Jump to content

Archived caches


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm still struggling to see how the archived cache I found was a guideline violation.

There seems to be no guideline. It is more wrong to log an active cache twice than an archived cache once. Archiving means that the cache is not shown on the map or any search you can do in geocacing.com and it is allowed to publish new caches nearby or to the same place. It is not part of the offician game any more and that's all. Someone could maintain an archived cache for any purpose which leads to interesting question: is it right to remove any cache without owners permission? Here the interpretation of the law is such that geocaches are regarded as a worthless lost objects that the finder can keep, whether they are archived or not.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm still struggling to see how the archived cache I found was a guideline violation.

Finding the archived cache isn't a violation. The abandoned cache is in violation:

9 Tips for responsible cache maintenance: "You’ll need to archive the geocache listing, which will permanently remove it from the geocaching.com website, or adopt the geocache out to someone else. You must also remove the physical geocache container if you archive it."

Guidelines: "Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived."

6.15 Archive a Cache:   "If you archive a physical cache, remove the container from its hiding spot as soon as possible."

People who go looking for archived caches, claim their smiley, and leave the container to rot (because they consider archived caches a side game) are implicit in the violation of the guidelines. The container should have been removed from play, unless in active play on another site--which is extremely rare, and often the logbook reflects whether the cache is actively in play.

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, J Grouchy said:
23 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you want to go out and look for these caches that's perfectly fine.  I really have no problem with that.    I just don't think you should get credit for doing so.  

 

What does it matter whether one gets credit? 

The issue for me isn't whether one gets credit, though if it really doesn't matter, then it wouldn't matter if one didn't get a "Found It" for finding the archived cache.  Although there may be exceptions, I doubt that many would bother looking for archived caches if they *didn't* get credit for finding it.  

When I start to get concerned (not bothered, annoyed, or whining about it) is when getting credit for the find takes precedence over why the cache was archived.  Some caches are archived because they shouldn't have been placed in the first place or something changed after it was published.  For example, a land manager in park may be following a new policy which limits geocaching (perhaps requiring a permit) and may have explicitly asked GS to have the cache archived.  If geocachers continue to search for it because the CO left the container in place, because they could get credit for the find, is bumping ones find count by one really more important than maintaining a good relationship with land managers and other non-geocachers?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

Here the interpretation of the law is such that geocaches are regarded as a worthless lost objects that the finder can keep, whether they are archived or not.

Where is here? Maybe different countries have different laws.

In Germany someone (a hunter that didn't like geocaching) had to pay a not too small fine (more than 1000 Euros) after "finding" a (still active and special) geocache, taking it away and putting it to a place where it got destroyed and only afterwards bringing it to a lost and found office. http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bw&nr=16722

Especially for all geocaches that sit on a place having permission: why should anybody be allowed to steal the cache? It isn't your business unless you are the property owner. You can't decide whether the cache is a lost object only because the cache got archived on this platform.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

When I start to get concerned (not bothered, annoyed, or whining about it) is when getting credit for the find takes precedence over why the cache was archived.  Some caches are archived because they shouldn't have been placed in the first place or something changed after it was published.  For example, a land manager in park may be following a new policy which limits geocaching (perhaps requiring a permit) and may have explicitly asked GS to have the cache archived.  If geocachers continue to search for it because the CO left the container in place, because they could get credit for the find, is bumping ones find count by one really more important than maintaining a good relationship with land managers and other non-geocachers?

For this there always was and is locking the cache. I know of one single case where even the coordinates were changed afterwards.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, AnnaMoritz said:

Where is here? Maybe different countries have different laws.

In this case "here" is in Finland.

28 minutes ago, AnnaMoritz said:

Especially for all geocaches that sit on a place having permission

Not here (in Finland), the law allows to place geocaches wihout permission and this opportunity is widely used. Land owner or manager may "opt out" but "opt in" is not required in rural areas.

