches belong to the cache owner. Groundspeak decided that it could not give someone's property to anyone else. Which is legally correct.

If the cache owner cannot, or will not, maintain the cache, then it is dead.

I follow some of the oldest caches in the area. Cache owner moved a few thousand miles away, and is not active. Several have been archived. One is being maintained by another cacher. I found the 'oldest cache in where ever' many years ago. I did help someone replace it. But, I'm pretty sure that Hurricane Sandy washed that one away. (Very strange area to get to...) But people want to find it as the 'oldest cache in where ever'.

Sorry. It's probably gone. Almost certainly.

Yes. A lot of sentimental. But it's gone.

A cache only exists long as long as the owner can maintain it. All hail to the newest 'oldest cache in where ever.' (Have not checked to see what cache that is...)

Share this post


Link to post

Caches belong to the cache owner. Groundspeak decided that it could not give someone's property to anyone else. Which is legally correct.

 

Interesting discussion, but the above is not strictly an accurate assessment of the situation. Groundspeak only hosts a listing of some coordinates along with a description of a place and/or object. That means that Groundspeak could *only* give away/adopt to another user that listing - some coords and some words on a web page.

 

Sure, if the original CO wanted to go out and take their 10+ year old weathered tupperware back they could, but chances are they are long gone, maybe dead, who knows. Sure there are other listing sites, but are those caches likely to be listed there? Unlikely. Most likely, Groundspeak de-lists the cache, and some rubbish now sits out there forever, meaning over time as cachers we're just filling up the world with discarded plastic boxes and other assorted crap.

 

I've no opinion one way or the other about whether such adoptions as suggested by the OP would be a good idea, but I can't agree that people should just get over their sentimentality. What would you think if someone came through your neighbourhood and knocked down all the buildings over a certain age and bulldozed historic sites to build cheap housing? Would you think "oh well, that's progress, we were only being a bit sentimental about those historic places" or would you be a bit upset about the lost history?

Share this post


Link to post

as long as a cache is maintained then it should be active, caches that are not maintained should be automatically put up for adoption if the owner shows no interest. If no one adopts the cache within 1 month then a note should be placed asking the next finder to remove the cache then inform the reviewer it is ready for archive.

You are over complicating the process. The present system works fine. If it falls into disrepair and a NA is filed it gets archived.

No need for adoption of old caches. Just place a new one. Given all the complaints about saturation it makes more sense to clear out the old and let someone else try.

 

Getting back to the OP why would there be any reason just because it is 10 years old that it be kept. I would reverse that procedure and all caches over 10 years old should be automatically archived if the CO doesn't respond to an automatic email generated by GC. And I would only give them a week to respond otherwise GONE.

 

I agree that maintaining old caches "just because" is silly. 10 years from now I wonder if people will insist that the film pot that somehow survived being muggled (perhaps by being in the middle of the woods, miles from anything) must be preserved for ever and ever just because it's survived a long time even though the log book is sodden and the owner hasn't logged in for three years.

 

Requiring a response within a week is just silly though. There are all sorts of perfectly good reasons why someone might be offline for a week, and archiving an old cache just because the owner went away for a few days and didn't have internet access is little more than treating people who hid caches for the long haul worse than someone who just threw down a few film pots.

Share this post


Link to post
I've no opinion one way or the other about whether such adoptions as suggested by the OP would be a good idea, but I can't agree that people should just get over their sentimentality. What would you think if someone came through your neighbourhood and knocked down all the buildings over a certain age and bulldozed historic sites to build cheap housing? Would you think "oh well, that's progress, we were only being a bit sentimental about those historic places" or would you be a bit upset about the lost history?

 

I'm not sure that equating the beautiful architecture of a bygone era to a sandwich box under a dead tree is relevant, but let's roll with it.

 

There's quite a difference between bulldozing St Paul's Cathedral in central London to make way for cheap housing and bulldozing a dilapidated tower block from the 50s to make room for cheap housing. Few people would shed any tears over the 50s tower block, but the cathedral has more architectural and historical value.

 

Even then someone has to pay to maintain the old building. There's no point getting all sentimental about historical architecture if your only solution is that Someone Should Pay, unless you're willing to put your own hand in your own pocket. And ultimately if the owner of the building decides to sell the land to a developer, you can say goodbye to the building.

Share this post


Link to post

From a reviewer's perspective, I have ZERO interest in advising on whether a cache merits special consideration re archival v forced adoption (I'd just as soon be trying to determine the "wow factor" on virts).

 

As a player, I'd vastly prefer to see a listing properly preserved by being archived under the ownership of the account that placed it.

 

Forced transfer destroys cache history, it does not preserve it.

 

Early in the days of the site, Groundspeak made an error in transferring listings. They recognized this error and stopped. The basis of the listing service is that the cache and listing belong to the person who placed and submitted. See the Terms of Use, section 3 Ownership

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

Edited by palmetto

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't get why folks want to hang on to old caches that have been abandoned. Aside from filling in a silly grid, there is no valid reason. What would the arbitrary cut-off date be? Ten years? So an abandoned cache that is nine years and 364 days old should be archived but a cache that is a day older shouldn't be?

 

Caches have a natural life span and should be archived when the owner abandons it and doesn't opt to let someone adopt it.

Agreed.

Whenever I hear someone urging preservation or history, I immediately think the real reason is they simply need it for the Jasmer.

Share this post


Link to post

Not surprisingly, I agree with my reviewer colleague, Palmetto. I have two personal examples to share from the era when Reviewers could "recommend" adoptions and Groundspeak would force them through.

