Abandoned Cache Adoption Events

[+UnHoly453]

With my long hiatus, and return to caching, I'm finding that a significant number of caches are either missing, or have long since been abandoned by their owners, and maybe at some point or another, someone else has thrown down a micro in place of the original. I think that there are a lot of problems with this.

 

First, if no one visit's a cache for quite some time, it could be a year or more before enough DNFs + NM + NA logs happen to get a missing cache archived.

 

Second, if a (for the sake of example, lets assume this is a traditional Ammo can) cache is replaced with a micro by a random cacher after a few DNFs, then logged as a find - the cache then lives on, incorrectly categorized, with new 'finds' being logged, when really they are logging finds of this weak replacement, which will never really be maintained... Beyond that, the experience which was intended by the person who originally placed, and maintained the cache, is then lost.

 

The idea of this event type is to get together cachers within a radius, and coordinate adoptions, and archival of abandoned caches. This would be caches whose owners have not visited the site for over a year.

 

When coordinating, ultimately the original cache owners could be contacted by a reviewer, and given 30 days to respond, as with any archival, and if there is no response the cache is either Archived, or Adopted, depending on whether anyone volunteered to adopt that cache during the event or not. Their non-action would be considered consent to adopt.

 

Adopters of caches at these events would have (after the initial 30 days notice for cache owners) 30 days to get out to each cache they adopted, and perform maintenance - which should be done on a cache by cache basis, depending on the most recent reported state of the cache.

 

Maybe this idea is crazy, stupid, whatever... heck, maybe it's one that pops up from time to time, and always fades into the nothingness... I just feel that there is a huge space for this type of thing, and ultimately, it could heavily benefit the community, and that the ideals here align strongly with the spirit of Geocaching,

Edited May 10, 2017 by UnHoly453

[+narcissa]

You are free to coordinate like-minded people to do whatever you'd like, but if you have this in mind as an actual geocaching event, your first step should be thorough reading of the cache placement guidelines.

 

Groundspeak won't sanction the theft of other people's caches, nor will they allow geocachers to adopt other people's listings without their consent.

Edited May 10, 2017 by narcissa

[+UnHoly453]

You are free to coordinate like-minded people to do whatever you'd like, but if you have this in mind as an actual geocaching event, your first step should be thorough reading of the cache placement guidelines.

 

Groundspeak won't sanction the theft of other people's caches, nor will they allow geocachers to adopt other people's listings without their consent.

 

Thanks for the response, and I can completely understand that on some level. That said, if you're not maintaining your cache, and say, haven't logged in for 5 years... I think it's more than safe to say that the cache is not then being stolen, nor their listing hi-jacked (for lack of a better term). What if, rather than adopting, then, the cache was 'co-assigned', thus allowing proper maintenance and logging to be performed by an active member?

 

If that isn't an option, perhaps the 'adopted' caches are simply replaced entirely (archived, then new one posted), but their integrity preserved in some way, by the new cache leaving an homage to the one it is replacing?

 

Of course there are a million ways we could analyze the existing rules, etc... to find flaws in the idea, but I think ultimately, there is always a middle ground, which would allow for a fresh new way to handle things, when theres clearly a need.

 

P.S. I found a cache today where the owner hasn't logged in for 5+ years... the cache is in dire need of maintenance, but it was a great find, and I'd happily adopt it, and take over maintenance. I reported the NM, as have several others in recent months...

 

[+Manville Possum]

The problem that I see is these listings may already be owner-less and neglected caches that just need archived to make room for active members.

[+niraD]

If that isn't an option, perhaps the 'adopted' caches are simply replaced entirely (archived, then new one posted), but their integrity preserved in some way, by the new cache leaving an homage to the one it is replacing?

Yes, this happens today. The "tribute" cache listing can link to the original (now archived) listing to preserve history.

 

Why do you need a new event type just for this kind of activity?

[+UnHoly453]

If that isn't an option, perhaps the 'adopted' caches are simply replaced entirely (archived, then new one posted), but their integrity preserved in some way, by the new cache leaving an homage to the one it is replacing?

Yes, this happens today. The "tribute" cache listing can link to the original (now archived) listing to preserve history.

 

Why do you need a new event type just for this kind of activity?

 

The point is to wipe out a bunch of them at once... Rather than wait for 6,7,9 months, or even a year + for the right type of members (those who care enough to report) to actually report caches in need of archive/maintenance.

 

Maybe its not much an issue where you are, but it seems to be more and more of an issue the more rural the area is that I go caching.

[+cerberus1]

I'm all for archiving caches that have fallen beyond repair with an inactive Owner.

They then can be replaced by one who may perform maintenance, and respond to issues.

 

Please read the guidelines on the Adoption Process..

- Notice that nowhere does it mention "co-assigned" or similar. The Owner must institute the adoption process.

 

Caches belong to the CO who's account it's on.

A few years ago, a Reviewer explained that he caught heck after a long-gone cacher returned, and wondered what happened to his property, that was "given" to another.

[+UnHoly453]

I'm all for archiving caches that have fallen beyond repair with an inactive Owner.

They then can be replaced by one who may perform maintenance, and respond to issues.

 

Please read the guidelines on the Adoption Process..

- Notice that nowhere does it mention "co-assigned" or similar. The Owner must institute the adoption process.

 

Caches belong to the CO who's account it's on.

A few years ago, a Reviewer explained that he caught heck after a long-gone cacher returned, and wondered what happened to his property, that was "given" to another.

 

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

[+cerberus1]

If someone is looking for an Event that takes care of cache condition/maintenance issues, I like the "Geocaching 101" Events that spring up once-in-a-while.

Enforcing the idea that we already have a means to remedy carpy caches (through NM/NA) usually take place there.

 

Of course it's up to the individual to use what they've learned.

- Good luck with that.

[+cerberus1]

I'm all for archiving caches that have fallen beyond repair with an inactive Owner.

They then can be replaced by one who may perform maintenance, and respond to issues.

 

Please read the guidelines on the Adoption Process..

