Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+Team Microdot]

What about set-em-and-succomb-to-the-effects-of-aging/accidents/disease? Some CO's from the 'early days' that used 'classic' containers (ammo cans) and placed them in 'attractive' locations have gotten old/injured/sick and left the hobby. If their cache is in good shape, then should it be archived because they can't participate in the game anymore to do maintenance? Some of them may still be able to monitor cache emails and get enjoyment from the experiences of cachers that find their 'ownerless' caches.

Could the CO place their cache on their watch list so that they can still get enjoyment of the experiences of cachers that find their cache and then adopt the cache over to a new owner who isn't too old/injured/sick to maintain it?

Yes - as long as they are not so ill, or dead, that it's impossible for them to initiate the adoption tool. And as long as they know how to find a cacher willing to adopt. If the CO's do not use FB groups and don't know a lot of still active cachers in their area, then they may not know how to find potential adopters.

Well, so long as they're not actually dead, a note to the cache page offering it up for adoption might be a reasonable place to start.

Yes - I've seen that done a few times, on caches that I hadn't found yet. Unfortunately, cachers that already find a cache and liked it enough to consider adopting are not very likely to be watching or revisiting cache pages. But yes, there are ways to adopt out caches if a CO is no longer able. That option doesn't negate my POV that caches shouldn't be removed from geocaching.com just because the CO is no longer active, which was the idea presented in the posts I quoted a few posts up.

But that's what the guidelines expect / require.

 

Do you think the guidelines shouldn't expect / require that?

Expect/require what, exactly?

 

Expect/require that a CO be 'active' or else their cache will be removed (archived) from the listing site? No. My personal opinion is that a problem-free cache shouldn't be archived just because the CO is out of the picture.

The last 2 sentences in the paragraph you quoted were "If the cache is archived solely because the owner is no longer active in the hobby, then the cache container is still going to be out there. It's not going to magically disappear from the globe because it's no longer listed on geocaching.com"

 

Expect/require that a CO adopt out their cache if they're incapacitate? No

I think it would be a good move, but I don't think a problem-free cache should be archived if the inactive CO can't find another cacher to adopt.

 

The guidelines say that caches "may" be archived if unmaintained. It doesn't say "will". I think it's smart that GS has worded it that way. As we've seen in this thread, and others over the years, different cachers have different ideas of what 'maintenance' means.

 

Seems quite specific to me if you READ THIS

 

Which says:

 

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your listing.

[+WearyTraveler]

It has been very interesting reading everyone's views on this subject. When someone logs a NM, and then says they couldn't find it, I ask them to change the log to a DNF. This is on the grounds that if they haven't found my cache then how do they know it needs maintenance? If I get a couple of DNFs then I go and check on the cache but if I receive just one NM then I immediately go and sort out the container. Presumably the point of view on this topic is that sometimes a NM rather than a DNF is the only way to get a CO's attention.

Yeppers...

[+barefootjeff]

You think an ownerless cache is ok as long as it's in good shape. I don't.

 

I still don't see a valid reason for your disdain for this situation, other than a lack of commitment on the CO's part. How is a cache in good shape, but without an owner, hurting the game? When it comes to the actual cache, how is it any different than a good cache with an active owner? In essence, as I understand it, you believe it would be OK for Groundspeak to initiate a purge of all ownerless caches from their database simply because they don't have active COs.

 

Why does this good cache, by all standards currently in place, deserve to be removed from the listing while there are plenty more caches out there with active owners who don't maintain their caches and expect to have maintenance issues cleared up by the largesse of future seekers? I think that percentage of caches is MUCH higher than the percentage of ownerless caches on the database.

Groundspeak requires that listings on their website be owned and maintained by active geocachers.

That is the standard.

 

A physical cache of an inactive owner doesn't stop being a geocache if it's archived on geocaching.com. But it does cease to have an active geocache listing as defined and required by GS. The listing has no "right" to remain active, whether or not its owner is active. (and regardless of how much we love the cache and/or listing)

How do you define an active geocacher? I ask because there are several people around here who no longer go looking for caches but still respond to issues on the caches they hid while they were active. They may not have found any caches or even logged into the website for several years but they still get the emails and pay attention to the NMs.

[+barefootjeff]

When someone logs a NM, and then says they couldn't find it, I ask them to change the log to a DNF. This is on the grounds that if they haven't found my cache then how do they know it needs maintenance?

I've logged a couple NM logs in situations where I hadn't found the cache. Generally, this has been when GZ was firmly inside a construction zone or something like that, making access impossible. So either the cache needed to be disabled during construction, or the coordinates were really badly off.

 

But yeah, that's the exception.

 

If I get a couple of DNFs then I go and check on the cache but if I receive just one NM then I immediately go and sort out the container. Presumably the point of view on this topic is that sometimes a NM rather than a DNF is the only way to get a CO's attention.

I doubt there is such a thing as "the point of view on this topic".

 

But this thread started because someone got a "visit it or archive it" email from Groundspeak for a high-terrain cache that had a single DNF (from a geocacher who logged a Find several days later). So that's the question: Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance? For that matter, do "a couple of DNFs" really mean a cache needs maintenance? After how many DNFs is a CO obligated to visit the cache location and/or perform maintenance? Does the text of those DNF logs matter, or only the fact that they are DNF logs?

 

A couple of my Favorites are well-camouflaged D4 caches. They collect DNFs routinely. (They also collect Find logs that refer to past attempts, even though no DNFs were logged, but that's a different topic.) And after several DNFs that announce that these D4 caches "must be missing", the COs typically post an OM log that says that they checked on their cache, and it's right were it's supposed to be.

 

So I lean against the position that the CO is obligated to check on a cache just because a DNF log was posted.

Across my 24 active hides I've had a total of 33 DNFs, the highest being 9 on one cache, but none of them was due to a problem with the cache. They were all either because the seeker was looking in the "obvious" but wrong place or looking at it but not seeing it, or were for reasons unrelated to the cache like failing light, approaching storms or pesky muggles. DNFs like these don't need any response from the CO.

[+noncentric]

The guidelines say that caches "may" be archived if unmaintained. It doesn't say "will". I think it's smart that GS has worded it that way. As we've seen in this thread, and others over the years, different cachers have different ideas of what 'maintenance' means.

Seems quite specific to me if you READ THIS

 

Which says:

 

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your listing.

In an ideal world, yes - cachers that lose interest will retrieve/archive. But in the real world, they have lost interest in geocaching and aren't going to do it. And in the cases of ill/dead CO's, they simply can't.

 

Do you agree with posting NM's on caches because the CO hasn't marked a TB as missing, which is also one of the responsibilities listed on that page? There is a local cacher that has logged NM's on several caches for just that reason.

What about posting NM's on caches if the CO doesn't delete a log that you deem to be inappropriate? That's another responsibility on that page.

 

If a cacher doesn't fulfill their responsibilities, then 'punish' that cacher - not the innocent cache that's just sitting out there, dry, intact, and patiently waiting for another visitor.

[+justintim1999]

You think an ownerless cache is ok as long as it's in good shape. I don't.

 

I still don't see a valid reason for your disdain for this situation, other than a lack of commitment on the CO's part. How is a cache in good shape, but without an owner, hurting the game? When it comes to the actual cache, how is it any different than a good cache with an active owner? In essence, as I understand it, you believe it would be OK for Groundspeak to initiate a purge of all ownerless caches from their database simply because they don't have active COs.

 

Why does this good cache, by all standards currently in place, deserve to be removed from the listing while there are plenty more caches out there with active owners who don't maintain their caches and expect to have maintenance issues cleared up by the largesse of future seekers? I think that percentage of caches is MUCH higher than the percentage of ownerless caches on the database.

Groundspeak requires that listings on their website be owned and maintained by active geocachers.

That is the standard.

 

A physical cache of an inactive owner doesn't stop being a geocache if it's archived on geocaching.com. But it does cease to have an active geocache listing as defined and required by GS. The listing has no "right" to remain active, whether or not its owner is active. (and regardless of how much we love the cache and/or listing)

[+justintim1999]

You think an ownerless cache is ok as long as it's in good shape. I don't.

