Jump to content

Found an abandoned cache - now what?


BFG99

Recommended Posts

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

That, of course, would be theft.

Geocaching.com is not the only cache listing service out there, and the cache itself belongs not to you, not to Groundspeak, not to anyone but the CO.

 

When it comes down to a 98% chance of it being litter vs a 2% chance of it being an archived cache that is still viable on another listing site (and I do have a few cross-listed caches myself. None have ever been logged) I would opt in favor of removing the litter and being guilty of an extremely petty case of larceny. My vote goes to a clean environment.

Link to comment

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

That, of course, would be theft.

Geocaching.com is not the only cache listing service out there, and the cache itself belongs not to you, not to Groundspeak, not to anyone but the CO.

 

Then how do you regulate cache owners that are not responsible or do you just except it and allow it to continue?

Link to comment

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

That, of course, would be theft.

Geocaching.com is not the only cache listing service out there, and the cache itself belongs not to you, not to Groundspeak, not to anyone but the CO.

 

+1

 

I don't really see why this is so difficult to understand. Groundspeak has done a great job over the years of setting standards for the geocache listings they choose to publish. Those standards benefit everyone who plays the game (whether they realize it or not), but there is a limit to what they can reasonably take on.

 

I think it's tricky for newer caches to understand that, in a game where technology meets tromping through the woods, it's just not possible to govern everything with rules and algorithms, and that sometimes it's up to an individual cacher to make decisions based on the specific circumstances at hand.

 

It also seems to be difficult for some cachers to understand that there are very few instances where Groundspeak ever does anything that is really punitive toward cachers and cache owners. I know there have been some very specific instances of people being banned from using Geocaching.com, but it's very uncommon. They have their flaws, but they generally try to be collaborative, instructive, and constructive when dealing with geocachers.

 

I agree that Groundspeak does a good job considering the scope of what we're dealing with here. It just seems odd to me that we have all kinds of "enforceable" rules to place a cache and some guidelines on what should be done after that. I understand the challenges in trying to enforce the honor system but at least provide concrete guidelines so the caching public can figure out how to go about fixing the problem themselves.

Link to comment

Then how do you regulate cache owners that are not responsible or do you just except it and allow it to continue?

 

Why would you do that? Frankly, it's none of your business. Not your property, not your land.

 

If I care about the game and the environment I guess it is my business. It's kind of like a landfill. No one seems to care about it unless it's right next door to their house, then all of a sudden it's a problem and they can't understand why everyone else isn't outraged about it.

Link to comment

Then how do you regulate cache owners that are not responsible or do you just except it and allow it to continue?

 

Why would you do that? Frankly, it's none of your business. Not your property, not your land.

 

It becomes every geocachers business if there is a perception among land managers that geocaching becomes associated with unlawful behavior, whether it's littering, trespassing, or digging holes on public or private land.

 

 

Link to comment

Then how do you regulate cache owners that are not responsible or do you just except it and allow it to continue?

 

Why would you do that? Frankly, it's none of your business. Not your property, not your land.

 

The cache placement guidelines merely outline the parameters a cache owner must comply with to have the cache listed on Geocaching.com. How do they regulate anything cache owners are supposed to do? They don't really. They rely on people in the field to use their best judgment and report what they see.

 

The reviewer only verifies what she can see from her own computer. Nobody is going out and verifying caches are there. Nobody is holding a permanent grudge against a cache owner who makes a mistake.

 

Why would they take enormous efforts to verify that caches aren't there? Why does this one small issue require such a disproportionate response, with no precedent elsewhere in the game?

 

If you think a cache has been abandoned, offer to retrieve it. Then back off. If you know with reasonable certainty that a cache is not supposed to be where it is and you can retrieve it safely, go ahead (and put a note on the cache page). Why do you need Groundspeak to give you a pat on the head for exercising reasonable judgment and consideration?

 

So what is your next big idea to save the environment from geocaching? Ban people who are caught driving to geocaches? Ban plastic?

Link to comment
When it comes down to a 98% chance of it being litter vs a 2% chance of it being an archived cache that is still viable on another listing site (and I do have a few cross-listed caches myself. None have ever been logged) I would opt in favor of removing the litter and being guilty of an extremely petty case of larceny. My vote goes to a clean environment.

