Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+justintim1999]

Are these "Health Scores" posted somewhere so cachers can make a decision on whether a cache is worth searching for or not? If not, then what's the big deal here? This is 8 pages of a lot of back and forth (and possibly hurt feelings, who knows) that hasn't really said anything.

 

The health scores are an additional tool for reviewers to use.

I can see how it could benefit finders. We could filter for caches that are more likely in better condition, but it would be a big headache for Groundspeak.

I expect the number of angry emails from cachers would overwhelm them.

 

Having the cache score right on the cache page may also act as an incentive for cache owners as well.

 

Why do you think it would be a headache for Groundspeak?

[+redsox_mark]

 

Why do you think it would be a headache for Groundspeak?

 

I'm not against making it visible, but unless they publish the algorithm, one headache may be cachers asking questions. E.g. why is my cache, which I think is perfect, only scoring 80%?

[+justintim1999]

 

Why do you think it would be a headache for Groundspeak?

 

I'm not against making it visible, but unless they publish the algorithm, one headache may be cachers asking questions. E.g. why is my cache, which I think is perfect, only scoring 80%?

 

Could be a good way to motivate people to take the time and learn the basics of cache ownership.

[+barefootjeff]

 

Why do you think it would be a headache for Groundspeak?

 

I'm not against making it visible, but unless they publish the algorithm, one headache may be cachers asking questions. E.g. why is my cache, which I think is perfect, only scoring 80%?

 

Could be a good way to motivate people to take the time and learn the basics of cache ownership.

If a cache has outstanding NMs, that's already shown with the red wrench and red cross attribute, so showing the health score would only add information for caches that don't have any NMs. For those, it's based solely on DNFs, which in all likelihood have nothing to do with cache problems, and how long it's been since the last find, neither of which the CO has any control over and can't do anything to fix.

[+thebruce0]

1. A cache in good standing and findable with no issues and no current DNFs

2. A cache in good standing and findable with no issues but with current DNFs

3. A cache that may (true or mistakenly) have a maintenance concern (NM) to address but should otherwise be actively findable

4. A cache that is favoured but rundown and typically only held up by community and proxy maintenance

 

For #1, who's trying to get rid of these? And how does this system seek them out? Even if the owner is not active, nothing will raise these caches to reviewer attention.

 

For #2, the timely result is a notification email due to DNFs. Without the CO addressing it a reviewer may choose to address it. With the standard process ball rolling, issues may or may not come to the forefront, and a cache may or may not then become subject to archival.

The 'mold' thread seems to fall in this category, but it seems to be more than just 'mold' caught in the log text and so may be a different legitimate issue.

 

For #3, if the concern is addressed by the active CO then nothing will come of it. If it is not addressed by the CO, a reviewer will eventually address it. Go to #2.

 

For #4, the physical cache may be great, but typically this situation is an inactive owner. Until there is a reported problem, this cache will remain active and ongoing, findable. If a problem gets reported, go to #3.

 

Each of these ultimately comes down to how responsive and responsible the cache owner is, and how reasonable the reviewer is in determining whether a cache should be subject to archival.

I feel I'm just repeating myself, but I'll try again. The general context is the "old way" which is caches remain unless cachers report problems (NM and eventually NA), which leads to archived. "New way" we see action taken due to

- DNFs

- Keyword searches

- Other searches done by reviewers.

 

And we see an increase of these "new way" actions.

 

The reviewers are of course trying to do the right thing, and only take action if they think the cache needs action. But the reality is, if there is increased proactive searching etc, then caches for which no cacher thought the issues serious enough to log NM/NA, will get archived.

True, but if they find an issue, then there is a reason. So ultimately the complaint is about proactive problem-fixing. To me criticising an effort like that (generally speaking) just seems odd Pro-active problem-fixing isn't a problem if the CO is active and responsible. It's only a problem if it locates inactive COs -- for caches that have a problem. (at this point I'm not fully considering the 'mold' instance an example of a non-problem because afaik there's more to it than a mere keyword match on a cache in good standing leading to its archival)

 

That is really my only point. Is this good, as it gets us closer to 100% of caches are in perfect condition? Or bad, in that caches which cachers are enjoying finding (even if the log is a bit moldy) are increasingly getting archived. And is it bad that all the focus is on the state of the container and not other aspects of making geocaching vibrant and interesting?

But it's not; if it were, then owner activity wouldn't help. If a cache is just moldy, but the owner is inactive then the problem is the owner is not upholding their agreement.

 

If it's a very distant cache, one not needing yearly checkup, and one log mentions moldy paper, no NM, and somehow a reviewer gets wind of it, then the situation becomes one of reasonableness:

* I would posit that a reviewer requiring the active CO to immediately/asap visit their distant cache (as opposed to accepting a response plan/strategy given its remoteness) which was just found but mentioned with moldy paper or face archival is not acting within reason.

* Now if the same happened with an inactive CO, then the problem is not the cache but the owner. In that case, with no NM posted to the cache, I would hope the reviewer wouldn't disable the findable-cache-with-moldy-sheet just to draw out the inactivity of the CO. That to me feels like entrapment, and would also not be reasonable, given the otherwise good state of the remote cache. 'Reasonable' to me would be the reviewer keeping watch on that good-standing cache for a reported NM (say due to moldy sheet) and then beginning due process, despite knowing the CO is believed to be inactive.

