Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I would like to say that in my area, the reviewer does a great job and every cache currently active has good authorized access and more or less appropriate ratings. Maybe this is the wrong forum for this next comment, but I would like to see adjusted ratings for multi-part and puzzle caches. There are some in my area that had to be driven between yet because of the terrain and container size at each spot they were simply, 1.5/1.5 etc. Seems really low for something that took me 2 hours to drive to do because of the travel and parking and research to solve the puzzle, etc. Just curious if anyone else agrees with that concern. Overall I am a very happy cacher, and this is my favorite hobby by far!

Link to comment

  1. Groundspeak is a geocache listing service. They don't own the caches; the hiders own them. If the hiders become inactive, they still own their hidden caches. Since Groundspeak doesn't own the caches, they don't have the authority to give them to other geocachers.
     
  2. Groundspeak is not the only geocache listing service. A cache owner who becomes inactive on Groundspeak might be active on another geocaching website. And they might have listed their "abandoned" caches there.

Was that true in 2003 or earlier, since those are the caches we're mostly talking about?

Nothing is stopping someone from place a cache and listing it here in 2003, then in 2009 cross listing it on a different site, and finally simply stop responding to emails from this site.

 

My guess however it that it would be extremely rare for someone who has crosslisted a cache to stop responding to Geocaching.com while still actively participating in another site. What happens more likely is that they have a dispute with a reviewer and decide to archive all their caches on GC.com and then list them somewhere else. The argument that an abandoned cache on GC.com may be actively maintained on another site seems specious.

Even if you completely disregard the possibility of someone staying active on other geocaching websites, the fact remains that their caches still don't belong to Groundspeak. And, since Groundspeak doesn't own the caches, they don't have the authority to give them to other geocachers.

Another specious argument. If the cache listing is archived, one could simply submit a new listing. Groundspeak and the reviewers aren't going to question what you did with the original cache container or even if you used it for the new listing. They may claim that by submitting the listing you imply that you have the necessary rights and permissions to use the container. You could simply indicate it was abandoned and you claimed it.

 

I think the non-consensual adoption policy has more to do with the rights retained by the cache listing originator under the Groundspeak Terms Of Use.

All content you submit through our services remains yours; this includes your geocache logs and pictures, your comments and anything you post to our discussion forums. You and not Groundspeak are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via our services.

It is much easier to archive a listing than to transfer it without consent.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Even if you completely disregard the possibility of someone staying active on other geocaching websites, the fact remains that their caches still don't belong to Groundspeak. And, since Groundspeak doesn't own the caches, they don't have the authority to give them to other geocachers.

Another specious argument. If the cache listing is archived, one could simply submit a new listing. Groundspeak and the reviewers aren't going to question what you did with the original cache container or even if you used it for the new listing. They may claim that by submitting the listing you imply that you have the necessary rights and permissions to use the container. You could simply indicate it was abandoned and you claimed it.

 

...

 

It is much easier to archive a listing than to transfer it without consent.

Which is precisely my point. Groundspeak doesn't have the authority to adopt out caches (i.e., "give them to other geocachers" or "transfer it without consent"). Groundspeak does have the authority to archive listings on its listing service.

 

coachstahly was arguing that Groundspeak should resume adopting out certain "abandoned" caches. I was explaining why that won't and shouldn't happen.

Link to comment

And an owner can always ask for an archived cache to be unarchived, so long as it meets the current guidelines.

They can ask, but it won't always happen. For example, a reviewer is very unlikely to unarchive a cache simply so the owner can then immediately adopt it out to another geocacher...even if it meets current guidelines.

Link to comment

I would like to say that in my area, the reviewer does a great job and every cache currently active has good authorized access and more or less appropriate ratings. Maybe this is the wrong forum for this next comment, but I would like to see adjusted ratings for multi-part and puzzle caches. There are some in my area that had to be driven between yet because of the terrain and container size at each spot they were simply, 1.5/1.5 etc. Seems really low for something that took me 2 hours to drive to do because of the travel and parking and research to solve the puzzle, etc. Just curious if anyone else agrees with that concern. Overall I am a very happy cacher, and this is my favorite hobby by far!

Thank you for the compliment!

 

But I do need to say that reviewers aren't responsible for difficulty and terrain ratings, with some very limited exceptions relating to things like event caches and wheelchair accessibility. There is another big long thread active in this forum section on that subject, but I stopped participating in the discussion as it was no longer productive.

Link to comment

Yes and no. In some areas on geocaching.com the expectations on how fast maintenance has to happen are quite high, too high in my personal opinion.

I have no issue to wait a year and more until a nice cache gets finally maintained.

I personally know reviewers who will allow a year or more for a cache to be maintained if the Cache Owner stays in contact with the Reviewer and the caching community through notes on the cache page.

 

This does not contradict what I wrote. First, I wrote "in some areas" and second, I did not mention the reviewers.

The highly increased expectation in terms of the fastness of maintenance is something which has big support in the mainstream community of modern geocaching.

 

Reviewers generally stay out of making subjective calls regarding whether a cache is "nice" or not since they haven't personally visited most sites and really shouldn't allow personal bias to affect their decisions (though it does happen from time to time).

