New Owner Log Type: "Up For Adoption"

[+ADKer]

This one's fairly simple. Owners of a cache would be able to make a type of log called "Up for Adoption." The reason that this would be beneficial is because people could set their instant notifications up to alert them if a cache owner no longer wants to look after his/her cache.

A nearby cache that was in excellent condition was just archived today because the owner was "quitting" geocahing. The cache was one of the oldest in the county, over 13 years. Anyway, this log would give caches to be adopted out, instead of just archived.

 

Just a though. Any ideas?

[+CanadianRockies]

I like the idea.

[+cerberus1]

Used to be, a CO would ask a friend if they want to take it over. Someone they knew would treat it the same as they did.

Today, some use the local cache group site, here in the regional forums, or on faceplant.

Often, if it's a watched cache, the CO will leave a note offering adoption on the cache page.

I'd rather the adoption process wasn't as simple as the plan you suggest.

- I don't want to get notifications of every roadside pill bottle a CO no longer wishes to maintain.

[+Panther&Pine]

While I like the idea I'm not sure of the practicality. When I adopted out my caches I put a note on the page for the watchers and/or contacted directly those I knew would be interested.

[+Panther&Pine]

Used to be, a CO would ask a friend if they want to take it over. Someone they knew would treat it the same as they did.

Today, some use the local cache group site, here in the regional forums, or on faceplant.

Often, if it's a watched cache, the CO will leave a note offering adoption on the cache page.

I'd rather the adoption process wasn't as simple as the plan you suggest.

- I don't want to get notifications of every roadside pill bottle a CO no longer wishes to maintain.

Dang, I hadn't thought about that. What would happen to caches without a response. I feel like few enough cache owners know how to counter an NM, adding a new thing could be terrible.

[+ADKer]

Well, I figured that it wouldn't have to be adopted. If no one shows interest (such as an LPC), then the owner would archive it. (Or the log is treated the same as a NA and the reviewer would come to archive it?)

 

Also, this wouldn't be affecting the adoption process at all the way I'm picturing it. To adopt it, a cacher would have to contact the CO and the normal process would take over. This new log would just be a method of saying "hey, does anybody out there want to take over this cache for me? I hate to see it go, but I can no longer maintain it for whatever reason."

[+Manville Possum]

Sounds like the cache ran it's course and the owner opened up the area for a new one. I don't see a need for a "Up For Adoption" log type.

[+Dame Deco]

I'd really rather see caches archived and new ones take their place.

[+NeverSummer]

I think it is a neat idea, but I really do think that direct, person-to-person communication lands a better adoption process than an indirect "ask" of anyone watching. I've tried myself to advertise in cache listings, and cache logs (owner maint, or notes, etc) to have caches adopted, and it never gets any traction.

 

Now, asking some "friends" in the area directly, or posting the request to a facebook group or organization's forum board resulted in many more happy adoptions.

[+ADKer]

I think it is a neat idea, but I really do think that direct, person-to-person communication lands a better adoption process than an indirect "ask" of anyone watching. I've tried myself to advertise in cache listings, and cache logs (owner maint, or notes, etc) to have caches adopted, and it never gets any traction.

 

Now, asking some "friends" in the area directly, or posting the request to a facebook group or organization's forum board resulted in many more happy adoptions.

 

I agree that that is probably the best way, but in certain areas (The Adirondack Mountains) there is no local facebook/organization, and that makes it much harder to do what you're suggesting.

Edited September 6, 2014 by ADKer

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think it is a neat idea, but I really do think that direct, person-to-person communication lands a better adoption process than an indirect "ask" of anyone watching. I've tried myself to advertise in cache listings, and cache logs (owner maint, or notes, etc) to have caches adopted, and it never gets any traction.

 

Now, asking some "friends" in the area directly, or posting the request to a facebook group or organization's forum board resulted in many more happy adoptions.