 

The first example was a popular cache in an area of great historical and earth science interest, all of which was explained in great detail on a well-written cache page. When the owner failed to maintain the cache, an active geocacher contacted me about adopting it. I agreed, and an adoption was processed. The new adoptive owner then wiped out the entire cache description and replaced it with an inferior description, just a paragraph or two long. The history of the listing was destroyed, not preserved.

 

Another example: a cache owner's account showed no site activity for a few years. One of his caches needed routine maintenance, and an active geocacher contacted me about adoption. The adoption was processed. A long time later, the original owner logs into Geocaching.com and is upset and confused because he can't find his cache listing. It turned out he had been maintaining the physical container all along, and the physical logbook supported this. Fortunately, the container owner and listing owner worked things out amicably. The original owner is now one of the most active geocachers in his region.

 

I would like to avoid getting in the middle of situations like these.

Share this post


Link to post

Early in the days of the site, Groundspeak made an error in transferring listings. They recognized this error and stopped.

Now they can make "better mistakes" :ph34r:

 

Actually, I think TPTB did realize that non-consensual adoption caused more problems then they solved.

 

Yes, this policy means that sometimes great old caches where the owner is not active may get archived. When the policy was first announced, a brilliant forward thinking geocacher B) asked about this. The response then was that reviewers would have the discretion to remove needs maintenance attributes if a cache was being maintained by the community, but there could be a variety of issues where a reviewer could decide that an active owner is required and archive the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Not surprisingly, I agree with my reviewer colleague, Palmetto. I have two personal examples to share from the era when Reviewers could "recommend" adoptions and Groundspeak would force them through.

 

The first example was a popular cache in an area of great historical and earth science interest, all of which was explained in great detail on a well-written cache page. When the owner failed to maintain the cache, an active geocacher contacted me about adopting it. I agreed, and an adoption was processed. The new adoptive owner then wiped out the entire cache description and replaced it with an inferior description, just a paragraph or two long. The history of the listing was destroyed, not preserved.

 

Another example: a cache owner's account showed no site activity for a few years. One of his caches needed routine maintenance, and an active geocacher contacted me about adoption. The adoption was processed. A long time later, the original owner logs into Geocaching.com and is upset and confused because he can't find his cache listing. It turned out he had been maintaining the physical container all along, and the physical logbook supported this. Fortunately, the container owner and listing owner worked things out amicably. The original owner is now one of the most active geocachers in his region.

 

I would like to avoid getting in the middle of situations like these.

 

No good deed goes unpunished.

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed. In each situation I was convinced I was doing the "right thing," what was good for the geocaching community. In both cases I was wrong, and that made me sad.

Share this post


Link to post

I recently learned of a practice the local city has been following. They have a register of heritage buildings, and they also have a watchlist of buildings that are candidates to be added to the register. I learned last week that any buildings older than 4 decades are automatically added to the watchlist. That means some houses built in the early 1970s are on this watchlist, even if they have no other significance or history. The proposal being discussed here reminded me of this practice, and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Age doesn't necessarily imply value. Is a 10 year old LPC cache really worth going above-and-beyond to save? It would be analogous to an unremarkable 1970-built house being saved from the wrecking ball even if it has no other redeeming qualities. Any such caching proposal would have to be able to cover every possible candidate, because it's been clearly stated that the reviewers don't want to be the arbiters of "WOW! factor" again. I just don't see how this can happen.

Share this post


Link to post

I do have to say that the one week response wasn't serious it was more an expression of how I feel about saving old caches just because they are old. The shorter the response time the less likely it will be saved. I vote for the current process flawed though it is but it seems to work pretty well.

 

Quite frankly involving reviewers on whether or not a cache is worth saving is ludicrous. They get enough negativity thrown their way without being stuck in the middle of that. I can see the crowd gathering on a full moon night with torches and pitchforks when a local favorite is allowed to finish its natural life cycle and laid peaceably to rest. Maybe instead of archived we should change their status to RIP to show an honorable passing.

 

And of course there is the often expressed complaint that there is no place to put a cache because of saturation. This would just increase that problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I recently learned of a practice the local city has been following. They have a register of heritage buildings, and they also have a watchlist of buildings that are candidates to be added to the register. I learned last week that any buildings older than 4 decades are automatically added to the watchlist. That means some houses built in the early 1970s are on this watchlist, even if they have no other significance or history. The proposal being discussed here reminded me of this practice, and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

Age doesn't necessarily imply value. Is a 10 year old LPC cache really worth going above-and-beyond to save? It would be analogous to an unremarkable 1970-built house being saved from the wrecking ball even if it has no other redeeming qualities. Any such caching proposal would have to be able to cover every possible candidate, because it's been clearly stated that the reviewers don't want to be the arbiters of "WOW! factor" again. I just don't see how this can happen.

 

And to compare it to old geocaches, the 1970s house did have some significant architecture for its time but the folks who bought it in the 90s knocked it down and built a whole new home, but the street number remained the same. The building society figures that since the original house was built in the 70s and the newer (abandoned, derilect) house still has the same street address, it will be saved.

 

A lot of older caches are no longer the original cache except for the GC#. It does seem, although few who propose a system of adopting old caches are willing to admit it, that it's the GC# that people want to keep active.

Share this post


Link to post
I've no opinion one way or the other about whether such adoptions as suggested by the OP would be a good idea, but I can't agree that people should just get over their sentimentality. What would you think if someone came through your neighbourhood and knocked down all the buildings over a certain age and bulldozed historic sites to build cheap housing? Would you think "oh well, that's progress, we were only being a bit sentimental about those historic places" or would you be a bit upset about the lost history?

 

I'm not sure that equating the beautiful architecture of a bygone era to a sandwich box under a dead tree is relevant, but let's roll with it.

 

There's quite a difference between bulldozing St Paul's Cathedral in central London to make way for cheap housing and bulldozing a dilapidated tower block from the 50s to make room for cheap housing. Few people would shed any tears over the 50s tower block, but the cathedral has more architectural and historical value.

