Poll on abandoned caches topic

[+joedohn]

Before putting any more effort into the concept of community management of abandoned problem caches, I want to do this poll to see if the idea has general support or should just be ditched.

 

If it's perceived as a good idea by the majority then a few other issues need to be hammered out .

 

For example;

a) An acceptably worded email to send to cache owners.

Guaging the number of volunteers willing to contact cache owners and visit bad caches.

c) Getting geocaching.coms blessing. Necessary for when asking that caches be archived.

d) Deciding on the amount of time to wait for a cache owner's response before cleaning up, or adopting, or otherwise managing their cache.

 

If you're in general agreement about this idea but would like to see it tweaked for improvement then please add your comments.

 

If you don't know what this is about, please read the thread on abandoned caches in this NW forum.

[+Renegade Knight]

First of all, you have to lean HEAVILY towards letting the current owner maitain it. But some caches become abandoned. Or the owner cant' afford the internet for a spell from unemployment but can walk down and maintain their cache. Or they died, or are ignoring it.

 

So you have to have a means of transfer, but you have to play it safe including posting a note in the cache itself.

[+joedohn]

Good points Knight, and I concur. My hope is that the geocaching community will be so protective of their own geocaching rights (privileges?) that only the obviously neglected, badly in need of maintenance with no owner in sight caches, will be the only ones that everybody agrees needs intervention and cleaning up.

[+MattandLaura]

I agree on leaning heavy on the cache owners. However a cache can be maintained even if the owner does not have internet, and being maintain won't be an issue. I believe the the following things should be considered as suspect caches

 

1) A cache that is in disarray AND the owner cannot be contacted within a 4 week period

 

2) A cache that is in disarray AND the owner is contacted but doesn't give a darn.

 

Missing caches-if it is missing how is it an issue

 

My definition of a Disarray cache-A cache that is left unattended that is either deteriorating, full of trash, pretty much garbage.

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

First of all, you have to lean HEAVILY towards letting the current owner maitain it. But some caches become abandoned. Or the owner cant' afford the internet for a spell from unemployment but can walk down and maintain their cache. Or they died, or are ignoring it.

 

So you have to have a means of transfer, but you have to play it safe including posting a note in the cache itself.

---

 

[+Maps-R-Us]

We tend to agree that some process needs to be in place but only after giving an extensive opportunity for cache owners to correct/fix/ask for help!

 

See this cache, Ashbrook Cache to find a perfect example of a cache that needed to be put out of it's misery back in December but wasn't till April. In the mean time a lot of folks wasted there time going to look!

[+Logscaler and Red]

What about caches from people just traveling through the area knowing they will never be back? I hit two caches from a person from Oklahoma, one on the Lochsa river and one near Riggens, Idaho that where already scattered about and in chessy little cheap zip-lock plastic boxes. I put them back but I doubt they will last very long. The one on the Lochsa might get hit or looked for often but the one in Riggens area was 15 miles as the crow flys, 24 road miles and a 3 hour round trip off the main road. To me, from my way of thinking, these where pre-abandonded caches. Put out without any intentions of ever coming back for their mantanince or upgrades or removal if needed. I sent the owner an e-mail asking how he was going to maintain them but he has yet to reply. Also, what if the owner responds that they will be checking on the caches in question but never do? Time limits for maintaining/upgrading caches? And, who sets the standard for a valid cache update? Opinions please.

 

[This message was edited by logscaler on May 26, 2002 at 04:59 PM.]

[+Seattle Seekers]

I am planning a trip to see my mom in Sacramento. I plan on hiding a cache while there but have allready found a cacher in that area who has volunteered to babysit my cache for me. I go down there once per year or so and will check it on those occasions. In the meantime, if it needs work he will do it for me. I think that if people plan on hiding cache's while traveling they should be responsible enough to pre-plan like this.

[+joedohn]

Maps-R-Us, perfect example! I remember that one and thinking how ridiculous it was that it went on for so long.

 

Logscaler, Good points on the concept of 'pre-abandoned' caches. If this process can raise cacher's awareness of the need for maintaining their caches on something like a regular basis, then it may be even more important than dealing with the already abandoned ones. Unfortunately, I doubt most long distance cache placers (at least up to now) have used Seattle Seekers formula for keeping their tourist caches in good shape.

Also, since you're one of the most widely travelled cachers in Oregon and especially east of the Cascades, your involvement in this would be invaluable.

[+Logscaler and Red]

Seattle Seekers Are doing those "Tourist caches" exactly right. I have no problem with that style and all it takes is a little thought and some e-mails.

 

Are we creating new term's here in the use of "Tourist caches" and " pre-abandoned caches"?

 

Also, Should the "Tourist Cache" style of caches have to have a second cache owner/babysitter listed as a backup contact ? Maybe somewhere in the body of the cache discription?

 

As for helping out, just let Red and I know where and how we can help out and we will see what we can do.

 

[This message was edited by logscaler on May 26, 2002 at 04:57 PM.]

[+joedohn]

Does everybody following this thread agree that the new 'request to archive' feature Jeremy just added to the log page meets the intent of this thread? I do.

 

There remains the problem of retrieving caches turning to litter though. Any idea's for a solution? It looks like the need for volunteers to collect bad caches is still there.

 

I'm going to shift my participation in this problem over to the thread Jeremy just started (where it probably belongs).