Inactive Cacher Question

[+BaylorGrad]

Hi Everyone--

 

In my area, there's a cacher by the name of DrHogg. This cacher has hidden over 1,000 caches over many years of geocaching, but if you look up the user, you'll see that he/she hasn't logged into Geocaching.com in over two years. In the meantime, dozens and dozens of DrHogg's caches are going quickly to ruin. There's a rumor floating about that DrHogg might have passed away, but this hasn't been confirmed.

 

So, here's the question(s): Is there any way, aside from one-at-a-time "Needs Archived" notes, to facilitate the process of removing DrHogg's caches from the website? What if the cacher is actually dead? Does this change anything?

 

I'll end with this: I've seen so many heated arguments on these forums that I haven't posted here in about three years. Just asking these questions makes me really nervous--I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to stir up anything, I'm just simply curious. I hope you'll take these questions for what they are: Questions.

 

Thanks for the help,

 

BaylorGrad

[+Touchstone]

There might be a way to bulk log with a utility like GSAK or something similar, but otherwise no, it's pretty much one at a time.

 

Another option might be to contact your Local Reviewer to look through the Users Profile, but I'm not sure how willing a Reviewer would be to take such a proactive approach to Archiving.

[+kunarion]

Questions.

One of the Dr's cache pages mentions other cachers, who are active. Maybe they can help:

http://coord.info/GC1Y291

Edited February 16, 2016 by kunarion

[TahoeJoe]

Looks like he was pretty active and then all of a sudden stopped. That's too bad if he has passed. I would just let the caches run their course and log needs archived when needed. I just logged a cache this morning from a cacher that stopped in 2004 and the cache is still in great shape. If he placed popular caches, it would be nice to let them continue on.

[+The A-Team]

Is there any way, aside from one-at-a-time "Needs Archived" notes, to facilitate the process of removing DrHogg's caches from the website?

Is there any reason why they all need to be archived right away? I'd have to assume many are still in good condition and have no issues, so I don't see why they couldn't be left in place and later archived one at a time if they develop issues.

 

What if the cacher is actually dead? Does this change anything?

I'd say no. An account can be inactive for any number of reasons, with death being one of them. Regardless of the reason, maintenance generally isn't being performed on the caches or listings. I'd treat the caches the same way as I would with a living person who has lost interest in geocaching and abandoned their caches: log a Needs Maintenance if there are issues, and a Needs Archive if the issues aren't addressed. If it's determined that DrHogg has indeed passed away and the reviewer is aware, you may even be able to go straight to a Needs Archive, since a Needs Maintenance wouldn't be addressed.

[+L0ne.R]

What everyone else said, log NA as the caches deteriorate.

[+Mike in FN20hc]

It is important to remember that lack of logins does not equal inactivity. Logs made using an app do not show up as logged in. Whenever you suspect an inactive member due to their last login date, go to their profile and check their hides/finds for recent activity. That is a much better indicator, but requires more effort.

[+Pinballwiz]

Someone in the local community might be able to adopt some of the caches.

[Keystone]

Someone in the local community might be able to adopt some of the caches.

That's only an option if the existing owner initiates the online adoption process, which seems unlikely given the lack of recent activity under that account.

[Pup Patrol]

It is important to remember that lack of logins does not equal inactivity. Logs made using an app do not show up as logged in. Whenever you suspect an inactive member due to their last login date, go to their profile and check their hides/finds for recent activity. That is a much better indicator, but requires more effort.

 

Takes no effort at all.

 

According to the profile: the last logged find for DrHogg was in 2012.

Last cache placed was 2009.

Last time logged into the website was Wednesday, 08 January 2014.

 

Sounds like contacting local cachers might be the best option.

 

But if the caches are continuing to be found, and there's no NM's logged, etc, I don't think there is anything to be concerned about with this cacher.

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

Someone in the local community might be able to adopt some of the caches.

 

As Keystone pointed out, the adoption process needs to be initiated by the cache owner.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.20. Adopting or Transferring a Geocache

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

 

B.

[+justintim1999]

Is there any way, aside from one-at-a-time "Needs Archived" notes, to facilitate the process of removing DrHogg's caches from the website?