 

I recall seeing some stats from a reviewer (I think Keystone) that a high percentage of caches which are disabled with a "fix it or it will be archived" note get archived. Some of these will be absent/deceased owners, some will be owners who don't care, some will be owners who are busy at the time and just ignore it, etc. The fact is, more proactive action to disable means more archives.

More interesting would be the percentage of these disabled "fix it" caches that actually have problems (including merely having an unaddressed NM status that has to be cleared up). I'd bet it's pretty close to 100%.

 

Taking action because of DNFs has an additional side effect, that it discourages cachers from logging them. I probably log more DNFs then most as I'm not a very good finder, my eyesight isn't great. I can imagine the following: At an event, a cacher complaining their cache got disabled or they got an email because "that redsox_mark logged another DNF". It won't stop me logging them, but for some it will.

Right, and I think that's a perception problem, which, as per the cache-score thread, I belive is a problem, one which can perhaps be assuaged by better wording. Because DNFs don't put a cache on death row. They may merely trigger a notification email for the CO, and iirc can be checked by reviewers (who, given the benefit of the doubt are reasonable, are not treating it as a current "maintenance problem").

[+thebruce0]

Could be a good way to motivate people to take the time and learn the basics of cache ownership.

If a cache has outstanding NMs, that's already shown with the red wrench and red cross attribute, so showing the health score would only add information for caches that don't have any NMs. For those, it's based solely on DNFs, which in all likelihood have nothing to do with cache problems, and how long it's been since the last find, neither of which the CO has any control over and can't do anything to fix.

Right. I'm also not for showing the cache score. It's really irrelevant. The only purpose for knowing it would be to see how close a cache is to getting a nudge email. It would cause much more ire, concern, frustration, competition, and anger in the community, between cachers, and individual stress, since its visibility implies much more importance than it actually has. (plus it's another number/statistic towards that oh-so-dreaded 'numbers game')

Edited May 10, 2017 by thebruce0

[+redsox_mark]

True, but if they find an issue, then there is a reason. So ultimately the complaint is about proactive problem-fixing. To me criticising an effort like that (generally speaking) just seems odd Pro-active problem-fixing isn't a problem if the CO is active and responsible. It's only a problem if it locates inactive COs -- for caches that have a problem. (at this point I'm not fully considering the 'mold' instance an example of a non-problem because afaik there's more to it than a mere keyword match on a cache in good standing leading to its archival)

e checked by reviewers (who, given the benefit of the doubt are reasonable, are not treating it as a current "maintenance problem").

 

Yes, the reviewer found something in the logs which indicates a "problem". Someone mentioned mold or whatever. My point is if the problem was major, there should be NM/NA logs. Taking pro-active action on more minor issues has 2 sides to it - it results in a higher percentage of caches in perfect condition, but it also results in more caches being archived. No reviewer is being unreasonable, but it seems the focus is on tightening this "quality, and that means less tolerance of caches with minor issues. That means caches which may be fine other than a wet log, which before would stay, now will go. To me it's not black and white. It is about not over-reacting to minor things like a damp log, or a small number of DNFs.

[+justintim1999]

True, but if they find an issue, then there is a reason. So ultimately the complaint is about proactive problem-fixing. To me criticising an effort like that (generally speaking) just seems odd Pro-active problem-fixing isn't a problem if the CO is active and responsible. It's only a problem if it locates inactive COs -- for caches that have a problem. (at this point I'm not fully considering the 'mold' instance an example of a non-problem because afaik there's more to it than a mere keyword match on a cache in good standing leading to its archival)

e checked by reviewers (who, given the benefit of the doubt are reasonable, are not treating it as a current "maintenance problem").

 

Yes, the reviewer found something in the logs which indicates a "problem". Someone mentioned mold or whatever. My point is if the problem was major, there should be NM/NA logs. Taking pro-active action on more minor issues has 2 sides to it - it results in a higher percentage of caches in perfect condition, but it also results in more caches being archived. No reviewer is being unreasonable, but it seems the focus is on tightening this "quality, and that means less tolerance of caches with minor issues. That means caches which may be fine other than a wet log, which before would stay, now will go. To me it's not black and white. It is about not over-reacting to minor things like a damp log, or a small number of DNFs.

 

I think that's a stretch. The cache you cited had some serious issues mentioned in the logs. If they were minor issues or a few dnf's I don't believe the same actions would have been taken. We're focusing on the reviewer instead of why this particular cache hadn't already been flagged with an NM.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I think that's a stretch. The cache you cited had some serious issues mentioned in the logs. If they were minor issues or a few dnf's I don't believe the same actions would have been taken. We're focusing on the reviewer instead of why this particular cache hadn't already been flagged with an NM.

 

I mentioned mold, but my comment wasn't about the specific example. I don't think it is a stretch to say that increased focus on quality and pro-active searching for caches to disable due to issues means less tolerance of caches which can still be found (and enjoyed by many/most), but have issues like a wet log. And yes, if a reviewer is searching for "mold", they are looking for minor issues. I assume they searched for mold and not "wet" as wet would be mentioned more in logs for non-cache related items (wet grass, wet weather etc).