- Notice that nowhere does it mention "co-assigned" or similar. The Owner must institute the adoption process.

 

Caches belong to the CO who's account it's on.

A few years ago, a Reviewer explained that he caught heck after a long-gone cacher returned, and wondered what happened to his property, that was "given" to another.

 

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

Okay, then please read the Terms of Use too.

 

Ownership, part B reads:

"Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache. Geocache listings published through our services are owned by the person who submitted the geocache listing for publication".

[+narcissa]

You are free to coordinate like-minded people to do whatever you'd like, but if you have this in mind as an actual geocaching event, your first step should be thorough reading of the cache placement guidelines.

 

Groundspeak won't sanction the theft of other people's caches, nor will they allow geocachers to adopt other people's listings without their consent.

 

Thanks for the response, and I can completely understand that on some level. That said, if you're not maintaining your cache, and say, haven't logged in for 5 years... I think it's more than safe to say that the cache is not then being stolen, nor their listing hi-jacked (for lack of a better term). What if, rather than adopting, then, the cache was 'co-assigned', thus allowing proper maintenance and logging to be performed by an active member?

 

If that isn't an option, perhaps the 'adopted' caches are simply replaced entirely (archived, then new one posted), but their integrity preserved in some way, by the new cache leaving an homage to the one it is replacing?

 

Of course there are a million ways we could analyze the existing rules, etc... to find flaws in the idea, but I think ultimately, there is always a middle ground, which would allow for a fresh new way to handle things, when theres clearly a need.

 

P.S. I found a cache today where the owner hasn't logged in for 5+ years... the cache is in dire need of maintenance, but it was a great find, and I'd happily adopt it, and take over maintenance. I reported the NM, as have several others in recent months...

 

If a cache is archived and you choose to place another cache in that spot, there's nothing to stop you from doing that.

 

You're not going to succeed in getting published events for the purpose of stealing other people's caches or other coordinated efforts to hound cache owners. Read the guidelines.

Edited May 10, 2017 by narcissa

[+narcissa]

I'm all for archiving caches that have fallen beyond repair with an inactive Owner.

They then can be replaced by one who may perform maintenance, and respond to issues.

 

Please read the guidelines on the Adoption Process..

- Notice that nowhere does it mention "co-assigned" or similar. The Owner must institute the adoption process.

 

Caches belong to the CO who's account it's on.

A few years ago, a Reviewer explained that he caught heck after a long-gone cacher returned, and wondered what happened to his property, that was "given" to another.

 

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

 

This is so 101 level that you're going to encounter many experienced cachers repeating the same things.

 

This is not Groundspeak's view of the issue. You really need to educate yourself on a few things: guidelines, terms of use, historical cache theft issues, cache adoption. The forum has a huge wealth of old discussions about this, and if you are unclear about what you are permitted to do officially through the site, ask a reviewer or submit a question through the help centre.

Edited May 10, 2017 by narcissa

[+The A-Team]

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

Uhhh, it most definitely is still your property. When you hide a cache, you aren't abandoning the container in the woods; you're purposely placing it there with a specific intent. Until you transfer ownership of the container in some way, it remains your property. If someone takes your property without your consent, that's a textbook definition of theft. Groundspeak will neither condone nor facilitate the theft of other cachers' caches or cache listings, no matter how altruistic your motives may be.

 

In short, there's no way you can make your idea fly. Forced cache adoption won't happen. The best you can do is lead by example and use the NM/NA logs* as appropriate to deal with neglected caches, and hold educational events where you can promote the appropriate use of those log types* to other local cachers.

 

*...keeping in mind that these aren't really their own log types anymore, but are rather being treated as some kind of poorly-thought-out log attribute by TPTB...

[+WearyTraveler]

perhaps if GS added:

"If you become inactive for x periods and do not respond to y pings, you will be considered inactive and any / all caches you've placed will be subject to removal for the sake of the environment. "

Or some such, to the TOS that we all agree to when we place a cache, no one would be accused of STEALING anything...

[+UnHoly453]

perhaps if GS added:

"If you become inactive for x periods and do not respond to y pings, you will be considered inactive and any / all caches you've placed will be subject to removal for the sake of the environment. "

Or some such, to the TOS that we all agree to when we place a cache, no one would be accused of STEALING anything...

 

This!

 

Part of the problem is that these abandoned caches are... well, trash in the woods... which is a MAJOR part of what Groundspeak, and this community in general strive (or... at one time did) to combat.

 

As for property, sure, you're right, the terms of service say it's your property, and thus by Groundspeak's TOS, it is... And I'll leave this part of the conversation there.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

As narcissa points out, the kind of event cache proposed by the OP won't be allowed. You cannot create an event cache for the purpose of searching for geocaches.

 

However, some do have an event, and simultaneously publish a list of caches, along with a route to follow to find the caches. In my neck of the woods, these are called "Cache Machines". Some of these are organized right here on the geocaching forum. Here's a forum post for one such Cache Machine. Note that they are organized in the location specific portion of the forum.

 

I don't see any reason why someone couldn't do something similar, but use a list of caches that look to be having a problem. Call it a "DNF Cache Machine". It's not a team, there is no team name. It's not a single log entry, each cacher would be responsible for their own logging. That includes deciding whether or not a NM or NA is justified. And the caches would follow the normal multiple DNF/NM/NA archival process. The DNF Cache Machine would simply accelerate that process.

[+UnHoly453]

As narcissa points out, the kind of event cache proposed by the OP won't be allowed. You cannot create an event cache for the purpose of searching for geocaches.

 

However, some do have an event, and simultaneously publish a list of caches, along with a route to follow to find the caches. In my neck of the woods, these are called "Cache Machines". Some of these are organized right here on the geocaching forum. Here's a forum post for one such Cache Machine. Note that they are organized in the location specific portion of the forum.