Is there any reason why they all need to be archived right away? I'd have to assume many are still in good condition and have no issues, so I don't see why they couldn't be left in place and later archived one at a time if they develop issues.

 

What if the cacher is actually dead? Does this change anything?

I'd say no. An account can be inactive for any number of reasons, with death being one of them. Regardless of the reason, maintenance generally isn't being performed on the caches or listings. I'd treat the caches the same way as I would with a living person who has lost interest in geocaching and abandoned their caches: log a Needs Maintenance if there are issues, and a Needs Archive if the issues aren't addressed. If it's determined that DrHogg has indeed passed away and the reviewer is aware, you may even be able to go straight to a Needs Archive, since a Needs Maintenance wouldn't be addressed.

 

Everything I've read here sounds pretty good. I had just one question.

 

A while back I contacted the owner of a cache I'd found years before. They appeared to be inactive in caching for some time. I enquired about possibly adopting the cache. They responded that they had not been caching for a while but were actively maintaining their cache and intended to keep it. Everything I looked at on the cache page confirmed that this was true.

 

I've always believed that there should be a point of contact for every cache. Someone who can respond to questions or concerns in a timely manor.

 

Take the scenario of the original poster. If indeed this person unfortunately passed away, who would that person be?

 

It seems like the prevailing thought on this is to simply let the caches be and start the archive process when things begin to go bad. What if the land owner/manager decides that they no longer want the cache on their property? Wouldn't it make sense to archive them all?

Edited February 17, 2016 by justintim1999

[+Touchstone]

Take the scenario of the original poster. If indeed this person unfortunately passed away, who would that person be?

 

It seems like the prevailing thought on this is to simply let the caches be and start the archive process when things begin to go bad. What if the land owner/manager decides that they no longer want the cache on their property? Wouldn't it make sense to archive them all?

Responsibility for the cache(s) passes to the immediate family. In our local case, Groundspeak offered to facilitate any adoption transfers and the like, but in that particular situation, the surviving relatives opted to keep the caches under the original account, and merely needed the password reset in order to access the account and be able to maintain the Listings.

 

The separate issue of a Land Manager/Owner wishing caches to be removed, is the same for everyone. They're basically gone. Groundspeak or the Reviewer tries to contact the Cache Owner when the request goes to Groundspeak. Failing that, the Listings are typically Archived per the request.

[+justintim1999]

Take the scenario of the original poster. If indeed this person unfortunately passed away, who would that person be?

 

It seems like the prevailing thought on this is to simply let the caches be and start the archive process when things begin to go bad. What if the land owner/manager decides that they no longer want the cache on their property? Wouldn't it make sense to archive them all?

Responsibility for the cache(s) passes to the immediate family. In our local case, Groundspeak offered to facilitate any adoption transfers and the like, but in that particular situation, the surviving relatives opted to keep the caches under the original account, and merely needed the password reset in order to access the account and be able to maintain the Listings.

 

The separate issue of a Land Manager/Owner wishing caches to be removed, is the same for everyone. They're basically gone. Groundspeak or the Reviewer tries to contact the Cache Owner when the request goes to Groundspeak. Failing that, the Listings are typically Archived per the request.

 

Thanks for the informative response.

[Pup Patrol]

Take the scenario of the original poster. If indeed this person unfortunately passed away, who would that person be?

 

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.20. Adopting or Transferring a Geocache

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

 

[+J Grouchy]

Okay...since nobody else has actually said it, I'll go ahead. Have you tried contacting DrHogg directly via email or PM? Lots of suggestions about contacting other cachers, but surprisingly nobody suggested going directly to the CO. This is your most obvious first step, giving several days for a response before doing anything else.

[+justintim1999]

Okay...since nobody else has actually said it, I'll go ahead. Have you tried contacting DrHogg directly via email or PM? Lots of suggestions about contacting other cachers, but surprisingly nobody suggested going directly to the CO. This is your most obvious first step, giving several days for a response before doing anything else.

 

If the needs maintenance didn't elicit a response I'm not sure if a direct e-mail will. But, it's defiantly worth a shot.