 

I still don't see a valid reason for your disdain for this situation, other than a lack of commitment on the CO's part. How is a cache in good shape, but without an owner, hurting the game? When it comes to the actual cache, how is it any different than a good cache with an active owner? In essence, as I understand it, you believe it would be OK for Groundspeak to initiate a purge of all ownerless caches from their database simply because they don't have active COs.

 

Why does this good cache, by all standards currently in place, deserve to be removed from the listing while there are plenty more caches out there with active owners who don't maintain their caches and expect to have maintenance issues cleared up by the largesse of future seekers? I think that percentage of caches is MUCH higher than the percentage of ownerless caches on the database.

Groundspeak requires that listings on their website be owned and maintained by active geocachers.

That is the standard.

 

A physical cache of an inactive owner doesn't stop being a geocache if it's archived on geocaching.com. But it does cease to have an active geocache listing as defined and required by GS. The listing has no "right" to remain active, whether or not its owner is active. (and regardless of how much we love the cache and/or listing)

 

When you choose to list your geocache on their website you agreed to all their rules and guidelines. You agreed to be responsible for maintenance as well as removing the container when exiting the game. We can argue caches on multiple listing sites but You probably know where I shake out on that one.

[+justintim1999]

You think an ownerless cache is ok as long as it's in good shape. I don't.

I still don't see a valid reason for your disdain for this situation, other than a lack of commitment on the CO's part. How is a cache in good shape, but without an owner, hurting the game? When it comes to the actual cache, how is it any different than a good cache with an active owner? In essence, as I understand it, you believe it would be OK for Groundspeak to initiate a purge of all ownerless caches from their database simply because they don't have active COs.

 

Why does this good cache, by all standards currently in place, deserve to be removed from the listing while there are plenty more caches out there with active owners who don't maintain their caches and expect to have maintenance issues cleared up by the largesse of future seekers? I think that percentage of caches is MUCH higher than the percentage of ownerless caches on the database.

Groundspeak requires that listings on their website be owned and maintained by active geocachers.

That is the standard.

 

A physical cache of an inactive owner doesn't stop being a geocache if it's archived on geocaching.com. But it does cease to have an active geocache listing as defined and required by GS. The listing has no "right" to remain active, whether or not its owner is active. (and regardless of how much we love the cache and/or listing)

I've seen this assertion that a 'cache must have an owner to be listed on geocaching.com', but can someone locate the actual guideline that says that? I mean, of course a cache had to have an owner to get listed in the first place. But where is it stated that the cache must have an 'active' owner in order to remain listed? Again, talking about caches in good condition, not those that need maintenance.

I see that GS "may" (not "will") disable and/or archive a cache that isn't maintained, but I don't see where it says anything about the CO being active or not. I'm sure justintim1999 and maybe others would like it to say "will".

 

I also want to make clear that I'm not against ownerless caches being disabled and then archived if they're in bad shape. That's the tool we have in place to get rid of problem/bad caches that either have COs who wish to NOT perform maintenance or who have chosen to abandon their listing. They're treated the same, regardless of whether or not the owner is still around. The same standard should be applied for caches in good shape as well, regardless of the status of the CO.

+1

 

Isn't it implied that some conscious entity would be required to hide and maintain the container? Self hiding and self maintaining geocaches? Wouldn't that be grand.

[+justintim1999]

You think an ownerless cache is ok as long as it's in good shape. I don't.

 

I still don't see a valid reason for your disdain for this situation, other than a lack of commitment on the CO's part. How is a cache in good shape, but without an owner, hurting the game? When it comes to the actual cache, how is it any different than a good cache with an active owner? In essence, as I understand it, you believe it would be OK for Groundspeak to initiate a purge of all ownerless caches from their database simply because they don't have active COs.

 

Why does this good cache, by all standards currently in place, deserve to be removed from the listing while there are plenty more caches out there with active owners who don't maintain their caches and expect to have maintenance issues cleared up by the largesse of future seekers? I think that percentage of caches is MUCH higher than the percentage of ownerless caches on the database.

Groundspeak requires that listings on their website be owned and maintained by active geocachers.

That is the standard.

 

A physical cache of an inactive owner doesn't stop being a geocache if it's archived on geocaching.com. But it does cease to have an active geocache listing as defined and required by GS. The listing has no "right" to remain active, whether or not its owner is active. (and regardless of how much we love the cache and/or listing)

How do you define an active geocacher? I ask because there are several people around here who no longer go looking for caches but still respond to issues on the caches they hid while they were active. They may not have found any caches or even logged into the website for several years but they still get the emails and pay attention to the NMs.

 

To me they qualify as an active cache owner.

[+coachstahly]

When you choose to list your geocache on their website you agreed to all their rules and guidelines. You agreed to be responsible for maintenance as well as removing the container when exiting the game. We can argue caches on multiple listing sites but You probably know where I shake out on that one.

So why hasn't Groundspeak chosen to do anything about these abandoned caches, regardless of the shape they might be in? It appears they have the ability to do so, so I'm looking for a reason they haven't been proactive in this case. I'm not asking this in a rhetorical manner. I'd like someone who wants abandoned caches to be removed from the database to supply a possible reason (or reasons) as to why Groundspeak hasn't done just such a thing.

 

It's my conjecture that the problem isn't as big as some people are making it out to be as well as the fact that there are tools already in place to get them removed from the listing database once they reach a point where a NM log is filed.

 

The other end of the spectrum, but one which I don't ascribe to, is that this will affect such a large number of caches that it will seriously affect the game across the globe.

 

Isn't it implied that some conscious entity would be required to hide and maintain the container? Self hiding and self maintaining geocaches? Wouldn't that be grand.

If the container is a really good one, it can last years without issues. I have an ammo can that I've visited 3 times in 7 years that's in the same shape as it was when I hid it (and I live about 5 miles away so ease of maintaining it isn't an issue). I know there are some other old, ownerless caches that are ammo cans that are in great shape as well. Why should they be removed from the database when there are no maintenance issues to speak of? Once there's an issue, file the appropriate NM, wait a bit to see if it's addressed (it won't be, it's ownerless), and then file the appropriate NA.

 

I'm REALLY struggling to understand this palpable disdain for ownerless caches that are in good shape, especially when there are owned caches out there with COs who either don't perform maintenance or expect others to do it for them. Why aren't you crusading against those types of owners since they have the actual ability to fix and maintain their caches? Getting active COs to maintain their caches would be the most direct way to influence cache quality, much more so than focusing on ownerless caches with no possibility of maintenance by the CO. Seeing as how you constantly are referring to the agreement between the CO and Groundspeak, it's my assumption you want to hold them accountable as well, but I see more posts from you about ownerless caches (at least on this thread) than I do about active COs who shirk their responsibilities as it pertains to maintenance.

[+WearyTraveler]

I think that the majority of folks would rather see caches in bad condition, whether ownerless or not, be fixed by the owner or physically removed..

 

I don't think that a majority want caches in good condition removed whether or not the CO is around.

 

True - all COs agree to maintain. And if there's no need to go out and fix anything, as long as you get out and fix when there's a problem, you're pretty much holding up your end of the bargain.

 

I have never had someone come back to me with "you stole my cache!" After having their trashed geotrash container removed and I don't personally know anyone who has had that happen.

 

I'm sure there are some in this thread with an example or two, but with over 3 million caches and 7 million cachers, even a hundred instances (while not a good thing) does not constitute a boatload...

 

I plan to continue to fix what I can, NM and NA what needs it, and if I NA or come across geotrash, I'll probably move it to the trailhead and send the owner a note telling him that I just made it easy for him (or his delegate) to pick up the trash...

[+L0ne.R]

You think an ownerless cache is ok as long as it's in good shape. I don't.

 

I still don't see a valid reason for your disdain for this situation, other than a lack of commitment on the CO's part. How is a cache in good shape, but without an owner, hurting the game? When it comes to the actual cache, how is it any different than a good cache with an active owner? In essence, as I understand it, you believe it would be OK for Groundspeak to initiate a purge of all ownerless caches from their database simply because they don't have active COs.

