Keeping an awesome cache alive

[+pantadeusz]

Hi guys,

 

I noticed that one of my favourite caches ever, a virtual in Hanoi, Vietnam was archived yesterday. The GC code is GCH13R.

 

It lead me and hundreds of others to a place of enormous historical importance and gave me a very powerful experience, which I would have definitely not had had it not been there. I would really like to keep this geocache alive. I even offered the reviewer who archived it that I could adopt it and make sure the logs meet the requirements in the listing, but he refused this without really giving me a proper reason (he said the cache cannot be unarchived). I think it's geocaches like this one that make this game unique. So I thought I would ask for advice here - can we do something to keep this cache alive?

 

I understand this forum is also read and moderated by Groundspeak people - I am trying to brainstorm and find some solution which you would accept, and definitely not go against any Groundspeak rules.

 

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

[+cerberus1]

By the Guidelines,  we haven't been able to adopt archived caches, or grandfathered cache types (virtuals is one) for some time.   

[Keystone]

The reviewer gave you the correct answer.  "Geocaching HQ doesn't allow unarchival or adoption of grandfathered caches" is a proper reason.  You may not agree with it, but that's the policy.  There is nothing more that the reviewer can do for you. 

Hopefully, someone else can place a cache in the area so that future geocacher visitors can experience the special location.  Maybe even one of the new, limited "Virtual Reward" caches!

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

So I thought I would ask for advice here - can we do something to keep this cache alive?

If "we" includes someone who has a Virtual Reward, then that Virtual Reward could be used to recreate the archived virtual cache.

Edited November 15, 2017 by niraD

[GPS-Hermit]

I agree that an archived cache should be up for adoption and have not heard a good reason for not doing so! I am one who reads the logs of great caches and likes to see them continue! It should be like the county dump - if you want it - take it home. 

 

If you take more stuff home from the dumb than you took - you might be a redneck - so let us be Geo-Rednecks!

[Keystone]

Cache containers are the property of the owner and thus will not be forcibly adopted out by Geocaching.com.  You might remember the very early years of geocaching when this was possible.  It led to far too many problems, such as the original owner resurfacing after being absent (military leave, illness, arrival of a new baby).  The rise of alternative listing sites is also a factor.  ("But the owner could have listed the cache at OtherCaching.com!")  So, the current adoption policy was introduced many years ago.  All adoptions must be initiated by the cache owner (or, if deceased, by their family or other personal representative). 

[+WarNinjas]

In most cases I wouldn't even be worried about the container.  It would be more about the cache page on my profile and possible favorite points and all. If I did get ill and be gone for a few years and come back to find my caches archived and containers gone it wouldn't be as big of a deal as if I signed back on and the hides were gone from my page and there was a new owner!!!

[+coman123]

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to create a new Multi or mystery geocache, using this location as a way point.

[+SeattleWayne]

18 hours ago, GPS-Hermit said:

I agree that an archived cache should be up for adoption and have not heard a good reason for not doing so!

The cache owner is the only one who can adopt out their cache.

[+Manville Possum]

21 hours ago, GPS-Hermit said:

I agree that an archived cache should be up for adoption and have not heard a good reason for not doing so! I am one who reads the logs of great caches and likes to see them continue!

 

I have reused the area and recreated a new geocache, but it just don't appeal to the community to do so it seems. 

[+dprovan]

I'm surprised that cache        was archived to begin with. As virtual caches go, it seems to have a pretty good record of most people posting the required picture. Just eyeballing, it looks like it's got about 80% compliance, and the other logs clearly aren't armchair logs or anything, so I'm wondering why the reviewer pulled the plug. Is this a new policy of stricter virtual enforcement, or have I just never seen this situation before? It seems kinda hardnosed for such a popular virtual.

[+SeattleWayne]

There's a handful of Virtuals in my area that have COs that are inactive. Yet those caches seem to stay.