 

Local cachers who know the area and who happen to write unfriendly NA logs and asking for archival of a cache with an owner who has not completely left geocaching are often the cause that caches get directly archived by the owners at gc.com or the cause for immediate archivals by the reviewer in cases the last login date is a date 2 or more months ago (while this login date has no meaning at all as it only displays visits via the website).

 

Archival doesn't have to be permanent...many Archival notes I have seen indicate the archived cache can be unarchived at the Cache Owner's request if the cache meets the current Guidelines.

 

True, but why should a cache owner bother to fight for his/her cache at gc.com if some members of the local community are mainly interested into removing some caches from their maps and are happier about an archived cache than one that gets maintained and can be visited again.

 

I do not expect from a reviewer to judge on whether a cache is complex and worthy for more patience, but I expect this from local cachers.

The increased pressure on the reviewers to do maintenance sweeps in my opinion comes from the increased number of cachers who do not look at cache listings and logs and

prefer to encounter only caches in good condition in the data base (their PQs). I rather have 10 disabled caches among every 100 caches if that rescues 1-2 of the 10 for an extended life if those are nice caches.

Link to comment

And an owner can always ask for an archived cache to be unarchived, so long as it meets the current guidelines.

They can ask, but it won't always happen. For example, a reviewer is very unlikely to unarchive a cache simply so the owner can then immediately adopt it out to another geocacher...even if it meets current guidelines.

And that's something I would appeal straight to the top. I don't see why one couldn't do that, especially when looking at the fact that the owner of the listing owns it, not Groundspeak. If the cache listing still meets the guidelines, there's no reason why it couldn't be unarchived.

 

Perhaps the way to ask is to simple ask for 1 thing: unarchival. Then, once it is unarchived, it belongs to the owner, and they can do with the listing as they please.

 

I'd be really interested to see how an appeal would go if a Reviewer would not unarchive a cache at the request of the owner if it still meets the guidelines, and simply because it might get adopted by someone.

Link to comment

And an owner can always ask for an archived cache to be unarchived, so long as it meets the current guidelines.

They can ask, but it won't always happen. For example, a reviewer is very unlikely to unarchive a cache simply so the owner can then immediately adopt it out to another geocacher...even if it meets current guidelines.

And that's something I would appeal straight to the top. I don't see why one couldn't do that, especially when looking at the fact that the owner of the listing owns it, not Groundspeak. If the cache listing still meets the guidelines, there's no reason why it couldn't be unarchived.

 

Perhaps the way to ask is to simple ask for 1 thing: unarchival. Then, once it is unarchived, it belongs to the owner, and they can do with the listing as they please.

 

I'd be really interested to see how an appeal would go if a Reviewer would not unarchive a cache at the request of the owner if it still meets the guidelines, and simply because it might get adopted by someone.

You can appeal, of course. But your chance of success would be slim. Check out these guidelines for adopting geocaches:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

If someone did request a cache to be unarchived and then adopted it out soon after that, then I wouldn't be shocked if Groundspeak forced it to be archived again.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Yes and no. In some areas on geocaching.com the expectations on how fast maintenance has to happen are quite high, too high in my personal opinion.

I have no issue to wait a year and more until a nice cache gets finally maintained.

I personally know reviewers who will allow a year or more for a cache to be maintained if the Cache Owner stays in contact with the Reviewer and the caching community through notes on the cache page.

 

This does not contradict what I wrote. First, I wrote "in some areas" and second, I did not mention the reviewers.

The highly increased expectation in terms of the fastness of maintenance is something which has big support in the mainstream community of modern geocaching.

 

I don't think LBK posted the above quoted material to contradict what you said. <_<

 

Local cachers who know the area and who happen to write unfriendly NA logs and asking for archival of a cache with an owner who has not completely left geocaching are often the cause that caches get directly archived by the owners at gc.com or the cause for immediate archivals by the reviewer in cases the last login date is a date 2 or more months ago (while this login date has no meaning at all as it only displays visits via the website).

What matters is responsiveness. If an owner monitors their listings, and monitors their inbox for the logs to their cache(s), then there's no difference whatsoever. The owner is unresponsive, even if they are still "active".

 

True, but why should a cache owner bother to fight for his/her cache at gc.com if some members of the local community are mainly interested into removing some caches from their maps and are happier about an archived cache than one that gets maintained and can be visited again.

 

I do not expect from a reviewer to judge on whether a cache is complex and worthy for more patience, but I expect this from local cachers.

The increased pressure on the reviewers to do maintenance sweeps in my opinion comes from the increased number of cachers who do not look at cache listings and logs and

prefer to encounter only caches in good condition in the data base (their PQs). I rather have 10 disabled caches among every 100 caches if that rescues 1-2 of the 10 for an extended life if those are nice caches.

 

You're projecting again. How can you assume anything other than that Reviewers are objectively reviewing caches? If the cache is archived, it isn't just because someone

wants to "remove caches from their maps". The situation is that the cache has an issue that puts it in conflict with the guidelines. That can be found by a "normal" geocacher of any type, as well as a Reviewer or Lackey.

 

The guidelines are the factor here, not personal preferences: One must maintain their caches and their listings. Period. If that ends up getting someone a "clear map" or caches with "good condition in the data base [sic]", so be it. But the Reviewers are going to use the guidelines to make the final call about whether or not the cache should be archived, or if it might be able to limp along until the owner can handle it. The KEY IS COMMUNICATION.