 

It sounded to me like the OP was just suggesting an additional log type (with a unique icon) as as way to "advertise" that a cache is up for adoption. It wouldn't eliminate any person-to-person communication. In fact, the CO putting the cache up for adoption may decide that the first person to answer the "ad" has a poor cache maintenance record and decide that they'd prefer someone else adopt it.

 

A "up for adoption log" doesn't prevent a CO from posting a note on FB or local cache group mailing list as well.

 

I'd really rather see caches archived and new ones take their place.

 

Some caches are not worth keeping. Some are not even worth being replaced. However, some *are* worth saving. An "up for adoption log" wouldn't change that.

[+ADKer]

I think it is a neat idea, but I really do think that direct, person-to-person communication lands a better adoption process than an indirect "ask" of anyone watching. I've tried myself to advertise in cache listings, and cache logs (owner maint, or notes, etc) to have caches adopted, and it never gets any traction.

 

Now, asking some "friends" in the area directly, or posting the request to a facebook group or organization's forum board resulted in many more happy adoptions.

 

It sounded to me like the OP was just suggesting an additional log type (with a unique icon) as as way to "advertise" that a cache is up for adoption. It wouldn't eliminate any person-to-person communication. In fact, the CO putting the cache up for adoption may decide that the first person to answer the "ad" has a poor cache maintenance record and decide that they'd prefer someone else adopt it.

 

A "up for adoption log" doesn't prevent a CO from posting a note on FB or local cache group mailing list as well.

 

I'd really rather see caches archived and new ones take their place.

 

 

Some caches are not worth keeping. Some are not even worth being replaced. However, some *are* worth saving. An "up for adoption log" wouldn't change that.

Thanks, I couldn't have explained it any better myself!

 

[+Lil Devil]

[new] type of log called "Up for Adoption."

We already have that, but it's actually 3 logs...

Current CO logs "Archived"

New CO logs "Submit for Review"

Reviewer logs "Published"

[+wimseyguy]

The problem is that the people most likely to adopt the cache are the ones who have already found it and enjoyed the experience. They will only see that log if they added the listing to their watch list.

[+Chief301]

I don't think the feature would work as you propose, because so many of the CO's who don't want to maintain their caches or play anymore just quit. Initiating a cache adoption would require some positive action on their part, and if they just up and quit the game, or gradually just stopped playing, they're not likely to take that step.

 

What I would propose is that offering a cache up for adoption should be part of the "Needs Archive" process:

 

1. Someone logs an NA on an apparently unmaintained cache.

 

2. Local reviewer attempts to contact CO regarding NA request and gives a time frame to address the problem, say 30 days.

 

3. If no action or response from CO within 30 days, local reviewer offers cache up for adoption. The system could be set up under a user's notification options.

 

This way, some decent caches that deserve to live on, even though their owner is no longer active, would have an opportunity to go on.

[+CanadianRockies]

3. If no action or response from CO within 30 days, local reviewer offers cache up for adoption. The system could be set up under a user's notification options.

Groundspeak doesn't own the caches, even seemingly abandoned ones. Groundspeak is just a listing service.

[+CanadianRockies]

The problem is that the people most likely to adopt the cache are the ones who have already found it and enjoyed the experience. They will only see that log if they added the listing to their watch list.

They also would see those types of logs if they've included "Up for Adoption" type logs in their notifications.

[+wimseyguy]

Yup, back a few years ago HQ and the reviewers could process adoptions without the CO's consent if they were MIA. That's been changed for the very reason cited by CR ^^.

[+ADKer]

The problem is that the people most likely to adopt the cache are the ones who have already found it and enjoyed the experience. They will only see that log if they added the listing to their watch list.

They also would see those types of logs if they've included "Up for Adoption" type logs in their notifications.

 

Yes! This is what I was imagining when I thought there should be a separate cache log type. Something that people could watch out for.

 

Also, as others had said, yes this would still take some positive action on the old CO's part. This would help stop every single LPC/Micro in the woods/very generic Tupperware cache from being saved from archival.

[+jwmoe1973]

I don't think the feature would work as you propose, because so many of the CO's who don't want to maintain their caches or play anymore just quit. Initiating a cache adoption would require some positive action on their part, and if they just up and quit the game, or gradually just stopped playing, they're not likely to take that step.