31 minutes ago, AnnaMoritz said:

You can't decide whether the cache is a lost object only because the cache got archived on this platform.

In this case we can generally say that there is no matter whether the cache is archived or not. They are not secured by the law because of the they low value.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, AnnaMoritz said:

Especially for all geocaches that sit on a place having permission: why should anybody be allowed to steal the cache? It isn't your business unless you are the property owner. You can't decide whether the cache is a lost object only because the cache got archived on this platform.

To be on the safe side, I leave a message on the cache page and keep the cache for a month in case the owner wants the cache back.

Actually, I use to do that.

After doing this about 5 times over 5 years  and never being contacted, I now toss the cache. If the owner wants it back I'll give them a brand new authentic Lock & Lock. They have all been cheap leaky containers. Margarine tubs, peanut butter jars, ziploc containers,  glass mason jars, dollar store containers, snap containers with 3 tabs broken off.

Example:

9444b9b050e99a6b12d33eb042aa978d--geocac

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Interesting views in this thread.  I have been watching it with interest because this past year I started actively looking for archived geocaches as somebody here put it, a "sidegame".  One archived cache that I found even had a travel bug inside that was sitting there for 4.5 years!  I was pleased to get that one moving again.

I understand that there are various reasons why a geocache could get left behind, and I don't hold it against the COs.  It's fun finding something that has been there for very long unbeknownst to most people, even geocachers.  Almost as fun for me as an FTF.

I have a few rules that I hold myself to regarding archived finds.  First and foremost, if it appears the cache was archived because of land owner issues, trespassing, or possibility of physical injury, I don't go searching.  I limit logs for archived caches to physical containers.  No Earthcaches or Virtuals.  If I don't find the cache, I don't log a DNF.  If I do find the cache, I will log a find, and I remove the container which is now geolitter.  I contact the CO to see if they would like the container returned to them and hold onto it for a while.  I've only had one CO reply, and they told me to keep it and use it.

I haven't found any archived puzzle caches, yet, but if I do, I would leave that one in place in case, as somebody pointed out, others may go looking because the puzzle was archived due to the photobucket issue.

Many times I have heard the phrase, "You play the game how you want", and I think this is another case of this.  Some may choose to log a note, some claim a find, some leave the container behind...etc.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm still struggling to see how the archived cache I found was a guideline violation.

Finding the archived cache isn't a violation. The abandoned cache is in violation:

As I said, the cache in question was archived because the CO thought it was missing. How then was he supposed to go out and retrieve it?

Or is it wrong for the CO to archive a missing cache?

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

As I said, the cache in question was archived because the CO thought it was missing. How then was he supposed to go out and retrieve it?

That can happen easily when finders of the cache don't replace it in the same location.  I had one that rarely got a DNF until a couple of years ago.  Then after a couple of DNFs, a group of about 8 went to look for it, and found it.   For some reason they all mentioned the coordinates being off but not a single one provided coordinates where they found the container.   The cache isn't missing, but for awhile it wasn't in the same place that I hid it.  

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment
On 1/16/2018 at 9:33 AM, justintim1999 said:

Isn't a violation of Grounspeak's guidelines a good reason for a cache to be archived?

No, a violation of GS guidelines is not, in itself, a good reason for a cache to be archived, it is only a reason for a cache to be archived. In the case I mentioned, the cache is perfectly fine for anyone that's already solved the puzzle. Yes, the puzzle is unsolvable, so the cache should be archived, but that's not a good reason from my point of view because I don't need to solve it.

On 1/16/2018 at 9:33 AM, justintim1999 said:

If you want to go out and look for these caches that's perfectly fine.  I really have no problem with that.    I just don't think you should get credit for doing so.

Why shouldn't I get credit? I worked just as hard to find the cache under exactly the same conditions as anyone that found it and got credit for it before it was archived. Why are you singling me out to not get credit for it?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, TyroneShoelaces said:

Interesting views in this thread.  I have been watching it with interest because this past year I started actively looking for archived geocaches as somebody here put it, a "sidegame".  One archived cache that I found even had a travel bug inside that was sitting there for 4.5 years!  I was pleased to get that one moving again.