Link to comment

You can appeal, of course. But your chance of success would be slim. Check out these guidelines for adopting geocaches:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

If someone did request a cache to be unarchived and then adopted it out soon after that, then I wouldn't be shocked if Groundspeak forced it to be archived again.

I see nothing that says it wouldn't be possible to adopt a cache to another person if it still meets the guidelines at the time of re-review for unarchival. Am I missing something?

Link to comment

You can appeal, of course. But your chance of success would be slim. Check out these guidelines for adopting geocaches:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

If someone did request a cache to be unarchived and then adopted it out soon after that, then I wouldn't be shocked if Groundspeak forced it to be archived again.

I see nothing that says it wouldn't be possible to adopt a cache to another person if it still meets the guidelines at the time of re-review for unarchival. Am I missing something?

I bolded the relevant section for you. That section doesn't make exceptions for caches that meet current guidelines.

 

Even if the cache meets current guidelines, a reviewer is very unlikely to unarchive a cache simply so the owner can then immediately adopt it out to another geocacher. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

Link to comment

And an owner can always ask for an archived cache to be unarchived, so long as it meets the current guidelines.

They can ask, but it won't always happen. For example, a reviewer is very unlikely to unarchive a cache simply so the owner can then immediately adopt it out to another geocacher...even if it meets current guidelines.

And that's something I would appeal straight to the top. I don't see why one couldn't do that, especially when looking at the fact that the owner of the listing owns it, not Groundspeak. If the cache listing still meets the guidelines, there's no reason why it couldn't be unarchived.

 

Perhaps the way to ask is to simple ask for 1 thing: unarchival. Then, once it is unarchived, it belongs to the owner, and they can do with the listing as they please.

 

I'd be really interested to see how an appeal would go if a Reviewer would not unarchive a cache at the request of the owner if it still meets the guidelines, and simply because it might get adopted by someone.

You can appeal, of course. But your chance of success would be slim. Check out these guidelines for adopting geocaches:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

If someone did request a cache to be unarchived and then adopted it out soon after that, then I wouldn't be shocked if Groundspeak forced it to be archived again.

There is a nuance to the Guideline you quoted...Cacher B cannot ask for Cacher A's cache to be unarchived so Cacher B can adopt it. On the other hand, it's entirely plausible that Cacher A could ask for Cacher A's cache to be unarchived. The local Reviewer can unarchive Cacher A's cache if it meets the current Guidelines. Cacher A may then adopt the cache to Cacher B or whomever s/he wishes. Neither Groundspeak or the local Reviewer needs to get involved in the adoption transaction and the cache can then live on as long as Cacher B maintains it. The bottom line, though, is that Cacher A must be involved in the unarchival and adoption. Chances are pretty good that if Cacher A was unresponsive enough to allow the cache to be archived, then Cacher A is not likely to request unarchival and proceed with an adoption. In Alaska, only about 5% of archived caches get unarchived.
Link to comment

coachstahly was arguing that Groundspeak should resume adopting out certain "abandoned" caches. I was explaining why that won't and shouldn't happen.

coachstahly was proposing the non-consensual adoptions be grandfathered for old caches as if the non-cosensual archive was a change in the guidelines (which are often, but not always, grandfathered).

 

I don't see this change in policy as a guidelines change. Instead I agree with you that cache owners had never relinquished their rights to adopt out their caches to Groundspeak. The policy simply recognized what was already a part of the TOUs.

 

One problem has been that after archiving a cache, some owners would delete everything on the cache page, including logs. Groundspeak will occasionally lock cache pages after archiving to prevent this, which raises the question of whether the ownership rights include the right to remove the material after it is published. Groundspeak policy may still be inconsistent.

Link to comment

You can appeal, of course. But your chance of success would be slim. Check out these guidelines for adopting geocaches:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

If someone did request a cache to be unarchived and then adopted it out soon after that, then I wouldn't be shocked if Groundspeak forced it to be archived again.

I see nothing that says it wouldn't be possible to adopt a cache to another person if it still meets the guidelines at the time of re-review for unarchival. Am I missing something?

I bolded the relevant section for you. That section doesn't make exceptions for caches that meet current guidelines.

 

Even if the cache meets current guidelines, a reviewer is very unlikely to unarchive a cache simply so the owner can then immediately adopt it out to another geocacher. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

This is exactly what I was trying to say:

There is a nuance to the Guideline you quoted...Cacher B cannot ask for Cacher A's cache to be unarchived so Cacher B can adopt it. On the other hand, it's entirely plausible that Cacher A could ask for Cacher A's cache to be unarchived. The local Reviewer can unarchive Cacher A's cache if it meets the current Guidelines. Cacher A may then adopt the cache to Cacher B or whomever s/he wishes. Neither Groundspeak or the local Reviewer needs to get involved in the adoption transaction and the cache can then live on as long as Cacher B maintains it. The bottom line, though, is that Cacher A must be involved in the unarchival and adoption. Chances are pretty good that if Cacher A was unresponsive enough to allow the cache to be archived, then Cacher A is not likely to request unarchival and proceed with an adoption. In Alaska, only about 5% of archived caches get unarchived.