 

What I would propose is that offering a cache up for adoption should be part of the "Needs Archive" process:

 

1. Someone logs an NA on an apparently unmaintained cache.

 

2. Local reviewer attempts to contact CO regarding NA request and gives a time frame to address the problem, say 30 days.

 

3. If no action or response from CO within 30 days, local reviewer offers cache up for adoption. The system could be set up under a user's notification options.

 

This way, some decent caches that deserve to live on, even though their owner is no longer active, would have an opportunity to go on.

 

This might be the way to go. My part of town is saturated with junk caches that were abandoned more than two years ago. No response from CO on NM logs. I hate to play the "Get 'em archived" game, but if there was an ethical way to adopt them and make the needed maintenance or improvements, wouldn't that benefit the caching community?

[+Dame Deco]

No, no it wouldn't. Post NA, get them archived, and put out good caches.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I don't think the feature would work as you propose, because so many of the CO's who don't want to maintain their caches or play anymore just quit. Initiating a cache adoption would require some positive action on their part, and if they just up and quit the game, or gradually just stopped playing, they're not likely to take that step.

 

What I would propose is that offering a cache up for adoption should be part of the "Needs Archive" process:

 

1. Someone logs an NA on an apparently unmaintained cache.

 

2. Local reviewer attempts to contact CO regarding NA request and gives a time frame to address the problem, say 30 days.

 

3. If no action or response from CO within 30 days, local reviewer offers cache up for adoption. The system could be set up under a user's notification options.

 

This way, some decent caches that deserve to live on, even though their owner is no longer active, would have an opportunity to go on.

 

This might be the way to go. My part of town is saturated with junk caches that were abandoned more than two years ago. No response from CO on NM logs. I hate to play the "Get 'em archived" game, but if there was an ethical way to adopt them and make the needed maintenance or improvements, wouldn't that benefit the caching community?

 

If the owner is no longer active,s/he would not be putting them up for adoption. The system does not own the caches, and has decided it could not put them up for adoption.

The state is considering banning smoking in state parks. I have already archived several of my caches in state parks. Two I will archive if the ban goes into effect. There are three which are rather classic. If the state grandfathers pre-existing geocaches (as the county has done), then there are cachers who have volunteered to adopt those three. (The county now wants all caches to be within 20' of an approved trail. Like that would work! But has grandfathered older caches.)

Adopting a cache is between the CO, and the person who wants to adopt. They have to work it out.

There is a great old cache, somewhere nearby. The CO has moved several thousands of miles away, and is mostly inactive. No one has contacted the CO concerning adoption, or the CO has not responded. Not sure. Was a 'replacement' cache. But that was washed away in a recent hurricane. Area will be available for a new cache, when and if it is archived. But cachers are still considering hunting for it.

I've seen far too many caches adopted by one-week cachers. Long ago archived.

Nope. Don't see any useful reason for this.

[+jwmoe1973]

OK, we all know and agree upon the fact that caches are owned by the CO and not GC.com or Groundspeak. I would prefer that most of the caches in question be archived and the area opened up for possible new caches. The problem as I see it is the geotrash left behind by these caches. In many cases (at least locally) the CO is non-responsive to NM logs or even e-mails. In one case, the cache is mere feet from their back yard. If there were a log generated upon a NA log and and archival log from a reviewer, there might be a chance that someone could remove the trash cache... Ah, never mind. That could be done anyway, but it wouldn't be the CO.

 

I just talked myself out of my own argument. Archive 'em.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

[new] type of log called "Up for Adoption."

We already have that, but it's actually 3 logs...

Current CO logs "Archived"

New CO logs "Submit for Review"

Reviewer logs "Published"

 

+1.

[+jwmoe1973]

So the consensus here is log NA for the trash caches and let the process happen? Now ADKer's point was good caches disappearing through CO archival. How do we go about saving them when the owner archives before any contact?

