Revisit allowing adoption of Virtual Caches

[+M 5]

I haven't reread a bunch of old threads on the subject, but I think  the main reason, or speculated reason, for not allowing adoption of the old Virtual caches was that Groundspeak was just allowing them a slow death. Now that Groundspeak has decided to allow some new virtual caches, it might be possible to revisit the subject on adopting them. If Groundspeak is going to back new virts, it seems that this could make some old ones better. I know of several active virts that could be archived with the same reason given for many other virtuals being archived. I'm well aware that probably most CO's will never respond, but I've had three offered to me without asking, so I have no doubt that there are a significant amount that could be "saved" and made stronger with an active owner.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, M 5 said:

I haven't reread a bunch of old threads on the subject, but I think  the main reason, or speculated reason, for not allowing adoption of the old Virtual caches was that Groundspeak was just allowing them a slow death. Now that Groundspeak has decided to allow some new virtual caches, it might be possible to revisit the subject on adopting them. If Groundspeak is going to back new virts, it seems that this could make some old ones better. I know of several active virts that could be archived with the same reason given for many other virtuals being archived. I'm well aware that probably most CO's will never respond, but I've had three offered to me without asking, so I have no doubt that there are a significant amount that could be "saved" and made stronger with an active owner.

If Virtuals are allowed to be adopted, the site would probably never hear the end of those who'd like to adopt other caches as well.

Curious how a Virtual cache can be "made stronger".  A CO is doing maintenance or they're not.  Not, and it goes bye-bye.

Now that the site granted 4,000 brand-new Virtuals to  active, caring owners, I don't see why they'd want to put themselves through the drama...    

[+bflentje]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

If Virtuals are allowed to be adopted, the site would probably never hear the end of those who'd like to adopt other caches as well.

Curious how a Virtual cache can be "made stronger".  A CO is doing maintenance or they're not.  Not, and it goes bye-bye.

Now that the site granted 4,000 brand-new Virtuals to  active, caring owners, I don't see why they'd want to put themselves through the drama...    

I actually think M5's post has some merit. I am not expecting anything to change but it would be nice to hear Groundspeak's opinion on the idea. I also think that webcam cache listings should be allowed to be properly maintained (not to be mistaken for new ones being allowed).

[+Touchstone]

3 hours ago, bflentje said:

it would be nice to hear Groundspeak's opinion on the idea.

And I quote:

" Virtual Caches will remain a grandfathered cache type and therefore cannot be adopted to other geocachers. "

Link for reference:

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=899

I think the question is a fare one, but I also think it's no mystery how Groundspeak feels about the subject.  I've also seen Groundspeak make some exceptions in the interest of "...for the benefit of the game...".  The recent decision on the Ape cache comes to mind.  I think it would have to be a truly unique Virtual to rise to that level.

 

 

[+geodarts]

I have seen some of my favorite virtuals archived because the owner was no longer maintaining them.  In the past I advocated adoption as an interim step.   If the old virtuals represent some of the best - including ones that had passed the wow factor - then keeping them as part of this game seemed like a reasonable step to limit their gradual attrition. . . a step that could be taken without having to solve other issues.   Now that Groundspeak has authorized a limited number of virtuals, they apparently are committed to retaining virtuals in a way that goes beyond other grandfathered cache types.   It is all the more reason to allow adoptions.   

Edited October 1, 2017 by geodarts

[+threenow24]

Yes please. Also, what bflentje said.

[+GrateBear]

I agree--so many virtuals are so interesting, and to see them go away because the CO no longer is in the game is disappointing.  I've actually found a handful that I had downloaded in the past, that when I go to log them, are archived.