 

Why does this good cache, by all standards currently in place, deserve to be removed from the listing while there are plenty more caches out there with active owners who don't maintain their caches and expect to have maintenance issues cleared up by the largesse of future seekers? I think that percentage of caches is MUCH higher than the percentage of ownerless caches on the database.

Groundspeak requires that listings on their website be owned and maintained by active geocachers.

That is the standard.

 

A physical cache of an inactive owner doesn't stop being a geocache if it's archived on geocaching.com. But it does cease to have an active geocache listing as defined and required by GS. The listing has no "right" to remain active, whether or not its owner is active. (and regardless of how much we love the cache and/or listing)

How do you define an active geocacher? I ask because there are several people around here who no longer go looking for caches but still respond to issues on the caches they hid while they were active. They may not have found any caches or even logged into the website for several years but they still get the emails and pay attention to the NMs.

 

The cache listing is part of the responsibility of cache ownership. If the CO gets an NM log they should post an OM log once they have checked the cache and fixed any problems.

 

Groundspeak can clear their database of abandoned cache listings.

 

From the Help Centre Ownership after publication section:

 

Owner Maintenance

: Tell geocachers and reviewers that you have visited your geocache and

performed maintenance

. This will remove the

needs maintenance icon

.

 

Maintenance

: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. Post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.

 

Answer your reviewer with a “Write Note” on the cache page and let them know when you will do maintenance.

 

Disable

: If you cannot check on your geocache within a few days, disable your cache listing. In the log, include the date on which you will do maintenance. After you maintained your cache, enable your listing and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.

 

Archive

: If you decide that it’s time for your cache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

 

Cache owners are responsible for

maintenance

. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache.

[/indent]

 

Isn't that GS telling the CO to steal the throwdown?

 

Not trying (ok - a little) to be a smart alec- but I've seen many references to it being stealing when someone "removes" a geotrash container. Wouldn't this be the same?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm against throwdowns and I have no problem with someone removing a cache in terrible condition.

[+justintim1999]

When you choose to list your geocache on their website you agreed to all their rules and guidelines. You agreed to be responsible for maintenance as well as removing the container when exiting the game. We can argue caches on multiple listing sites but You probably know where I shake out on that one.

So why hasn't Groundspeak chosen to do anything about these abandoned caches, regardless of the shape they might be in? It appears they have the ability to do so, so I'm looking for a reason they haven't been proactive in this case. I'm not asking this in a rhetorical manner. I'd like someone who wants abandoned caches to be removed from the database to supply a possible reason (or reasons) as to why Groundspeak hasn't done just such a thing.

 

It's my conjecture that the problem isn't as big as some people are making it out to be as well as the fact that there are tools already in place to get them removed from the listing database once they reach a point where a NM log is filed.

 

The other end of the spectrum, but one which I don't ascribe to, is that this will affect such a large number of caches that it will seriously affect the game across the globe.

 

Isn't it implied that some conscious entity would be required to hide and maintain the container? Self hiding and self maintaining geocaches? Wouldn't that be grand.

If the container is a really good one, it can last years without issues. I have an ammo can that I've visited 3 times in 7 years that's in the same shape as it was when I hid it (and I live about 5 miles away so ease of maintaining it isn't an issue). I know there are some other old, ownerless caches that are ammo cans that are in great shape as well. Why should they be removed from the database when there are no maintenance issues to speak of? Once there's an issue, file the appropriate NM, wait a bit to see if it's addressed (it won't be, it's ownerless), and then file the appropriate NA.

 

I'm REALLY struggling to understand this palpable disdain for ownerless caches that are in good shape, especially when there are owned caches out there with COs who either don't perform maintenance or expect others to do it for them. Why aren't you crusading against those types of owners since they have the actual ability to fix and maintain their caches? Getting active COs to maintain their caches would be the most direct way to influence cache quality, much more so than focusing on ownerless caches with no possibility of maintenance by the CO. Seeing as how you constantly are referring to the agreement between the CO and Groundspeak, it's my assumption you want to hold them accountable as well, but I see more posts from you about ownerless caches (at least on this thread) than I do about active COs who shirk their responsibilities as it pertains to maintenance.

 

I would guess that before the app and the increase in the numbers of caches out there GS probably felt like they didn't need to do anything. The current reporting system was adequate(ish). And to be clear the current reporting system would be just fine if every one would use it and use it properly.

 

I think ownerless caches are just part of a bigger cache maintenance push.

[+dprovan]

When you choose to list your geocache on their website you agreed to all their rules and guidelines. You agreed to be responsible for maintenance as well as removing the container when exiting the game.

You want to apply the rules because they're rules, but the rules are there for a reason. In my experience, there's virtually no correlation between an absentee owner and bad caches. From what I've seen, the main correlation is that a cache in good shape today will be in good shape tomorrow. So I dispute the primary conjecture of this line of thought: I think eliminating caches by absentee owners will eliminate good and bad caches at exactly the same ratio as you'd get if you eliminated caches at random. Indeed, my impression is that often caches in good shape but owned by an absentee owners are more likely to continue to be in good shape since they've already stood the test of time.

[+dprovan]

I would guess that before the app and the increase in the numbers of caches out there GS probably felt like they didn't need to do anything. The current reporting system was adequate(ish). And to be clear the current reporting system would be just fine if every one would use it and use it properly.

Since NMs and NAs are used properly in my area, I don't know how to improve their use in areas where they aren't used properly, but the shift to reviewer based cleanup ensures that they'll never be used since it's now obvious from the logs that reviewers take care of that sort of thing. There's no need to think about posting NMs or NAs if you think GS is responsible for quality. Even in my area, the use of NAs had dropped since this year's push by GS to clean up caches has led to our reviewer jumping in soon after any NM is posted.

 

I think ownerless caches are just part of a bigger cache maintenance push.

I think ownerless caches are the bogeyman of the cache maintenance push.

[+justintim1999]

When you choose to list your geocache on their website you agreed to all their rules and guidelines. You agreed to be responsible for maintenance as well as removing the container when exiting the game.

You want to apply the rules because they're rules, but the rules are there for a reason. In my experience, there's virtually no correlation between an absentee owner and bad caches. From what I've seen, the main correlation is that a cache in good shape today will be in good shape tomorrow. So I dispute the primary conjecture of this line of thought: I think eliminating caches by absentee owners will eliminate good and bad caches at exactly the same ratio as you'd get if you eliminated caches at random. Indeed, my impression is that often caches in good shape but owned by an absentee owners are more likely to continue to be in good shape since they've already stood the test of time.

 

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

 

I'm prepared to sacrifice 1 perfectly fine ownerless cache for every 10 poorly maintained caches. Win/Win to me.

 

I know your not trying to convince me of your views. You keep regurgitating the same arguments over and over, and quite tastefully I might add.

 

My stance is simple. I understand the rules/guidelines and I agree to follow them as long as my hides are listed on this site. If for some reason I don't or can't keep up my end of the bargain than I fully except the consequences. I only hope that when that time comes I go out on my own terms.

[+L0ne.R]

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache.

[/indent]

 

Isn't that GS telling the CO to steal the throwdown?

 

Not trying (ok - a little) to be a smart alec- but I've seen many references to it being stealing when someone "removes" a geotrash container. Wouldn't this be the same?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm against throwdowns and I have no problem with someone removing a cache in terrible condition.

 

I see what you're saying.

By definition though, a throwdown is litter.

A cache is owned and owners agree to monitor and fix and remove their caches.

Throwdowns are litter - the person leaving it never intends to go back to monitor and retrieve it. They relinquish responsibility and some consider they relinquish that responsibility to the cache owner.

[+barefootjeff]

How do you define an active geocacher? I ask because there are several people around here who no longer go looking for caches but still respond to issues on the caches they hid while they were active. They may not have found any caches or even logged into the website for several years but they still get the emails and pay attention to the NMs.

 

To me they qualify as an active cache owner.