+1

 

EDIT: And if you're unsure, post a note on the archived cache's page and ask. No response? Remove the geo-litter. If the CO does have it listed elsewhere, he/she then knows who took it. I'm sure you'd be willing to put it back if it were still in play on another site.

Edited by TriciaG
Link to comment

Then how do you regulate cache owners that are not responsible or do you just except it and allow it to continue?

 

Why would you do that? Frankly, it's none of your business. Not your property, not your land.

 

I wonder if your attitude has something to do with you being in the U.K. perhaps? Because here, our public parks ARE our responsibility. As I said earlier, our land managers would frankly be appalled to see some of us advocating that we ignore (apparently) abandoned caches. They may not understand the nuances of the possibilities of caches being listed on some other site, but they most definitely understand litter.

Link to comment

 

+1

 

EDIT: And if you're unsure, post a note on the archived cache's page and ask. No response? Remove the geo-litter. If the CO does have it listed elsewhere, he/she then knows who took it. I'm sure you'd be willing to put it back if it were still in play on another site.

 

If the CO quit GC but is active elsewhere he/she may not know. There's no way to be sure is abandoned, so it's best to leave it. If you care about the environment there's plenty to clean up without going after something that's hidden in the first place.

 

Archived caches are no longer visible anyway (unless you go looking for them by GC code or other means) so why someone would go try to find one is really beyond me. Is it boredom? No other (still active) caches to find? I remove archived caches from my active GSAK database and wouldn't even think about going to find them.

Link to comment

I wonder if your attitude has something to do with you being in the U.K. perhaps?

 

??????? Why would I be in the UK?

Going by memory. I was wrong. But same question applies to Belgium.

 

PS: I am aware that one of the alternative sites is much more active in Europe than it is here, therefore, that may be influencing your opinion about this as well. Here, they are barely a ripple on the sea.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Then how do you regulate cache owners that are not responsible or do you just except it and allow it to continue?

 

Why would you do that? Frankly, it's none of your business. Not your property, not your land.

 

The cache placement guidelines merely outline the parameters a cache owner must comply with to have the cache listed on Geocaching.com. How do they regulate anything cache owners are supposed to do? They don't really. They rely on people in the field to use their best judgment and report what they see.

 

The reviewer only verifies what she can see from her own computer. Nobody is going out and verifying caches are there. Nobody is holding a permanent grudge against a cache owner who makes a mistake.

 

Why would they take enormous efforts to verify that caches aren't there? Why does this one small issue require such a disproportionate response, with no precedent elsewhere in the game?

 

If you think a cache has been abandoned, offer to retrieve it. Then back off. If you know with reasonable certainty that a cache is not supposed to be where it is and you can retrieve it safely, go ahead (and put a note on the cache page). Why do you need Groundspeak to give you a pat on the head for exercising reasonable judgment and consideration?

 

So what is your next big idea to save the environment from geocaching? Ban people who are caught driving to geocaches? Ban plastic?

 

I think we need to save the environment from ourselves.

 

Lets say there's a cache that's been abandoned and not being maintained. Why can't you as a cacher archive it yourself? Because it's personal property and there established steps that need to be followed before Groundspeak will do so, all designed to give the cache owner time to conform to the established rules. If the cache owner fails to respond the cache gets archived. The procedure is clear and Perfectly acceptable. Personal property or not the cache owner doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

To me the last step would be to get the container physically removed from the game. If the cache owner doesn't do it than it's just allowed to remain? Where dose Groundspeak stand on this? On one hand they state that after archival it should be removed. On the other hand they continue to allow finds on it suggesting that it's ok to be left there.

 

Allowing containers to become trash doesn't seem like the right position.

 

I'm not asking that Groundspeak employ thousands of individuals to sweep the world picking up after irresponsible people. I'm asking them to give me a little guidance so if need be I can do it myself.

Link to comment

 

+1

 

EDIT: And if you're unsure, post a note on the archived cache's page and ask. No response? Remove the geo-litter. If the CO does have it listed elsewhere, he/she then knows who took it. I'm sure you'd be willing to put it back if it were still in play on another site.

 

If the CO quit GC but is active elsewhere he/she may not know. There's no way to be sure is abandoned, so it's best to leave it. If you care about the environment there's plenty to clean up without going after something that's hidden in the first place.