 

So long as the original owner is asking for their cache to be unarchived, and the cache still meets the guidelines at that time (most often this means looking at proximity guidance), then the cache will be unarchived. Then the owner can adopt it over to whomever they please.

 

If a Reviewer then archived the cache by reading the guideline to the darker side of the nuance, I'll bet dollars to donuts that the appeal would go in the favor of the cache owner.

Link to comment

If a Reviewer then archived the cache by reading the guideline to the darker side of the nuance

And this shouldn't happen. The Reviewer won't even know the adoption took place unless s/he left a watch on the cache. If the cache is then maintained, it will live on under Cacher B's care. The Reviewer has hundreds of other problem caches to deal with rather than worry about who owns an unarchived cache.

 

The way the adoption process now works through geocaching.com/adopt, Cacher A's cache can't be adopted out without Cacher A initiating the process. This is different than early adoptions when Groundspeak or a Reviewer had to serve as the middleman.

Link to comment

You can appeal, of course. But your chance of success would be slim. Check out these guidelines for adopting geocaches:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

If someone did request a cache to be unarchived and then adopted it out soon after that, then I wouldn't be shocked if Groundspeak forced it to be archived again.

I see nothing that says it wouldn't be possible to adopt a cache to another person if it still meets the guidelines at the time of re-review for unarchival. Am I missing something?

I bolded the relevant section for you. That section doesn't make exceptions for caches that meet current guidelines.

 

Even if the cache meets current guidelines, a reviewer is very unlikely to unarchive a cache simply so the owner can then immediately adopt it out to another geocacher. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

 

I can see why they wouldn't.

 

I had an old cache, one of the first in the city. It was active for 11 years. I grew tired of maintaining it so I archived it last year when it became a chore. A year later the area that it's in is still cache-free.

 

Let's say an owner of a challenge cache for old active caches approaches me asking if they could adopt that archived cache because it has an old GC code (4 digits after the GC) which would mean new players would have one more old active cache to qualify. If I approached the reviewer with that reason, I think s/he should refuse. It opens a whole new can of worms. Archived caches would get resurrected simply for their valued GC code, not because someone cares about the geocache part of geocaching, otherwise they would just go ahead and plant a new cache in that spot.

Link to comment

I can see why they wouldn't.

 

I had an old cache, one of the first in the city. It was active for 11 years. I grew tired of maintaining it so I archived it last year when it became a chore. A year later the area that it's in is still cache-free.

 

Let's say an owner of a challenge cache for old active caches approaches me asking if they could adopt that archived cache because it has an old GC code (4 digits after the GC) which would mean new players would have one more old active cache to qualify. If I approached the reviewer with that reason, I think s/he should refuse. It opens a whole new can of worms. Archived caches would get resurrected simply for their valued GC code, not because someone cares about the geocache part of geocaching, otherwise they would just go ahead and plant a new cache in that spot.

I see your point on this and agree with it. Requesting unarchival after a year has past is most likely a stretch. Requesting unarchival within a matter of days or weeks, not so much. There's nothing in the guidelines about a "statute of limitations" for unarchival, so the Reviewer's decision to unarchive does end up being subjective with respect to time elapsed since archival. Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

Check out these guidelines for adopting geocaches:

 

Archived geocaches cannot be transferred, and rarely will archived geocaches be unarchived for the purpose of adoption.

If someone did request a cache to be unarchived and then adopted it out soon after that, then I wouldn't be shocked if Groundspeak forced it to be archived again.

There is a nuance to the Guideline you quoted...Cacher B cannot ask for Cacher A's cache to be unarchived so Cacher B can adopt it. On the other hand, it's entirely plausible that Cacher A could ask for Cacher A's cache to be unarchived. The local Reviewer can unarchive Cacher A's cache if it meets the current Guidelines. Cacher A may then adopt the cache to Cacher B or whomever s/he wishes. Neither Groundspeak or the local Reviewer needs to get involved in the adoption transaction and the cache can then live on as long as Cacher B maintains it. The bottom line, though, is that Cacher A must be involved in the unarchival and adoption. Chances are pretty good that if Cacher A was unresponsive enough to allow the cache to be archived, then Cacher A is not likely to request unarchival and proceed with an adoption. In Alaska, only about 5% of archived caches get unarchived.

Cacher A could indeed "then adopt the cache to Cacher B or whomever s/he wishes." However, if the reviewer who unarchived that cache learns about this and determines that the timing of the adoption indicates that it probably was unarchived "for the purpose of adoption," then (as I noted above) I wouldn't be surprised if that reviewer re-archived that cache. The guideline makes it pretty clear that these types of shenanigans are very unlikely to be allowed.

Link to comment

I can see why they wouldn't.

 

I had an old cache, one of the first in the city. It was active for 11 years. I grew tired of maintaining it so I archived it last year when it became a chore. A year later the area that it's in is still cache-free.

 

Let's say an owner of a challenge cache for old active caches approaches me asking if they could adopt that archived cache because it has an old GC code (4 digits after the GC) which would mean new players would have one more old active cache to qualify. If I approached the reviewer with that reason, I think s/he should refuse. It opens a whole new can of worms. Archived caches would get resurrected simply for their valued GC code, not because someone cares about the geocache part of geocaching, otherwise they would just go ahead and plant a new cache in that spot.