Okay, so suppose there are two cachers, Joe and Fred. Both have hidden a dozen well-made caches hidden under dry rock ledges well away from prying muggles and with good-sized logbooks that'll take many decades to fill. After a few years they stop hunting caches and drop their premium membership. Neither have logged onto the website since their last find two years ago, but Joe continues to monitor his emails and enjoys reading the occasional logs he gets whereas Fred moved interstate and no longer cares.

 

Until someone logs an NM, how would your system that detects and purges ownerless caches know which of the two is still an active cacher? And when someone does log that NM, isn't that just the existing system starting to kick in?

[+thebruce0]

Okay, so suppose there are two cachers, Joe and Fred. Both have hidden a dozen well-made caches hidden under dry rock ledges well away from prying muggles and with good-sized logbooks that'll take many decades to fill. After a few years they stop hunting caches and drop their premium membership. Neither have logged onto the website since their last find two years ago, but Joe continues to monitor his emails and enjoys reading the occasional logs he gets whereas Fred moved interstate and no longer cares.

 

Until someone logs an NM, how would your system that detects and purges ownerless caches know which of the two is still an active cacher? And when someone does log that NM, isn't that just the existing system starting to kick in?

 

Yes, this.

 

More to the actual problem though, is that while both of these caches should/will continue without issue (that is, no reviewer pro-action, no community reports), what happens if, say, someone posts a log containing "mold" or posts a incorrect NM, or both rack up a few DNFs prompting the maintenance email?

 

For the active cacher, none of these are problems, as they can/should be addressed.

 

For the inactive cacher, the argument is what should happen.

1. Reviewer does a keyword search and disables a cache under the false presumption there is a mold problem.

2. Cacher posts a NM for a very minor problem another cacher clears up (or is not a problem at all), leaving cache flagged as NM.

3. Notification emails because of DNFs keep the cache score low and eventually a reviewer sees, analyzes, and reasonably decides to disable, requesting that the CO check that the cache is findable. (let's assume for this case that it is)

 

Each of those situations can lead to a cache being archived that has no other problems other than that the CO simply doesn't respond to an outstanding listing status (NM or disabled, or perhaps effective ignoring of reviewer communication requests)

 

And therein lies the disagreement: Is the CO simply being AWOL sufficient reason to disable and eventually archive a cache. And it comes down to whether you believe GS has the right to enforce that "active ownership" requirement in order to retain the privilege of having the listing active on GC.com.

 

Fundamentally, it's in the agreement. So, no. If you are inactive, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether there is a problem with your listing or not. If a reviewer or TPTB decide the cache should be archived on that basis alone, then they are justified in doing so.

 

Is that fair? Well, clearly, YMMV.

Edited May 17, 2017 by thebruce0

[+WearyTraveler]

Cache owners are responsible for maintenance. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache. Consider disabling the cache until you can remove the throwdown or replace the original cache.

[/indent]

 

Isn't that GS telling the CO to steal the throwdown?

 

Not trying (ok - a little) to be a smart alec- but I've seen many references to it being stealing when someone "removes" a geotrash container. Wouldn't this be the same?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm against throwdowns and I have no problem with someone removing a cache in terrible condition.

 

I see what you're saying.

By definition though, a throwdown is litter.

A cache is owned and owners agree to monitor and fix and remove their caches.

Throwdowns are litter - the person leaving it never intends to go back to monitor and retrieve it. They relinquish responsibility and some consider they relinquish that responsibility to the cache owner.

 

You're right - makes sense...

[+dprovan]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

I'm prepared to sacrifice 1 perfectly fine ownerless cache for every 10 poorly maintained caches. Win/Win to me.

Not for me. For me, it's absurd to sacrifice a good cache when you don't have to. I accept that mistakes can happen, but your position, as I understand it, is that this exchange would be worthwhile even when it's intentional.

 

In fact, our disagreement here goes even deeper: I don't think it's reasonable to sacrifice even those 10 poorly maintained caches if they aren't hurting anyone. Often I would much rather find a poorly maintained cache and have to post an NM on it instead of not have a cache to look for at all. And, more generally, while poor caches are undesirable, and even though I'm a big supporter of reporting maintenance problems so problems get fixed lest the caches get archived, going to look for a cache and finding a poorly maintained cache is still, in itself, a win for me even though finding a nicely maintained cache would obviously be an even bigger win.

 

So who's preference do we use, yours or mine? Your way, the standard is inflicted on everyone uniformly whether they like it or not. My way, the people actually affected by the decision are the people that make the decision.

 

I know your not trying to convince me of your views. You keep regurgitating the same arguments over and over, and quite tastefully I might add.

Honestly, I repeat myself so much because no one ever acts like they hear me. Even these two points are examples: people keep saying a rule's a rule and resist discussing the practical results, and people keep saying bad caches must be eliminating without making any attempt to explain why a bad cache is such a terrible experience that it's worse than no cache.

[+L0ne.R]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

If you're a new cacher in a cache dense area you might want the rules enforced so that you too can enjoy geocache ownership.

If the new cache owner is creative, generous (buys quality containers) and responsible, you get to enjoy a new, likely good cache experience.

Does a "skanky" abandoned ammo can make your geocaching as good as possible? Would the cleaned up ammo can which Mr. Dolphin plans to put back, submit, and monitor make geocaching as good as possible? How would it make your geocaching worse?

[+dprovan]

If you're a new cacher in a cache dense area you might want the rules enforced so that you too can enjoy geocache ownership.

I live in an area with lots of caches, and there's plenty of room all over the place for new caches, so it's hard for me to imagine there being no room at all, and I doubt many places are in that kind of zero sum game. But if that's the problem you want to solve, then why not just limit the lifetime of all caches? Just, please, do it only in those few areas that have so many caches you can afford to delete them willy-nilly. Don't inflict it on places that can't afford to lose a good cache.

 

If the new cache owner is creative, generous (buys quality containers) and responsible, you get to enjoy a new, likely good cache experience.

I might get a good cache. I might get one of those cheapo caches by a fly-by-night newbie that everyone always complains about. I might get nothing. For those odds, you want me to give up a cache that's already known to be a good cache experience? Where's the logic in that?

 

Does a "skanky" abandoned ammo can make your geocaching as good as possible? Would the cleaned up ammo can which Mr. Dolphin plans to put back, submit, and monitor make geocaching as good as possible? How would it make your geocaching worse?

You're only allowing yourself to think about cases that turn out well for your argument. In reality, there's no reason to think any cache will replace that perfectly good cache you had archived because the owner isn't paying attention, let alone being replaced by a good cache. On the other hand, while you're throwing the dice and hoping you don't lose, you're betting a cache that is already a win.

[+barefootjeff]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

If you're a new cacher in a cache dense area you might want the rules enforced so that you too can enjoy geocache ownership.

If the new cache owner is creative, generous (buys quality containers) and responsible, you get to enjoy a new, likely good cache experience.

Does a "skanky" abandoned ammo can make your geocaching as good as possible? Would the cleaned up ammo can which Mr. Dolphin plans to put back, submit, and monitor make geocaching as good as possible? How would it make your geocaching worse?

In regions with few cachers and low cache density, which is the situation here and I'm sure in most of the world, removing perfectly good caches because their owners are currently inactive will just leave holes that won't be filled for a long time, and yes, that'll make geocaching worse for newcomers looking for finds in the area.

[+justintim1999]

How do you define an active geocacher? I ask because there are several people around here who no longer go looking for caches but still respond to issues on the caches they hid while they were active. They may not have found any caches or even logged into the website for several years but they still get the emails and pay attention to the NMs.

 

To me they qualify as an active cache owner.

Okay, so suppose there are two cachers, Joe and Fred. Both have hidden a dozen well-made caches hidden under dry rock ledges well away from prying muggles and with good-sized logbooks that'll take many decades to fill. After a few years they stop hunting caches and drop their premium membership. Neither have logged onto the website since their last find two years ago, but Joe continues to monitor his emails and enjoys reading the occasional logs he gets whereas Fred moved interstate and no longer cares.