[+K13]

Why save them if the CO has already archived it? If the location is that great, just place a new cache there. If the container was that great, copy it's design for the new cache.

[+Dame Deco]

If we save all good caches, there'll be no space for new ones eventually. Caches aren't meant to last forever.

[+Colonial Cats]

We had over 20 caches when we lived in Williamsburg, VA. Some of my caches were simple, but I had no crap caches. I put them all up for adoption, through our local caching group, when we knew we were moving to Florida. I understand the desire of putting out fresh new caches. However, since Williamsburg is a tourist area, there are always new cachers finding the caches.

[+jwmoe1973]

So..., don't strive to save good and memorable caches? I understand caches come and go. I chose to archive the only two I put out, albeit for reasons other than we're talking about. There are more than plenty caches near me that I would like to see gone (as mentioned in my earlier posts), but I'm thinking about caches such as ADKer was intending in his OP. A good, quality, memorable cache that people enjoy finding being archived without a chance at survival only to be replace by a critter chewed piece of broken plastic with a moldy water logged and ripped piece of unsignable paper that no one enjoys finding. I'd much rather see the former survive than have it replaced ASAP by someone who only cares about throwing out the first container they can salvage from their trash bin.

[+jwmoe1973]

K13, you're right about a good location getting a good cache. My point is that that location may not get a quality cache to replace the original. If I got the chance I would. Lately it seems as though there are SOOO many folks not even validating an account (but that's a whole 'nother topic) and playing by the guidelines that there are more and more junk caches popping up before quality ones can be placed.

 

Dame, I'm all for space for new caches. (insert the sentences above) ;-)

Edited September 8, 2014 by jwmoe1973

[+MKFmly]

If we save all good caches, there'll be no space for new ones eventually. Caches aren't meant to last forever.

Judging by empirical forum consensus there is a distinct lack of "good" caches or rather a plethora of "disliked" caches.

 

True caches are not meant to last forever, but there is no guarantee that an archived "good" cache gets replaced with a good cache, quite the opposite is likely.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

So..., don't strive to save good and memorable caches? I understand caches come and go. I chose to archive the only two I put out, albeit for reasons other than we're talking about. There are more than plenty caches near me that I would like to see gone (as mentioned in my earlier posts), but I'm thinking about caches such as ADKer was intending in his OP. A good, quality, memorable cache that people enjoy finding being archived without a chance at survival only to be replace by a critter chewed piece of broken plastic with a moldy water logged and ripped piece of unsignable paper that no one enjoys finding. I'd much rather see the former survive than have it replaced ASAP by someone who only cares about throwing out the first container they can salvage from their trash bin.

 

I see no problem with the local caching community keeping alive classic caches...in some cases CO's die.

[+L0ne.R]

If we save all good caches, there'll be no space for new ones eventually. Caches aren't meant to last forever.

Judging by empirical forum consensus there is a distinct lack of "good" caches or rather a plethora of "disliked" caches.

 

True caches are not meant to last forever, but there is no guarantee that an archived "good" cache gets replaced with a good cache, quite the opposite is likely.

 

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

Edited September 8, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+NeverSummer]

I think it is a neat idea, but I really do think that direct, person-to-person communication lands a better adoption process than an indirect "ask" of anyone watching. I've tried myself to advertise in cache listings, and cache logs (owner maint, or notes, etc) to have caches adopted, and it never gets any traction.

 

Now, asking some "friends" in the area directly, or posting the request to a facebook group or organization's forum board resulted in many more happy adoptions.

 

It sounded to me like the OP was just suggesting an additional log type (with a unique icon) as as way to "advertise" that a cache is up for adoption. It wouldn't eliminate any person-to-person communication. In fact, the CO putting the cache up for adoption may decide that the first person to answer the "ad" has a poor cache maintenance record and decide that they'd prefer someone else adopt it.

 

A "up for adoption log" doesn't prevent a CO from posting a note on FB or local cache group mailing list as well.

 

I'd really rather see caches archived and new ones take their place.