 

Even then someone has to pay to maintain the old building. There's no point getting all sentimental about historical architecture if your only solution is that Someone Should Pay, unless you're willing to put your own hand in your own pocket. And ultimately if the owner of the building decides to sell the land to a developer, you can say goodbye to the building.

 

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly some people do value these old listings, whether it's the listing, the GC number, the container, the location, or some combination of those - remember of course that this game is part real-world and part internet, so the history also consists of both.

 

Even if an old container is gone, but the listing remains, the location remains, the logs and GC code remain, so what? I've visited many a historic place where the building/structure/fortification/you-name-it, built by people in the past long gone, has fallen down and disappeared, but the spot remains valued and protected, by new people now... :)

 

Notwithstanding all of that, and someone else since has mentioned, buildings become marked as historic and become protected simply because they pass a certain age, not because you or I perceive some value in them.

 

I still have no real opinion either way. it's an interesting discussion anyway. :)

Share this post


Link to post

And to compare it to old geocaches, the 1970s house did have some significant architecture for its time but the folks who bought it in the 90s knocked it down and built a whole new home, but the street number remained the same. The building society figures that since the original house was built in the 70s and the newer (abandoned, derilect) house still has the same street address, it will be saved.

 

A lot of older caches are no longer the original cache except for the GC#. It does seem, although few who propose a system of adopting old caches are willing to admit it, that it's the GC# that people want to keep active.

 

I thought caching was supposed to be about the experience, the location, etc... not the plastic box... I keep getting mixed messages from this forum ;)

Share this post


Link to post

And to compare it to old geocaches, the 1970s house did have some significant architecture for its time but the folks who bought it in the 90s knocked it down and built a whole new home, but the street number remained the same. The building society figures that since the original house was built in the 70s and the newer (abandoned, derilect) house still has the same street address, it will be saved.

 

A lot of older caches are no longer the original cache except for the GC#. It does seem, although few who propose a system of adopting old caches are willing to admit it, that it's the GC# that people want to keep active.

 

I thought caching was supposed to be about the experience, the location, etc... not the plastic box... I keep getting mixed messages from this forum ;)

You need to be aware that forums are for long rambling discussions about mostly unimportant issues that will never have any impact on the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post

And to compare it to old geocaches, the 1970s house did have some significant architecture for its time but the folks who bought it in the 90s knocked it down and built a whole new home, but the street number remained the same. The building society figures that since the original house was built in the 70s and the newer (abandoned, derilect) house still has the same street address, it will be saved.

 

A lot of older caches are no longer the original cache except for the GC#. It does seem, although few who propose a system of adopting old caches are willing to admit it, that it's the GC# that people want to keep active.

 

I thought caching was supposed to be about the experience, the location, etc... not the plastic box... I keep getting mixed messages from this forum ;)

It's about filling in squares on a Jasmer challenge.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
I've no opinion one way or the other about whether such adoptions as suggested by the OP would be a good idea, but I can't agree that people should just get over their sentimentality. What would you think if someone came through your neighbourhood and knocked down all the buildings over a certain age and bulldozed historic sites to build cheap housing? Would you think "oh well, that's progress, we were only being a bit sentimental about those historic places" or would you be a bit upset about the lost history?

 

I'm not sure that equating the beautiful architecture of a bygone era to a sandwich box under a dead tree is relevant, but let's roll with it.

 

There's quite a difference between bulldozing St Paul's Cathedral in central London to make way for cheap housing and bulldozing a dilapidated tower block from the 50s to make room for cheap housing. Few people would shed any tears over the 50s tower block, but the cathedral has more architectural and historical value.

 

Even then someone has to pay to maintain the old building. There's no point getting all sentimental about historical architecture if your only solution is that Someone Should Pay, unless you're willing to put your own hand in your own pocket. And ultimately if the owner of the building decides to sell the land to a developer, you can say goodbye to the building.

 

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly some people do value these old listings, whether it's the listing, the GC number, the container, the location, or some combination of those - remember of course that this game is part real-world and part internet, so the history also consists of both.

 

Even if an old container is gone, but the listing remains, the location remains, the logs and GC code remain, so what? I've visited many a historic place where the building/structure/fortification/you-name-it, built by people in the past long gone, has fallen down and disappeared, but the spot remains valued and protected, by new people now... :)

 

Notwithstanding all of that, and someone else since has mentioned, buildings become marked as historic and become protected simply because they pass a certain age, not because you or I perceive some value in them.

 

I still have no real opinion either way. it's an interesting discussion anyway. :)

 

The old listing can stay if the cache is archived, and someone else hiding a different cache in a nearby spot (or an identical spot) doesn't change the history. It's really no different to the blue plaques you can see around London that tell people walking by about a well known person who once lived there. A well known person from hundreds of years ago probably didn't live in the opulent office block that's there now, so the history says what was once there while what's there now is different.

 

If people value the listings they can continue to view the listings. If people value the container they can keep their cache active. To argue that a cache must stay forever, even when the owner has long since abandoned the game, just because someone else thinks the container is something special, is silly. It's very rare to find a cache that involves a truly one-of-a-kind containers, and whether the container is a film pot or an ammo can if someone really thinks the listing needs to stay there forever they can have the abandoned cache archived and place their own comparable container in the same spot.

 

The trouble with things being protected because they are "historic" for no reason other than they reached a particular age without falling apart is that we end up with things that are forever protected for no reason other than being old. We end up with the caching (or building, or whatever else) equivalent of the antique dealer who is selling all sorts of old tat that has no value but because it's 150 years old he's put a high price tag on it. When I cleared out an old house after the owner died I found all sorts of things in it. Some had antique value (they were items of specific interest from a specific period) and some were just old junk. Ultimately junk is junk however old it is.