[+J Grouchy]

Okay...since nobody else has actually said it, I'll go ahead. Have you tried contacting DrHogg directly via email or PM? Lots of suggestions about contacting other cachers, but surprisingly nobody suggested going directly to the CO. This is your most obvious first step, giving several days for a response before doing anything else.

 

If the needs maintenance didn't elicit a response I'm not sure if a direct e-mail will. But, it's defiantly worth a shot.

 

If I had a nickel for every time a NM log elicited a response from a CO, maybe I could've bought a can of Coke or something.

[+justintim1999]

Okay...since nobody else has actually said it, I'll go ahead. Have you tried contacting DrHogg directly via email or PM? Lots of suggestions about contacting other cachers, but surprisingly nobody suggested going directly to the CO. This is your most obvious first step, giving several days for a response before doing anything else.

 

If the needs maintenance didn't elicit a response I'm not sure if a direct e-mail will. But, it's defiantly worth a shot.

 

If I had a nickel for every time a NM log elicited a response from a CO, maybe I could've bought a can of Coke or something.

A truer word was never spoken.

[+kunarion]

Okay...since nobody else has actually said it, I'll go ahead. Have you tried contacting DrHogg directly via email or PM? Lots of suggestions about contacting other cachers, but surprisingly nobody suggested going directly to the CO. This is your most obvious first step, giving several days for a response before doing anything else.

That's a good plan. I sent the OP a bunch of info via MC, so in this case, the PM/MC route would be a step backward. But if you can't easily visit someone in his office in person, MC is the first step.

 

Some people have business that gets in the way of caching, when they were once quite active. Some never return. I'd like the cool caches that are doing OK to remain, even if the CO seems to be AWOL. A no-maintenance cache is pretty cool, we can learn from it. There is a process in place for caches that are falling apart.

 

And it seems like the demise of the CO has been greatly exaggerated.

[+J Grouchy]

Okay...since nobody else has actually said it, I'll go ahead. Have you tried contacting DrHogg directly via email or PM? Lots of suggestions about contacting other cachers, but surprisingly nobody suggested going directly to the CO. This is your most obvious first step, giving several days for a response before doing anything else.

That's a good plan. I sent the OP a bunch of info via MC, so in this case, the PM/MC route would be a step backward. But if you can't easily visit someone in his office in person, MC is the first step.

 

Some people have business that gets in the way of caching, when they were once quite active. Some never return. I'd like the cool caches that are doing OK to remain, even if the CO seems to be AWOL. A no-maintenance cache is pretty cool, we can learn from it. There is a process in place for caches that are falling apart.

 

And it seems like the demise of the CO has been greatly exaggerated.

 

Who said anything about visiting them in person? I was simply suggesting an email or message to the CO.

How is sending him a message a "step backward" from some other third party info you apparently have? Why is this all being over-complicated?

[+kunarion]

Who said anything about visiting them in person?

I did.

 

Well I gave the OP a bunch of info, not here in the Thread. The OP and CO seem to live in the same town, and both perhaps are or were associated with the same school. And the CO has an office in that school. I don't know if they would ever cross paths, but it seems plausible to me.

 

I was simply suggesting an email or message to the CO.

How is sending him a message a "step backward" from some other third party info you apparently have? Why is this all being over-complicated?

Yes, suggesting a message is cool. Nobody did here, you're right. I'd usually suggest MC in this case.

 

It's a step backward, since any message from Geocaching servers is processed, mailed indirectly, with the exception of the online Message Center which is viewed in App or Browser (once the recipient gets the wild hair to go do that). You must first wait a period of time to see if there is a reply, then try other avenues. An actual email address will bounce back an "undeliverable" error, but a PM absorbs an error. When the OP has phone numbers, direct actual email address, and an office to visit in the school he frequents (all that info not posted here), one of those are a lot better than MC/PM. And I'm assuming if a guy works at "Baylor" and a cacher has the word "Baylor" in they're cache name, that communication would be relatively easy outside of PM/MC. Sure, I may be assuming too much.

 

Anyway, I agree a message is not all that complicated. And that it is fine to suggest it.