  

This is about the only benefit to this "sidegame" other than seeing if one can find the cache or not.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Finding the archived cache isn't a violation. The abandoned cache is in violation:

9 Tips for responsible cache maintenance: "You’ll need to archive the geocache listing, which will permanently remove it from the geocaching.com website, or adopt the geocache out to someone else. You must also remove the physical geocache container if you archive it."

Guidelines: "Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived."

6.15 Archive a Cache:   "If you archive a physical cache, remove the container from its hiding spot as soon as possible."

People who go looking for archived caches, claim their smiley, and leave the container to rot (because they consider archived caches a side game) are implicit in the violation of the guidelines. The container should have been removed from play, unless in active play on another site--which is extremely rare, and often the logbook reflects whether the cache is actively in play.

 

So... for the cache owner.   They should not knowingly leave the container there; they should collect it.   Fine.   Some will, some won't.   If they don't collect it, they haven't done what the guidelines say.  

If the cache is archived because the CO believes it is missing (e.g. they check and can't find it), but someone finds it months/years later.. I can't see how the CO is in violation of anything.   

As a finder - if I find an archived cache, I have no idea generally if the CO tried to retrieve it but could not find it, or purposely left it.      Most likely I wasn't looking for it, I happened to find it when looking for something else.    But if I think - "That archived cache; I wonder if it is still there?   I'll take a look",  I don't think that makes me "implicit in the violation of the guidelines".   In fact, I might be helping out by finding it and letting the CO know it is still there, and offering to collect it for them.  

 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

So... for the cache owner.   They should not knowingly leave the container there; they should collect it.   Fine.   Some will, some won't.   If they don't collect it, they haven't done what the guidelines say.  

If the cache is archived because the CO believes it is missing (e.g. they check and can't find it), but someone finds it months/years later.. I can't see how the CO is in violation of anything.   

As a finder - if I find an archived cache, I have no idea generally if the CO tried to retrieve it but could not find it, or purposely left it.      Most likely I wasn't looking for it, I happened to find it when looking for something else.    But if I think - "That archived cache; I wonder if it is still there?   I'll take a look",  I don't think that makes me "implicit in the violation of the guidelines".   In fact, I might be helping out by finding it and letting the CO know it is still there, and offering to collect it for them.  

 

In the ones I've seen, it's usually pretty clear from the archival log whether the CO thought it was missing or if there was some other reason.

But even a missing cache has to be somewhere, be it in the hands of the muggle who took it, dumped in the bush or on the street, washed up into an estuary, rehidden in the wrong spot by a careless finder or whatever, and there's always a chance another cacher could stumble across it and log it if it can be identified.

On one of mine, the original container is now buried under a tonne of fallen rock - for now I've put a replacement container nearby but I don't know how I'm expected to remove the original one when the time eventually comes to archive it.

Link to comment
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 2:33 PM, Rebore said:

Of course. And once it's archieved on geocaching.com, Groundspeak's guidelines no longer apply. If I want to leave the container in place for a few friends to find (or for whatever other reason), that's on me and none of your or Groundspeaks business anymore. After all, the cache is my property, right?

You think people shouldn'tt get credit for finding an archived cache, I get that. But I don't get why. Why does that bother you so much that you keep this thread going on and on even if most (all?) participants in here don't agree with you?

I realize you don't get it and I don't expect you to.    It doesn't bother me all that much but that has noting to do with thinking the practice is wrong and discussing it at length here on the forums.   Besides it's good for business.   When you placed the cache you agreed to abide by Groundspeak's guidelines except the one about cleaning up after yourself when your done?  That particular one is nobody's business but yours? 

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

I would assume the explicit 60 days came into the (global) guidelines only last year and after my last cache, I always read all the text before submitting a cache.