 

I don't see any reason why someone couldn't do something similar, but use a list of caches that look to be having a problem. Call it a "DNF Cache Machine". It's not a team, there is no team name. It's not a single log entry, each cacher would be responsible for their own logging. That includes deciding whether or not a NM or NA is justified. And the caches would follow the normal multiple DNF/NM/NA archival process. The DNF Cache Machine would simply accelerate that process.

 

Thank you! This is a useful input. While I wasn't actually suggesting anything of this nature, so much as a group of cachers getting together, discussing local caches within the region, (including a reviewer), and working out their status', the way that you have presented this sounds like it not only adheres to the guidelines and TOS, but might be something easier to accomplish.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

As narcissa points out, the kind of event cache proposed by the OP won't be allowed. You cannot create an event cache for the purpose of searching for geocaches.

 

However, some do have an event, and simultaneously publish a list of caches, along with a route to follow to find the caches. In my neck of the woods, these are called "Cache Machines". Some of these are organized right here on the geocaching forum. Here's a forum post for one such Cache Machine. Note that they are organized in the location specific portion of the forum.

 

I don't see any reason why someone couldn't do something similar, but use a list of caches that look to be having a problem. Call it a "DNF Cache Machine". It's not a team, there is no team name. It's not a single log entry, each cacher would be responsible for their own logging. That includes deciding whether or not a NM or NA is justified. And the caches would follow the normal multiple DNF/NM/NA archival process. The DNF Cache Machine would simply accelerate that process.

 

This is a novel idea.

 

I don't see it taking off.

 

Many, probably most events in my area typically come with a number of new caches published specifically for the event - even down to the time of publication. Often these are just caches for caches sake within a small radius of the event location and this pattern seems to appeal to the attendees.

 

I can't see many attendees turning up for an event where the theme was to head out en-masse to find and NM/NA old, junky caches, even if only because the radius that would need to be covered to rack up any quantity of finds for the session on that basis would probably be significant.

[+lee737]

perhaps if GS added:

"If you become inactive for x periods and do not respond to y pings, you will be considered inactive and any / all caches you've placed will be subject to removal for the sake of the environment. "

Or some such, to the TOS that we all agree to when we place a cache, no one would be accused of STEALING anything...

 

I agree with this too, it just might help remove the tonnes of discarded plastic we have now strewn all over..... I think there would be audible hand wringing in certain areas if it were properly proposed by GS though.

Stealing/theft - hell would freeze over before anyone was charged with theft over removal of a wet/broken plastic container.

 

 

[+narcissa]

perhaps if GS added:

"If you become inactive for x periods and do not respond to y pings, you will be considered inactive and any / all caches you've placed will be subject to removal for the sake of the environment. "

Or some such, to the TOS that we all agree to when we place a cache, no one would be accused of STEALING anything...

 

This!

 

Part of the problem is that these abandoned caches are... well, trash in the woods... which is a MAJOR part of what Groundspeak, and this community in general strive (or... at one time did) to combat.

 

As for property, sure, you're right, the terms of service say it's your property, and thus by Groundspeak's TOS, it is... And I'll leave this part of the conversation there.

 

Again, this is just such a 101 level issue that the best course of action is for the newer forum users to fully familiarize themselves with the way this actually works.

 

Springtime always brings with it a wave of impassioned newcomers who plan to turn the game on its head with the exact same ideas that aren't really workable because they aren't compatible with the actual operation of the game. Save yourselves the time and energy and read up on the history before you start your crusade.

[+Michaelcycle]

UnHoly453: please note that you do not know when a CO "last logged in." The official app (and I'm guessing the other apps out there) does not update that data on the website. Many geocachers rely on apps exclusively to play this game now.

[+The A-Team]

perhaps if GS added:

"If you become inactive for x periods and do not respond to y pings, you will be considered inactive and any / all caches you've placed will be subject to removal for the sake of the environment. "

Or some such, to the TOS that we all agree to when we place a cache, no one would be accused of STEALING anything...

Groundspeak's lawyers would have to weigh in on whether taking ownership of someone else's cache is something they'd even want to do. I could see them wanting to avoid this in case a cache they become the owner of is found to be problematic (e.g. on private land, a sensitive location like under a bridge, etc.) or could even lead to litigation. I bet this is one of the main reasons why the ownership structure is the way it currently is. Groundspeak's lawyers can step back and say "hey, it's not our cache. We're just a listing site".

 

Also, this would only apply to those caches that were hidden after the hypothetical change to the ToU. They wouldn't be able to retroactively apply it to existing caches.

[+The A-Team]

Getting back to the original problem...

 

...I'm finding that a significant number of caches are either missing, or have long since been abandoned by their owners, and maybe at some point or another, someone else has thrown down a micro in place of the original. I think that there are a lot of problems with this.

 

If you're really finding that a significant number of caches in your area are problematic, that indicates to me that the local cachers aren't utilizing the existing tools available to them. I still say a combination of leading-by-example and education will be a better and easier route to go in order to "clean up" your local caches. A couple of us started doing this in my area a few years ago (not hesitating to log an NA when appropriate), and we now have a local culture where many different cachers are willing to log NM/NA as necessary. Problematic caches tend not to fester and hiding spots are opened up for new cachers to get into the game/hobby. If you can get your fellow cachers to keep on top of problematic caches, there wouldn't be as many and a mass-NA event wouldn't be required.

[+geodarts]

Uhhh, it most definitely is still your property. When you hide a cache, you aren't abandoning the container in the woods; you're purposely placing it there with a specific intent. Until you transfer ownership of the container in some way, it remains your property. If someone takes your property without your consent, that's a textbook definition of theft.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. There are hundreds of caches placed on open space lands in the county where I live. I am familiar enough with the agency to know that it has never given permission to leave containers on their land. Under their ordinances, the caches are considered abandoned property. In my state, a belief that property has been abandoned is a defense against theft. It need not be debated here, but I don't think caching necessarily falls within the textbooks I have read.

 

In any event, the rules are different within this game. Groundspeak has no authority to sanction unauthorized removal of containers or force adoption. The person who hid the container may have decided to take it elsewhere and list it at another site. Unfortunately, one result of this game is that broken plastic may be left behind, as once a cache has been abandoned and archived it is not necessarily cleaned up.