[+justintim1999]

 

I think that's a stretch. The cache you cited had some serious issues mentioned in the logs. If they were minor issues or a few dnf's I don't believe the same actions would have been taken. We're focusing on the reviewer instead of why this particular cache hadn't already been flagged with an NM.

 

I mentioned mold, but my comment wasn't about the specific example. I don't think it is a stretch to say that increased focus on quality and pro-active searching for caches to disable due to issues means less tolerance of caches which can still be found (and enjoyed by many/most), but have issues like a wet log. And yes, if a reviewer is searching for "mold", they are looking for minor issues. I assume they searched for mold and not "wet" as wet would be mentioned more in logs for non-cache related items (wet grass, wet weather etc).

 

Yes they are searching and they are identifying caches that either have Nm's that have gone un-answered or caches with logs that indicate there are a problems. For obvious reasons I don't think there flagging caches for minor issues and I don't think that caches that meet the maintenance guidelines are getting archived.

[+thebruce0]

Yes they are searching and they are identifying caches that either have Nm's that have gone un-answered or caches with logs that indicate there are a problems. For obvious reasons I don't think there flagging caches for minor issues and I don't think that caches that meet the maintenance guidelines are getting archived.

This. Unless I missed something, this 'mold' cache has so far been presented as the best example of the problem with this current reviewer approach. As mentioned, it seems that the cache had other issues, not merely a keyword flag.

So is there an known example of a cache being proactively disabled for minor unreported issues?

[+dprovan]

It's very easy to determine if an owner is absent - there can't be a "perceived problem" with an absentee owner since all they have to do is respond.

OK, I'm going to give up for now. Maybe I'll read past this first sentence later, but with this start, I no longer think I can understand your position well enough to talk to you. My point is that an absentee owner is not a problem, perceived or otherwise. I thought you were getting all upset about me implying that you want to archive caches for reasons other than their condition, but then you turn around and explicitly say that an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches. I object to that position, but I can't really discuss it with you as long as you seem to keep denying it.

[+justintim1999]

Yes they are searching and they are identifying caches that either have Nm's that have gone un-answered or caches with logs that indicate there are a problems. For obvious reasons I don't think there flagging caches for minor issues and I don't think that caches that meet the maintenance guidelines are getting archived.

This. Unless I missed something, this 'mold' cache has so far been presented as the best example of the problem with this current reviewer approach. As mentioned, it seems that the cache had other issues, not merely a keyword flag.

So is there an known example of a cache being proactively disabled for minor unreported issues?

 

I see a cache that was identified as possibly having a problem but by a keyword search. Further investigation by he reviewer uncovered the fact that the cache had major issues. If the reviewer, after digging a little deeper, found that the cache was indeed fine and the word mold was unrelated, we wouldn't be discussing it now.

 

Are we upset at how the unmaintained cache was discovered or that it was actually removed?

Edited May 10, 2017 by justintim1999

[+dprovan]

My point is if the problem was major, there should be NM/NA logs.

I would go further and say that the definition of "major problem" should require there being an NM or NA log. Until then, from the reviewer's point of view, it should be considered minor.

 

Dunno why I'm wasting my breath, though, since it seems clear GS's plan is to get rid of NM and NA logs altogether and switch entirely to reviewer based quality control. Already the user interface has changed to get rid of the log types, and minor issues such as a full log are reported the same as a major problems, implying that there's no significant difference: no matter what's wrong, you should call in GS to fix it.

[+dprovan]

I see a cache that was identified as possibly having a problem but by a keyword search. Further investigation by he reviewer uncovered the fact that the cache had major issues.

I'm sorry, but how did you figure this out? I don't remember any evidence of a major issue at all in the mold example. I think you may be thinking of the other case where the reference to "mold" turned out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the cache, not the original case in that thread where the cache was disabled and archived because someone that found it and signed the log mentioned mold, but the logs gave no other indications of a problem going back for years.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I see a cache that was identified as possibly having a problem but by a keyword search. Further investigation by he reviewer uncovered the fact that the cache had major issues. If the reviewer, after digging a little deeper, found that the cache was indeed fine and the word mold was unrelated, we wouldn't be discussing it now.

 

Are we upset at how the unmaintained cache was discovered or that it was actually removed?

 

I'm not upset, but I think cache quality control initiated by cachers (using NM/NA) is better for the game then reviewers searching logs for things that look like issues. With the former, at least one cacher feels strongly enough about the "issue" to raise the NM/NA log. I've found lots of caches with logs which say the "cache was wet and moldy" etc which in my view were fine. If cachers are happy finding the cache, why disable it based on the reviewer reading logs?

 

But this thread isn't going anywhere, so I'll bow out too.

Edited May 10, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+justintim1999]

I see a cache that was identified as possibly having a problem but by a keyword search. Further investigation by he reviewer uncovered the fact that the cache had major issues.

I'm sorry, but how did you figure this out? I don't remember any evidence of a major issue at all in the mold example. I think you may be thinking of the other case where the reference to "mold" turned out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the cache, not the original case in that thread where the cache was disabled and archived because someone that found it and signed the log mentioned mold, but the logs gave no other indications of a problem going back for years.