 

Until someone logs an NM, how would your system that detects and purges ownerless caches know which of the two is still an active cacher? And when someone does log that NM, isn't that just the existing system starting to kick in?

 

Responding to the NM is all that's required. The other will remain ownerless until a cacher reports a problem with it and the lack of a response causes it to be archived. Other than boots on the ground there's no way to identify an ownerless cache until there's a problem. It's what happens after the problem is identified that matters.

[+justintim1999]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

I'm prepared to sacrifice 1 perfectly fine ownerless cache for every 10 poorly maintained caches. Win/Win to me.

Not for me. For me, it's absurd to sacrifice a good cache when you don't have to. I accept that mistakes can happen, but your position, as I understand it, is that this exchange would be worthwhile even when it's intentional.

 

In fact, our disagreement here goes even deeper: I don't think it's reasonable to sacrifice even those 10 poorly maintained caches if they aren't hurting anyone. Often I would much rather find a poorly maintained cache and have to post an NM on it instead of not have a cache to look for at all. And, more generally, while poor caches are undesirable, and even though I'm a big supporter of reporting maintenance problems so problems get fixed lest the caches get archived, going to look for a cache and finding a poorly maintained cache is still, in itself, a win for me even though finding a nicely maintained cache would obviously be an even bigger win.

 

So who's preference do we use, yours or mine? Your way, the standard is inflicted on everyone uniformly whether they like it or not. My way, the people actually affected by the decision are the people that make the decision.

 

I know your not trying to convince me of your views. You keep regurgitating the same arguments over and over, and quite tastefully I might add.

Honestly, I repeat myself so much because no one ever acts like they hear me. Even these two points are examples: people keep saying a rule's a rule and resist discussing the practical results, and people keep saying bad caches must be eliminating without making any attempt to explain why a bad cache is such a terrible experience that it's worse than no cache.

 

I hear you I just don't agree with what you say.

 

I don't think I've ever said bad caches MUST be eliminated from the game. If I did let me correct that now. Bad caches SHOULD be eliminated from the game. GS, along with every cacher out there should be working together toward that goal.

Edited May 18, 2017 by justintim1999

[+justintim1999]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

If you're a new cacher in a cache dense area you might want the rules enforced so that you too can enjoy geocache ownership.

If the new cache owner is creative, generous (buys quality containers) and responsible, you get to enjoy a new, likely good cache experience.

Does a "skanky" abandoned ammo can make your geocaching as good as possible? Would the cleaned up ammo can which Mr. Dolphin plans to put back, submit, and monitor make geocaching as good as possible? How would it make your geocaching worse?

In regions with few cachers and low cache density, which is the situation here and I'm sure in most of the world, removing perfectly good caches because their owners are currently inactive will just leave holes that won't be filled for a long time, and yes, that'll make geocaching worse for newcomers looking for finds in the area.

 

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines. Luckily I don't have that problem where I live. Having said that I've been tossing around the idea of "swapping" locations with other cachers in my community. for example, I have 6 caches in one general area. I know of another cacher that has 4 in another area. I adopt his and he adopts mine and we both hide new caches. Not sure if GS would go along with something like this but in an area that has limited cachers and caches it may be a way to keep things fresh without compromising the guidelines.

 

After re-reading you post something occurred to me. After you've found all the caches in your area why would you necessarily care if an ownerless cache was removed. It's not like your going to re-visit that cache over an over again after you found it? Or do you?

[+barefootjeff]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

 

If you're a new cacher in a cache dense area you might want the rules enforced so that you too can enjoy geocache ownership.

If the new cache owner is creative, generous (buys quality containers) and responsible, you get to enjoy a new, likely good cache experience.

Does a "skanky" abandoned ammo can make your geocaching as good as possible? Would the cleaned up ammo can which Mr. Dolphin plans to put back, submit, and monitor make geocaching as good as possible? How would it make your geocaching worse?

In regions with few cachers and low cache density, which is the situation here and I'm sure in most of the world, removing perfectly good caches because their owners are currently inactive will just leave holes that won't be filled for a long time, and yes, that'll make geocaching worse for newcomers looking for finds in the area.

 

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines. Luckily I don't have that problem where I live. Having said that I've been tossing around the idea of "swapping" locations with other cachers in my community. for example, I have 6 caches in one general area. I know of another cacher that has 4 in another area. I adopt his and he adopts mine and we both hide new caches. Not sure if GS would go along with something like this but in an area that has limited cachers and caches it may be a way to keep things fresh without compromising the guidelines.

 

After re-reading you post something occurred to me. After you've found all the caches in your area why would you necessarily care if an ownerless cache was removed. It's not like your going to re-visit that cache over an over again after you found it? Or do you?

I'm concerned with the effect on the whole caching community, not on me. I put it to you that, globally, low cache density areas are the norm, not the exception. Just because some big cities in the USA and maybe Europe have saturation problems exacerbated by an unwillingness to post NMs and NAs on caches that have fallen into disrepair, doesn't mean the rest of the planet should suffer. As I said before, if abandoned rubbish hides by one-day-wonders are the cause of the problems you're experiencing, that needs to be fixed at its source. Killing off perfectly serviceable caches just because their owners haven't jumped through whatever hoops you're proposing doesn't help anyone. Local problems are best solved locally.

[+coachstahly]

Responding to the NM is all that's required. The other will remain ownerless until a cacher reports a problem with it and the lack of a response causes it to be archived. Other than boots on the ground there's no way to identify an ownerless cache until there's a problem. It's what happens after the problem is identified that matters.

Yes. This is what I've been saying. "...there's no way to identify an ownerless cache until there's a problem..." because there is no problem with the cache. I'm not arguing that an ownerless cache that has problems should remain (well, I'm not but dprovan might be a little bit if they're minor in nature).

 

You think the rules should be different depending on the cache and the cacher. I don't.

However, it seems to me that you're wanting to circumvent the current standards in place by skipping the NM portion on an ownerless cache with no problems and going right into the reviewer disable queue to get it archived. That appears, to me, to be treating both the cache and the cacher differently than other caches and cachers. I have a problem with that because there are so many other caches that need maintenance that haven't been addressed, either by the community or the reviewers. Until Groundspeak actually begins to take action against ownerless caches, it seems that they are willing to let the community and reviewers deal with ALL the caches equally, using the current system in place, which begins with the posting of a NM log.

 

When we file NM logs, we're commenting on the status of the cache, not the status of the CO. If the CO chooses to decline to act (for whatever reason), it's going to get archived. If there's no reason to file a NM log (regardless of whether or not the cache is ownerless or owned), I see no reason for it to be archived or to begin the process that will lead to archival. That seems to me to be equal treatment across the board.

 

GS, along with every cacher out there should be working together toward that goal.

There's a problem that arises, per your feelings toward ownerless caches, GS isn't doing anything about it unless they're being flagged with a NM log. Should they? I think it's been established that they have the ability to do so, but they're not. Again, for those of you in favor of removing ownerless caches, in good condition, from the database, I ask you to posit reasons for why Groundspeak hasn't taken action against these caches. Until such time as GS actually does something, I believe that they are willing to let them be because they're not really causing any problems for anyone.

 

Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

It seems to me that your desire to get all ownerless caches removed from the listings actually bypasses the current application of the guidelines by GS. They haven't taken action against ALL ownerless caches, just those that are flagged, either by a NM log or a keyword search, and then the reviewers, on GS' behalf, use their judgment to either start the archival process or leave the cache alone.

 

After you've found all the caches in your area why would you necessarily care if an ownerless cache was removed.

I'd only care if it held some sort of meaning for me or if it would deprive the newer cachers in the area of a nice experience. A nice hike in a normally unvisited area of a park with an unanticipated view or feature at GZ and a nice ammo can would be just such an ownerless cache I'd hate to see disappear. If it were a moldy mess, then by all means file the NM, get it archived and then place a new one there for the same experience.

 

I have 6 caches in one general area. I know of another cacher that has 4 in another area. I adopt his and he adopts mine and we both hide new caches.