 

A land manger once told me that he would never approve physical caches because he believes they are litter. He has a point. Although it need not be the case, a container can end up as litter even if the NM/NA procedure ensures it is no longer listed on this site. Still. I don't think forced adoption or being subject to automatic removal (by whom?) is the answer.

Edited May 10, 2017 by geodarts

[+L0ne.R]

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

Uhhh, it most definitely is still your property. When you hide a cache, you aren't abandoning the container in the woods; you're purposely placing it there with a specific intent. Until you transfer ownership of the container in some way, it remains your property. If someone takes your property without your consent, that's a textbook definition of theft.

 

I believe property includes the cache listing write-up. It may have something to do with intellectual property.

Archival is the safest thing to do. It preserves the listing.

If something were to happen to me... let's say I'm in a coma for 6 months then miraculously, wake up and recover. At 9 months I am able to function enough to check my account. I discover that several of my caches have been adopted out to people, and those people changed my listing--maybe replaced the description with a new one, removed my trailname from the owner field, changed the D/T, the size, maybe the only relevant thing left was the GC code and the old logs--I'd be hopping mad. I'd demand that it be returned to me, back to what it was before my coma. Then I would archive it and preserve what it was.

(If I become well enough to cache again, I'd place new ones later. That is, if it was worth doing and there was good locations left in my area to hide caches.)

 

If a well-meaning cacher removes my cache after archival (so it didn't give geocaching a black-eye, or sully my reputation for well-maintained caches), I'm cool with that. When I hide it, I always expect that there's a very good chance that it may go missing eventually, or get to a point that it starts to look rough and needs to be replaced.

Edited May 10, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+UnHoly453]

UnHoly453: please note that you do not know when a CO "last logged in." The official app (and I'm guessing the other apps out there) does not update that data on the website. Many geocachers rely on apps exclusively to play this game now.

 

I truly don't mean this offensively, but have you extensively studied the API? I'm sure the api calls don't ALL cause the 'last visit' value to update, but it would surprise me if none of them did... Just based on what i know about programming, and development... which is quite a bit.

[+Dame Deco]

 

P.S. I found a cache today where the owner hasn't logged in for 5+ years... the cache is in dire need of maintenance, but it was a great find, and I'd happily adopt it, and take over maintenance. I reported the NM, as have several others in recent months...

 

Or you could log a Needs Archived, wait for it to archived, and place a cache of your own there. Why preserve an old abandoned cache? Put out a new one and everyone that found the old one will have a new reason to visit the spot.

[+SeattleWayne]

I'm all for archiving caches that have fallen beyond repair with an inactive Owner.

They then can be replaced by one who may perform maintenance, and respond to issues.

 

Please read the guidelines on the Adoption Process..

- Notice that nowhere does it mention "co-assigned" or similar. The Owner must institute the adoption process.

 

Caches belong to the CO who's account it's on.

A few years ago, a Reviewer explained that he caught heck after a long-gone cacher returned, and wondered what happened to his property, that was "given" to another.

 

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

 

Cache containers that are created or purchased and placed on public property are still very much the property of whoever created and or purchased said cache container.

[+SeattleWayne]

While I applaud you for being, you know, that guy to try to get all these junky, broken down caches fixed and all... I'd also like to point out that 1) this is a hobby and 2) many COs may have legitimate reasons as to why their cache is in the condition it's in. You might be sitting there thinking that the CO is out to lunch, abandoned the cache, lost interest in the game and doesn't care about it anymore. Yes, the cache has three NM logs, the log is soggy and no one can sign it and the lid is cracked.

 

I'll use myself as an example. I currently have seven caches to my name. At one point I had three caches that all needed some attention. Also, Spring has sprung, and now I'm rebuilding my whole fence around my home. I also do my own maintenance on my two vehicles. Plus, my other hobby is riding motorcycles. Plus, I have a full-time job with a tremendous amount of overtime available to work. I'm just one CO out of hundreds of thousands that have a life outside of geocaching.

 

The expectation that if a cache needs attention, and the CO doesn't come out right away to fix whatever the issue is, then the cache needs to be adopted to someone with more time is ludicrous. It took me 2-3 months to finally get all my caches up and I still have one down because the walking trail was shut down by the city for some reason.

 

It's really not that serious.

[+UnHoly453]

I'd bet just about anything that, a court of law would disagree... though we're not really here to argue about semantics...

 

There's been a host of good suggestions here thanks to my well-meaning, albeit half-baked, suggestion, as well as a staggering amount of unnecessary badgering...

 

Thanks for all the input either way.

[+narcissa]

I'd bet just about anything that, a court of law would disagree... though we're not really here to argue about semantics...

 

There's been a host of good suggestions here thanks to my well-meaning, albeit half-baked, suggestion, as well as a staggering amount of unnecessary badgering...

 

Thanks for all the input either way.

 

A court of law has held at least one person responsible for stealing other people's caches, but a court of law isn't really relevant to what you're proposing here. This is exactly the sort of thing that you might understand better if you spend a bit of time learning about the history of these issues.

 

You are free to organize a vigilante group to go out and do whatever it is you intend to do, but Geocaching.com won't sanction that as an official event and it won't hand other people's listings to you. That's not semantics, it's how this geocache listing site works.

[+Manville Possum]

You are free to organize a vigilante group to go out and do whatever it is you intend to do, but Geocaching.com won't sanction that as an official event and it won't hand other people's listings to you. That's not semantics, it's how this geocache listing site works.

 

And praise the Good Lord that they don't sanction hijacking.

[+Touchstone]

If you're already taking people's caches, that you have deemed to be abandoned, you might as make it more expedient and just take over their account as well. I mean, if you're going to steal caches, you might as well finish the job and steal their identity as well.

[+Ruru_nz]

Hi all,

 

Stumbled on this topic while seeing what to do if I wanted to place a new cache where an archived container is still in place - was pleased to see this is a current topic!