 

 

Some caches are not worth keeping. Some are not even worth being replaced. However, some *are* worth saving. An "up for adoption log" wouldn't change that.

Thanks, I couldn't have explained it any better myself!

The point I was trying to make is that the "advertisement" of a cache being up for adoption on the cache's page has not paid any dividends on caches I tried to adopt out. A log type, while a visual cue and possible watchlist/bookmark list notification for others, isn't a good motivator. We would have to see universal, consistent use for some time before it would gain the traction one might hope for to see its use pay off in more adopted caches.

 

Unless you have willing adopters in the area who have the cache on a watchlist or bookmark list with notifications set, you won't get much attention out of your log type.

 

I mean, honestly, think of how much attention a OM or Note by a cache's owner gets...especially when it starts getting buried by the new "Found It" logs. A log of "Up for Adoption" will likely get as much attention. It seems that online logs are more for the owner than for the cache seekers anymore...

 

This is why I am saying that nothing can really make up for contacting geocachers in the area who come across as good candidates for adopting your caches. One can also look at the logs on the cache and see if some of those who left good logs and enjoyed the cache might live nearby. Then it becomes an easy sell to ask if they might adopt it.

[+NeverSummer]

So the consensus here is log NA for the trash caches and let the process happen? Now ADKer's point was good caches disappearing through CO archival. How do we go about saving them when the owner archives before any contact?

If that happens, we should just move on.

 

Or, you can go out to the cache site and see if the cache is still there. More often than not, an owner will archive a cache and leave the container. (Owners should retrieve caches that they archive; seekers can retrieve containers that a Volunteer Reviewer archives.) If the container is still there, you can submit a new cache and cut/paste the old description if you like.

 

"Good" caches are subjective. Caches with MIA owners are less subjective. The system wasn't created to keep older, "good", or "nostalgic" caches alive. It was created to publish caches at the owner-provided location, and allow for caches that are not adhering to the guidelines to be archived.

[+NeverSummer]

So..., don't strive to save good and memorable caches? I understand caches come and go. I chose to archive the only two I put out, albeit for reasons other than we're talking about. There are more than plenty caches near me that I would like to see gone (as mentioned in my earlier posts), but I'm thinking about caches such as ADKer was intending in his OP. A good, quality, memorable cache that people enjoy finding being archived without a chance at survival only to be replace by a critter chewed piece of broken plastic with a moldy water logged and ripped piece of unsignable paper that no one enjoys finding. I'd much rather see the former survive than have it replaced ASAP by someone who only cares about throwing out the first container they can salvage from their trash bin.

See http://coord.info/GC4XQZ1. This cache "replaced" a "memorable, historic" cache in Alaska. There was much consternation about archiving the old one, but the fact remained that the owner was not playing anymore, the cache was in need of a minimum of an Owner Maintenance log to remove the attribute, and at most an update to reflect more accurate D/T and description of the cache hide and removal of the now disallowed attachment method of screwing a cache to a tree. That cache was archived, and I then used a new, better container, and submitted a "Redux" cache to "honor" that "memorable/historic" cache in alignment with the guidelines.

 

Yes, yes, we all know that one can no longer find a cache that was hidden in the early days (to fill their "hidden on" challenge grid, perhaps, fills them with consternation?), but the site and hide remain. That's what the cache was anyway--a container and logbook at a location. By using the old site and creating a listing that mentioned the former hide, that memory lives on. The only things that are different are the owner, the active maintenance of the cache, the hidden on date, and the fact that the description is accurate and the hide doesn't break any guidelines. If the fact that the cache listing didn't live on makes some upset, they are only so because of wanting to find a "historic" cache. Well...that "historic" cache wasn't being maintained. Thus, it should be archived and can then have the cache hide site "adopted" by the new owner. A win for all involved!

 

If the new owner would like to, and the Reviewer allows the manipulation, the new owner can publish the cache with the archived cache's hide date. Now, I'm not condoning that idea, but one can do so if it causes too much upset to "see an old cache get archived"...

Edited September 8, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+ADKer]

Ok, lots of talk, so I won't quote any text here...