This wouldn't result in new hides but rather you two just swapping ownership of each other's hides. You'd have to archive them first and then submit the hides for publication. Why not just skip the adoption, have new cache pages ready to go, and then submit them immediately after each of you archives your caches?

[+justintim1999]

Responding to the NM is all that's required. The other will remain ownerless until a cacher reports a problem with it and the lack of a response causes it to be archived. Other than boots on the ground there's no way to identify an ownerless cache until there's a problem. It's what happens after the problem is identified that matters.

Yes. This is what I've been saying. "...there's no way to identify an ownerless cache until there's a problem..." because there is no problem with the cache. I'm not arguing that an ownerless cache that has problems should remain (well, I'm not but dprovan might be a little bit if they're minor in nature).

 

You think the rules should be different depending on the cache and the cacher. I don't.

However, it seems to me that you're wanting to circumvent the current standards in place by skipping the NM portion on an ownerless cache with no problems and going right into the reviewer disable queue to get it archived. That appears, to me, to be treating both the cache and the cacher differently than other caches and cachers. I have a problem with that because there are so many other caches that need maintenance that haven't been addressed, either by the community or the reviewers. Until Groundspeak actually begins to take action against ownerless caches, it seems that they are willing to let the community and reviewers deal with ALL the caches equally, using the current system in place, which begins with the posting of a NM log.

 

When we file NM logs, we're commenting on the status of the cache, not the status of the CO. If the CO chooses to decline to act (for whatever reason), it's going to get archived. If there's no reason to file a NM log (regardless of whether or not the cache is ownerless or owned), I see no reason for it to be archived or to begin the process that will lead to archival. That seems to me to be equal treatment across the board.

 

GS, along with every cacher out there should be working together toward that goal.

There's a problem that arises, per your feelings toward ownerless caches, GS isn't doing anything about it unless they're being flagged with a NM log. Should they? I think it's been established that they have the ability to do so, but they're not. Again, for those of you in favor of removing ownerless caches, in good condition, from the database, I ask you to posit reasons for why Groundspeak hasn't taken action against these caches. Until such time as GS actually does something, I believe that they are willing to let them be because they're not really causing any problems for anyone.

 

Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

It seems to me that your desire to get all ownerless caches removed from the listings actually bypasses the current application of the guidelines by GS. They haven't taken action against ALL ownerless caches, just those that are flagged, either by a NM log or a keyword search, and then the reviewers, on GS' behalf, use their judgment to either start the archival process or leave the cache alone.

 

After you've found all the caches in your area why would you necessarily care if an ownerless cache was removed.

I'd only care if it held some sort of meaning for me or if it would deprive the newer cachers in the area of a nice experience. A nice hike in a normally unvisited area of a park with an unanticipated view or feature at GZ and a nice ammo can would be just such an ownerless cache I'd hate to see disappear. If it were a moldy mess, then by all means file the NM, get it archived and then place a new one there for the same experience.

 

I have 6 caches in one general area. I know of another cacher that has 4 in another area. I adopt his and he adopts mine and we both hide new caches.

This wouldn't result in new hides but rather you two just swapping ownership of each other's hides. You'd have to archive them first and then submit the hides for publication. Why not just skip the adoption, have new cache pages ready to go, and then submit them immediately after each of you archives your caches?

 

Every cache listed on Geocaching.com started with an owner who agreed to follow the guidelines. It's that simple. You can continue to try to justify reasons why a cache doesn't need an owner and in some cases you may have an argument but it doesn't change the fact.

 

Sorry but I must not have explained the cache swapping clearly. Once you adopted each other's caches you would eventually archive them and place new caches in different locations.

[+barefootjeff]

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

Again I have to say that well-made caches in appropriate hiding places don't need constant maintenance. They can remain serviceable for years, even decades, providing enjoyment for generations of cachers, without the owner going anywhere near them. If a problem arises, solve it then with an NM/NA. Why is that so hard?

 

The guidelines currently don't require any owner action in the absence of an NM/NA other than the vaguely-worded "occasional visit", so what guidelines are being bypassed by leaving serviceable caches in play until such time as the owner fails to respond to a reported problem?

[+redsox_mark]

Honestly, I repeat myself so much because no one ever acts like they hear me. Even these two points are examples: people keep saying a rule's a rule and resist discussing the practical results, and people keep saying bad caches must be eliminating without making any attempt to explain why a bad cache is such a terrible experience that it's worse than no cache.

 

I've done the same. I hear you and agree with you.

 

In this and other threads, I think the differences of opinion are more philosophical, and in some ways we are close, and some far apart. Everyone prefers maintained caches to unmaintained one. Everyone prefers active owners. I would like everyone to accept there is a balance, though I've not been successful there. Today, a certain percentage of caches have issues. If we stick with today's processes, that percentage will likely remain constant. If we have tighter processes, one can expect the percentage of caches with issues to decrease. Which on the one hand is good. But if the processes become too tight, then there are side effects. These side effects can include more caches being archived. If the processes become so tight that good COs feel hassled, it can mean losing good COs and good caches (even if the cache has a temporary issue). A good cache in good condition can become archived because the CO didn't respond or isn't active.

 

We each then apply our view on this "philosophy" to specific suggestions. E.g. is a mandatory annual maintenance visit a good idea or not.

 

To which there won't be agreement. And that is Ok (but makes for long threads).

Edited May 18, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+justintim1999]

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

Again I have to say that well-made caches in appropriate hiding places don't need constant maintenance. They can remain serviceable for years, even decades, providing enjoyment for generations of cachers, without the owner going anywhere near them. If a problem arises, solve it then with an NM/NA. Why is that so hard?

 

The guidelines currently don't require any owner action in the absence of an NM/NA other than the vaguely-worded "occasional visit", so what guidelines are being bypassed by leaving serviceable caches in play until such time as the owner fails to respond to a reported problem?

 

In all honesty, what dose "occasional visit" mean to you?

[+coachstahly]

Every cache listed on Geocaching.com started with an owner who agreed to follow the guidelines. It's that simple. You can continue to try to justify reasons why a cache doesn't need an owner and in some cases you may have an argument but it doesn't change the fact.

The bolded part is the crux of the issue. I'm not saying that caches don't need owners. I've NEVER said that. Every cache needs an owner if there are maintenance issues that arise in order to fix the problem a cache has. The point I'm debating is that ownerless caches in good shape that don't need maintenance should be removed simply because they're ownerless.

 

That does NOT mean I believe those particular caches don't need an owner. It's not an if, then type of correlation.

[+justintim1999]

Every cache listed on Geocaching.com started with an owner who agreed to follow the guidelines. It's that simple. You can continue to try to justify reasons why a cache doesn't need an owner and in some cases you may have an argument but it doesn't change the fact.

The bolded part is the crux of the issue. I'm not saying that caches don't need owners. I've NEVER said that. Every cache needs an owner if there are maintenance issues that arise in order to fix the problem a cache has. The point I'm debating is that ownerless caches in good shape that don't need maintenance should be removed simply because they're ownerless.

 

That does NOT mean I believe those particular caches don't need an owner. It's not an if, then type of correlation.

 

A cache doesn't need an owner until it needs one? If that isn't a yogism I don't know what is.

[+thebruce0]

They may not even be actual rules. They may only be guidelines. Either way you agreed to them at the start so I guess it's more of a moral issue.

Right, very precisely the problem. I want rules enforced in order for my geocaching to be as good as possible. You want the rules enforced for some moral reason I find irrational, which is bad enough even before the mindless enforcement of those rules actually makes my geocaching worse.

I think the next step in this disagreement is about "what is geocaching?" These rules being enforced are about listings on geocaching.com. Groundspeak isn't geocaching. Geocaching can happen with or without Groundspeak, ultimately. Property is owned by its owner, not by Groundspeak. The "rules" are "rules" for using geocaching.com, not for geocaching. The rules Groundspeak employs for using their service may affect our hobby of geocaching, but only as it pertains to our use of their website, not of our property. Of more concern is not just the condition of the physical container, but also the condition of the listing on their website.