Of course they think the 60 days will apply for all caches that are 0 to 17 years old retrospectively also without mutual consent about this 60 days obligation, no matter why a cache gets archived.

Also for the ones that never would have been listed on this platform under the new conditions (and with owners that generally do remove their caches also without being told it's their duty).

I'm also quite sure for my (archived when it wasn't clear whether I would be able to go out and maintain them for longer time and with containers removed before archiving by myself) caches from 2011 there was no such timeline and no explicit text about removing at all (back then maybe the owners knew what to do anyway).

And if a cache stealer get's hold of any of my caches before I can do anything against it, please at least save the logbook for me and don't throw it away.

Link to comment
On 17.1.2018 at 5:13 PM, L0ne.R said:

The container should have been removed from play, unless in active play on another site--which is extremely rare, and often the logbook reflects whether the cache is actively in play.

That is not mentioned in the links you provided. The guidelines say that the owner has to remove the container two months after the listing was archived on geocaching.com (at latest). If that was a strict rule, it would imply that you are

* not allowed to submit the same cache to other listing services or archive it on those other sites, too

* not allowed to leave the container in place as a part of a scavanger hunt (or for any other purpose) for non-geocaching friends once it was listed at geocaching.com.

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 When you placed the cache you agreed to abide by Groundspeak's guidelines except the one about cleaning up after yourself when your done?

I might just be done with Groundspeak's listing service and not with the hide.

 

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

That particular one is nobody's business but yours? 

If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said:

And if a cache stealer get's hold of any of my caches before I can do anything against it, please at least save the logbook for me and don't throw it away.

I don't archive a cache until I've retrieved it. I usually disable it first. Then I have a month to either change my mind, check it and enable it, or remove it and archive it. By archiving it the day I retrieve it there's no reason for "cache stealers" of abandoned caches to remove my container. If they did, hopefully they would leave a note on my cache page and we can arrange a return (or I might let them keep it). What the heck <shrug>...Whenever I place a cache I know that there's a possibility, a good possibility, that it will someday go missing. It has happened to several of my caches and that is the nature of leaving something out in the wild. 

Edited by L0ne.R
clarity
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Rebore said:

That is not mentioned in the links you provided. The guidelines say that the owner has to remove the container two months after the listing was archived on geocaching.com (at latest). If that was a strict rule, it would imply that you are

* not allowed to submit the same cache to other listing services or archive it on those other sites, too

* not allowed to leave the container in place as a part of a scavanger hunt (or for any other purpose) for non-geocaching friends once it was listed at geocaching.com.

I might just be done with Groundspeak's listing service and not with the hide.

 

If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.

Have you ever listed a cache on 2 sites?
I have.

I marked the container, logbook and cache description with that information. When I archived my letterboxes I put a note in my archived cache description that they were still listed on the Letterbox site and could be logged there. Never had a problem with anyone removing my active letterboxes that were archived on GC but listed elsewhere, with one exception. I had to ask a reviewer to lock one of my letterboxes because it was listed as a cache in someone's Bingo Letterbox challenge and people were logging it after retrieval/archival.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Have you ever listed a cache on 2 sites?
I have.

I marked the container, logbook and cache description with that information. When I archived my letterboxes I put a note in my archived cache description that they were still listed on the Letterbox site and could be logged there. Never had a problem with anyone removing my active letterboxes that were archived on GC but listed elsewhere, with one exception. I had to ask a reviewer to lock one of my letterboxes because it was listed as a cache in someone's Bingo Letterbox challenge and people were logging it after retrieval/archival.

I'm quite sure you're not (no longer?) allowed to mention other listing services in the cache descripton, at least in my area. Maybe mentioning it in a note or the archive log is tolerated.

Link to comment

Ah.  What do I know?  I like hiking caches.  Some of the best caches I've found were hiking caches!  A distance in near a trail.  Couple of hundred feet of climb.  Couple of miles hiking.  Great fun!  But a lot of these were hidden by early  cachers, no longer active in the game.  I do not know why they are inactive.  But, the hid great caches!