 

Archived caches are no longer visible anyway (unless you go looking for them by GC code or other means) so why someone would go try to find one is really beyond me. Is it boredom? No other (still active) caches to find? I remove archived caches from my active GSAK database and wouldn't even think about going to find them.

 

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site. Now if it's archived and still present it's abandoned.

 

Make archived caches searchable but not log-able.

 

I realize that this is not the biggest problem in the world but it's still a problem.

Link to comment

I wonder if your attitude has something to do with you being in the U.K. perhaps?

 

??????? Why would I be in the UK?

Going by memory. I was wrong. But same question applies to Belgium.

 

Seeing how much trash there is abandoned caches are not really a problem. Want to do something for the environment have a CITO, you'll clean up more in an hour than you can by collecting abandoned caches in a year.

Abandoned (on gc) caches are a non-issue relative to all other trash.

 

<OT>We see full bags of trash in nature reserves, how they get there I don't understand. We can just put our trash in front of the house to be collected weekly and yet people go through the trouble of putting such a bag in their car, drive a certain distance, carry the bag into the woods to dump them. </OT>

Link to comment

 

+1

 

EDIT: And if you're unsure, post a note on the archived cache's page and ask. No response? Remove the geo-litter. If the CO does have it listed elsewhere, he/she then knows who took it. I'm sure you'd be willing to put it back if it were still in play on another site.

 

If the CO quit GC but is active elsewhere he/she may not know. There's no way to be sure is abandoned, so it's best to leave it. If you care about the environment there's plenty to clean up without going after something that's hidden in the first place.

When over 99% of the caches in one's area are ONLY listed on GC.com, the chances are VERY, VERY slim that the cache is listed elsewhere. I'll pay $100 to any CO whose cache I pick up that I shouldn't have because it's listed elsewhere, I'm so confident it doesn't happen in my area. In my area, it is NOT best to leave it.

 

And yes, there's plenty of other trash to pick up, but that doesn't mean these abandoned, not-listed-anywhere-else caches aren't also trash.

 

Archived caches are no longer visible anyway (unless you go looking for them by GC code or other means) so why someone would go try to find one is really beyond me. Is it boredom? No other (still active) caches to find? I remove archived caches from my active GSAK database and wouldn't even think about going to find them.

Note that the first post of this thread is from someone who found an abandoned, archived cache. It happens.

Link to comment

Note that the first post of this thread is from someone who found an abandoned, archived cache. It happens.

 

But it's extremely rare.

 

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site.

 

And yet, they are.

 

Would be a good way to stop that practice wouldn't it.

 

Why, not everyone is "married" to gc. Many caches on opencaching were listed here, many GA**** caches are also GC****

Link to comment

Note that the first post of this thread is from someone who found an abandoned, archived cache. It happens.

 

But it's extremely rare.

 

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site.

 

And yet, they are.

 

Would be a good way to stop that practice wouldn't it.

 

Why, not everyone is "married" to gc. Many caches on opencaching were listed here, many GA**** caches are also GC****

 

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

Link to comment

To me the last step would be to get the container physically removed from the game. If the cache owner doesn't do it than it's just allowed to remain? Where dose Groundspeak stand on this? On one hand they state that after archival it should be removed. On the other hand they continue to allow finds on it suggesting that it's ok to be left there.

I don't think it's fair to draw that implication. In a prior post I listed several valid reasons why an archived cache should be loggable. Late finds, split accounts and so forth. How about a challenge cache where you signed the log in 2014, the cache was archived in 2015, and you met the challenge requirements for an online find in 2017?

I'm not asking that Groundspeak employ thousands of individuals to sweep the world picking up after irresponsible people. I'm asking them to give me a little guidance so if need be I can do it myself.

Groundspeak has a clear position: "Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com." Officially the website cannot encourage the taking of someone else's property. At the same time, cache owners can be encouraged to pick up their container if it isn't in play anymore. As a reviewer, I remind owners of that each and every time I disable a cache listing in response to a "Needs Archived" log or other maintenance need. But I don't go out and take the container myself.

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site. Now if it's archived and still present it's abandoned.

It's the owner's cache container. They can list it wherever and whenever they want. If it were otherwise, there would be an even more contentious forum thread.