 

This link was provided earlier.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343993&view=findpost&p=5650727

 

This is what I assumed we were discussing

[+edexter]

I log a dnf when I tried to find a cache and couldn't find it. In my case, a bit more than a third of the time the cache is really missing, and at any given time about 3% of all caches are missing. Unless you have found the cache previously or find pieces of it, there is no way for you to tell if it's there or not. Only the CO can tell and only by going and looking. So a single dnf means "I didn't find it". Excluding "evil hides" that are designed to be difficult to find and are less likely to be muggled (stolen), a string of three or four dnfs by experienced cachers is pretty good evidence that the cache is actually gone. Add in no maintenance logs for a year or four and it's a good bet it's gone. Many folks do not log dnfs, and many others will not look for a log that has been denf'd so a longer than usual gap between finds is also a useful indicator that the cache may be missing. Relatively few CO's will check on a cache without an NM log which people are even more reluctant to post than a dnf, but if you have reason to believe it's gone, speak up and explain your reasons.

[+dprovan]

I see a cache that was identified as possibly having a problem but by a keyword search. Further investigation by he reviewer uncovered the fact that the cache had major issues.

I'm sorry, but how did you figure this out? I don't remember any evidence of a major issue at all in the mold example. I think you may be thinking of the other case where the reference to "mold" turned out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the cache, not the original case in that thread where the cache was disabled and archived because someone that found it and signed the log mentioned mold, but the logs gave no other indications of a problem going back for years.

This link was provided earlier.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343993&view=findpost&p=5650727

 

This is what I assumed we were discussing

Yeah, that's what I thought. This is the one that the thread was started about.

[+thebruce0]

It's very easy to determine if an owner is absent - there can't be a "perceived problem" with an absentee owner since all they have to do is respond.

OK, I'm going to give up for now. Maybe I'll read past this first sentence later, but with this start, I no longer think I can understand your position well enough to talk to you. My point is that an absentee owner is not a problem, perceived or otherwise. I thought you were getting all upset about me implying that you want to archive caches for reasons other than their condition, but then you turn around and explicitly say that an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches. I object to that position, but I can't really discuss it with you as long as you seem to keep denying it.

How do you get me saying that "an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches"?!

It's a problem cache with an absentee owner.

The mind boggles. Perhaps you should read the rest of the comment(s).

In the case of a NM being posted incorrectly on a good cache, if the owner is absent and does not address the NM flag (even if the cache does not need maintenance), then they are effectively abandoning their listing - a responsibility requirement agreed to when checking that little ownership box - and therefore the listing now has a "problem" (the flag giving viewers the impression it needs maintenance when it doesn't) which needs to be addressed.

 

I clearly stated that if a reviewer proactively sets a good standing cache into its "due process" (by posting a NM or by disabling) merely because (for no other reason than) they suspect its owner is absent is not being reasonable.

But we have seen no example of this happening yet, especially which has been defended by Groundspeak.

Edited May 11, 2017 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

I see a cache that was identified as possibly having a problem but by a keyword search. Further investigation by he reviewer uncovered the fact that the cache had major issues.

I'm sorry, but how did you figure this out? I don't remember any evidence of a major issue at all in the mold example. I think you may be thinking of the other case where the reference to "mold" turned out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the cache, not the original case in that thread where the cache was disabled and archived because someone that found it and signed the log mentioned mold, but the logs gave no other indications of a problem going back for years.

This link was provided earlier.

 

http://forums.Ground...dpost&p=5650727

 

This is what I assumed we were discussing

Yeah, that's what I thought. This is the one that the thread was started about.

 

From HD's retrieval log: I checked on it, and it was in a smelly condition. I removed the cache. If the family would like the container, let me know. Otherwise, I will clean out the container, and rehide it...

HD's post #74: I checked it out yesterday. Umm... Quite skanky inside, though not sure if it is mold. So, I guess the other cachers did not log anything about the condition because of its age. One daughter did add a new log book four years ago. But they're not into geocaching.

Skanky. So skanky that HD can't re-use the can until he cleans it out. But I'm guessing you'll argue it should only be archived until samples are sent to a lab and tests confirm that the skankiness was a result of mold.

[+dprovan]

How do you get me saying that "an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches"?!

You said an absentee owner was a real problem, not a perceived problem. I took that to mean that it was a problem that could validly be addressed through reviewer action. What did you mean?

 

You once again cloud the issue by bring up the case where an NM is posted. The discussion is completely different in that case, so I wish you'd quit trying to talk about it in this context.

[+thebruce0]

How do you get me saying that "an absentee owner is a problem that, alone, justifies archiving caches"?!

You said an absentee owner was a real problem, not a perceived problem. I took that to mean that it was a problem that could validly be addressed through reviewer action. What did you mean?

 

You once again cloud the issue by bring up the case where an NM is posted. The discussion is completely different in that case, so I wish you'd quit trying to talk about it in this context.

...............

Let me REquote for you what you appear to have missed from that very comment:

I clearly stated that if a reviewer proactively sets a good standing cache into its "due process" (by posting a NM or by disabling) merely because (for no other reason than) they suspect its owner is absent is not being reasonable.

But we have seen no example of this happening yet, especially which has been defended by Groundspeak.