Edited February 17, 2016 by kunarion

[+Cachez]

Someone in the local community might be able to adopt some of the caches.

 

As Keystone pointed out, the adoption process needs to be initiated by the cache owner.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.20. Adopting or Transferring a Geocache

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

 

B.

 

I actually wish GS could do something to address this. There's a series I want to take over which isn't being maintained. I've tried every possible way short of tracking down their actual street address, but got response from the CO. Some have been archived but the others are still active.

[+J Grouchy]

Who said anything about visiting them in person?

I did.

 

Well I gave the OP a bunch of info, not here in the Thread. The OP and CO seem to live in the same town, and both perhaps are or were associated with the same school. And the CO has an office in that school. I don't know if they would ever cross paths, but it seems plausible to me.

 

I was simply suggesting an email or message to the CO.

How is sending him a message a "step backward" from some other third party info you apparently have? Why is this all being over-complicated?

Yes, suggesting a message is cool. Nobody did here, you're right. I'd usually suggest MC in this case.

 

It's a step backward, since any message from Geocaching servers is processed, mailed indirectly, with the exception of the online Message Center which is viewed in App or Browser (once the recipient gets the wild hair to go do that). You must first wait a period of time to see if there is a reply, then try other avenues. An actual email address will bounce back an "undeliverable" error, but a PM absorbs an error. When the OP has phone numbers, direct actual email address, and an office to visit in the school he frequents (all that info not posted here), one of those are a lot better than MC/PM. And I'm assuming if a guy works at "Baylor" and a cacher has the word "Baylor" in they're cache name, that communication would be relatively easy outside of PM/MC. Sure, I may be assuming too much.

 

Anyway, I agree a message is not all that complicated. And that it is fine to suggest it.

 

Well, I would actually hesitate before ever tracking down someone in person or even suggesting someone else do so...even in the name of caching. I know I personally would feel very uncomfortable and annoyed with someone visiting my office - uninvited - to talk to me about my caches.

[TahoeJoe]

My first find was recently archived and I would love to take it over but the CO is long gone. Pretty sure legal issues keep GS from doing this. I suppose if GS transferred the cache over it would be showing ownership of the cache on their part. Can't say I blame them but too bad.

Edited February 17, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+RosiesDaddyBear]

My first find was recently archived and I would love to take it over but the CO is long gone. Pretty sure legal issues keep GS from doing this. I suppose if GS transferred the cache over it would be showing ownership of the cache on their part. Can't say I blame them but too bad.

 

I think it is down to ownership. Technically the cache belongs to that CO, it is their property. It isn't Groundspeak's cache to give away.

 

RDB

[+The A-Team]

As Keystone pointed out, the adoption process needs to be initiated by the cache owner.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.20. Adopting or Transferring a Geocache

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

I actually wish GS could do something to address this.

I doubt you actually would want Groundspeak to "address this" when you consider the consequences.

 

The way the site runs now, members of the general public own their own caches and list the caches' info on the Geocaching.com listing site, while retaining ownership of the container, copyright on the listing content, etc. This is why Groundspeak can't just decide to pass ownership to someone else: they have no legal right to transfer ownership of something they don't own.

 

To "address this", everyone would need to transfer ownership of their caches to Groundspeak. Then they could transfer management of the caches between cachers, but they'd still be the owners. Are you sure you'd be fine with no longer having legal ownership of your caches? Do you think Groundspeak's lawyers would be okay with holding legal ownership of containers they've never seen, in locations they've never visited, which could open them up to any number of local legal consequences (e.g. liability, trespassing, etc.)?

[+Touchstone]

Someone in the local community might be able to adopt some of the caches.

 

As Keystone pointed out, the adoption process needs to be initiated by the cache owner.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.20. Adopting or Transferring a Geocache

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

 

B.

 

I actually wish GS could do something to address this. There's a series I want to take over which isn't being maintained. I've tried every possible way short of tracking down their actual street address, but got response from the CO. Some have been archived but the others are still active.

Actually, they did address it. The Help Center article that Pup Patrol linked to is the result of addressing the issue, just not in the way you were hoping I suspect.