Link to comment

Note that the first post of this thread is from someone who found an abandoned, archived cache. It happens.

 

But it's extremely rare.

 

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site.

 

And yet, they are.

 

Would be a good way to stop that practice wouldn't it.

 

Why, not everyone is "married" to gc. Many caches on opencaching were listed here, many GA**** caches are also GC****

 

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

 

I am not familiar with a guideline that prohibits geocache owners from listing the geocaches they own on multiple geocache listing sites. To which guidelines are you referring?

 

It is worth noting that it's clearly outlined in the site disclaimer that "Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com."

Link to comment

I'm asking them to give me a little guidance so if need be I can do it myself.

 

It's not their place to give you that guidance. They don't own caches. If you want to take it upon yourself to take other people's caches, you must employ your own judgment in doing so.

 

If Groundspeak won't condone an archived geocache challenge that asks geocachers to remove containers, I really doubt it's going to put out an open call for people to do this. They politely request that owners do this themselves, because that's as far as they can take it.

 

This game is not operated with the top-down, authoritative, punitive structure you want to impose.

Link to comment

Note that the first post of this thread is from someone who found an abandoned, archived cache. It happens.

 

But it's extremely rare.

 

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site.

 

And yet, they are.

 

Would be a good way to stop that practice wouldn't it.

 

Why, not everyone is "married" to gc. Many caches on opencaching were listed here, many GA**** caches are also GC****

 

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

 

I am not familiar with a guideline that prohibits geocache owners from listing the geocaches they own on multiple geocache listing sites. To which guidelines are you referring?

 

It is worth noting that it's clearly outlined in the site disclaimer that "Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com."

 

It was more of a question as I'm not sure of the answer.

 

I understand the position "Hey, were just a listing site. We have no control over what people do after we approve the placement." Lets face it the liability associated with this game is huge.

 

My point is if your going to promote the placement of geocaches as a business you should promote the removal of these containers when they are no longer part of the game. Isn't the idea of CITO to clean up our environment and keep the areas we play this game in clean. How is this any different?

Link to comment

Note that the first post of this thread is from someone who found an abandoned, archived cache. It happens.

 

But it's extremely rare.

 

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site.

 

And yet, they are.

 

Would be a good way to stop that practice wouldn't it.

 

Why, not everyone is "married" to gc. Many caches on opencaching were listed here, many GA**** caches are also GC****

 

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

 

I am not familiar with a guideline that prohibits geocache owners from listing the geocaches they own on multiple geocache listing sites. To which guidelines are you referring?

 

It is worth noting that it's clearly outlined in the site disclaimer that "Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com."

 

It was more of a question as I'm not sure of the answer.

 

I understand the position "Hey, were just a listing site. We have no control over what people do after we approve the placement." Lets face it the liability associated with this game is huge.

 

My point is if your going to promote the placement of geocaches as a business you should promote the removal of these containers when they are no longer part of the game. Isn't the idea of CITO to clean up our environment and keep the areas we play this game in clean. How is this any different?

 

As far as I am aware, CITO doesn't involve asking swaths of people to take other people's stuff because it isn't listed on a website. Perhaps it's different where you live.

 

Groundspeak does ask cache owners to remove containers when they are no longer part of the game. They can't ask other geocachers to go around taking other people's things.

Link to comment

I wonder if your attitude has something to do with you being in the U.K. perhaps?

 

??????? Why would I be in the UK?

Going by memory. I was wrong. But same question applies to Belgium.

 

Seeing how much trash there is abandoned caches are not really a problem. Want to do something for the environment have a CITO, you'll clean up more in an hour than you can by collecting abandoned caches in a year.

Abandoned (on gc) caches are a non-issue relative to all other trash.

 

<OT>We see full bags of trash in nature reserves, how they get there I don't understand. We can just put our trash in front of the house to be collected weekly and yet people go through the trouble of putting such a bag in their car, drive a certain distance, carry the bag into the woods to dump them. </OT>

 

Sorry, but in my parks, any trash is trash.

Link to comment

 

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

As others have said above me, yes. That is allowable. Not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't, but there are cross-listed caches although at least some alternate sites do try to encourage folks to not do that.