A few years back, New Jersey instituted  a policy that all caches in state parks and state forests needed to be permitted.   The inactive cachers did not get permits, and their caches were archived.  Though still in place.  Active 2001-2004.  One of my favorite caches!  No.  I don't think the CO will go back and remove it.

Active 2001-2009.  Nope.  Did not get the permit.  Did not remove the archived cache.  Doh.  Not far off the trail.  Couple of miles.  Couple of hundred feet of climb.  Great (not well maintained) trail.  I did return to remove the cache.  It was a great one, but archived by request of the state parks commission.  Sad to see it go.

I did archive all my state park caches.  They probably would not have met the new regulations.  And I did remove them.

It's sad to see Geocaching go from a hiking interest to a P&G interest.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
21 hours ago, Rebore said:

.

 

If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.

Why shouldn't it be a strict rule? There are so many people who get into geocaching for a few months then get bored after placing a cache, and it's just left out there. Since I started geocaching in 2015, I've requested that 121 caches be archived (most for lack of maintenance/inactive COs) and out of those 121, 76 have been archived by a reviewer. And out of those 76 caches archived, I can almost guarantee the CO did not go and clean up their mess. The majority of those CO were either 1)inactive 2) moved out of the area or 3) decided it's not their problem anymore. Yeah, GC.com really doesn't have the resources to police up every archived cache to make sure it's properly disposed of so they hope the COs will maintain their cache and put it in the trash or whatever once they're done.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Why shouldn't it be a strict rule? There are so many people who get into geocaching for a few months then get bored after placing a cache, and it's just left out there. Since I started geocaching in 2015, I've requested that 121 caches be archived (most for lack of maintenance/inactive COs) and out of those 121, 76 have been archived by a reviewer. And out of those 76 caches archived, I can almost guarantee the CO did not go and clean up their mess. The majority of those CO were either 1)inactive 2) moved out of the area or 3) decided it's not their problem anymore. Yeah, GC.com really doesn't have the resources to police up every archived cache to make sure it's properly disposed of so they hope the COs will maintain their cache and put it in the trash or whatever once they're done.

If your stats are true, that is a LOT of trash being left out there.

Do you have an issue with somebody like me, searching for a cache after it is archived, removing the geolitter, and logging a find for my work?  If coordinates were removed as was being argued for in this thread, I wouldn't be able to do this.

Edited by TyroneShoelaces
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, TyroneShoelaces said:

If your stats are true, that is a LOT of trash being left out there.

Do you have an issue with somebody like me, searching for a cache after it is archived, removing the geolitter, and logging a find for my work?  If coordinates were removed as was being argued for in this thread, I wouldn't be able to do this.

I'm not in favor of the coordinates being locked out so cachers can't find archived caches just for that reason alone. It's fine one way or another, honestly. I'm not interested in finding archived caches. If you're one to help clean up the mess left behind by inactive/uncaring cache owners, I, for one, really appreciate your efforts. :) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

22 hours ago, Rebore said:

If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.

Why shouldn't it be a strict rule?

I named two reasons in the post you quoted. Groundspek also can't enforce it, because, again, the cache is property of the owner. The only thing they could do is banning the owner from their site because of violating said guideline (not rule).

Link to comment
16 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:
On 1/17/2018 at 7:31 PM, dprovan said:
On 1/17/2018 at 4:57 PM, SeattleWayne said:

This is about the only benefit to this "sidegame" other than seeing if one can find the cache or not.

I'm not sure what your point is. Couldn't you say the same thing about normal caches?

No.

This implies that I don't understand what your point was, so it sounds like you're not interested in making it any clearer. But, to be honest, I don't really care what you point is since you seem to be motivated by nothing more than making sure everyone else is having fun right.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rebore said:

I named two reasons in the post you quoted. Groundspek also can't enforce it, because, again, the cache is property of the owner. The only thing they could do is banning the owner from their site because of violating said guideline (not rule).