[+noncentric]

DISCLAIMER - I haven't read through this entire topic, so some of what I'm saying below might've been said already. My apologies.

 

It's understandable that your generation of cachers wants everything to be like it was back in 2002. Back when people had to invest actual $$$ to get into the game. I'm sure most people playing back then didn't invest all that time and money unless they were reasonably sure it was something they wanted to do. It's different today. It costs nothing to geocache so the mildly curious can jump right in. Some try it and enjoy it. Many realize that it's not for them and quickly disappear. It's the ability of the latter to hide a geocache that I'm concerned with.

As a cache owner you should toe the maintenance line. That's what you agreed to do isn't it?

[snip]

Isn't it reasonable to expect a cache owner to legitimately try to maintain their caches at some level? Any level?

I hear your concern about caches that become 'abandoned' because their CO's join the game, enthusiastically hide a cache after a few finds, and then drop out of the hobby. Those CO's are unlikely to respond to DNF/NM logs and won't fulfill any cache maintenance duties.

 

I would suspect that those 'fly by night' CO's are hiding caches in close-in areas, not spots that require a long hike/bike/paddle. Wouldn't you agree, then, that the expectation of yearly visits is less reasonable (or necessary) for the latter than the former?

 

Do we really want to discourage hike/bike/paddle caches by mandating a visitation schedule, in the absence of reported problems? Yes - if problems are reported for a cache, then the CO should check on it, but that doesn't mean they need to be checking it just because the calendar page has turned x number of times.

[+noncentric]

DISCLAIMER - I haven't read through this entire topic, so some of what I'm saying below might've been said already. My apologies.

 

It sends a message that set-em-and-forget-em is sanctioned.

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.

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

 

What if an issue develops regarding a change in attitude by the land owner? What if they decide they no longer want geocaches on their property. Who will respond?

Walking this through - a CO abandons the game (or dies) and their cache becomes 'ownerless'.

By your standards, the cache should be archived.

Since the cache is 'ownerless', then it's going to continue sitting in its hiding spot.

 

Landowners that enact a blanket ban on caches will typically contact GS. They aren't going to be contacting individual CO's to say 'get your cache off my lawn'. When they contact GS, then GS will alert the appropriate Reviewer who will then automatically archive all the caches in the area delineated by the land manager. In such cases, it doesn't matter if the cache is 'ownerless' or not - the listing is still going to be archived.

 

Yes - the 'ownerless' caches are less likely to be retrieved by the CO. But the only way to prevent such things from happening is to prevent caches from being placed in the first place. For example, you certainly don't intend to abandon your caches - but if you become incapacitated, then your caches will end up abandoned. To prevent that from happening, then we'd have to prevent you from placing caches in the first place or have you retrieve your caches before you become incapacitated - but carp happens and can't always be anticipated.

 

How about if a cache location develops a dangerous situation and should be disabled for safety reasons?

Then cachers should report an NA, with a reason, and a Reviewer will disable it.

 

I know that these situations are not the norm as I'm pretty sure that most abandoned caches are not placed in containers designed to last years and years.

Again, depends on why the cache became abandoned. Caches placed long ago, when ammo cans were more popular, would last for years and years and those 'olden days' caches are more likely to have become abandoned because their CO's aged out of the hobby.

[+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?

[+noncentric]

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.

 

Just to clarify - My posts above were in response to the posts I quoted (mostly justintim1999's comments about how caches shouldn't continue if their owners are no longer active). My posts have nothing to do with thebruce0's 1/1b/2/2b scenarios or whether GS has actually taken action against ownerless caches or whether GS is trying to 'get rid of good caches'. My posts were about justintim1999's comments about ownerless caches and yearly visits.

[+noncentric]

I can tell you that most of the land owners/managers wouldn't know who to contact to get a cache archived. The only contact they have is me and I promised them, when they gave me permission, I'd handle any issues that may arise. Many people don't read cache pages and previous logs. Posting a NA or NM would be good, but disabling the cache to ensure no one even attempted it would be better.

There are sizable swaths of land where caches have blanket permission, as long as cache placements abide by a certain set of rules. Those land managers don't want to approve every cache listing or manage contact details for every CO. They know about geocaching.com, since they became familiar with it before creating their blanket permission. If they have issues, then they will contact GS.

 

Some lands work with a single cacher, who acts as the contact point between the land manager and geocaching.com - if the land manager has an issue with an area of the park, then they contact their point-person and that point-person contacts the CO(s) of the cache(s) in the affected area.

 

As an additional point, I've got another unfound cache in the same park, just over the 600' away. Same parking area... They'd get 2 FTFs had they looked for the other one. And it's relatively easy.

 

Both the caches in this park are being watched by 2. That tells me that at least 2 cachers looked and didn't find them (well, at least that's my interpretation).

Just an FYI - the cachers may be watching your unfound cache because they want to get the FTF themselves, so they have the watch so they'll get an email when the cache is found or maintained. I don't think it means that they've already searched and DNF'd. When there are new caches that I might attempt to FTF, then I'll put them on my watchlist so that I don't have to keep checking the cache page to see if it's been found. It's easier for me to get an email than to keep refreshing the cache page, especially if I'm en route to GZ.