 

By the way, there is nothing stopping you from creating accounts on those other sites for the purpose of checking for f the archived cache that you want to remove. Not a bad idea at all, really

Link to comment

Note that the first post of this thread is from someone who found an abandoned, archived cache. It happens.

 

But it's extremely rare.

 

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site.

 

And yet, they are.

 

Would be a good way to stop that practice wouldn't it.

 

Why, not everyone is "married" to gc. Many caches on opencaching were listed here, many GA**** caches are also GC****

 

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

 

I am not familiar with a guideline that prohibits geocache owners from listing the geocaches they own on multiple geocache listing sites. To which guidelines are you referring?

 

It is worth noting that it's clearly outlined in the site disclaimer that "Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com."

 

It was more of a question as I'm not sure of the answer.

 

I understand the position "Hey, were just a listing site. We have no control over what people do after we approve the placement." Lets face it the liability associated with this game is huge.

 

My point is if your going to promote the placement of geocaches as a business you should promote the removal of these containers when they are no longer part of the game. Isn't the idea of CITO to clean up our environment and keep the areas we play this game in clean. How is this any different?

 

As far as I am aware, CITO doesn't involve asking swaths of people to take other people's stuff because it isn't listed on a website. Perhaps it's different where you live.

 

Groundspeak does ask cache owners to remove containers when they are no longer part of the game. They can't ask other geocachers to go around taking other people's things.

 

Not expecting Groundspeak to ask other cachers to remove abandoned caches. I'm asking for a set of tools and guidelines that will allow the people who would like to clean them up be able to.

Link to comment

 

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

As others have said above me, yes. That is allowable. Not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't, but there are cross-listed caches although at least some alternate sites do try to encourage folks to not do that.

 

By the way, there is nothing stopping you from creating accounts on those other sites for the purpose of checking for f the archived cache that you want to remove. Not a bad idea at all, really

 

Thanks. Searching other listing sites is certainly doable. Was just trying to streamline the process.

Link to comment

Not expecting Groundspeak to ask other cachers to remove abandoned caches. I'm asking for a set of tools and guidelines that will allow the people who would like to clean them up be able to.

 

That amounts to the same thing. I really don't see them suddenly creating "tools and guidelines" condoning interference with other people's property because the thought of an inert plastic container in the woods is keeping you up at night.

Link to comment

To me the last step would be to get the container physically removed from the game. If the cache owner doesn't do it than it's just allowed to remain? Where dose Groundspeak stand on this? On one hand they state that after archival it should be removed. On the other hand they continue to allow finds on it suggesting that it's ok to be left there.

I don't think it's fair to draw that implication. In a prior post I listed several valid reasons why an archived cache should be loggable. Late finds, split accounts and so forth. How about a challenge cache where you signed the log in 2014, the cache was archived in 2015, and you met the challenge requirements for an online find in 2017?

I'm not asking that Groundspeak employ thousands of individuals to sweep the world picking up after irresponsible people. I'm asking them to give me a little guidance so if need be I can do it myself.

Groundspeak has a clear position: "Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com." Officially the website cannot encourage the taking of someone else's property. At the same time, cache owners can be encouraged to pick up their container if it isn't in play anymore. As a reviewer, I remind owners of that each and every time I disable a cache listing in response to a "Needs Archived" log or other maintenance need. But I don't go out and take the container myself.

If you list a cache on Geocaching.com, that particular cache can't be listed on any other site. Now if it's archived and still present it's abandoned.

It's the owner's cache container. They can list it wherever and whenever they want. If it were otherwise, there would be an even more contentious forum thread.

 

Here's the rub. Liability. If you don't own the cache your not liable for any aspect of it. We'll cross our fingers and hope for the best but when the rubber meets the road it's not our problem. If your the listing site, and your site makes it possible for these containers to be placed, than it seems to me you should take a "definite" roll in trying to make sure they get cleaned up.

 

There are ways to handle all the valid reasons to log an archived cache without basically keeping it active.

 

I can't see any valid reason to treat this issue as if it's no big deal.

Link to comment

Not expecting Groundspeak to ask other cachers to remove abandoned caches. I'm asking for a set of tools and guidelines that will allow the people who would like to clean them up be able to.

 

That amounts to the same thing. I really don't see them suddenly creating "tools and guidelines" condoning interference with other people's property because the thought of an inert plastic container in the woods is keeping you up at night.