 

Going back a few postings, and thinking about the "theft" issue:

 

If a cache has been archived (for whatever reason) this theoretically leaves the area open for another cache to be placed in the general area.

So if the original container is still there, can it be removed by the owner of the new cache?

Leaving it in place will probably cause confusion if it was found instead of the new container.

Removing it could be considered theft.

Using it for the new cache is hi-jacking.

 

The only solution I can see is to use the same coordinates and place the archived container inside the new container - thus preserving the history.

 

When I decide that I will place one in the location I have in mind, I will of course attempt to contact the owner of the archived cache first.

[+lee737]

 

If a cache has been archived (for whatever reason) this theoretically leaves the area open for another cache to be placed in the general area.

So if the original container is still there, can it be removed by the owner of the new cache?

Leaving it in place will probably cause confusion if it was found instead of the new container.

Removing it could be considered theft.

Using it for the new cache is hi-jacking.

 

 

In the situation you've described, I would gladly discard the container of the old archived listing - if the container had evidence inside that it was indeed in play on another site, or the old cache listing had this described clearly, I'd leave it in place.

I am ready to be judged by a jury of 12 <lol> for throwing away a cracked, wet lunchbox, any day.

[+SeattleWayne]

a staggering amount of unnecessary badgering...

 

 

Yeah because you're wanting a reviewer to tell a CO he/she has 30 days to respond to a NM log or they lose their Geocache.

 

:laughing:

[+noncentric]

If a cache has been archived (for whatever reason) this theoretically leaves the area open for another cache to be placed in the general area.

So if the original container is still there, can it be removed by the owner of the new cache?

Leaving it in place will probably cause confusion if it was found instead of the new container.

Removing it could be considered theft.

Using it for the new cache is hi-jacking.

 

The only solution I can see is to use the same coordinates and place the archived container inside the new container - thus preserving the history.

 

When I decide that I will place one in the location I have in mind, I will of course attempt to contact the owner of the archived cache first.

Personally, I would first contact the owner of the archived cache and ask if they're okay with me removing their cache container. I've done this myself - contacted a CO whose cache was archived and they hadn't logged into the site or logged a find in about 1.5 years. Their container was still in place, so I asked if they minded me taking their container away from its hiding spot. They actually replied and said to 'go ahead'. I ended up not using that spot though, since I later found out that location had a history of archived caches due to muggles.

 

If no CO response, then it's up to you whether to remove the container or not. Some things to consider:

-- How long it's been since the cache was archived. If it was archived recently, then maybe the CO just needs more time to make a trip to the site to pick up the container.

-- Whether the cache was archived by the CO or Reviewer. If the CO archived it, then they might be more likely to remove it and maybe they even mention their pick-up plans in their Archive log.

-- Whether the cache might be listed on another listing site. Geocaching.com isn't the only listing site out there. Other listing sites are more active in some countries than in others.

 

Regarding the 'theft' aspect - consider your local laws. Different localities have different laws about found property, and have their own distinctions between 'property' vs 'litter'.

[+noncentric]

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

I think we agree that the cache listing on geocaching.com is the original CO's 'property' - so the idea of transferring ownership to an adopter without the CO's consent is not going to fly.

Regarding the physical cache container itself - this is a global hobby, and leaving something in a public space does not relinquish the original owner's right to that property in all locales. In some countries, people that find something out in public are supposed to turn that property in to municipal offices. They are not entitled to take that item and claim it for themselves. Of course, those locales will usually have some criteria to distinguish something as 'property' vs 'litter', with the latter being allowed to be trashed.

 

UnHoly453: please note that you do not know when a CO "last logged in." The official app (and I'm guessing the other apps out there) does not update that data on the website. Many geocachers rely on apps exclusively to play this game now.

I truly don't mean this offensively, but have you extensively studied the API? I'm sure the api calls don't ALL cause the 'last visit' value to update, but it would surprise me if none of them did... Just based on what i know about programming, and development... which is quite a bit.

Have you familiarized yourself with the various options cachers have to access the site? A cacher's 'Last Visit' date does not update when a cacher uses the Geocaching app. That is a fact.

[+narcissa]

Hi all,

 

Stumbled on this topic while seeing what to do if I wanted to place a new cache where an archived container is still in place - was pleased to see this is a current topic!

 

Going back a few postings, and thinking about the "theft" issue:

 

If a cache has been archived (for whatever reason) this theoretically leaves the area open for another cache to be placed in the general area.

So if the original container is still there, can it be removed by the owner of the new cache?

Leaving it in place will probably cause confusion if it was found instead of the new container.

Removing it could be considered theft.

Using it for the new cache is hi-jacking.

 

The only solution I can see is to use the same coordinates and place the archived container inside the new container - thus preserving the history.

 

When I decide that I will place one in the location I have in mind, I will of course attempt to contact the owner of the archived cache first.

 

In practice, if you are reasonably certain that the cache is not listed elsewhere, you probably won't run into any trouble if you take the container and contact the original owner with information so they can get it back from you if it's important to them. You run a slight risk of really ticking someone off if you do that.

 

Geocaching.com won't sanction that kind of thing, however. In the past there have been efforts to coordinate geocachers to remove archived caches - someone in my area actually created a challenge cache for this - but those things got shut down. It seems Groundspeak doesn't want to be dealing with angry cache owners who feel their stuff has been taken without permission.

 

TL;DR - Go ahead and take people's caches, but don't expect Geocaching.com to facilitate your efforts.

[Keystone]

Groundspeak's lawyers would have to weigh in on whether taking ownership of someone else's cache is something they'd even want to do. I could see them wanting to avoid this in case a cache they become the owner of is found to be problematic (e.g. on private land, a sensitive location like under a bridge, etc.) or could even lead to litigation. I bet this is one of the main reasons why the ownership structure is the way it currently is. Groundspeak's lawyers can step back and say "hey, it's not our cache. We're just a listing site".