 

Actually I'd completely understand an experienced cacher seeing a DNF already, visiting, and not bothering with another DNF if they intend to log the NM. They may feel its redundancy, and the NM is more informative.

Of course, that depends on how they submitted their log (old logging method vs new logging method).

[+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.

[+noncentric]

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.

[+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?

[+thebruce0]

Actually I'd completely understand an experienced cacher seeing a DNF already, visiting, and not bothering with another DNF if they intend to log the NM. They may feel its redundancy, and the NM is more informative.

Of course, that depends on how they submitted their log (old logging method vs new logging method).

[+thebruce0]

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?

Exactly.

Again, a CO enters an agreement of responsibility. I understand the concern that if the CO is inactive and a cache listing is archived then who's going to clear it up? But, we can't have it both ways - the owner is responsible for their physical cache - it's their property. The listing is the listing service. GS cannot be responsible for physical 'trash'. If the owner agrees to the requirements to have their property listed on geocaching.com, and they walk away from the game, the property doesn't suddenly become GS's responsibility. GS is responsible to maintain the integrity of their listings, and so have to resort to archiving the listing. If that physical container becomes "trash", it can't ever become GS's fault, otherwise from the beginning having your cache listed on geocaching.com means GS to some degree "owns" that physical property.

 

If there is trash laying around after an archival, it is the owner's fault.

That of course doesn't mean that some other cacher can't come along and retrieve the abandoned container and re-post a new listing with it. That would be a good deed, especially if it was a great cache. But that new CO had better commit to the requirements of having the cache listed on gc.com

[+lefisher]

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.

[+redsox_mark]

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.

 

Exactly. If there are a number of DNFs over time, and no response by the CO, such that a cacher feels this needs to be checked, it is common (and generally accepted) to log a NM (as well as a DNF).

[+justintim1999]

DISCLAIMER - I haven't read through this entire topic, so some of what I'm saying below might've been said already. My apologies.

 

It sends a message that set-em-and-forget-em is sanctioned.

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.

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

 

What if an issue develops regarding a change in attitude by the land owner? What if they decide they no longer want geocaches on their property. Who will respond?

Walking this through - a CO abandons the game (or dies) and their cache becomes 'ownerless'.

By your standards, the cache should be archived.

Since the cache is 'ownerless', then it's going to continue sitting in its hiding spot.

 

Landowners that enact a blanket ban on caches will typically contact GS. They aren't going to be contacting individual CO's to say 'get your cache off my lawn'. When they contact GS, then GS will alert the appropriate Reviewer who will then automatically archive all the caches in the area delineated by the land manager. In such cases, it doesn't matter if the cache is 'ownerless' or not - the listing is still going to be archived.

 

Yes - the 'ownerless' caches are less likely to be retrieved by the CO. But the only way to prevent such things from happening is to prevent caches from being placed in the first place. For example, you certainly don't intend to abandon your caches - but if you become incapacitated, then your caches will end up abandoned. To prevent that from happening, then we'd have to prevent you from placing caches in the first place or have you retrieve your caches before you become incapacitated - but carp happens and can't always be anticipated.

 

How about if a cache location develops a dangerous situation and should be disabled for safety reasons?

Then cachers should report an NA, with a reason, and a Reviewer will disable it.

 

I know that these situations are not the norm as I'm pretty sure that most abandoned caches are not placed in containers designed to last years and years.

Again, depends on why the cache became abandoned. Caches placed long ago, when ammo cans were more popular, would last for years and years and those 'olden days' caches are more likely to have become abandoned because their CO's aged out of the hobby.

 

I think you'd agree that the majority of abandoned caches are by owners that are still breathing. I don't want to stop people from potentially being cache owners but I would like to limit that ability to those who are serious about it. People who understand the game and the commitment involved.

 

As far as the dangerous situation is concerned shouldn't the cache owner be the one to disable it? Any attentive cache owner would be well aware of the issue before a reviewer even needed to get involved. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

 

If every cache was an ammo can maintenance would be a breeze. Don't see many new ammo cans being placed out there today. I see more and more plastic containers and bison tubes that for the most part work but require more maintenance.

[+dprovan]

I think you'd agree that the majority of abandoned caches are by owners that are still breathing. I don't want to stop people from potentially being cache owners but I would like to limit that ability to those who are serious about it. People who understand the game and the commitment involved.

I'm not sure what your point is here. From what I've seen, the only way for either the CO or the community to be able to judge whether a CO is serious about it and understands the game and the commitment involved is for them to hide caches. They have to hide caches before they can see how long they last and how people react and before the community can see if they're responsible. GS and reviewers seem like the only people in the picture that would have no way of determining whether the CO is up to the task.

 

As far as the dangerous situation is concerned shouldn't the cache owner be the one to disable it? Any attentive cache owner would be well aware of the issue before a reviewer even needed to get involved. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

Absolute, let's put the responsibility for reporting dangerous situations exactly and squarely where it belongs: on whoever discovered the dangerous situation. That is almost always a seeker. Then the seeker reports the problem with an NA, and now who's responsibility is it to disabled the cache? Whoever first reads the report, of course, regardless of whether it's the owner or the reviewer.

[+noncentric]

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.