 

I suppose the other way to word it is - if we don't like it we can leave. But that's clearly not helpful

 

Another perspective:

 

Groundspeak must, at the least, enforce their agreement, as they see fit, for how we use their website. Likewise, they must avoid any possible misconception that they somehow have any ownership or responsibility towards the property being listed. And so then it comes to how they deal with demonstrably ownerless geocache listings. If the only metric to determine if a physical object otherwise considered trash is owned by someone is how the listed owner responds to agreed-upon conditions, then if there's no response, Groundspeak would become the next in line to 'own' and be caretaker of that property, so of course the listing has to be dealt with (who else will?). Regardless of its state.

 

Therefore an ownerless listing (one that Groundspeak feels could be misconstrued as now primarily their responsibility) is always subject to archival, regardless of status, because Groundspeak cannot take responsibility for the cache which they do not own, but is owned by someone who is not responding as agreed.

 

There's a problem that arises, per your feelings toward ownerless caches, GS isn't doing anything about it unless they're being flagged with a NM log. Should they? I think it's been established that they have the ability to do so, but they're not. Again, for those of you in favor of removing ownerless caches, in good condition, from the database, I ask you to posit reasons for why Groundspeak hasn't taken action against these caches. Until such time as GS actually does something, I believe that they are willing to let them be because they're not really causing any problems for anyone.

I would say it's because there's no problem with the cache, and there's no problem with the listing that requires owner attention.

If the listing is disabled, for whatever reason, regardless of cache, that's something the owner needs to deal with. And as above, if the owner is non-responsive, then it now becomes an issue of listing and implied ownership. Who is responsible for the cache? The owner is not responding to agreed-upon tasks. Even if there is no problem with the cache, the listing is subject to archival, because Groundspeak can't let the cache responsibility transfer to them.

 

So the question is, is it right for a reviewer to proactively disable a cache that has no problem?

If we find a reviewer who starts arbitrarily disabling caches that have no reasonable problem (none have been presented yet), then we can analyze how GS responds and whether such actions are supported. As of right now, I haven't seen that happen, let alone it be of concern. Unreasonable reviewers can be dealt with.

 

Until it's known that an owner is inactive, caches in good condition will remain active and findable, barring unreasonable reviewers disabling caches for no good reason.

 

Also, it's not so much a matter merely of "ownership", but "responsibility". An ownerless cache isn't a thing. Well, only insofar as the physical property. The physical property is either owned or it's trash. So who takes responsibility for that object sitting in public, otherwise discarded? As long as it's listed on geocaching.com, the responsibility and ownership is implied as that of the user who created the listing. What happens if there is no evidence that the listed user is an active human individual carrying out agreed-upon tasks to demonstrate responsibility for the otherwise-abandoned trash? Groundspeak is the next authority. And GS will not take responsibility for random trash littered around the globe. Regardless of hobby, regardless of quality, regardless of how beloved by other people it may be. It's not their responsibility. It must be dealt with. And per the agreement (which is binding to GS and to its users) if the listing has no active "owner", no entity that is actively taking responsibility for the object(s) and/or task(s) being listed, the listing is subject to archival.

There is no way around that. I would now say the issue is less "moral" than it is legal.

 

No matter how sad it may be to see a good cache go... remember, the cache still exists. If it is ownerless, then someone else can take it over and claim responsibility, either by making a new listing or completely replacing the cache as well.

[+redsox_mark]

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

Again I have to say that well-made caches in appropriate hiding places don't need constant maintenance. They can remain serviceable for years, even decades, providing enjoyment for generations of cachers, without the owner going anywhere near them. If a problem arises, solve it then with an NM/NA. Why is that so hard?

 

The guidelines currently don't require any owner action in the absence of an NM/NA other than the vaguely-worded "occasional visit", so what guidelines are being bypassed by leaving serviceable caches in play until such time as the owner fails to respond to a reported problem?

 

In all honesty, what dose "occasional visit" mean to you?

 

I know the question wasn't to me, but I think the complete guideline needs to be taken in context:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

I think there is a reason they didn't define occasional. And the part about "proper working order" is key. If I'm getting regular logs on a cache saying it is in good condition, there is no need for me to visit to be relatively confident the cache is OK.

 

I have had a cache of mine go over a year without being found, then it was found (and OK).

 

If I see a cache of mine which has a history of getting found regularly not being found for a year, I'd plan to check on it. (But I'm not in favour of mandatory annual checks).

[+coachstahly]

 

A cache doesn't need an owner until it needs one? If that isn't a yogism I don't know what is.

The purpose of the CO, once their cache is placed and published, is to maintain it as needed, whatever that need might be. If there are NO maintenance issues, then the CO has absolutely nothing to do with the cache (because there is nothing wrong with it) until such issues do arise. Once an issue arises, usually with the accompanying NM log, then the owner needs to step in to do what needs to be done in order to maintain it. If there's no owner, it draws the requisite attention and then is eventually archived.

 

I have to ask - Are you a helicopter CO? Always fluttering around your cache, even when there's nothing wrong with it? I place my caches with the intent that hopefully they'll need as little maintenance as possible and that the logs (and hopefully the NM logs as well) will alert me to the possible issues that have arisen. Then I will do what I am supposed to do. The only time I proactively check on any of my caches is if I know there's been some flooding or some other natural issue in the area (had to a couple weeks ago) of my caches, construction is about to happen in the area around GZ (soon to be an issue for two more of mine), or it's been a long time (over a year) since either I've checked or anyone has found it. Otherwise, they do just fine without me.

[+coachstahly]

 

I would say it's because there's no problem with the cache, and there's no problem with the listing that requires owner attention.

If the listing is disabled, for whatever reason, regardless of cache, that's something the owner needs to deal with. And as above, if the owner is non-responsive, then it now becomes an issue of listing and implied ownership. Who is responsible for the cache? The owner is not responding to agreed-upon tasks. Even if there is no problem with the cache, the listing is subject to archival, because Groundspeak can't let the cache responsibility transfer to them.

 

So the question is, is it right for a reviewer to proactively disable a cache that has no problem?

If we find a reviewer who starts arbitrarily disabling caches that have no reasonable problem (none have been presented yet), then we can analyze how GS responds and whether such actions are supported. As of right now, I haven't seen that happen, let alone it be of concern. Unreasonable reviewers can be dealt with.

 

Until it's known that an owner is inactive, caches in good condition will remain active and findable, barring unreasonable reviewers disabling caches for no good reason.

 

That's exactly my point, that there are no discernible issues and hence GS will not take any action until A) such action is needed either via a NM log or a possible reviewer keyword search and determination that maintenance is needed or B - GS takes matters into their own hands and decides to actively purge ownerless caches from their database.

 

COs have a responsibility to maintain their caches when maintenance is needed. I'm certainly not disputing that. In the absence of problems, the CO doesn't NEED to do anything. If there's no CO and there are no problems, I fail to see why that particular cache should be singled out for removal, per justintim1999's beliefs. GS, as of right now, appears to agree.

[+justintim1999]

The lack of caches in one particular area shouldn't be an excuse to allow ownerless caches to go un-maintained. I can understand why this would be an issue in areas like yours. Come up with another way to fix that problem that doesn't involve bypassing the guidelines.

Again I have to say that well-made caches in appropriate hiding places don't need constant maintenance. They can remain serviceable for years, even decades, providing enjoyment for generations of cachers, without the owner going anywhere near them. If a problem arises, solve it then with an NM/NA. Why is that so hard?

 

The guidelines currently don't require any owner action in the absence of an NM/NA other than the vaguely-worded "occasional visit", so what guidelines are being bypassed by leaving serviceable caches in play until such time as the owner fails to respond to a reported problem?

 

In all honesty, what dose "occasional visit" mean to you?

 

I know the question wasn't to me, but I think the complete guideline needs to be taken in context:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

I think there is a reason they didn't define occasional. And the part about "proper working order" is key. If I'm getting regular logs on a cache saying it is in good condition, there is no need for me to visit to be relatively confident the cache is OK.

 

I have had a cache of mine go over a year without being found, then it was found (and OK).