I see your point on this and agree with it. Requesting unarchival after a year has past is most likely a stretch. Requesting unarchival within a matter of days or weeks, not so much. There's nothing in the guidelines about a "statute of limitations" for unarchival, so the Reviewer's decision to unarchive does end up being subjective with respect to time elapsed since archival.

 

To me, dead is dead. I think unarchiving should remain limited to very specific circumstances.

As it is, warnings are generally given 30+ days in advance, during which the CO has ample opportunity to decide whether to adopt it out, maintain it or archive it himself/herself. In MOST cases, I imagine even a simple request by the CO to keep it alive beyond the thirty days would be enough for a reviewer. If the CO can't take even THAT small step in a month's time, I don't see any reason to complain after it's been archived.

Link to comment

If a Reviewer then archived the cache by reading the guideline to the darker side of the nuance

And this shouldn't happen. The Reviewer won't even know the adoption took place unless s/he left a watch on the cache.

Or if someone reports the quick adoption to the reviewer. Or if the reviewer comes across the cache while reviewing maintenance. Or if the reviewer happens upon the cache while out geocaching.

Link to comment
To me, dead is dead. I think unarchiving should remain limited to very specific circumstances.

As it is, warnings are generally given 30+ days in advance, during which the CO has ample opportunity to decide whether to adopt it out, maintain it or archive it himself/herself. In MOST cases, I imagine even a simple request by the CO to keep it alive beyond the thirty days would be enough for a reviewer. If the CO can't take even THAT small step in a month's time, I don't see any reason to complain after it's been archived.

+1

Link to comment

I would like to say that in my area, the reviewer does a great job and every cache currently active has good authorized access and more or less appropriate ratings. Maybe this is the wrong forum for this next comment, but I would like to see adjusted ratings for multi-part and puzzle caches. There are some in my area that had to be driven between yet because of the terrain and container size at each spot they were simply, 1.5/1.5 etc. Seems really low for something that took me 2 hours to drive to do because of the travel and parking and research to solve the puzzle, etc. Just curious if anyone else agrees with that concern. Overall I am a very happy cacher, and this is my favorite hobby by far!

 

It's the right forum but not related to this specific topic. But in general, Reviewers do not review D/T ratings (with some exceptions, like events and handicapped accessible caches). And yes D/T ratings vary widely and are inconsistent.

Link to comment

I can see why they wouldn't.

 

I had an old cache, one of the first in the city. It was active for 11 years. I grew tired of maintaining it so I archived it last year when it became a chore. A year later the area that it's in is still cache-free.

 

Let's say an owner of a challenge cache for old active caches approaches me asking if they could adopt that archived cache because it has an old GC code (4 digits after the GC) which would mean new players would have one more old active cache to qualify. If I approached the reviewer with that reason, I think s/he should refuse. It opens a whole new can of worms. Archived caches would get resurrected simply for their valued GC code, not because someone cares about the geocache part of geocaching, otherwise they would just go ahead and plant a new cache in that spot.

I see your point on this and agree with it. Requesting unarchival after a year has past is most likely a stretch. Requesting unarchival within a matter of days or weeks, not so much. There's nothing in the guidelines about a "statute of limitations" for unarchival, so the Reviewer's decision to unarchive does end up being subjective with respect to time elapsed since archival.

 

Yes, I see the timing issue.

I suppose I could archive it on Monday, on Tuesday someone contacts me to adopt it because they want to keep that GC code alive, Wednesday I ask the reviewer to unarchive it (not mentioning that I want to adopt it out to the challenge cache owner because I don't want to maintain it anymore) then the reviewer might unarchive it. But I can see them asking why? If the answer is, to keep the old GC# alive, would they unarchive it?

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Yes, I see the timing issue.

I suppose I could archive it on Monday, on Tuesday someone contacts me to adopt it because they want to keep that GC code alive, Wednesday I ask the reviewer to unarchive it (not mentioning that I want to adopt it out to the challenge cache owner because I don't want to maintain it anymore) then the reviewer might unarchive it. But I can see them asking why? If the answer is, to keep the old GC# alive, would they unarchive it?

Shouldn't matter "why" if it complies with the current Guidelines and is going to be maintained. Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

And an owner can always ask for an archived cache to be unarchived, so long as it meets the current guidelines.

Yes... I see my reviewer does this alot. I keep a huge Oregon archived database and I see caches get unarchived. One was so old and been archived for years and they got unarchived! :ph34r:

 

I feel that all reviewers want caches to stay on the listing as long its maintenance. Its really that simple.

 

I know one cache that got unarchived and MOVED to another state!!! :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: I though I saw it all!

Link to comment

If the argument against non-consensual adoption is that the cache and all content submitted belongs to the CO and not Groundspeak, then the argument should still be true for consensual adoptions started by the CO, regardless of whether or not the cache had been previously archived. It belongs to the CO and the CO has decided to unarchive it for the purpose of adoption. I don't see why GS wouldn't allow a CO to do what they want with their cache, assuming it meets all current guidelines. If they're going to allow adoptions before archival (current policy), what's the difference between that cache and one that was archived and then un-archived at the CO's request? As far as I can tell is that for a time it was archived. Is that grounds for not allowing an adoption? If so, why? If they maintain it for 6 months, a year, and then adopt it out, is that OK? If that's OK, then I don't really understand why it couldn't be done immediately to begin with.