[+Cachez]

I think you've misinterpreted my post. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't want GS to take over ownership of caches, that would be totally undesirable and that's frankly a rather OTT response to what was a fair question.

 

While there's probably never going to be a totally foolproof resolution, a process which relies solely on COs seems to be slightly flawed to me. It's common for COs to drop out of the game for whatever reason and contact via the website is notoriously unreliable. In the instance of a CO failing to respond to any communication, it would surely be better to allow another CO to step in than allow caches to run down into litter because no-one is maintaining them.

[Keystone]

No, it wouldn't "surely be better." That's the way things worked in the early days of geocaching. "Forced adoptions gone wrong" is something I don't miss, and never want to see again.

 

So yeah, the site did do something about the problem of unresponsive owners. They made it purely an owner's problem, and respected the ownership rights. Geocaching.com is a cache listing service, and only that. The site offers the self-serve adoption tool, so it's nobody's fault but the owner's if the cache isn't adopted.

[+justintim1999]

My first find was recently archived and I would love to take it over but the CO is long gone. Pretty sure legal issues keep GS from doing this. I suppose if GS transferred the cache over it would be showing ownership of the cache on their part. Can't say I blame them but too bad.

 

I think it is down to ownership. Technically the cache belongs to that CO, it is their property. It isn't Groundspeak's cache to give away.

 

RDB

 

Same thing happened to me. Great multi archived (by the cache owners) I tried to adopt it after the fact. My reviewer suggested I place a new cache instead. This was a wise suggestion. A new cache brought back many cachers who found the original. Adopting the cache wouldn't have done that.

 

Your right on the ownership issue but Grounspeak dose have a stake in this. The quality and condition of caches has a direct impact on Geocaching.com. In my opinion this is the biggest problem geocaching faces. I think the current system would work well if more cachers were willing to use the Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs when appropriate. The first step is to make the reviewers aware of a potential problem.

 

There are going to be abandoned caches. The key is to identify them and get them removed from the game in a timely manor.

[+Touchstone]

In the instance of a CO failing to respond to any communication, it would surely be better to allow another CO to step in than allow caches to run down into litter because no-one is maintaining them.

 

This must be the other portion of the solution that you're not quite grasping:

 

Hiding a Geocache

 

I'm not sure how things work within your local community, but typically around my area, once a cache falls into such a state of disrepair that it doesn't resemble a cache anymore, it gets CITO'd out. A new active cache owner usually comes along and places a new cache at, or around the same awesome spot. Voila! Problem solved.

[+Cachez]

That's kind of my point, but I can see that asking about this is causing annoyance so I'll leave it. I rather feel that I've had my head bitten off for what didn't seem like a totally unreasonable question.

 

It was a genuine query because I haven't been caching all that long and I haven't been in the position of trying to adopt an unmaintained cache before.

[+J Grouchy]

Rather than spend any time worrying about adopting unmaintained caches, perhaps folks ought to just let them get archived (as they no doubt will be) and place their own well-maintained caches.

 

I feel like adoption should only happen between two willing parties. Period. There should be no agonizing over trying to reach out to people who aren't doing their job as a cache owner. Send a message if you like (I've done so myself on one or two occasions...always without a response, by the way), but don't stalk them...don't track them down in their office...don't try to drag reviewers or Groundspeak into the process.

[+niraD]

I don't want GS to take over ownership of caches, that would be totally undesirable and that's frankly a rather OTT response to what was a fair question.

Actually, it's not as OTT as you might think.

 

"Who owns the cache?" and "Who has the authority to give away the cache?" are two sides of the same coin. If the cache owner actually owns the cache, then Groundspeak does not have the authority to give it away.

[+cleandrysurface]

Rather than spend any time worrying about adopting unmaintained caches, perhaps folks ought to just let them get archived (as they no doubt will be) and place their own well-maintained caches.

 

I feel like adoption should only happen between two willing parties. Period. There should be no agonizing over trying to reach out to people who aren't doing their job as a cache owner. Send a message if you like (I've done so myself on one or two occasions...always without a response, by the way), but don't stalk them...don't track them down in their office...don't try to drag reviewers or Groundspeak into the process.