 

Many things keep me up at night. Indifference to these type of things is just one of them.

Link to comment

If your the listing site, and your site makes it possible for these containers to be placed, than it seems to me you should take a "definite" roll in trying to make sure they get cleaned up.

 

If you're the listing site, your site only makes it possible for other people to obtain the coordinates needed to find the cache.

 

Nobody needs a website to put a geocache out.

Link to comment

If your the listing site, and your site makes it possible for these containers to be placed, than it seems to me you should take a "definite" roll in trying to make sure they get cleaned up.

 

If you're the listing site, your site only makes it possible for other people to obtain the coordinates needed to find the cache.

 

Nobody needs a website to put a geocache out.

+1

 

Geocaching.com is a "listing" service. They have guidelines for where geocaches can be for the caches that they "list". Someone can place containers every 100 ft along a trail, but Geocaching.com will not "list" all of those caches based on the site's guidelines (528 ft). If a cache appears to be abandoned and the CO does not respond after a Reviewer disables the cache listing, then Geocaching.com can archive the cache listing and asks the CO to pick up the container. The site can't control what the CO actually does though. What if the CO died or otherwise became incapacitated?

 

The hobby is community-based, so the community needs to decide how archived caches are handled. The site does provide some tools, like providing ways to communicate with other cachers and the CO, but the site can only do so much. For instance, the site can't confirm that the email address a CO provides in their profile is actually their current email address. The site facilitates the hobby, but it doesn't own/control the hobby.

Link to comment

If your the listing site, and your site makes it possible for these containers to be placed, than it seems to me you should take a "definite" roll in trying to make sure they get cleaned up.

 

If you're the listing site, your site only makes it possible for other people to obtain the coordinates needed to find the cache.

 

Nobody needs a website to put a geocache out.

 

If it's just a listing site why are there rules imposed on hiding a cache?

Link to comment

If your the listing site, and your site makes it possible for these containers to be placed, than it seems to me you should take a "definite" roll in trying to make sure they get cleaned up.

 

If you're the listing site, your site only makes it possible for other people to obtain the coordinates needed to find the cache.

 

Nobody needs a website to put a geocache out.

 

If it's just a listing site why are there rules imposed on hiding a cache?

 

There are guidelines you need to follow if you would like your cache listing to be published on this particular website.

 

If you'd prefer to hide a geocache on your own and hand out the coordinates by email or on scraps of paper or something, Geocaching.com has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment

If your the listing site, and your site makes it possible for these containers to be placed, than it seems to me you should take a "definite" roll in trying to make sure they get cleaned up.

 

If you're the listing site, your site only makes it possible for other people to obtain the coordinates needed to find the cache.

 

Nobody needs a website to put a geocache out.

+1

 

Geocaching.com is a "listing" service. They have guidelines for where geocaches can be for the caches that they "list". Someone can place containers every 100 ft along a trail, but Geocaching.com will not "list" all of those caches based on the site's guidelines (528 ft). If a cache appears to be abandoned and the CO does not respond after a Reviewer disables the cache listing, then Geocaching.com can archive the cache listing and asks the CO to pick up the container. The site can't control what the CO actually does though. What if the CO died or otherwise became incapacitated?

 

The hobby is community-based, so the community needs to decide how archived caches are handled. The site does provide some tools, like providing ways to communicate with other cachers and the CO, but the site can only do so much. For instance, the site can't confirm that the email address a CO provides in their profile is actually their current email address. The site facilitates the hobby, but it doesn't own/control the hobby.

 

How can the community do that without the support of the site?

 

That's kind of my point. There is no control for this aspect of the game and the "personal property" designation allows that to be possible. If everyone would follow the suggestions this wouldn't be a problem. But we all know that's not what generally happens.

 

So where do we go from here? We can continue to ignore the problem and allow it to get worse, or we can decide to do something about it. Any real effort to clean up this aspect of the game will have to be supported by Groundspeak.

Link to comment

How can the community do that without the support of the site?

 

The same way that geocaching communities quietly work together to deal with most of the other problems that are not reasonably within Groundspeak's control. By just rolling up their sleeves, doing it, and posting a note on the cache page. And, occasionally, facing the wrath of a cache owner or a cacher who doesn't like it.