 

I agree with most posters about the time between the archival and the subsequent request to un-archive and then adopt. That makes sense to me. If this were to become abused, I can understand GS' purpose for not allowing it. However, I don't see this being abused as it's probably something that's not going to happen that much anyway. If the CO let it get archived in the first place, they probably wouldn't want it unarchived just to adopt it out. "I don't want to maintain it anymore so I'll let GS archive it." Week passes. "I've decided to un-archive it so someone else can maintain it and the cache can continue." If they felt that way initially, they should/would have adopted it out to begin with.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

If the argument against non-consensual adoption is that the cache and all content submitted belongs to the CO and not Groundspeak, then the argument should still be true for consensual adoptions started by the CO, regardless of whether or not the cache had been previously archived. It belongs to the CO and the CO has decided to unarchive it for the purpose of adoption.

The difference is that Groundspeak doesn't own the cache, thus they cannot transfer ownership via adoption without the cache owner's permission. Groundspeak does own the listing service, therefore they get to decide the rules regarding things like archiving/unarchiving the cache listing. They can facilitate consensual cache adoptions because they have the permission of the cache owner.

 

I don't see why GS wouldn't allow a CO to do what they want with their cache, assuming it meets all current guidelines. If they're going to allow adoptions before archival (current policy), what's the difference between that cache and one that was archived and then un-archived at the CO's request? As far as I can tell is that for a time it was archived. Is that grounds for not allowing an adoption? If so, why?

Yes, as noted in earlier posts, there is a guideline that mostly disallows adopting a cache that was unarchived for purposes of adoption. I'm not sure what Groundspeak's reasoning is for that guideline. I just know it exists.

 

If they maintain it for 6 months, a year, and then adopt it out, is that OK? If that's OK, then I don't really understand why it couldn't be done immediately to begin with.

I don't know how long (or even if there is a specific period of time) that a cache owner must maintain an unarchived cache before they are allowed to adopt it out. The term that the guideline uses is that a cache rarely will be unarchived "for the purpose of adoption."

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Yes, I see the timing issue.

I suppose I could archive it on Monday, on Tuesday someone contacts me to adopt it because they want to keep that GC code alive, Wednesday I ask the reviewer to unarchive it (not mentioning that I want to adopt it out to the challenge cache owner because I don't want to maintain it anymore) then the reviewer might unarchive it. But I can see them asking why? If the answer is, to keep the old GC# alive, would they unarchive it?

Shouldn't matter "why" if it complies with the current Guidelines and is going to be maintained.

"Why?" might only matter for something that has a whiff of something...wrong with the request.

 

Unarchiving a cache just for the GC code (or early hide date) is subjective and perhaps worth of more scrutiny and the question, "Why are you doing this?"

 

The "why" makes much more sense when it isn't long after that cache is archived. It may be helpful for TPTB to discuss what might constitute a guideline for Reviewers when considering unarchiving a cache which might be "old" or "historic". The precedent I have witnessed seems to be very much in line with what LBK has stated, where caches will be unarchived not long after archival if the owner can show that it is in order and meets the guidelines. I haven't seen much where an "old" or "historic" cache is revived long after archival, usually because owners of those old caches aren't active and won't be there to ask for unarchival anyway.

 

If I "checked out" of the game for some years since 2003, for example, and came back to find my caches archived, I might try to see if I can check on the cache sites, see if the container is still there and viable, and then ask for the cache to be unarchived. If I need to replace the container or alter the hide significantly, it falls nicely under the discussions had elsewhere on the forums about how it would no longer "be the same cache" and should be resubmitted as a new listing in that case.

Link to comment
If the cache listing is archived, one could simply submit a new listing. Groundspeak and the reviewers aren't going to question what you did with the original cache container or even if you used it for the new listing.
Maybe, maybe not.

 

A local cache owner committed geocide a few years ago. A number of local cachers wanted to preserve his caches. Since the listings were already archived, and since he wasn't around to initiate the adoption anyway, the only option was to create new listings.

 

The volunteer reviewers insisted that the relisted caches use new containers, not the containers owned (and abandoned) by the original owner that committed geocide.

Link to comment
If the cache listing is archived, one could simply submit a new listing. Groundspeak and the reviewers aren't going to question what you did with the original cache container or even if you used it for the new listing.
Maybe, maybe not.

 

A local cache owner committed geocide a few years ago. A number of local cachers wanted to preserve his caches. Since the listings were already archived, and since he wasn't around to initiate the adoption anyway, the only option was to create new listings.

 

The volunteer reviewers insisted that the relisted caches use new containers, not the containers owned (and abandoned) by the original owner that committed geocide.

Did the reviewer give instruction on what to do with the abandoned containers? Should they be left in place since that was the "owner's" wishes? Did the owners of the new caches have to keep them as bailment in case their "owner" asked for them back? Or were they just suppose to toss out the geo-trash?