[+noncentric]

I think you'd agree that the majority of abandoned caches are by owners that are still breathing. I don't want to stop people from potentially being cache owners but I would like to limit that ability to those who are serious about it. People who understand the game and the commitment involved.

I'm not sure what your point is here. From what I've seen, the only way for either the CO or the community to be able to judge whether a CO is serious about it and understands the game and the commitment involved is for them to hide caches. They have to hide caches before they can see how long they last and how people react and before the community can see if they're responsible. GS and reviewers seem like the only people in the picture that would have no way of determining whether the CO is up to the task.

Yes - I suspect that the proportion of abandoned caches with living CO's is higher than the proportion with dead ones. Mainly because there are many more 'fly by night' cachers now, compared to the pre-smartphone days when cachers had to invest more to get into the hobby. Those 'fly by night' cachers aren't abandoning their caches because they cannot stay involved. They are abandoning their caches because they're just not interested anymore. It's unfortunate.

 

However, I also agree with what dprovan is saying. I feel it's like a 'chicken or egg' situation.

I understand that you want to limit hiding to 'serious' cachers that are committed to the hobby. But my posts were meant to emphasize that carp can happen to make a serious/committed CO abandon their caches and I don't believe that a cache should be subject to archival just because of that (again, I'm talking about caches that don't have problems besides an inactive CO). Perhaps the emphasis should be on 'qualifying' cache hiders, rather than dictating maintenance schedules that end up sussing out inactive CO's? Such 'qualifications' have been mentioned in numerous threads - proposing things like quizzes, waiting periods, etc.

 

As far as the dangerous situation is concerned shouldn't the cache owner be the one to disable it? Any attentive cache owner would be well aware of the issue before a reviewer even needed to get involved. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

Absolute, let's put the responsibility for reporting dangerous situations exactly and squarely where it belongs: on whoever discovered the dangerous situation. That is almost always a seeker. Then the seeker reports the problem with an NA, and now who's responsibility is it to disabled the cache? Whoever first reads the report, of course, regardless of whether it's the owner or the reviewer.

Yes - I'm agreeing with dprovan here too.

There are plenty of 'dangerous situations' that a CO won't know about until they arrive at GZ. A cache seeker is likely to discover the danger well before a CO, even if that CO makes annual visits to their cache. By cache seekers logging NA's, with an explanation of the issue, then both the CO and Reviewer can be alerted and the first one available can disable the cache. There are times when serious/committed CO's are away from their email for several days/weeks and a Reviewer would be able to disable sooner than than the CO.

Of course, then there are the cases where the CO and the reporting cacher disagree about what is 'dangerous' and the reporting cacher logs an NA to get Reviewers involved. There are other threads about those 'interesting' situations.

[+coachstahly]

 

I don't want to stop people from potentially being cache owners but I would like to limit that ability to those who are serious about it. People who understand the game and the commitment involved.

 

So who would make the cut? Are you going to require a certain amount of finds? A certain amount of time to play before you're allowed to hide one?

 

As far as the dangerous situation is concerned shouldn't the cache owner be the one to disable it? Any attentive cache owner would be well aware of the issue before a reviewer even needed to get involved. Let's put the responsibility where it belongs.

 

If it was dangerous to begin with, there's a good chance the CO wouldn't have hidden it there in the first place. I would venture to guess that caches hidden weren't in a dangerous area or part of a dangerous situation to begin with and that time (or some other circumstance) has rendered the cache dangerous for whatever reason. The seeker, who is most likely to have the most current view of the cache's situation would be the one to post the requisite NA so either the reviewer OR the CO could disable it. An attentive CO would ONLY know if they're visiting the cache site frequently. Unless there's a reported issue, I'm not visiting the site on a regular basis so your claim that I'd be well aware wouldn't be a valid one. Even if we go by your once a year suggested visit requirement, there's no way a CO will be on top of the situation like the most current seeker of the cache.

[+noncentric]

If every cache was an ammo can maintenance would be a breeze. Don't see many new ammo cans being placed out there today. I see more and more plastic containers and bison tubes that for the most part work but require more maintenance.

Yes - so if the 'newer' cache hides require more maintenance, then those CO's should do the maintenance. I fully agree with that.

I just don't agree that hard-and-fast rules should be enacted and applied to all CO's - even those CO's that do address maintenance issues that arise on their caches or aren't able to do maintenance on their caches that don't need maintenance anyway. Abandoned caches with moldy contents and wet, mushy logs should certainly be subject to archival - but there are also abandoned caches in fine shape that I don't think should be archived just because the CO has left the hobby. That last part is the main point I was trying to make, even though I see that others have also asserted the same belief.

[+niraD]

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.

[+justintim1999]

If every cache was an ammo can maintenance would be a breeze. Don't see many new ammo cans being placed out there today. I see more and more plastic containers and bison tubes that for the most part work but require more maintenance.

Yes - so if the 'newer' cache hides require more maintenance, then those CO's should do the maintenance. I fully agree with that.

I just don't agree that hard-and-fast rules should be enacted and applied to all CO's - even those CO's that do address maintenance issues that arise on their caches or aren't able to do maintenance on their caches that don't need maintenance anyway. Abandoned caches with moldy contents and wet, mushy logs should certainly be subject to archival - but there are also abandoned caches in fine shape that I don't think should be archived just because the CO has left the hobby. That last part is the main point I was trying to make, even though I see that others have also asserted the same belief.