Share this post


Link to post

Notwithstanding all of that, and someone else since has mentioned, buildings become marked as historic and become protected simply because they pass a certain age, not because you or I perceive some value in them.

To be clear, I mentioned that practice as an example of something I consider absurd, not something I support.

Share this post


Link to post

I learned last week that any buildings older than 4 decades are automatically added to the watchlist. That means some houses built in the early 1970s are on this watchlist, even if they have no other significance or history. The proposal being discussed here reminded me of this practice, and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Good point. It isn't really the raw age of the caches that's historical: it's when in the history of geocaching they were planted. So instead of "10 years old", something like "before 2003" would make more sense. Despite the other points about quality and whether the current cache is really the original cache, the only actual value in an old cache is because it was planted in the first few years the sport was active.

 

But even if that were the proposal, I'd still agree with you: old caches are valuable because they are loved, and a loved cache would not find itself in a position to be archived. Compared to the things that are putting the cache at risk, neither age nor date of creation are significant.

 

And as Keystone just explained, even if the mechanics would lead to archival, the reviewers do have enough flexibility to take exceptional action so that a loved cache could continue to be loved. Although Keystone's experience is that such lovingly transferred much loved caches are not always loved anymore after the transplant.

Share this post


Link to post

I learned last week that any buildings older than 4 decades are automatically added to the watchlist. That means some houses built in the early 1970s are on this watchlist, even if they have no other significance or history. The proposal being discussed here reminded me of this practice, and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Good point. It isn't really the raw age of the caches that's historical: it's when in the history of geocaching they were planted. So instead of "10 years old", something like "before 2003" would make more sense. Despite the other points about quality and whether the current cache is really the original cache, the only actual value in an old cache is because it was planted in the first few years the sport was active.

 

But even if that were the proposal, I'd still agree with you: old caches are valuable because they are loved, and a loved cache would not find itself in a position to be archived. Compared to the things that are putting the cache at risk, neither age nor date of creation are significant.

 

And as Keystone just explained, even if the mechanics would lead to archival, the reviewers do have enough flexibility to take exceptional action so that a loved cache could continue to be loved. Although Keystone's experience is that such lovingly transferred much loved caches are not always loved anymore after the transplant.

 

I guess when people are worried about older caches they are thinking of the Jasmer challenge and trying to find a cache hidden in every one of the months since the first ever cache. That will naturally get harder over time - it's hard enough now to find caches hidden before about 2003-4 and will only get harder over time.

 

As with many other things the answer to a side game getting harder isn't to leave abandoned caches limping along like some kind of zombie - unless they can go through the normal adoption process they need to be allowed to die gracefully.

Share this post


Link to post

I learned last week that any buildings older than 4 decades are automatically added to the watchlist. That means some houses built in the early 1970s are on this watchlist, even if they have no other significance or history. The proposal being discussed here reminded me of this practice, and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Good point. It isn't really the raw age of the caches that's historical: it's when in the history of geocaching they were planted. So instead of "10 years old", something like "before 2003" would make more sense. Despite the other points about quality and whether the current cache is really the original cache, the only actual value in an old cache is because it was planted in the first few years the sport was active.

 

But even if that were the proposal, I'd still agree with you: old caches are valuable because they are loved, and a loved cache would not find itself in a position to be archived. Compared to the things that are putting the cache at risk, neither age nor date of creation are significant.

 

And as Keystone just explained, even if the mechanics would lead to archival, the reviewers do have enough flexibility to take exceptional action so that a loved cache could continue to be loved. Although Keystone's experience is that such lovingly transferred much loved caches are not always loved anymore after the transplant.

 

I guess when people are worried about older caches they are thinking of the Jasmer challenge and trying to find a cache hidden in every one of the months since the first ever cache. That will naturally get harder over time - it's hard enough now to find caches hidden before about 2003-4 and will only get harder over time.

 

As with many other things the answer to a side game getting harder isn't to leave abandoned caches limping along like some kind of zombie - unless they can go through the normal adoption process they need to be allowed to die gracefully.

 

When no more caches from that month are available, grey out the box in the grid since adding to it will no longer be possible. Problem solved and all the hand-wringing can stop. The side game ought to change to meet the reality of geocaching...not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post

I learned last week that any buildings older than 4 decades are automatically added to the watchlist. That means some houses built in the early 1970s are on this watchlist, even if they have no other significance or history. The proposal being discussed here reminded me of this practice, and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Good point. It isn't really the raw age of the caches that's historical: it's when in the history of geocaching they were planted. So instead of "10 years old", something like "before 2003" would make more sense. Despite the other points about quality and whether the current cache is really the original cache, the only actual value in an old cache is because it was planted in the first few years the sport was active.

 

But even if that were the proposal, I'd still agree with you: old caches are valuable because they are loved, and a loved cache would not find itself in a position to be archived. Compared to the things that are putting the cache at risk, neither age nor date of creation are significant.

 

And as Keystone just explained, even if the mechanics would lead to archival, the reviewers do have enough flexibility to take exceptional action so that a loved cache could continue to be loved. Although Keystone's experience is that such lovingly transferred much loved caches are not always loved anymore after the transplant.

 

I guess when people are worried about older caches they are thinking of the Jasmer challenge and trying to find a cache hidden in every one of the months since the first ever cache. That will naturally get harder over time - it's hard enough now to find caches hidden before about 2003-4 and will only get harder over time.

 

As with many other things the answer to a side game getting harder isn't to leave abandoned caches limping along like some kind of zombie - unless they can go through the normal adoption process they need to be allowed to die gracefully.