 

I find it amazing how much effort is spent on insisting that the cache is somebody's property and the owner intends to recover that property at some point in the future. IANAL, and this may in fact pass legal muster. But the reality is that hardly anybody really expects to have a something of value to collect when the cache gets archived. Most caches are archived because the container is missing in the first place. And many others are simply left as litter. Seems to me it would make more sense to recycle the litter than to pretend someone owns it.

Link to comment

Maybe it is the legal issue but to me when you leave a tubberware in the woods it is now abandoned property. No matter who "owns" it online it is simply abandoned property left in the woods. I do not know why GS could not just allow it to be taken from the original owner and given to someone new. If it was anything else sitting under that tree it would be trash. I would wonder if it is done more to just create more numbers than a real legal reason.

Link to comment
Maybe it is the legal issue but to me when you leave a tubberware in the woods it is now abandoned property. No matter who "owns" it online it is simply abandoned property left in the woods. I do not know why GS could not just allow it to be taken from the original owner and given to someone new. If it was anything else sitting under that tree it would be trash. I would wonder if it is done more to just create more numbers than a real legal reason.
IANAL, but I think there is a "real legal reason", and I don't think it has much to do with whether geocache containers are abandoned property or personal property. The key is that they are not Groundspeak's property, and they are not Groundspeak's legal liability. Groundspeak is just a listing service, and does not own any of our geocaches, and does not want to own any of our geocaches.

 

But again, IANAL.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment
Maybe it is the legal issue but to me when you leave a tubberware in the woods it is now abandoned property. No matter who "owns" it online it is simply abandoned property left in the woods. I do not know why GS could not just allow it to be taken from the original owner and given to someone new. If it was anything else sitting under that tree it would be trash. I would wonder if it is done more to just create more numbers than a real legal reason.
IANAL, but I think there is a "real legal reason", and I don't think it has much to do with whether geocache containers are abandoned property or personal property. The key is that they are not Groundspeak's property, and they are not Groundspeak's legal liability. Groundspeak is just a listing service, and does not own any of our geocaches, and does not want to own any of our geocaches.

 

But again, IANAL.

 

Which is why they should have no say about how you obtained the container. If the previous owner has a problem with you using their container that's on you. Why does grooundspeak give one iota how you obtained your container?

Link to comment
Maybe it is the legal issue but to me when you leave a tubberware in the woods it is now abandoned property. No matter who "owns" it online it is simply abandoned property left in the woods. I do not know why GS could not just allow it to be taken from the original owner and given to someone new. If it was anything else sitting under that tree it would be trash. I would wonder if it is done more to just create more numbers than a real legal reason.
IANAL, but I think there is a "real legal reason", and I don't think it has much to do with whether geocache containers are abandoned property or personal property. The key is that they are not Groundspeak's property, and they are not Groundspeak's legal liability. Groundspeak is just a listing service, and does not own any of our geocaches, and does not want to own any of our geocaches.

 

But again, IANAL.

 

Which is why they should have no say about how you obtained the container. If the previous owner has a problem with you using their container that's on you. Why does grooundspeak give one iota how you obtained your container?

 

Maybe the reviewer was asking the new cache owner not to say in the cache description that they were using the archived cache's container for their new cache listing. Otherwise, how would the reviewer know that the new cache owner had re-used the container?

Link to comment
Maybe it is the legal issue but to me when you leave a tubberware in the woods it is now abandoned property. No matter who "owns" it online it is simply abandoned property left in the woods. I do not know why GS could not just allow it to be taken from the original owner and given to someone new. If it was anything else sitting under that tree it would be trash. I would wonder if it is done more to just create more numbers than a real legal reason.
IANAL, but I think there is a "real legal reason", and I don't think it has much to do with whether geocache containers are abandoned property or personal property. The key is that they are not Groundspeak's property, and they are not Groundspeak's legal liability. Groundspeak is just a listing service, and does not own any of our geocaches, and does not want to own any of our geocaches.

 

But again, IANAL.

 

Which is why they should have no say about how you obtained the container. If the previous owner has a problem with you using their container that's on you. Why does grooundspeak give one iota how you obtained your container?

 

Why should they allow themselves to be put in the middle of a dispute between two people? The CO could always return and throw a fit over someone stealing their property without their permission, especially if they committed geocide. This has happened a few times already as I recall.

 

I have a container in the woods from the end of a multi that I archived in 2008. Eventually it will be relisted once I get around to it. Abandoned? No. If another cacher decides to claim it without sending an email, I wouldn't be too happy about it.

Link to comment
Maybe it is the legal issue but to me when you leave a tubberware in the woods it is now abandoned property. No matter who "owns" it online it is simply abandoned property left in the woods. I do not know why GS could not just allow it to be taken from the original owner and given to someone new. If it was anything else sitting under that tree it would be trash. I would wonder if it is done more to just create more numbers than a real legal reason.
IANAL, but I think there is a "real legal reason", and I don't think it has much to do with whether geocache containers are abandoned property or personal property. The key is that they are not Groundspeak's property, and they are not Groundspeak's legal liability. Groundspeak is just a listing service, and does not own any of our geocaches, and does not want to own any of our geocaches.

 

But again, IANAL.

 

Which is why they should have no say about how you obtained the container. If the previous owner has a problem with you using their container that's on you. Why does grooundspeak give one iota how you obtained your container?