 

Anyway, firstly the "Up for adoption" log would be set by the Cache Owner. The cache owner would have to acknowledge that his cache is worth saving and hope that someone else agrees. Next, someone would have to contact the CO to begin the adoption process. If nobody thinks the cache is worth saving, no one will bother.

 

All of that will take place as apposed to archiving the cache not after.

 

All this log would be is a flag that is put up, letting cachers know that the owner wants to adopt it out. It wouldn't change the current adoption process at all.

 

Also, someone mentioned that a person would have to have the cache on a bookmark or watchlist for the log to be any use. Well...no. What makes this log any use at all is that it could show up in instant notifications. There are plenty of caches that I would be willing to adopt around here, but I don't add them all to my watchlist.

 

Oh, and one more thing. This log wouldn't be mandatory for getting the cache adopted. If somebody has a friend that they'd like to give the cache to, they could do so just as they can now.

 

Ugh...I had more things to say, but now I forget...

Edited September 8, 2014 by ADKer

[+MKFmly]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

[+NeverSummer]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

More than anything, I would hope that there would be more publicity about the ability to ask someone to adopt your cache(s). It is interesting that many people don't know that it is an option.

 

But, to say that a "good" cache being archived would make way for a supposedly more likely outcome of a worse cache in its place, I think we need to address the real reason for this. It isn't that old, "good" caches need to stick around, it is that the overall upkeep of geocaches has been slowly dropping off. I don't think one can say that adopting a "good" cache means that the new owner would be a "good steward" of that adopted cache.

 

I can look at many caches I've adopted out, and some are well maintained, and others are not. As it is the new owner who is in charge of maintaining the cache page, the online logs, and the cache itself (logbook, container, and contents), I can't do squat from where I'm sitting. So, I don't think we can declare a universal sentiment that old "good" caches are better off if adopted.

 

Back to the OP, I think that a log, no matter how it "notifies" users, isn't going to get any more traction. A new log type unattached to the general upkeep or logging of a find on a cache will have a hard time gaining general support and use. One would be better off changing the title of their cache to "Geocache X, UP FOR ADOPTION!" That would get more attention than a new log type if one wants to passively open their caches up for adoption.

[+L0ne.R]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

 

Maybe we need a clearer definition of what the OP means by a good cache. The cache owners I know that put out good creativity, skilled caches (often requiring craftsman type work) often don't archive them until there's a problem - the cache has deteriorated and can't be replicated, the cache went missing, someone smashed the cache and it's too much work to replace it. All very legitimate reasons to archive. If they put those caches up for adoption the adopter would likely replace them with something different, which changes the cache. So what's being saved? The GC #.

[+ADKer]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

 

Maybe we need a clearer definition of what the OP means by a good cache. The cache owners I know that put out good creativity, skilled caches (often requiring craftsman type work) often don't archive them until there's a problem - the cache has deteriorated and can't be replicated, the cache went missing, someone smashed the cache and it's too much work to replace it. All very legitimate reasons to archive. If they put those caches up for adoption the adopter would likely replace them with something different, which changes the cache. So what's being saved? The GC #.

 

My definition is irrelevant. The entire process form posting the log to adopting the cache would involve both the CO thinking their cache is good enough to save, and some other cacher thinking it's good enough to save.

 

Also, if one of my cache containers disappears or needs to be replaced, I'll put a new container in the same spot. Sure it's technically an entirely different cache, but I don't archive it.

[+jwmoe1973]

So..., don't strive to save good and memorable caches? I understand caches come and go. I chose to archive the only two I put out, albeit for reasons other than we're talking about. There are more than plenty caches near me that I would like to see gone (as mentioned in my earlier posts), but I'm thinking about caches such as ADKer was intending in his OP. A good, quality, memorable cache that people enjoy finding being archived without a chance at survival only to be replace by a critter chewed piece of broken plastic with a moldy water logged and ripped piece of unsignable paper that no one enjoys finding. I'd much rather see the former survive than have it replaced ASAP by someone who only cares about throwing out the first container they can salvage from their trash bin.