 

When no more caches from that month are available, grey out the box in the grid since adding to it will no longer be possible. Problem solved and all the hand-wringing can stop. The side game ought to change to meet the reality of geocaching...not the other way around.

 

One thing we can be sure of is that the hand wringing won't stop.

 

If there's a single cache published in a particular month remaining, the chances are someone will complain that it's too far to travel and therefore it's unfair that people nearby can complete the challenge more easily.

 

That said, I agree entirely with your suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post

Caches belong to the cache owner. Groundspeak decided that it could not give someone's property to anyone else. Which is legally correct.

 

Interesting discussion, but the above is not strictly an accurate assessment of the situation. Groundspeak only hosts a listing of some coordinates along with a description of a place and/or object. That means that Groundspeak could *only* give away/adopt to another user that listing - some coords and some words on a web page.

 

Sure, if the original CO wanted to go out and take their 10+ year old weathered tupperware back they could, but chances are they are long gone, maybe dead, who knows.

 

 

But then it is an entirely different cache, so what's the points of keeping the same cache page?huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Have a function that says: This cache is set to be archived with an 'Adopt this cache' button.

 

I would also love to be able to see all the archived caches in the map still, stop killing my smileys!!! :) or have like a smiley with a halo on top.

Share this post


Link to post

No need to adopt. It is perfectly possible to maintain an old cache as a community of cachers, without the listing being transferred. Of course nobody can then clear the "needs maintenance" flag from the listing, or weed out trackables that haven't been in the cache since 2004, but these are minor issues. What counts is that the cache is findable, and dry. No reviewer will force-archive a cache that has a handful of successful finds every week, without complaints. If you have an ancient treasured cache in your neck of the woods that is getting "needs maintenance" logs, and the owner hasn't been seen for a couple years, just get off your butt, scrounge for an ammocan, and replace the box. All it takes is 10$ worth of ammo can, and two hours of effort. The listing itself can perfectly stay as it is. Yes, I have done so myself. Three ammo cans, and counting. I absolutely think that the truly old caches should stay, because it is instructive and entertaining to see where the pioneers opted to hide.

Edited by wesi

Share this post


Link to post

It's really no different to the blue plaques you can see around London that tell people walking by about a well known person who once lived there. A well known person from hundreds of years ago probably didn't live in the opulent office block that's there now, so the history says what was once there while what's there now is different.

Precisely. The "container" isn't important. The spot is still historic though and has some significance. I could suggest that archiving an old cache would be akin to concreting over the plaque so that no one ever knew it was there.

 

Please don't attempt to argue that archived caches still remain as an openly accessible part of caching history when geocaching.com tries to hide them as much as possible - you can only find an archived listing if you know the GC code, who originally hid the cache or someone who logged a found it, so that you can access it via their profiles. Kind of like locking a book in the basement of a library behind a combination locked door and then suggesting the book is freely available - sure it is if you know it's down there and you know the code, but you can't just wander past it and think that looks interesting, I'll have a read.

 

So anyway, I agree that it really is no different than those blue plaques and your plaque example clearly contradicts your argument.

Edited by funkymunkyzone

Share this post


Link to post

It's really no different to the blue plaques you can see around London that tell people walking by about a well known person who once lived there. A well known person from hundreds of years ago probably didn't live in the opulent office block that's there now, so the history says what was once there while what's there now is different.

Precisely. The "container" isn't important. The spot is still historic though and has some significance. I could suggest that archiving an old cache would be akin to concreting over the plaque so that no one ever knew it was there.

 

Please don't attempt to argue that archived caches still remain as an openly accessible part of caching history when geocaching.com tries to hide them as much as possible - you can only find an archived listing if you know the GC code, who originally hid the cache or someone who logged a found it, so that you can access it via their profiles. Kind of like locking a book in the basement of a library behind a combination locked door and then suggesting the book is freely available - sure it is if you know it's down there and you know the code, but you can't just wander past it and think that looks interesting, I'll have a read.

 

So anyway, I agree that it really is no different than those blue plaques and your plaque example clearly contradicts your argument.

 

The plaque contradicts my argument? Not at all, the entire building can be bulldozed and replaced with something else (as has happened) and the blue plaque merely indicates that someone lived there however many years ago it was.

 

The desire to preserve an old cache just because it's old would be like expecting to preserve a delapidated old suburban mid-terraced house just because Kenneth Williams lived there in the early days of the Carry On films. There's no reason not to knock down the house, build something else there (which may not even be a residential dwelling, it could be retail or office space) and the blue plaque indicates what used to be there. I can see from the plaque that Kenneth Williams once lived there but if I want to walk into the house so I can see his living room or his kitchen that's not an option any more. His living room may now be the office reception area or someone else's bathroom.

 

The way Groundspeak hides archived listings is a different issue. Unfortunately because there's no way of knowing why a cache was archived without reading the logs (and sometimes even then it's not clear) if archived listings were too readily available there would be more problems with people going to the coordinates (you know, just to see if it's still there) when it was archived due to permission being revoked or never granted, major issues with neighbours or worse. I have little time for Groundspeak these days but can't fault them for wanting to hide the coordinates of a cache that was archived because Bubba the redneck was shooting at people hunting it, or the police arrested seekers because the area was known for drug drops, or some such. Once you've found a cache that interests you there's nothing to stop you bookmarking it.

Edited by team tisri

Share this post


Link to post

It's really no different to the blue plaques you can see around London that tell people walking by about a well known person who once lived there. A well known person from hundreds of years ago probably didn't live in the opulent office block that's there now, so the history says what was once there while what's there now is different.

Precisely. The "container" isn't important. The spot is still historic though and has some significance. I could suggest that archiving an old cache would be akin to concreting over the plaque so that no one ever knew it was there.