 

Why should they allow themselves to be put in the middle of a dispute between two people? The CO could always return and throw a fit over someone stealing their property without their permission, especially if they committed geocide. This has happened a few times already as I recall.

 

I have a container in the woods from the end of a multi that I archived in 2008. Eventually it will be relisted once I get around to it. Abandoned? No. If another cacher decides to claim it without sending an email, I wouldn't be too happy about it.

 

And this is a good reason to cease non- consensual adoptions and insist on a new listing because gs is a listing company. But they should not be concerned with how one secures their containers.

Link to comment

I do not think they do non-concentual adoptions.

 

As for the legal part I guess it also makes sure that GS can separate itself from the cache when it causes an issue(trespassing or causes bomb scare etc) or someone is hurt finding it.. OR at least try to keep themselves out of it. As far as being in the woods since 2008 and being taken. You might be mad but not sure what else could be done. It would be annoying I guess but after that long it's trash and maybe should have been removed since it was archived and is now possibly geo-litter. So was the new cache Placer recycling the geo-litter? LOL!

Link to comment

Maybe it is the legal issue but to me when you leave a tubberware in the woods it is now abandoned property. No matter who "owns" it online it is simply abandoned property left in the woods. I do not know why GS could not just allow it to be taken from the original owner and given to someone new. If it was anything else sitting under that tree it would be trash. I would wonder if it is done more to just create more numbers than a real legal reason.

 

And how it looks like if you leave a car in the woods?

 

There is the wood, a road in the wood, and a car on the road. It's abandoned - nobody is sitting there. Is it abandoned property? Will it became abandoned property after an hour? A day? A month?

Link to comment

Depends. If the vehicle is on the highway, gone in 24 hours, safety issue. Legally parked on a street, not stolen or invalid, stays forever. In the woods, depends. Public property it goes. Private it is not our job to remove unless stolen / foul play involved. Property owner can remove right away, if not claimed it is sold at auction as unclaimed abandoned property. Before being sold owner of said vehicle needs to be notified to allow time to get from tow yard. Cars are simply just more expensive property.

 

My point is if you are not a cacher the thing is just junk left in the woods, abandoned on public lands, simply trash and the owner of said cache can be cited for littering. I do not care it is your "game"(I do but I play). You've left un natural materials in a forrest, dumping in most areas. Even ash from your ash tray or cigarette butt is littering by the litteral sense here in PA. On private property it could be junk, maybe not. Depends on whether the land is your back yard or a walmart lot.

 

This is always what surprised me about the GS private property rules. Can't put things on some places but other are ok. I geocache so I would go easy, but if your in walmarts lot, private property, and are not there to buy their products or use their services you are trespassing. Being behind their store at the loading docks, not Making deliveries, your in a area not generally considered reasonable for use by the general public and could be cited for tresspassing... we had an issue where a cacher was almost prosecuted for trespassing at a wawa and almost cited for the littering and dumping over a cache on a pay phone (yes one of those ancient things) he was saved because I actually know he was telling the truth about this "game." We have cited people for vandalism and tresspass for doing the Google game and the qr game. Mostly for after hours in parks and sticking things to monuments and markers.

Link to comment

Geolog, reread your response. If it is in a park and legal it stays until the area closes. Then we make sure the person is not lost in the woods. If not and they left it there, towed. Problem is it is apples and oranges, the car maybe where it is supposed to be. On a road, in a lot, legally parked. Not in the middle of the woods. If it is just in the middle of the woods, see above post. It be a hell of a CITO at that point.

Link to comment

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

Link to comment

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

Well, there's no threat of archival after 30 days, that's a good thing, at least. I still can't figure out why there are only reports in this thread of 2 reviewers in the United States going on cleansing missions. :huh: Like I say, we could cleanse half or more of the caches in the world if we'd like to.

Link to comment

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

Id say that it's nice that they posted a note asking to check on it, rather than disabling it.

Link to comment

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

Be a good piggy and go check on it for the CO.

Link to comment

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

Be a good piggy and go check on it for the CO.

Too dangerous this time of the year and its a LONG walk from another trailhead. The trail isnt maintenance anymore because the bridge is out so it will be much harder to hike to it.

Link to comment

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

Id say that it's nice that they posted a note asking to check on it, rather than disabling it.

I dont know... very likely will get disable at the next DNF log. Just hope the next DNF logger was really at GZ. <_<

 

That cache got a special place in my heart. Its really a beautiful area. Its one of the oldest caches in Douglas County.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

Id say that it's nice that they posted a note asking to check on it, rather than disabling it.

I dont know... very likely will get disable at the next DNF log. Just hope the next DNF logger was really at GZ. <_<

 

That cache got a special place in my heart. Its really a beautiful area. Its one of the oldest caches in Douglas County.

 

I'd hate to say it, but in these cases a fake find from a sock might be a good thing. :ph34r:

 

Since it appears that there are people mesmerized with an online log belief system in "knowing" about the hide without visiting, perhaps a simple found it log indicating everything is in good order would put a stop to the silliness.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

How can you tell that there isn't some other, off-the-logs factor causing this? Yes, you see two DNFs, but maybe there are circumstances brought up to the reviewer by email that are causing the note.

 

Some people see conspiracy; others figure there's some more positive explanation.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...