 

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

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

You think caching is the same as it was in 2005. I don't.

 

It's ok. We disagree and nothing either one of us can say will change that.

[+coachstahly]

 

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.

[+thebruce0]

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)

[+dprovan]

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

I agree this is a core point of disagreement. I want the rules to be as flexible as possible so anyone else can have as much fun as they want as long as it doesn't get in the way of my fun. You want universal rules, apparently unable to have fun unless everyone plays the way you want them to play.

 

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

I agree this is a second important point of disagreement. I want to maximize the number of caches and have them be in as good a shape as possible. You want to minimize the number of bad caches, and you don't care how many caches, regardless of quality, are eliminated to that end.

 

You think caching is the same as it was in 2005. I don't.

I have no idea what caching was like in 2005, but I also don't see any reason why someone who was having fun in 2005 shouldn't be free to have fun today.

 

It's ok. We disagree and nothing either one of us can say will change that.

That's unfortunate. I think a lot of people have made good arguments for flexibility and community, but the other side never seems to put up an argument much beyond, "Bad caches: yuck," followed by proposals for more rules that will supposedly eliminate bad caches while making geocaching less fun for some people.

[+coachstahly]

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)

Using that reasoning then, Groundspeak has the right to remove them from the database. Why haven't they?

 

I also still fail to see the "harm" incurred to geocaching. I know LOne.R posted this response but the reasons posited aren't harmful but rather things that can happen regardless of whether a cache is owned or ownerless.

 

"It sends a message that set-em-and-forget-em is sanctioned." - Leaving them there doesn't sanction it, Groundspeak does by not doing anything about them (see thebruce0's point about the lack of the "right" to have them listed in the database). Groundspeak could clear that right up by automatically disabling all these ownerless caches and letting them die due to inactivity by the COs to rectify the situation.

 

"In cache dense areas, and if it's a nice scenic spot, it means no one else gets a chance to be an owner there." - That happens regardless of whether or not a cache is owned or not. If you're that concerned, get it archived via the protocol in place.

 

"If the owner placed 100s of caches power trail style, then abandoned them all, it could mean that those ownerless caches live on forever.There will always be a throwdown cache there. The trail will never open up with the hopes that a variety of monitoried caches and active responsible cache owners can hide a few caches there. " - Again, see the first point as well as the second point. Once there's a throwdown or an issue with the cache, follow it up with the NM, then the NA.

 

All this reverts back to my simple question about why Groundspeak hasn't chosen to remove these ownerless caches from their database. As thebruce0 points out, the listing shouldn't remain active, yet they do. If they were truly a problem, I'm sure TPTB would address the issue. Seeing as how they haven't, I fail to see the impetus to get ownerless caches off the database, per justintim1999's desire.

 

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.

[+noncentric]

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

[+L0ne.R]

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?

Exactly.

Again, a CO enters an agreement of responsibility. I understand the concern that if the CO is inactive and a cache listing is archived then who's going to clear it up? But, we can't have it both ways - the owner is responsible for their physical cache - it's their property. The listing is the listing service. GS cannot be responsible for physical 'trash'. If the owner agrees to the requirements to have their property listed on geocaching.com, and they walk away from the game, the property doesn't suddenly become GS's responsibility. GS is responsible to maintain the integrity of their listings, and so have to resort to archiving the listing. If that physical container becomes "trash", it can't ever become GS's fault, otherwise from the beginning having your cache listed on geocaching.com means GS to some degree "owns" that physical property.

 

If there is trash laying around after an archival, it is the owner's fault.

That of course doesn't mean that some other cacher can't come along and retrieve the abandoned container and re-post a new listing with it. That would be a good deed, especially if it was a great cache. But that new CO had better commit to the requirements of having the cache listed on gc.com

 

Well said.

[+noncentric]

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?

Exactly.

Again, a CO enters an agreement of responsibility. I understand the concern that if the CO is inactive and a cache listing is archived then who's going to clear it up? But, we can't have it both ways - the owner is responsible for their physical cache - it's their property. The listing is the listing service. GS cannot be responsible for physical 'trash'. If the owner agrees to the requirements to have their property listed on geocaching.com, and they walk away from the game, the property doesn't suddenly become GS's responsibility. GS is responsible to maintain the integrity of their listings, and so have to resort to archiving the listing. If that physical container becomes "trash", it can't ever become GS's fault, otherwise from the beginning having your cache listed on geocaching.com means GS to some degree "owns" that physical property.

 

If there is trash laying around after an archival, it is the owner's fault.

That of course doesn't mean that some other cacher can't come along and retrieve the abandoned container and re-post a new listing with it. That would be a good deed, especially if it was a great cache. But that new CO had better commit to the requirements of having the cache listed on gc.com

Well said.

I don't disagree with what thebruce0 wrote, but I've read this several times and still don't see how it's related to my post that Team Microdot quoted.

 

I do wonder, when thebruce0 says "trash" - then do you mean the cache is in bad shape or do you mean it's given the 'trash' status because its ownerless?