Those lawyers* have already weighed in, years ago, and you identified one of the reasons why the rules are as they are. Congratulations! You have earned the Souvenir for graduating from the Signal the Frog School of Law, which proudly displays the School's motto, "Justitia Amphibium." Please add the Souvenir to your helpful website index, and be sure to send a certified mail notification to Pond Bird.

 

Another reason, besides third party liability risk, is the risk of litigation/complaints from a cache owner who returns from a long absence and discovers that their container and listing were "misappropriated" to some other geocacher via adoption without consent. I have witnessed that firsthand back in the old days when the rules were different. It was unpleasant at the time, but the good news is, the long-absent owner remains active in the game to this day and old owner, adopted owner and reviewer are all on great terms.

 

Geocaching HQ has made it abundantly clear to reviewers that we are not to encourage removal of geocaches. I find it exquisitely ironic that, in this thread, the OP is suggesting that reviewers participate in something that could lead to their dismissal under current rules, while in another thread, he opines that a reviewer ought to be dismissed for exercising judgment about a cache listing that is wholly within the guidance given to us by Geocaching HQ.

 

*_{While am both a Reviewer and a Lawyer, I am not a Lawyer for the Reviewers nor for Geocaching HQ. I did, however, earn the Signal the Frog School of Law Souvenir. And I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.}

[+WearyTraveler]

I plan to search for a cache that hasn't been found for a long time. The last few finders noted that he cache top was missing and that they dried it out as best they could.

I sent mail to the CO - no finds since 2009 and last login over a year ago, if he's done anything with the cache. No response...

I'll wager he's not active.

He's also got geotrash in the woods...

I received a call from the last finder who stated that they left it in a tree stump and that hopefully it's still there.

I'm planning to search for this cache. I've also logged a NM.

 

The CO has logged in since the last finders have reported the cache was in bad shape, but apparently hasn't seen fit to write a note, OM, or anything... I'm wagering he doesn't care anymore.

 

So - what should I do with the geotrash when I find it? I plan to NA it eventually, but what about what's left of the container and the moldy innerds...

[+TriciaG]

So - what should I do with the geotrash when I find it? I plan to NA it eventually, but what about what's left of the container and the moldy innerds...

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344300&view=findpost&p=5654074

In practice, if you are reasonably certain that the cache is not listed elsewhere, you probably won't run into any trouble if you take the container and contact the original owner with information so they can get it back from you if it's important to them. You run a slight risk of really ticking someone off if you do that.

 

Geocaching.com won't sanction that kind of thing, however. In the past there have been efforts to coordinate geocachers to remove archived caches - someone in my area actually created a challenge cache for this - but those things got shut down. It seems Groundspeak doesn't want to be dealing with angry cache owners who feel their stuff has been taken without permission.

 

TL;DR - Go ahead and take people's caches, but don't expect Geocaching.com to facilitate your efforts

[+SeattleWayne]

 

The CO has logged in since the last finders have reported the cache was in bad shape, but apparently hasn't seen fit to write a note, OM, or anything... I'm wagering he doesn't care anymore.

 

 

Why the assumption that the CO doesn't care anymore? Just because CO won't stop immediately and tend to the cache as you see fit? Come on. People have lives outside of their hobbies. Maybe CO has a sick family member or work has been consuming all their time. Log your necessary NM logs, and move on. If CO truly doesn't care then eventually enough NM logs will prompt a reviewer to disable it and within that time frame either CO fixes said cache or CO doesn't. If CO doesn't, it gets archived and the spot opens back up.

[+WearyTraveler]

So - what should I do with the geotrash when I find it? I plan to NA it eventually, but what about what's left of the container and the moldy innerds...

Narcissa's post a couple up from yours answers your question nicely: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=344300&view=findpost&p=5654074

In practice, if you are reasonably certain that the cache is not listed elsewhere, you probably won't run into any trouble if you take the container and contact the original owner with information so they can get it back from you if it's important to them. You run a slight risk of really ticking someone off if you do that.

 

Geocaching.com won't sanction that kind of thing, however. In the past there have been efforts to coordinate geocachers to remove archived caches - someone in my area actually created a challenge cache for this - but those things got shut down. It seems Groundspeak doesn't want to be dealing with angry cache owners who feel their stuff has been taken without permission.

 

TL;DR - Go ahead and take people's caches, but don't expect Geocaching.com to facilitate your efforts

 

But - isn't that "the textbook definition of stealing?"

 

(I actually plan to do that, but I figured I'd get this thread a little riled up... )

[+Team Microdot]

 

The CO has logged in since the last finders have reported the cache was in bad shape, but apparently hasn't seen fit to write a note, OM, or anything... I'm wagering he doesn't care anymore.

 

 

Why the assumption that the CO doesn't care anymore? Just because CO won't stop immediately and tend to the cache as you see fit? Come on. People have lives outside of their hobbies. Maybe CO has a sick family member or work has been consuming all their time.

 

Except for the time they found to log in but not post a note, presumably.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

The CO has logged in since the last finders have reported the cache was in bad shape, but apparently hasn't seen fit to write a note, OM, or anything... I'm wagering he doesn't care anymore.

 

 

Why the assumption that the CO doesn't care anymore? Just because CO won't stop immediately and tend to the cache as you see fit? Come on. People have lives outside of their hobbies. Maybe CO has a sick family member or work has been consuming all their time.

 

Except for the time they found to log in but not post a note, presumably.

 

Come on - I'm not talking about a 2 week old "damp log" post an screaming "let's archive that bastiage!"

 

Immediately ? No - last log was in 2013 - several mentioned the damage over several months. So it wasn't an isolated log.

 

I think that caches like this are what's central to the active / inactive good condition / bad condition discussion.

 

I'm just positing now, but there are several caches close to this one, both easier and harder. They're getting found and looked for. This one is not. I again - just positing... but I think that this one is in its own death spiral. People researching a cache trip see that it's in lousy shape and that there's no proactive, well - reactive, CO action. Why should they make the trek to find a wet - broken cache in the woods when there are others on both sides of it that are in just as pretty a spot (to allay other posters' response to this) that are fun to find and log?