 

If the caches fall into disrepair and nobody is taking care of them then archive them.

 

With that said, there is a 15 year old cache in our area that has been feral for several years. The CO is long gone, but local cachers seemed to have unofficially adopted it. As long as it is being maintained and does not get a NA log, there is no reason why it can't continue.

[+J Grouchy]

Rather than spend any time worrying about adopting unmaintained caches, perhaps folks ought to just let them get archived (as they no doubt will be) and place their own well-maintained caches.

 

I feel like adoption should only happen between two willing parties. Period. There should be no agonizing over trying to reach out to people who aren't doing their job as a cache owner. Send a message if you like (I've done so myself on one or two occasions...always without a response, by the way), but don't stalk them...don't track them down in their office...don't try to drag reviewers or Groundspeak into the process.

 

If the caches fall into disrepair and nobody is taking care of them then archive them.

 

With that said, there is a 15 year old cache in our area that has been feral for several years. The CO is long gone, but local cachers seemed to have unofficially adopted it. As long as it is being maintained and does not get a NA log, there is no reason why it can't continue.

 

It's fine...until there's a lapse and someone logs a NM log and a reviewer catches on. Only the CO can clear out the NM attribute and eventually that stuff gets noticed.

[+cleandrysurface]

Rather than spend any time worrying about adopting unmaintained caches, perhaps folks ought to just let them get archived (as they no doubt will be) and place their own well-maintained caches.

 

I feel like adoption should only happen between two willing parties. Period. There should be no agonizing over trying to reach out to people who aren't doing their job as a cache owner. Send a message if you like (I've done so myself on one or two occasions...always without a response, by the way), but don't stalk them...don't track them down in their office...don't try to drag reviewers or Groundspeak into the process.

 

If the caches fall into disrepair and nobody is taking care of them then archive them.

 

With that said, there is a 15 year old cache in our area that has been feral for several years. The CO is long gone, but local cachers seemed to have unofficially adopted it. As long as it is being maintained and does not get a NA log, there is no reason why it can't continue.

 

It's fine...until there's a lapse and someone logs a NM log and a reviewer catches on. Only the CO can clear out the NM attribute and eventually that stuff gets noticed.

 

To rephrase, as long as the cache is being maintained, it will probably fly under the radar. I was not trying to say that a cache cannot be archived because random people have assumed the responsibilities of the CO.

[+dprovan]

I rather feel that I've had my head bitten off for what didn't seem like a totally unreasonable question.

I'm sorry you feel that way. As a neutral observer, the responses appear to be reasonable answers to what was taken as a reasonable question, although the people answering you have heard this question a hundred times, so you need to give them a little leeway for being short with you.

 

The main point here is that caches have a natural life cycle, so adoption isn't really that interesting. Replacing the old cache with a new cache one would typically be better to begin with, especially if the new cache gives a fresh spin on the location. The very term "adoption" suggests a fresh start for a cache that has a lot more to give, but the adoption you're talking about is like adopting someone on life support and ready for the great beyond.

[+Touchstone]

Perhaps I'll submit a request for a new attribute: DNR

 

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/patientinstructions/000473.htm

 

That way people will know that if unable to respond to their adoption requests, and the cache appears to have run its long and productive life, that it's ok to post an NA and let it go in peace.

[Pup Patrol]

With that said, there is a 15 year old cache in our area that has been feral for several years. The CO is long gone, but local cachers seemed to have unofficially adopted it. As long as it is being maintained and does not get a NA log, there is no reason why it can't continue.

 

It's not just an NA log that can bring it down.

 

Any NM logs that aren't resolved by the cache owner, the only one who can do that, then it might eventually be caught in a Reviewer sweep of outstanding NM's.

 

Also, the cache owner could receive one of the "owner maintenance" emails from GS. Again, only the CO will be able to deal with the issue, and avoid archival of the cache listing.

 

B.

[+L0ne.R]

The main point here is that caches have a natural life cycle, so adoption isn't really that interesting. Replacing the old cache with a new cache one would typically be better to begin with, especially if the new cache gives a fresh spin on the location. The very term "adoption" suggests a fresh start for a cache that has a lot more to give, but the adoption you're talking about is like adopting someone on life support and ready for the great beyond.