 

Please don't attempt to argue that archived caches still remain as an openly accessible part of caching history when geocaching.com tries to hide them as much as possible - you can only find an archived listing if you know the GC code, who originally hid the cache or someone who logged a found it, so that you can access it via their profiles. Kind of like locking a book in the basement of a library behind a combination locked door and then suggesting the book is freely available - sure it is if you know it's down there and you know the code, but you can't just wander past it and think that looks interesting, I'll have a read.

 

So anyway, I agree that it really is no different than those blue plaques and your plaque example clearly contradicts your argument.

 

The plaque contradicts my argument? Not at all, the entire building can be bulldozed and replaced with something else (as has happened) and the blue plaque merely indicates that someone lived there however many years ago it was.

 

The desire to preserve an old cache just because it's old would be like expecting to preserve a delapidated old suburban mid-terraced house just because Kenneth Williams lived there in the early days of the Carry On films. There's no reason not to knock down the house, build something else there (which may not even be a residential dwelling, it could be retail or office space) and the blue plaque indicates what used to be there. I can see from the plaque that Kenneth Williams once lived there but if I want to walk into the house so I can see his living room or his kitchen that's not an option any more. His living room may now be the office reception area or someone else's bathroom.

 

The way Groundspeak hides archived listings is a different issue. Unfortunately because there's no way of knowing why a cache was archived without reading the logs (and sometimes even then it's not clear) if archived listings were too readily available there would be more problems with people going to the coordinates (you know, just to see if it's still there) when it was archived due to permission being revoked or never granted, major issues with neighbours or worse. I have little time for Groundspeak these days but can't fault them for wanting to hide the coordinates of a cache that was archived because Bubba the redneck was shooting at people hunting it, or the police arrested seekers because the area was known for drug drops, or some such. Once you've found a cache that interests you there's nothing to stop you bookmarking it.

As I said earlier:

I thought caching was supposed to be about the experience, the location, etc... not the plastic box... I keep getting mixed messages from this forum ;)

Your blue plaque does exactly what a cache listing does - point to a location. In your example, a historic spot where some famous person used to live. The historic spot didn't change because they removed one box^H^H^H house and placed^H^H^H^H^H^H built another.

Share this post


Link to post
1408315048[/url]' post='5415792']

Your blue plaque does exactly what a cache listing does - point to a location. In your example, a historic spot where some famous person used to live. The historic spot didn't change because they removed one box^H^H^H house and placed^H^H^H^H^H^H built another.

A win-win solution - put your own equivalent of the blue plaque up. Plant your own cache where the old cache use to be and put a link to the archived cache. You preserve the memory of the old cache and the new cache has an active owner.

Share this post


Link to post

Your blue plaque does exactly what a cache listing does - point to a location. In your example, a historic spot where some famous person used to live. The historic spot didn't change because they removed one box^H^H^H house and placed^H^H^H^H^H^H built another.

A win-win solution - put your own equivalent of the blue plaque up. Plant your own cache where the old cache use to be and put a link to the archived cache. You preserve the memory of the old cache and the new cache has an active owner.

 

I understand what you're saying, but in the case of the "blue plaque" the place hasn't changed and the name/historic nature of the place hasn't changed either (it's still so and so lived here), just the box. So IMO, when applying it to whether an old cache could/should remain vs whether a new cache should be placed, it's rather 50/50 and I don't believe there is a definitive right and wrong either way. Certainly the "blue plaque" example does not in itself prove one to be right and one to be wrong.

 

To me, a cache is as much, if not more, about the location, so despite the loss of a historic cache box, an old cache could be replaced (caches get replaced every day anyway without being archived because of it) and it would not bother me one bit.

 

I would say though, that I don't believe there would ever need to be some kind of policy to try and keep old caches alive - cache attrition is what it is, and if old caches survive, great, and otherwise, well that's life in the geocaching world.

Share this post


Link to post
I've no opinion one way or the other about whether such adoptions as suggested by the OP would be a good idea, but I can't agree that people should just get over their sentimentality. What would you think if someone came through your neighbourhood and knocked down all the buildings over a certain age and bulldozed historic sites to build cheap housing? Would you think "oh well, that's progress, we were only being a bit sentimental about those historic places" or would you be a bit upset about the lost history?

 

I'm not sure that equating the beautiful architecture of a bygone era to a sandwich box under a dead tree is relevant, but let's roll with it.

 

There's quite a difference between bulldozing St Paul's Cathedral in central London to make way for cheap housing and bulldozing a dilapidated tower block from the 50s to make room for cheap housing. Few people would shed any tears over the 50s tower block, but the cathedral has more architectural and historical value.

 

Even then someone has to pay to maintain the old building. There's no point getting all sentimental about historical architecture if your only solution is that Someone Should Pay, unless you're willing to put your own hand in your own pocket. And ultimately if the owner of the building decides to sell the land to a developer, you can say goodbye to the building.

 

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly some people do value these old listings, whether it's the listing, the GC number, the container, the location, or some combination of those - remember of course that this game is part real-world and part internet, so the history also consists of both.

 

Even if an old container is gone, but the listing remains, the location remains, the logs and GC code remain, so what? I've visited many a historic place where the building/structure/fortification/you-name-it, built by people in the past long gone, has fallen down and disappeared, but the spot remains valued and protected, by new people now... :)

 

Notwithstanding all of that, and someone else since has mentioned, buildings become marked as historic and become protected simply because they pass a certain age, not because you or I perceive some value in them.

 

I still have no real opinion either way. it's an interesting discussion anyway. :)

 

The old listing can stay if the cache is archived, and someone else hiding a different cache in a nearby spot (or an identical spot) doesn't change the history. It's really no different to the blue plaques you can see around London that tell people walking by about a well known person who once lived there. A well known person from hundreds of years ago probably didn't live in the opulent office block that's there now, so the history says what was once there while what's there now is different.