If someone abandons their cache to rot in the forest, who's property is it really? Next you're going to tell me the cache owner pops back up after a year and demands that their .99 cent sandwich box is return to them. I've read countless forum posts of cachers picking up archived, junked out caches and contacting the CO letting them know, "hey, I have your cache..." for them to turn around and say, "Keep it" if they're lucky to get a response at all. 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, dprovan said:

This implies that I don't understand what your point was, so it sounds like you're not interested in making it any clearer. But, to be honest, I don't really care what you point is since you seem to be motivated by nothing more than making sure everyone else is having fun right.

If hunting archived caches is your thing, then go for it. It's not something I'm into. And I've already stated in this thread that I don't think removing coords on archived caches solely to stop those who enjoy hunting archived caches should be a thing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

If someone abandons their cache to rot in the forest, who's property is it really? Next you're going to tell me the cache owner pops back up after a year and demands that their .99 cent sandwich box is return to them. I've read countless forum posts of cachers picking up archived, junked out caches and contacting the CO letting them know, "hey, I have your cache..." for them to turn around and say, "Keep it" if they're lucky to get a response at all. 

I was talking about archived caches, not geotrashes. Not all archived caches are rotten and worthless junk, as you seem to assume.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

I've requested that 121 caches be archived (most for lack of maintenance/inactive COs) and out of those 121, 76 have been archived by a reviewer. And out of those 76 caches archived,

In 2016 I logged 106 NAs.

3 were fixed by the owners (1 was logged as OM but the problem continued and more recent NMs have been ignored).

11 were archived by the owners -- of those all were reported as missing.

92 were archived by a reviewer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I was talking about archived caches, not geotrashes. Not all archived caches are rotten and worthless junk, as you seem to assume.

In my experience, of the 121 caches that I've posted a NA on due to CO inactivity, 76 have been archived by a Reviewer. So, in my assumptions, I am correct.

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 11:56 AM, Rebore said:

 

 

If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.

This was the original point I was arguing with you on. Not only should GC.com encourage  but clean up of caches left behind should be a strict rule. How anyone would shrug it off that they left their cache behind for someone else to clean up is beyond me. Rotten, broken down caches or even pristine, in great condition caches, either of them left behind for someone else to clean up shouldn't be allowed.  

Why do you think it's ridiculous that people should be held to a standard to go clean up their cache after use?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

In my experience, of the 121 caches that I've posted a NA on due to CO inactivity, 76 have been archived by a Reviewer. So, in my assumptions, I am correct.

This was the original point I was arguing with you on. Not only should GC.com encourage  but clean up of caches left behind should be a strict rule. How anyone would shrug it off that they left their cache behind for someone else to clean up is beyond me. Rotten, broken down caches or even pristine, in great condition caches, either of them left behind for someone else to clean up shouldn't be allowed.  

Why do you think it's ridiculous that people should be held to a standard to go clean up their cache after use?

As I said before, sometimes caches are archived because they're believed to be missing, which makes it a tad difficult for the CO to go out and collect it, even if the container is still out there, somewhere. And the one I found that had been archived by its CO ten years earlier because he thought it was missing, wasn't rotten junk, it was in pristine condition and he was grateful to get it back.

Then there's my one where the original container is buried by fallen rock. Should I be banned from placing further hides when I eventually archive that one, because I didn't dig it out?

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

In 2016 I logged 106 NAs.

3 were fixed by the owners (1 was logged as OM but the problem continued and more recent NMs have been ignored).

11 were archived by the owners -- of those all were reported as missing.

92 were archived by a reviewer.

I see I'm not the only one who's proactive on the game board. B) :)

Edited by SeattleWayne
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Why do you think it's ridiculous that people should be held to a standard to go clean up their cache after use?

Let's assume that your assumption is correct, and that most archived caches are containers that have been abandoned by unresponsive cache owners.