 

Perhaps I'll submit a request for a new attribute: DNR

 

https://www.nlm.nih....ions/000473.htm

 

That way people will know that if unable to respond to their adoption requests, and the cache appears to have run its long and productive life, that it's ok to post an NA and let it go in peace.

 

Love it! There should be a DNR attribute.

I'd put one on all of our cache hides. If we are so incapacitated that we know longer visit the website or maintain our caches in a timely fashion, we'd be embarrassed to have our caches limp along and not kept up to the standards we have tried to maintain for the last 14 years. They should go in peace and hopefully before they become falling-apart-wet-moldy junk, with a strip of scrap paper thrown in every few months.

 

Replenishment is good for the pastime. If all caches were propped up, never archived, geocaching would stagnate. It would likely become a game for people with enough money and time to keep travelling further and further out for geocaches.

Edited February 18, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I rather feel that I've had my head bitten off for what didn't seem like a totally unreasonable question.

I'm sorry you feel that way. As a neutral observer, the responses appear to be reasonable answers to what was taken as a reasonable question, although the people answering you have heard this question a hundred times, so you need to give them a little leeway for being short with you.

 

The main point here is that caches have a natural life cycle, so adoption isn't really that interesting. Replacing the old cache with a new cache one would typically be better to begin with, especially if the new cache gives a fresh spin on the location. The very term "adoption" suggests a fresh start for a cache that has a lot more to give, but the adoption you're talking about is like adopting someone on life support and ready for the great beyond.

 

For me, the adoption vs. archive and replace vs. debate depends a lot on where the cache is located.

 

I wouldn't treat a cache in an area with a large cache owner population and thousands of other caches in the general area the same as I would a cache in a country with very few caches (and possibly 1-2 or no active geocachers living in the country). I know of a couple of instances of caches that have essentially been maintained by the community for many years (in one case, a cache placed in 2001) and provided the only opportunity for anyone to find a cache in a large geographical area.

 

The "natural life cycle" of a cache can depend a lot on where it's located and it's proximity to other caches and other geocachers.

 

 

[+cleandrysurface]

 

Any NM logs that aren't resolved by the cache owner, the only one who can do that, then it might eventually be caught in a Reviewer sweep of outstanding NM's.

 

Also, the cache owner could receive one of the "owner maintenance" emails from GS. Again, only the CO will be able to deal with the issue, and avoid archival of the cache listing.

 

B.

 

Correct. My hasty response was incomplete.

[+dprovan]

Perhaps I'll submit a request for a new attribute: DNR

 

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/patientinstructions/000473.htm

 

That way people will know that if unable to respond to their adoption requests, and the cache appears to have run its long and productive life, that it's ok to post an NA and let it go in peace.

Well, except that I claim it is always OK to post an NA and let a failed cache go in peace, so I wouldn't want an attribute that implied otherwise.

 

And that's even before I consider the scary notion of someone giving a cache the attribute "Not DNR". What would that mean? Hmmm... Maybe that's the "power trail" attribute that's often asked for: "Not DNR" (a.k.a., "Resuscitate at will") would mean the hide is obvious and seekers are free to replace the container whenever it's missing.

[+BaylorGrad]

Hi Everyone (OP here)--

 

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful responses, and for being courteous to each other as well.

 

I'll address a few things that have been discussed, and add some more detail to the conversation:

 

1) Since I've first posted, I have verified that DrHogg is indeed still alive, and also teaches classes at the same university where I work. I might reach out to him by e-mail, but I haven't decided yet. I'm frankly not sure what I'd say to him: "Please clean up your mess?" Regardless, it would be awkward, because I have no interest in adopting his caches, and I suspect (but can't confirm) that others would agree with me. Which brings me to:

 

2) Admittedly, a part of the story with DrHogg is that his caches are generally regarded in the geocaching community in my town as the "lowest quality" caches in town. My desire is not to get into a long discussion about what qualifies as a "good" cache, because as we all know, that depends on the person you ask. However, regardless of the quality of the location of his caches (which we need not discuss), it is rather true that his containers tend to be those that fall apart quickly and easily--pill bottles, peanut butter jars, car key holders--you name it. The point is--the fact that he has been inactive for 2 years has simply resulted in a lot of litter, and that's the thing that really irks me, and makes me want to find a solution here. When a cacher simply replaces a DrHogg cache container, in my opinion, they aren't "keeping a good cache going"--they're contributing to the litter that neither they nor DrHogg will maintain. The cycle continues until someone mercifully posts a NA log.