 

If people value the listings they can continue to view the listings. If people value the container they can keep their cache active. To argue that a cache must stay forever, even when the owner has long since abandoned the game, just because someone else thinks the container is something special, is silly. It's very rare to find a cache that involves a truly one-of-a-kind containers, and whether the container is a film pot or an ammo can if someone really thinks the listing needs to stay there forever they can have the abandoned cache archived and place their own comparable container in the same spot.

 

The trouble with things being protected because they are "historic" for no reason other than they reached a particular age without falling apart is that we end up with things that are forever protected for no reason other than being old. We end up with the caching (or building, or whatever else) equivalent of the antique dealer who is selling all sorts of old tat that has no value but because it's 150 years old he's put a high price tag on it. When I cleared out an old house after the owner died I found all sorts of things in it. Some had antique value (they were items of specific interest from a specific period) and some were just old junk. Ultimately junk is junk however old it is.

 

I you could simply search an area for archived caches, your argument of "they can continue to view the listings" would be valid. However, you can't see an archived listing unless you know the GC code already. I'd love to see the ability to search for archived caches... not only for the historical aspect, but to check out an area I'm interested in hiding a cache at, to see if there were any past issues I need to be aware of.

 

If an old, abandoned cache means that much to you, then keep an eye on it, replace the container/log when needed, and work with your local reviewers to clear any "Needs Maintenance" logs that appear (if they're willing)... that seems to work in our area. Maybe other reviewers aren't so flexible?

Share this post


Link to post
I've no opinion one way or the other about whether such adoptions as suggested by the OP would be a good idea, but I can't agree that people should just get over their sentimentality. What would you think if someone came through your neighbourhood and knocked down all the buildings over a certain age and bulldozed historic sites to build cheap housing? Would you think "oh well, that's progress, we were only being a bit sentimental about those historic places" or would you be a bit upset about the lost history?

 

I'm not sure that equating the beautiful architecture of a bygone era to a sandwich box under a dead tree is relevant, but let's roll with it.

 

There's quite a difference between bulldozing St Paul's Cathedral in central London to make way for cheap housing and bulldozing a dilapidated tower block from the 50s to make room for cheap housing. Few people would shed any tears over the 50s tower block, but the cathedral has more architectural and historical value.

 

Even then someone has to pay to maintain the old building. There's no point getting all sentimental about historical architecture if your only solution is that Someone Should Pay, unless you're willing to put your own hand in your own pocket. And ultimately if the owner of the building decides to sell the land to a developer, you can say goodbye to the building.

 

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly some people do value these old listings, whether it's the listing, the GC number, the container, the location, or some combination of those - remember of course that this game is part real-world and part internet, so the history also consists of both.

 

Even if an old container is gone, but the listing remains, the location remains, the logs and GC code remain, so what? I've visited many a historic place where the building/structure/fortification/you-name-it, built by people in the past long gone, has fallen down and disappeared, but the spot remains valued and protected, by new people now... :)

 

Notwithstanding all of that, and someone else since has mentioned, buildings become marked as historic and become protected simply because they pass a certain age, not because you or I perceive some value in them.

 

I still have no real opinion either way. it's an interesting discussion anyway. :)

 

The old listing can stay if the cache is archived, and someone else hiding a different cache in a nearby spot (or an identical spot) doesn't change the history. It's really no different to the blue plaques you can see around London that tell people walking by about a well known person who once lived there. A well known person from hundreds of years ago probably didn't live in the opulent office block that's there now, so the history says what was once there while what's there now is different.

 

If people value the listings they can continue to view the listings. If people value the container they can keep their cache active. To argue that a cache must stay forever, even when the owner has long since abandoned the game, just because someone else thinks the container is something special, is silly. It's very rare to find a cache that involves a truly one-of-a-kind containers, and whether the container is a film pot or an ammo can if someone really thinks the listing needs to stay there forever they can have the abandoned cache archived and place their own comparable container in the same spot.

 

The trouble with things being protected because they are "historic" for no reason other than they reached a particular age without falling apart is that we end up with things that are forever protected for no reason other than being old. We end up with the caching (or building, or whatever else) equivalent of the antique dealer who is selling all sorts of old tat that has no value but because it's 150 years old he's put a high price tag on it. When I cleared out an old house after the owner died I found all sorts of things in it. Some had antique value (they were items of specific interest from a specific period) and some were just old junk. Ultimately junk is junk however old it is.

 

I you could simply search an area for archived caches, your argument of "they can continue to view the listings" would be valid. However, you can't see an archived listing unless you know the GC code already. I'd love to see the ability to search for archived caches... not only for the historical aspect, but to check out an area I'm interested in hiding a cache at, to see if there were any past issues I need to be aware of.

 

If an old, abandoned cache means that much to you, then keep an eye on it, replace the container/log when needed, and work with your local reviewers to clear any "Needs Maintenance" logs that appear (if they're willing)... that seems to work in our area. Maybe other reviewers aren't so flexible?

 

Let's say the old abandoned cache is at a picturesque covered bridge. If it never gets archived then no one else gets to enjoy cache ownership at that beautiful spot. Just doesn't seem fair to deny active cachers who want to own a cache at a cool attraction that opportunity. And all the thank you's to the cache owner are going no where because the owner has long abandoned the game.

Share this post


Link to post
I've no opinion one way or the other about whether such adoptions as suggested by the OP would be a good idea, but I can't agree that people should just get over their sentimentality. What would you think if someone came through your neighbourhood and knocked down all the buildings over a certain age and bulldozed historic sites to build cheap housing? Would you think "oh well, that's progress, we were only being a bit sentimental about those historic places" or would you be a bit upset about the lost history?