 

I'll wager (after talking to the last 2012 finder) that when I get there there will be nothing more than a PVC pipe and maybe some trinkets on the ground.

[+UnHoly453]

I'd bet just about anything that, a court of law would disagree... though we're not really here to argue about semantics...

 

There's been a host of good suggestions here thanks to my well-meaning, albeit half-baked, suggestion, as well as a staggering amount of unnecessary badgering...

 

Thanks for all the input either way.

 

A court of law has held at least one person responsible for stealing other people's caches, but a court of law isn't really relevant to what you're proposing here. This is exactly the sort of thing that you might understand better if you spend a bit of time learning about the history of these issues.

 

You are free to organize a vigilante group to go out and do whatever it is you intend to do, but Geocaching.com won't sanction that as an official event and it won't hand other people's listings to you. That's not semantics, it's how this geocache listing site works.

 

 

I never had any intent of organizing a 'Vigilante' group of anything... I don't know why you seem to have this obscenely negative view of what I'm proposing. Perhaps you don't understand what it is I proposed. Perhaps my word choice was inadequate to accurately describe the idea. Who knows?

 

 

If you're already taking people's caches, that you have deemed to be abandoned, you might as make it more expedient and just take over their account as well. I mean, if you're going to steal caches, you might as well finish the job and steal their identity as well.

 

Maybe read before you reply? I never once said I was planning to steal anyone's caches. There are simply some folks who fail to be able to dissociate the act of keeping the site, as well as cache locations free of trash and clutter, with stealing.

 

If a cache has been archived (for whatever reason) this theoretically leaves the area open for another cache to be placed in the general area.

So if the original container is still there, can it be removed by the owner of the new cache?

Leaving it in place will probably cause confusion if it was found instead of the new container.

Removing it could be considered theft.

Using it for the new cache is hi-jacking.

 

 

In the situation you've described, I would gladly discard the container of the old archived listing - if the container had evidence inside that it was indeed in play on another site, or the old cache listing had this described clearly, I'd leave it in place.

I am ready to be judged by a jury of 12 <lol> for throwing away a cracked, wet lunchbox, any day.

 

My point exactly... If someone has been prosecuted for this, my guess is that the act was one of admitted malicious intent.

 

 

a staggering amount of unnecessary badgering...

 

 

 

Yeah because you're wanting a reviewer to tell a CO he/she has 30 days to respond to a NM log or they lose their Geocache.

 

:laughing:

 

Thanks for a textbook example of poor paraphrasing. This isn't what I said by any means. But thanks for your not so helpful input.

[+UnHoly453]

I can understand the disdain, but, also... it kinda is no longer your property when you choose to place it in the woods or elsewhere, and post the exact coordinates of its location in any public space... jm2c

I think we agree that the cache listing on geocaching.com is the original CO's 'property' - so the idea of transferring ownership to an adopter without the CO's consent is not going to fly.

Regarding the physical cache container itself - this is a global hobby, and leaving something in a public space does not relinquish the original owner's right to that property in all locales. In some countries, people that find something out in public are supposed to turn that property in to municipal offices. They are not entitled to take that item and claim it for themselves. Of course, those locales will usually have some criteria to distinguish something as 'property' vs 'litter', with the latter being allowed to be trashed.

 

 

UnHoly453: please note that you do not know when a CO "last logged in." The official app (and I'm guessing the other apps out there) does not update that data on the website. Many geocachers rely on apps exclusively to play this game now.

I truly don't mean this offensively, but have you extensively studied the API? I'm sure the api calls don't ALL cause the 'last visit' value to update, but it would surprise me if none of them did... Just based on what i know about programming, and development... which is quite a bit.

Have you familiarized yourself with the various options cachers have to access the site? A cacher's 'Last Visit' date does not update when a cacher uses the Geocaching app. That is a fact.

 

Yes, I have, and I understand that. Perhaps the API should be updated to cause the 'Last Visit' date to be updated, at least when doing things like logging a find/NM/NA/OM/dnf, using the messenger, etc...

 

Nothing is perfect, and yes, until it was brought to my attention, I was unaware that the various third party apps, and even the official app, did not update that value.

 

Hi all,

 

Stumbled on this topic while seeing what to do if I wanted to place a new cache where an archived container is still in place - was pleased to see this is a current topic!

 

Going back a few postings, and thinking about the "theft" issue:

 

If a cache has been archived (for whatever reason) this theoretically leaves the area open for another cache to be placed in the general area.

So if the original container is still there, can it be removed by the owner of the new cache?

Leaving it in place will probably cause confusion if it was found instead of the new container.

Removing it could be considered theft.

Using it for the new cache is hi-jacking.

 

The only solution I can see is to use the same coordinates and place the archived container inside the new container - thus preserving the history.

 

When I decide that I will place one in the location I have in mind, I will of course attempt to contact the owner of the archived cache first.

 

In practice, if you are reasonably certain that the cache is not listed elsewhere, you probably won't run into any trouble if you take the container and contact the original owner with information so they can get it back from you if it's important to them. You run a slight risk of really ticking someone off if you do that.

 

Geocaching.com won't sanction that kind of thing, however. In the past there have been efforts to coordinate geocachers to remove archived caches - someone in my area actually created a challenge cache for this - but those things got shut down. It seems Groundspeak doesn't want to be dealing with angry cache owners who feel their stuff has been taken without permission.

 

TL;DR - Go ahead and take people's caches, but don't expect Geocaching.com to facilitate your efforts.

 

Narcissa, I want to clarify something here... I'm not condoning, or suggesting just taking someone's cache, or even taking ownership of a cache, without any consent or whatever the thought you're having may be.