 

But from what it sounds like, the consensus is that either (a) he should be reached out to, in which case he could hopefully allow adoption or clean up his 1,000+ abandoned caches, or (2) the local cachers can simply post "NA" logs to his caches.

 

(This makes me think of creating an event called "Clean Up DrHogg's Mess" and simply having local cachers go around to his caches and post "NA" logs where necessary... Now that I think of it, would something like that actually be allowed? Because that actually might work.)

 

Just thoughts; please no one burn me at the stake for my suggestions. Thank you for your insight and thoughts in advance,

 

BaylorGrad

[+Touchstone]

Now that I think of it, would something like that actually be allowed?

 

Probably not. Borderline TOU violation, and at the very least, an agenda. I vote for option 2 in your paragraph above that statement.

[+cerberus1]

(This makes me think of creating an event called "Clean Up DrHogg's Mess" and simply having local cachers go around to his caches and post "NA" logs where necessary... Now that I think of it, would something like that actually be allowed? Because that actually might work.)

 

Now that I think of it, would something like that actually be allowed?

 

Probably not. Borderline TOU violation, and at the very least, an agenda. I vote for option 2 in your paragraph above that statement.

I kinda agree. To me, it's not borderline.

[+noncentric]

But from what it sounds like, the consensus is that either (a) he should be reached out to, in which case he could hopefully allow adoption or clean up his 1,000+ abandoned caches, or (2) the local cachers can simply post "NA" logs to his caches.

I think #2 is the option that should be employed, but only for caches that are truly problematic. Skimming through the CO's caches, some seem to be in decent condition. That may be because other cachers are propping up his caches.

 

Some of his caches of have had NM's logged, in which case it would be appropriate to post an NA log on those if the problems haven't been resolved after some time.

 

I don't think it's appropriate to try and have all of his caches adopted out or archived. It starts to appear that you are targeting just this one cacher, while there is another CO that has 200+ hides and another with 350+ of the same style and many of those have NM attributes. Why target just this particular CO, instead of targeting specific caches regardless of the CO?

[+L0ne.R]

1456030378[/url]' post='5566316']

1456026584[/url]' post='5566311']

But from what it sounds like, the consensus is that either (a) he should be reached out to, in which case he could hopefully allow adoption or clean up his 1,000+ abandoned caches, or (2) the local cachers can simply post "NA" logs to his caches.

I think #2 is the option that should be employed, but only for caches that are truly problematic. Skimming through the CO's caches, some seem to be in decent condition. That may be because other cachers are propping up his caches.

 

Some of his caches of have had NM's logged, in which case it would be appropriate to post an NA log on those if the problems haven't been resolved after some time.

 

I don't think it's appropriate to try and have all of his caches adopted out or archived. It starts to appear that you are targeting just this one cacher, while there is another CO that has 200+ hides and another with 350+ of the same style and many of those have NM attributes. Why target just this particular CO, instead of targeting specific caches regardless of the CO?

 

In some areas this is becoming a very noticeable problem.

There really does seem to be an addiction issue. Some people can not stop themselves from hiding. Once they get the bug, they keep hiding until they implode.

They push out the quality cache owners who want to hide one or two caches a year. Fewer and fewer quality cache owners are hiding caches.

They leave a lot of junk to rot, and active addicted cache owners will encourage the practice of throwdowns. Most will publicly thank the finder that reports the cache gone leaves a bison tube to claim a find.

Good luck BaylorGrad, those NM caches need to be NA'd before the next throwdown. Very few people will post an NA. You may have to live with the "cache cop" handle. But there will be others who will appreciate your efforts.

Edited February 21, 2016 by L0ne.R