 

I see no problem with the local caching community keeping alive classic caches...in some cases CO's die.

 

Too true, and those are the ones I think ADKer is talking about. I agree with Dame though; there are plenty of caches in my neck of the woods that would be better off dead and gone.

[+jwmoe1973]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

 

Maybe we need a clearer definition of what the OP means by a good cache. The cache owners I know that put out good creativity, skilled caches (often requiring craftsman type work) often don't archive them until there's a problem - the cache has deteriorated and can't be replicated, the cache went missing, someone smashed the cache and it's too much work to replace it. All very legitimate reasons to archive. If they put those caches up for adoption the adopter would likely replace them with something different, which changes the cache. So what's being saved? The GC #.

 

My definition is irrelevant. The entire process form posting the log to adopting the cache would involve both the CO thinking their cache is good enough to save, and some other cacher thinking it's good enough to save.

 

Also, if one of my cache containers disappears or needs to be replaced, I'll put a new container in the same spot. Sure it's technically an entirely different cache, but I don't archive it.

 

Would this be possible?; How about an option for the CO to change the cache type icon to an up for adoption specific icon that populates on the map?

[+ADKer]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

 

Maybe we need a clearer definition of what the OP means by a good cache. The cache owners I know that put out good creativity, skilled caches (often requiring craftsman type work) often don't archive them until there's a problem - the cache has deteriorated and can't be replicated, the cache went missing, someone smashed the cache and it's too much work to replace it. All very legitimate reasons to archive. If they put those caches up for adoption the adopter would likely replace them with something different, which changes the cache. So what's being saved? The GC #.

 

My definition is irrelevant. The entire process form posting the log to adopting the cache would involve both the CO thinking their cache is good enough to save, and some other cacher thinking it's good enough to save.

 

Also, if one of my cache containers disappears or needs to be replaced, I'll put a new container in the same spot. Sure it's technically an entirely different cache, but I don't archive it.

 

Would this be possible?; How about an option for the CO to change the cache type icon to an up for adoption specific icon that populates on the map?

 

Both are possible, however I think your idea may be harder to implement.

 

So..., don't strive to save good and memorable caches? I understand caches come and go. I chose to archive the only two I put out, albeit for reasons other than we're talking about. There are more than plenty caches near me that I would like to see gone (as mentioned in my earlier posts), but I'm thinking about caches such as ADKer was intending in his OP. A good, quality, memorable cache that people enjoy finding being archived without a chance at survival only to be replace by a critter chewed piece of broken plastic with a moldy water logged and ripped piece of unsignable paper that no one enjoys finding. I'd much rather see the former survive than have it replaced ASAP by someone who only cares about throwing out the first container they can salvage from their trash bin.

 

I see no problem with the local caching community keeping alive classic caches...in some cases CO's die.

 

Too true, and those are the ones I think ADKer is talking about. I agree with Dame though; there are plenty of caches in my neck of the woods that would be better off dead and gone.

 

Yes. The idea of my system would be that caches aren't forced to be adopted. It would simply better allow the community to save the ones that they think are special.

Edited September 9, 2014 by ADKer

[+jwmoe1973]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

 

Maybe we need a clearer definition of what the OP means by a good cache. The cache owners I know that put out good creativity, skilled caches (often requiring craftsman type work) often don't archive them until there's a problem - the cache has deteriorated and can't be replicated, the cache went missing, someone smashed the cache and it's too much work to replace it. All very legitimate reasons to archive. If they put those caches up for adoption the adopter would likely replace them with something different, which changes the cache. So what's being saved? The GC #.

 

My definition is irrelevant. The entire process form posting the log to adopting the cache would involve both the CO thinking their cache is good enough to save, and some other cacher thinking it's good enough to save.

 

Also, if one of my cache containers disappears or needs to be replaced, I'll put a new container in the same spot. Sure it's technically an entirely different cache, but I don't archive it.

 

Would this be possible?; How about an option for the CO to change the cache type icon to an up for adoption specific icon that populates on the map?