 

If I see a cache of mine which has a history of getting found regularly not being found for a year, I'd plan to check on it. (But I'm not in favour of mandatory annual checks).

 

I think there's a reason they included the word occasional into the sentence. Why would it be there if they didn't expect you to check up on the cache from time to time even if there's no reported issues? With this in mind, what would you consider occasional?

[+thebruce0]

I would say it's because there's no problem with the cache, and there's no problem with the listing that requires owner attention.

If the listing is disabled, for whatever reason, regardless of cache, that's something the owner needs to deal with. And as above, if the owner is non-responsive, then it now becomes an issue of listing and implied ownership. Who is responsible for the cache? The owner is not responding to agreed-upon tasks. Even if there is no problem with the cache, the listing is subject to archival, because Groundspeak can't let the cache responsibility transfer to them.

 

So the question is, is it right for a reviewer to proactively disable a cache that has no problem?

If we find a reviewer who starts arbitrarily disabling caches that have no reasonable problem (none have been presented yet), then we can analyze how GS responds and whether such actions are supported. As of right now, I haven't seen that happen, let alone it be of concern. Unreasonable reviewers can be dealt with.

 

Until it's known that an owner is inactive, caches in good condition will remain active and findable, barring unreasonable reviewers disabling caches for no good reason.

 

That's exactly my point, that there are no discernible issues and hence GS will not take any action until A) such action is needed either via a NM log or a possible reviewer keyword search and determination that maintenance is needed or B - GS takes matters into their own hands and decides to actively purge ownerless caches from their database.

Again, "discernible issues" - with what, the cache itself? Or the listing?

As I said, an unreasonable action would be disabling a listing for no reason. That's unreasonable, by definition. BUT, if it happens, and the owner is not there to respond, then it necessarily means that Groundspeak has to respond to the inactive owner problem, lest they become "responsible" for the associated physical object. BUT, that hasn't happened. There's been no reported unreasonable disabling of a cache by reviewer. The "chance" situation of the reviewer once back in January doing it to a cache that did actually happen, was just that - once off, and hasn't happened since, reportedly. There's been no injustice, and no injustice is being supported here.

 

COs have a responsibility to maintain their caches when maintenance is needed. I'm certainly not disputing that. In the absence of problems, the CO doesn't NEED to do anything. If there's no CO and there are no problems, I fail to see why that particular cache should be singled out for removal, per justintim1999's beliefs. GS, as of right now, appears to agree.

As do I.

But I don't read into justin's comments that he thinks somehow listed caches with absolutely no problems are a problem. In every case, if something happens with the listing that does end up identifying an inactive owner (and thus a transferring of responsibilty for the item listed), then something must be done. And that's strictly speaking in the legal sense, not considering the moral sense.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I think there's a reason they included the word occasional into the sentence. Why would it be there if they didn't expect you to check up on the cache from time to time even if there's no reported issues? With this in mind, what would you consider occasional?

 

I thought I answered that. As the context is "to ensure it is in proper working order", that could be never, if I am getting regular logs that it is in proper working order. Otherwise, it depends on the cache.

[+coachstahly]

I think there's a reason they included the word occasional into the sentence. Why would it be there if they didn't expect you to check up on the cache from time to time even if there's no reported issues? With this in mind, what would you consider occasional?

He answered yet you still look for a specific hard target answer. For lack of a definitive answer, it depends.

 

I have an ammo can that's been out for 7 years and is less than 5 miles from home. I've checked it 3 times and it's been in great shape every time. That's once every 2 years and 4 months. I'm fine with that.

 

I have other caches I'll visit more frequently because they're either more muggle prone or more likely to get soggy logs due to cracked o-rings (which I replace). Knowing that they have these issues occasionally, I'll visit once a year or more frequently if logs mention issues.

[+justintim1999]

 

I think there's a reason they included the word occasional into the sentence. Why would it be there if they didn't expect you to check up on the cache from time to time even if there's no reported issues? With this in mind, what would you consider occasional?

 

I thought I answered that. As the context is "to ensure it is in proper working order", that could be never, if I am getting regular logs that it is in proper working order. Otherwise, it depends on the cache.

 

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

[+coachstahly]

 

Again, "discernible issues" - with what, the cache itself? Or the listing?

Both are the responsibility of the CO. I'm not against disabling and removing ownerless caches that have issues, either on the cache page or the actual cache. Let me once again make that clear.

 

But I don't read into justin's comments that he thinks somehow listed caches with absolutely no problems are a problem.

I do, based on the quotes below from some of his posts.

 

What kind of caches? Ownerless ones? You mean if we start removing caches that are not being maintained the people who enjoy finding those will more on? Splendid lets get started.

Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

 

Nowhere does justintim1999 qualify his remarks to specify ownerless unmaintained caches in need of maintenance. Ownerless caches are lumped into a single entity. In fact, the bolded part of the second one is what I see him focusing on - the potential bad cache experience, even though it's currently a good cache experience.

[+coachstahly]

Or, since it's last find, your cache could have sprung a leak and it's contents are now mush. Someone placed something undesirable in the cache that the cache owner and GS wouldn't want another cacher to find. I think the occasional visit was intended to be a proactive measure designed to identify problems before other potential finders do. It also has the added benefit of getting owners in the habit of cache maintenance.

You are a helicopter CO. There are some things that CO's just can't control. I don't want to check on each and every cache of mine on the chance that something MIGHT be wrong. That means I'd be checking them each and every day.

Edited May 18, 2017 by coachstahly

[+justintim1999]

I think there's a reason they included the word occasional into the sentence. Why would it be there if they didn't expect you to check up on the cache from time to time even if there's no reported issues? With this in mind, what would you consider occasional?

He answered yet you still look for a specific hard target answer. For lack of a definitive answer, it depends.

 

I have an ammo can that's been out for 7 years and is less than 5 miles from home. I've checked it 3 times and it's been in great shape every time. That's once every 2 years and 4 months. I'm fine with that.

 

I have other caches I'll visit more frequently because they're either more muggle prone or more likely to get soggy logs due to cracked o-rings (which I replace). Knowing that they have these issues occasionally, I'll visit once a year or more frequently if logs mention issues.

 

Yes, I am looking for a hard target answer. I'm getting tired of 1000 word reply's to simple questions as well as outlandish scenarios put forth as proof of argument. I'm looking for a single timeframe that would best describe your idea of occasional.

[+thebruce0]

Again, "discernible issues" - with what, the cache itself? Or the listing?

Both are the responsibility of the CO. I'm not against disabling and removing ownerless caches that have issues, either on the cache page or the actual cache. Let me once again make that clear.

Right.

But on geocaching.com, a disabled listing (regardless of physical object state) is also in need of owner attention. It's in the agreement. And tmk, it's also legally advisable for GS to uphold that requirement, for reasons I mentioned above regarding responsible entity.

 

But I don't read into justin's comments that he thinks somehow listed caches with absolutely no problems are a problem.

I do, based on the quotes below from some of his posts.

 

What kind of caches? Ownerless ones? You mean if we start removing caches that are not being maintained the people who enjoy finding those will more on? Splendid lets get started.

Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

 

Nowhere does justintim1999 qualify his remarks to specify ownerless unmaintained caches in need of maintenance. Ownerless caches are lumped into a single entity. In fact, the bolded part of the second one is what I see him focusing on - the potential bad cache experience, even though it's currently a good cache experience.

See, those blue statements are already qualified as to me "not being maintained" implies maintenance is needed. Regardless of whether or not its state provides a "bad cache experience" (since that's entirely subjective). When I read those statements, I read it as "listings and/or caches which are in need of owner attention" (even as little as the owner re-enabling a disabled listing, so verifiably unmaintained). And not merely "reportedly bad experiences".

[+coachstahly]

Yes, I am looking for a hard target answer. I'm getting tired of 1000 word reply's to simple questions as well as outlandish scenarios put forth as proof of argument. I'm looking for a single timeframe that would best describe your idea of occasional.

It depends.

 

I can't give you a hard target because each and every cache I have is different and has different maintenance needs. It's my guess that no one else can either.