Just how do you expect Groundspeak (or the geocaching community, or anyone) to hold these unresponsive cache owners to a standard to go clean up their abandoned caches?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

As I said before, sometimes caches are archived because they're believed to be missing, which makes it a tad difficult for the CO to go out and collect it, even if the container is still out there, somewhere. And the one I found that had been archived by its CO ten years earlier because he thought it was missing, wasn't rotten junk, it was in pristine condition and he was grateful to get it back.

Then there's my one where the original container is buried by fallen rock. Should I be banned from placing further hides when I eventually archive that one, because I didn't dig it out?

Who said anything about banning cachers from hiding future caches because they didn't clean up old containers after archival? Not me. Of course there's going to be special circumstances that happen where a CO can not retrieve their old containers. I had a similar issue where a wind storm brought down many trees on top of my cache and I was unable to get it back. But not every single cacher is in a special circumstance where they can not get their container back. Like I said, in my experience, most COs are just too lazy to go get it after it's been archived.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Got examples of caches that have been archived by a reviewer that are active caches in-play on another site, and being monitored and maintained by their owner?

I'm not going to look for your exact criteria, but here's a screenshot of a map with OtherCachingSite only caches. I don't know how many of those were archived on geocaching.com.

4e82e4fb-fc5b-4b01-a33b-2483506d6186.png

ETA: In case you are wondering about the number, it's over 7000.

Edited by Rebore
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, niraD said:

Let's assume that your assumption is correct, and that most archived caches are containers that have been abandoned by unresponsive cache owners.

Just how do you expect Groundspeak (or the geocaching community, or anyone) to hold these unresponsive cache owners to a standard to go clean up their abandoned caches?

I'm not on this thread to discuss the "how to". I'm on this thread discussing with Rebore why it shouldn't be just a casual "pick up your trash after your done with it" policy. I've already stated somewhere in this thread that GS doesn't have the resources to hold every single CO accountable, and I'm fully aware of that fact. And because of that, the policy should be relaxed and just in passing, "oh, and btw. When you're done with your cache try to pick it up, and if you don't get to it, no big deal. Happy caching!"?

Edited by SeattleWayne
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, niraD said:

Just how do you expect Groundspeak (or the geocaching community, or anyone) to hold these unresponsive cache owners to a standard to go clean up their abandoned caches?

Objection: Assumes responsibility not in evidence.

You have assumed that it is somebody's job to "hold these unresponsive cache owners to a standard." Implicit in that assumption is yet another assumption that negative reinforcement (i.e. "holding to a standard") is the most effective way to reduce the incidence of abandoned caches.

It is entirely possible that both of those assumptions are correct, but I have seen exactly zero evidence for them (in this thread or otherwise). Indeed, since policies based on those assumptions don't seem to be working, perhaps doubling down is not the optimal solution.

Since geocaching is a voluntary activity and geocaching.com has no law-enforcement authority, the maximum punishment that could be handed out would be a ban from geocaching at their site.  But the first-order effect would be to make those who receive the punishment less engaged with the geocaching community.  I believe that this logic applies to all punishment-type responses, which means that those solutions will always fail.  Which means that your foundational assumption is wrong, which means that any solution that proceeds from it will be ineffective.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Who said anything about banning cachers from hiding future caches because they didn't clean up old containers after archival? Not me. Of course there's going to be special circumstances that happen where a CO can not retrieve their old containers. I had a similar issue where a wind storm brought down many trees on top of my cache and I was unable to get it back. But not every single cacher is in a special circumstance where they can not get their container back. Like I said, in my experience, most COs are just too lazy to go get it after it's been archived.

Rebore suggested banning as about the only thing HQ could do to enforce a strict "you must retrieve it" rule.