Link to comment

How can the community do that without the support of the site?

 

That's kind of my point. There is no control for this aspect of the game and the "personal property" designation allows that to be possible. If everyone would follow the suggestions this wouldn't be a problem. But we all know that's not what generally happens.

Do you think that Groundspeak can control people's actions? They are a listing site and they provide resources for cachers to communicate with each other, but they do not have any 'control' over cachers beyond that.

 

In the 'real world', there are laws. That doesn't mean that everyone obeys those laws. However, in the real world people that get caught breaking the law can be reprimanded and thrown in jail. Of course, some people break the law and are never brought to justice. No system is 100%.

 

In the 'geocaching world', there are guidelines. Not everyone follows those guidelines. However, in the geocaching world the only punishment is to be banned from the website and/or to have caches archived. It seems like you want cachers to be punished beyond this, but there is no 'geocaching jail'.

 

Or do you want cachers to follow the rules? That would be great, but unfortunately it's not realistic to expect that everyone is going to follow the guidelines. Many cachers don't even read the guidelines. I think it's important to have realistic expectations. If you want Groundspeak to be involved in 'cleaning up' archived caches, then what do you propose? They currently ask CO's to remove their caches when those cache listings are archived, what more do you want them to do? I think we agree that it's not realistic to expect Lackeys to physically check every cache location to make sure the cache is gone.

Link to comment

Dose Groundspeak allow you to list the same cache on two different sites?

As others have said above me, yes. That is allowable. Not sure where you got the idea that it wasn't, but there are cross-listed caches although at least some alternate sites do try to encourage folks to not do that.

 

By the way, there is nothing stopping you from creating accounts on those other sites for the purpose of checking for f the archived cache that you want to remove. Not a bad idea at all, really

 

Thanks. Searching other listing sites is certainly doable. Was just trying to streamline the process.

 

You will not be able to streamline that part of the process.

Link to comment

I think you are overblowing the situation too. A cache has a lifespan. At the end of its lifespan, it gets archived.

 

Many times, the reason for archival is that the cache has already gone missing. This is especially true in the case where it is an 'unresponsive owner/reviewer archived' situation. In this case there generally is nothing to retrieve.

Other times, the cache has run its course, and the owner archives it, and in this case, since they are an active owner, they very well might go back out and retrieve it. If not, well bad on them. So you found one of those. Take it and make it go away ... problem solved.

 

I just really don't see that there are millions of abandoned caches out in the woods. Discarded drink bottles that people have dropped all over, that is another thing all together. CITO!!!

Link to comment

I think you are overblowing the situation too. A cache has a lifespan. At the end of its lifespan, it gets archived.

 

Many times, the reason for archival is that the cache has already gone missing. This is especially true in the case where it is an 'unresponsive owner/reviewer archived' situation. In this case there generally is nothing to retrieve.

Other times, the cache has run its course, and the owner archives it, and in this case, since they are an active owner, they very well might go back out and retrieve it. If not, well bad on them. So you found one of those. Take it and make it go away ... problem solved.

 

I just really don't see that there are millions of abandoned caches out in the woods. Discarded drink bottles that people have dropped all over, that is another thing all together. CITO!!!

 

No doubt I'm blowing this way out of proportion but only to make a point.

 

Don't just consider archived caches. Think about how many active caches that are out there not being maintained. These will be archived at some point. How many of them will be removed. How many caches are out there right now compaired to 5 years ago? How many more will there be 5 years from now?

 

I guess I'm surprised at the lack of indifference I've found here. I would have bet that most geocachers would see this as a problem and want to clean it up. If I were geocaching and found an empty water bottle I'd pick it up because it's trash and I believe in protecting our environment. We as geocachers won't hesitate to pick up other peoples trash but were ok with leaving our own.

Link to comment

I think you are overblowing the situation too. A cache has a lifespan. At the end of its lifespan, it gets archived.

 

Many times, the reason for archival is that the cache has already gone missing. This is especially true in the case where it is an 'unresponsive owner/reviewer archived' situation. In this case there generally is nothing to retrieve.

Other times, the cache has run its course, and the owner archives it, and in this case, since they are an active owner, they very well might go back out and retrieve it. If not, well bad on them. So you found one of those. Take it and make it go away ... problem solved.