 

I'm not sure that equating the beautiful architecture of a bygone era to a sandwich box under a dead tree is relevant, but let's roll with it.

 

There's quite a difference between bulldozing St Paul's Cathedral in central London to make way for cheap housing and bulldozing a dilapidated tower block from the 50s to make room for cheap housing. Few people would shed any tears over the 50s tower block, but the cathedral has more architectural and historical value.

 

Even then someone has to pay to maintain the old building. There's no point getting all sentimental about historical architecture if your only solution is that Someone Should Pay, unless you're willing to put your own hand in your own pocket. And ultimately if the owner of the building decides to sell the land to a developer, you can say goodbye to the building.

 

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Clearly some people do value these old listings, whether it's the listing, the GC number, the container, the location, or some combination of those - remember of course that this game is part real-world and part internet, so the history also consists of both.

 

Even if an old container is gone, but the listing remains, the location remains, the logs and GC code remain, so what? I've visited many a historic place where the building/structure/fortification/you-name-it, built by people in the past long gone, has fallen down and disappeared, but the spot remains valued and protected, by new people now... :)

 

Notwithstanding all of that, and someone else since has mentioned, buildings become marked as historic and become protected simply because they pass a certain age, not because you or I perceive some value in them.

 

I still have no real opinion either way. it's an interesting discussion anyway. :)

 

The old listing can stay if the cache is archived, and someone else hiding a different cache in a nearby spot (or an identical spot) doesn't change the history. It's really no different to the blue plaques you can see around London that tell people walking by about a well known person who once lived there. A well known person from hundreds of years ago probably didn't live in the opulent office block that's there now, so the history says what was once there while what's there now is different.

 

If people value the listings they can continue to view the listings. If people value the container they can keep their cache active. To argue that a cache must stay forever, even when the owner has long since abandoned the game, just because someone else thinks the container is something special, is silly. It's very rare to find a cache that involves a truly one-of-a-kind containers, and whether the container is a film pot or an ammo can if someone really thinks the listing needs to stay there forever they can have the abandoned cache archived and place their own comparable container in the same spot.

 

The trouble with things being protected because they are "historic" for no reason other than they reached a particular age without falling apart is that we end up with things that are forever protected for no reason other than being old. We end up with the caching (or building, or whatever else) equivalent of the antique dealer who is selling all sorts of old tat that has no value but because it's 150 years old he's put a high price tag on it. When I cleared out an old house after the owner died I found all sorts of things in it. Some had antique value (they were items of specific interest from a specific period) and some were just old junk. Ultimately junk is junk however old it is.

 

I you could simply search an area for archived caches, your argument of "they can continue to view the listings" would be valid. However, you can't see an archived listing unless you know the GC code already. I'd love to see the ability to search for archived caches... not only for the historical aspect, but to check out an area I'm interested in hiding a cache at, to see if there were any past issues I need to be aware of.

 

If an old, abandoned cache means that much to you, then keep an eye on it, replace the container/log when needed, and work with your local reviewers to clear any "Needs Maintenance" logs that appear (if they're willing)... that seems to work in our area. Maybe other reviewers aren't so flexible?

 

That has changed on Project-GC you can search for archived caches although I think you have to be a premium member there to set that filter.

Share this post


Link to post

Have a function that says: This cache is set to be archived with an 'Adopt this cache' button.

 

I would also love to be able to see all the archived caches in the map still, stop killing my smileys!!! :) or have like a smiley with a halo on top.

 

I love that idea!laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Permission is needed from the CO to adopt. If he isn't posting attention to the listing that won't occur. Besides given the general over saturation lb most areas killing off I few would be good.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's say the old abandoned cache is at a picturesque covered bridge. If it never gets archived then no one else gets to enjoy cache ownership at that beautiful spot. Just doesn't seem fair to deny active cachers who want to own a cache at a cool attraction that opportunity. And all the thank you's to the cache owner are going no where because the owner has long abandoned the game.

 

If the cache is in disrepair, then it should be archived (and will eventually). But if people are still finding it, regardless of whether the original owner is still "active" or not, and it's still in good shape, then what right does anyone have to remove it just so someone new can "enjoy cache ownership at that beautiful spot"?

Share this post


Link to post

Let's say the old abandoned cache is at a picturesque covered bridge. If it never gets archived then no one else gets to enjoy cache ownership at that beautiful spot. Just doesn't seem fair to deny active cachers who want to own a cache at a cool attraction that opportunity. And all the thank you's to the cache owner are going no where because the owner has long abandoned the game.

 

If the cache is in disrepair, then it should be archived (and will eventually). But if people are still finding it, regardless of whether the original owner is still "active" or not, and it's still in good shape, then what right does anyone have to remove it just so someone new can "enjoy cache ownership at that beautiful spot"?

 

Because it would be nice to cache owners who would like to place a cache at a nice spot.

 

Ask the guy who planted his cache after we archived our cache at this location (ours had been there 5 years). Now he's got a cache that gets regular visits, great logs and currently has 20 favorite points.

 

If we had abandoned the cache but the community kept propping it up, I doubt he would have been thankful to the community that he never got a chance to enjoy the accolades of owning a good cache at this spot.

 

f908702b-aa55-40d8-b69b-dad51a22c1c7.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post

Because it would be nice to cache owners who would like to place a cache at a nice spot.

But if no one replaces it, then it's one less cache at a nice spot. I'll take a known good cache in a nice spot with an inactive owner over the potential of a cache of unknown quality by some other cacher (who, for all we know, might soon be equally inactive) any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

I'm fine with you archiving your cache, and I'm glad some up put a new one there, but I don't see that it makes sense to anticipate that possibility as a justification for archiving caches because the owners are inactive.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...