[+UnHoly453]

Groundspeak's lawyers would have to weigh in on whether taking ownership of someone else's cache is something they'd even want to do. I could see them wanting to avoid this in case a cache they become the owner of is found to be problematic (e.g. on private land, a sensitive location like under a bridge, etc.) or could even lead to litigation. I bet this is one of the main reasons why the ownership structure is the way it currently is. Groundspeak's lawyers can step back and say "hey, it's not our cache. We're just a listing site".

Those lawyers* have already weighed in, years ago, and you identified one of the reasons why the rules are as they are. Congratulations! You have earned the Souvenir for graduating from the Signal the Frog School of Law, which proudly displays the School's motto, "Justitia Amphibium." Please add the Souvenir to your helpful website index, and be sure to send a certified mail notification to Pond Bird.

 

Another reason, besides third party liability risk, is the risk of litigation/complaints from a cache owner who returns from a long absence and discovers that their container and listing were "misappropriated" to some other geocacher via adoption without consent. I have witnessed that firsthand back in the old days when the rules were different. It was unpleasant at the time, but the good news is, the long-absent owner remains active in the game to this day and old owner, adopted owner and reviewer are all on great terms.

 

Geocaching HQ has made it abundantly clear to reviewers that we are not to encourage removal of geocaches. I find it exquisitely ironic that, in this thread, the OP is suggesting that reviewers participate in something that could lead to their dismissal under current rules, while in another thread, he opines that a reviewer ought to be dismissed for exercising judgment about a cache listing that is wholly within the guidance given to us by Geocaching HQ.

 

*While am both a Reviewer and a Lawyer, I am not a Lawyer for the Reviewers nor for Geocaching HQ. I did, however, earn the Signal the Frog School of Law Souvenir. And I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

Keystone, thank you for your input, it is kindly appreciated. Perhaps I am not as familiar with the intricacies of the rules as you are, and that's okay, I don't make a point to be, as most people don't. That said, I'd never just go out and do anything here that even for a moment, made me question whether it was allowed or not - hence this forum topic. If what I've suggested is against the rules for what a reviewer is allowed to do, then I apologize, and thank you for making me aware. Let me clarify though, that in that other thread you mention, I simply meant to say that, should a reviewer begin to regularly stray from the rules in place, both upon the community as a whole, and them, as moderators of this community, then yes, perhaps their role as a reviewer should be placed under scrutiny.

 

The CO has logged in since the last finders have reported the cache was in bad shape, but apparently hasn't seen fit to write a note, OM, or anything... I'm wagering he doesn't care anymore.

 

 

 

Why the assumption that the CO doesn't care anymore? Just because CO won't stop immediately and tend to the cache as you see fit? Come on. People have lives outside of their hobbies. Maybe CO has a sick family member or work has been consuming all their time. Log your necessary NM logs, and move on. If CO truly doesn't care then eventually enough NM logs will prompt a reviewer to disable it and within that time frame either CO fixes said cache or CO doesn't. If CO doesn't, it gets archived and the spot opens back up.

 

No, SeattleWayne, no one has suggested that because someone doesn't immediately spring up to take care of something, their cache should be taken from them. If you look back, the entire discussion is about long abandoned caches, with long histories of NMs, or even just logs noting their need for maintenance (because for some reason people don't use the tools put in place by TPTB anymore...).

[+UnHoly453]

The CO has logged in since the last finders have reported the cache was in bad shape, but apparently hasn't seen fit to write a note, OM, or anything... I'm wagering he doesn't care anymore.

 

 

Why the assumption that the CO doesn't care anymore? Just because CO won't stop immediately and tend to the cache as you see fit? Come on. People have lives outside of their hobbies. Maybe CO has a sick family member or work has been consuming all their time.

 

Except for the time they found to log in but not post a note, presumably.

 

Come on - I'm not talking about a 2 week old "damp log" post an screaming "let's archive that bastiage!"

 

Immediately ? No - last log was in 2013 - several mentioned the damage over several months. So it wasn't an isolated log.

 

I think that caches like this are what's central to the active / inactive good condition / bad condition discussion.

 

I'm just positing now, but there are several caches close to this one, both easier and harder. They're getting found and looked for. This one is not. I again - just positing... but I think that this one is in its own death spiral. People researching a cache trip see that it's in lousy shape and that there's no proactive, well - reactive, CO action. Why should they make the trek to find a wet - broken cache in the woods when there are others on both sides of it that are in just as pretty a spot (to allay other posters' response to this) that are fun to find and log?

 

I'll wager (after talking to the last 2012 finder) that when I get there there will be nothing more than a PVC pipe and maybe some trinkets on the ground.

 

WearyTraveler, you have put this so perfectly... These are the types of caches that caused me to start this thread to begin with... Thank you for having some semblance of understanding what it is I'm talking about... I think I need to go back to school for English or something, because clearly, my communication skills could use some work.

 

Narcissa.. I am not sure why you think that I want to just go steal people's caches, or do anything that involves going against the Rules or TOS... The point of starting this thread was to present my own thought process, on -- what I thought was a half decent, albeit expeditious, idea -- and hopefully bring together other cachers who have seen this same pattern, to create some sort of collective ideal as to how to address these things within the bounds of the rules (hence the suggestion of a reviewer's participation).

The intent is to clean up after those who've either lost interest, passed on, or simply become to busy to take care of their caches. This creates opportunity for cachers to get out there, place new caches, adopt old ones, and to see first hand how much of a mess an abandoned cache can become.

 

All - I understand that people own their caches, and that ultimately, withing the bounds of the rules at least, they will never be forfeited to someone else without consent.

 

This is a forum for members of this community to discuss this amazing, Ecocentric hobby that we are all a part of. When someone brings an idea here, rather than chastise, and berate them for their ideas, and tell them to 'inform themselves', perhaps aid in doing so, and keep the condescension to a minimum?

 

I do enjoy taking part in a community, offering suggestions, and going beyond the call to assist others, though I feel it's completely unnecessary to lambaste someone for having an idea. Regardless of how ridiculous you may find the idea to be, generally speaking, most of us who take the time out of our day to open discussion on a community forum, with an idea like this one, have nothing but the best intentions.