 

I just really don't see that there are millions of abandoned caches out in the woods. Discarded drink bottles that people have dropped all over, that is another thing all together. CITO!!!

 

No doubt I'm blowing this way out of proportion but only to make a point.

 

Don't just consider archived caches. Think about how many active caches that are out there not being maintained. These will be archived at some point. How many of them will be removed. How many caches are out there right now compaired to 5 years ago? How many more will there be 5 years from now?

 

I guess I'm surprised at the lack of indifference I've found here. I would have bet that most geocachers would see this as a problem and want to clean it up. If I were geocaching and found an empty water bottle I'd pick it up because it's trash and I believe in protecting our environment. We as geocachers won't hesitate to pick up other peoples trash but were ok with leaving our own.

 

We're all aware of the problem.

 

This isn't a matter of indifference. It's a matter of what is, and is not, a reasonable way to approach this.

 

Asking Groundspeak to change its entire purpose and completely redesign the way it facilitates the game in order to appease your concerns is not a reasonable solution. Your proposed solutions are labour-intensive and needlessly antagonistic toward cachers and cache owners.

 

The reasonable solution is applying your best judgment, communicating in a constructive fashion with other cachers when you have concerns, removing a cache if you honestly believe it shouldn't be there, and writing a note on the cache page so the cache owner can get their property back from you if they want to.

Link to comment

I have a question - not sure if this is the best place to ask or if it will be lost in the 3 pages of "discussion" I just slogged through.

 

A friend and I accidentally found a cache today. No cell service where it was located for me to look it up on the app, so I snapped a couple of pictures of it and figured I'd check it out and log the find when I got home.

 

I can't find it. It does not show up on the map. I found a reference to project-gc and tried looking it up there with no luck, either. Couldn't find the username, as well.

 

I don't remember the last time the log was signed, but it was years ago. Only two entries in the log, too.

 

Here are the pictures. I thought caches were never removed from the system, only archived?

 

I signed the log and we replaced the cache. It was pretty damp, but in remarkably good shape considering the years it had been hidden.

 

26557170556_c25380ac35_c.jpg

 

26583366235_de007584cf_c.jpg

Link to comment

I have a question - not sure if this is the best place to ask or if it will be lost in the 3 pages of "discussion" I just slogged through.

 

A friend and I accidentally found a cache today. No cell service where it was located for me to look it up on the app, so I snapped a couple of pictures of it and figured I'd check it out and log the find when I got home.

 

I can't find it. It does not show up on the map. I found a reference to project-gc and tried looking it up there with no luck, either. Couldn't find the username, as well.

 

I don't remember the last time the log was signed, but it was years ago. Only two entries in the log, too.

 

Here are the pictures. I thought caches were never removed from the system, only archived?

 

I signed the log and we replaced the cache. It was pretty damp, but in remarkably good shape considering the years it had been hidden.

 

26557170556_c25380ac35_c.jpg

 

26583366235_de007584cf_c.jpg

 

Do you remember any names in the log? It is possible that it was just never published...

Link to comment

I searched for all caches worldwide with "Birthday Bash" in the cache name, and searched for caches hidden by usernames beginning with "Scotian." (I think that name is "Scotian 6.") So far I'm drawing a blank. It's possible that the cache was never submitted for review. (Reviewers can see unpublished and archived caches in search results.) Or, the owner could've changed their mind about the cache name.

 

I see your cache finds are in New Hampshire. There is an account, "Scotians6," based in New Hampton, New Hampshire. They created two cache listings in 2007, neither with a name anything close to "Birthday Bash." One was published and then archived in 2010 after accumulating 50 "found it" logs. The other cache was never published due to its close proximity to an existing cache. It is very near the Pemigewasset River, just south of Route 104. Could that be the one?

Link to comment

Yes, that's got to be the one! It is within sight of the river. There aren't any other currently active caches within a mile or so, though, as far as I could tell. Closest one is GC40QC3.

 

What was the unpublished one named? This one was definitely birthday-themed, one of the items inside was a package of birthday candles and the first log said something about a birthday boy - should have snapped a picture of it as well but I didn't think it was going to be hard to find anything out about it. :-)

 

Maybe I'll E-mail the owners if their address is still good and let them know it was found, 9 years later.

 

Thanks for the detective work!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...