 

Both are possible, however I think your idea may be harder to implement.

 

Yes, that occurred to me too. I think it would get more exposure though. Like others commented, unless the cache in question was bookmarked on a list, a cacher may never see the Up For Adoption log. It would pop up on the map as a unique icon though. At least until the user hides icons...

 

Just a thought. Implementation would be a bear compared to a log type option though.

[+ADKer]

But it does happen. I know it does, because we have archived caches and have been pleasantly surprised by the great caches that were listed afterward.

 

To not open up an area by getting rid of an abandoned cache means that the possibility of another good cache (with an active owner) will never happen.

 

All too often, an abandoned cache gets in worse and worse shape. Or it goes missing then someone throws down a pill bottle....which also gets worse and worse until someone throws down a bead jar, etc. What so many people really mean when they call an old cache "good" is the old GC number is "good". The actual cache is probably in rough shape or long gone and replaced with something inferior.

The OP was taking about cache adoption. Dame Deco went on to say if we save all "good" caches, we won't have any new ones, which seems counter-intuitive. Archiving (not adopting out) a "good" cache for a chance that another "good" cache replaces it seems like a losing proposition. I certainly agree that it does happen, but much more rarely than the opposite.

 

As for a cache deteriating over time sure, but it then its likley not a "good" cache anymore...

 

Maybe we need a clearer definition of what the OP means by a good cache. The cache owners I know that put out good creativity, skilled caches (often requiring craftsman type work) often don't archive them until there's a problem - the cache has deteriorated and can't be replicated, the cache went missing, someone smashed the cache and it's too much work to replace it. All very legitimate reasons to archive. If they put those caches up for adoption the adopter would likely replace them with something different, which changes the cache. So what's being saved? The GC #.

 

My definition is irrelevant. The entire process form posting the log to adopting the cache would involve both the CO thinking their cache is good enough to save, and some other cacher thinking it's good enough to save.

 

Also, if one of my cache containers disappears or needs to be replaced, I'll put a new container in the same spot. Sure it's technically an entirely different cache, but I don't archive it.

 

Would this be possible?; How about an option for the CO to change the cache type icon to an up for adoption specific icon that populates on the map?

 

Both are possible, however I think your idea may be harder to implement.

 

Yes, that occurred to me too. I think it would get more exposure though. Like others commented, unless the cache in question was bookmarked on a list, a cacher may never see the Up For Adoption log. It would pop up on the map as a unique icon though. At least until the user hides icons...

 

Just a thought. Implementation would be a bear compared to a log type option though.

 

Bookmarked...or they set their instant notifications for this new log type.

 

That is what my whole plan is based on.

[+jwmoe1973]

And then the rest of the world..., Right?!

[+ADKer]

And then the rest of the world..., Right?!

 

 

Seriously though, the new log type would basically be a special type of "Write Note"

My vision is that any cacher willing to adopt caches would have their instant notifications set to alert them of "Up for Adoption" logs. If a cache that they are interested in goes "Up for Adoption," then they could contact to owner to discuss the adoption process. If no one likes the cache, then it doesn't have to be adopted, and if appropriate, be archived.

Edited September 9, 2014 by ADKer

[+jwmoe1973]

And then the rest of the world..., Right?!

 

 

Seriously though, the new log type would basically be a special type of "Write Note"

My vision is that any cacher willing to adopt caches would have their instant notifications set to alert them of "Up for Adoption" logs. If a cache that they are interested in goes "Up for Adoption," then they could contact to owner to discuss the adoption process. If no one likes the cache, then it doesn't have to be adopted, and if appropriate, be archived.

 

I like it. My head was in a different place concerning the instant notifications. I get notifications on my 'puter, but unplugged from the matrix about a year ago and opt to not have a mobile, so not so instant for me. Most folks DO have a phone though. I'm just special

[+MKFmly]

A more likely solution is a 3rd party "adoption service" as a listing service to bring adoptees and adopters together, along the lines of the "tb-rescue" style.