As I said earlier in this thread, my own statistics, looking at caches I'd logged (Found, DNF, WN, NM or NA) that were subsquently archived are:

  • Missing and archived by CO - 25
  • Missing and archived by reviewer after NM - NA - reviewer disable - no CO response - 17
  • Removed and archived by CO - 16
  • Temp Disabled by CO for too long - prompt by reviewer - no CO response - archived by reviewer - 9
  • Archived by CO, may or may not have been removed or missing - 4
  • Archived by HQ (moving caches) - 3

To me, that suggests "believed missing" is the most common reason for archival by either the CO or reviewer, not a rare special exception to the rule that you must go and retrieve the container.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

I'm not on this thread to discuss the "how to". I'm on this thread discussing with Rebore why it shouldn't be just a casual "pick up your trash after your done with it" policy. I've already stated somewhere in this thread that GS doesn't have the resources to hold every single CO accountable, and I'm fully aware of that fact. And because of that, the policy should be relaxed and just in passing, "oh, and btw. When you're done with your cache try to pick it up, and if you don't get to it, no big deal. Happy caching!"?

It's the "how to" that matters when comparing the "strict rule" standard to whatever the standard is now.

Last weekend, I attended a CITO event. We expected to find only "micro litter" like gum wrappers, because the location was an open space that had been closed to the public until only recently. We found (and disposed of) much more than that.

I grew up with the rule that you leave a site cleaner than you found it. After a camping trip or other event, we picked up and removed all the trash, not just our own trash. I still stand by this rule, but I have no delusions that it could be enforced as a "strict rule".

The same goes for any "remove the container when your cache is archived" rule for cache owners.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Let's assume that your assumption is correct, and that most archived caches are containers that have been abandoned by unresponsive cache owners.

Just how do you expect Groundspeak (or the geocaching community, or anyone) to hold these unresponsive cache owners to a standard to go clean up their abandoned caches?

Probably not much except encourage finders to log NMs and NAs, and have reviewers do sweeps. But it won't solve the problem of geolitter. 
At least, we can do our part by not making excuses for the cache owners that do nothing, leave their containers to rot, and let reviewers finally archive their caches. 

Edited by L0ne.R
Added...but it won't change the problem of geolitter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Probably not much except encourage finders to log NMs and NAs, and have reviewers to do sweeps. 
At least, we can do our part by not making excuses for the 90% of cache owners that do nothing and let reviewers finally archive their caches. 

Which, from what I've read on these forums, cachers receive backlash from COs for posting a NM/NA on their cache. Of all the NM/NA I've posted, I've only received one email from one CO saying, I could've just emailed them instead of posting a NM.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Which, from what I've read on these forums, cachers receive backlash from COs for posting a NM/NA on their cache.

Well, you know the saying... The best thing about geocaching is that anyone can play, and the worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 2:56 PM, Rebore said:

That is not mentioned in the links you provided. The guidelines say that the owner has to remove the container two months after the listing was archived on geocaching.com (at latest). If that was a strict rule, it would imply that you are

* not allowed to submit the same cache to other listing services or archive it on those other sites, too

* not allowed to leave the container in place as a part of a scavanger hunt (or for any other purpose) for non-geocaching friends once it was listed at geocaching.com.

I might just be done with Groundspeak's listing service and not with the hide.

 

If you mean the owner, yes. It's fine that owners are encouraged to clean up after they're done with the cache, but it's ridiculous to interpret that as a strict rule.

And that's my whole point.   If we are encouraging owners to clean up after themselves than why would you allow caches that haven't been cleaned up to be found?   I know I'm making a big deal out of nothing but why not be consistent with the overall message?   After 60 days there's no real reason to allow a find on an archived cache.   By doing so you're undermining the container removal guideline.    I know we can't make owners remove their caches,  that's a promise the cache owner needs to fulfill.

The least we can do is proceed as if the removal of the cache is expected.  That means not allowing finds on those that are not.

The reason why we have these wonderful discussions is because there are guidelines and not rules.  The whole thing is based on the honor system.   Here's what we agree to do and here is what you agree to do.  We have problems when one side doesn't hold up their end of the deal.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...