Old caches and adoption

February 5, 2018

I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site.

However if there is a really old cache (2001 for example) where the CO has not been active for many years (but the cache seems to be maintained by locals).
Can this adoption process be done without the 'presence' of the old CO who is probably not aware that it is still active and probably doesn't care either but at the same time uncontactable due to not being involved for so long.

The reason for the question is that - it is acknowledged that these old caches are desirable and all cachers would like them to be preserved and continue - however without an active CO the misuse of the system is such that many could log finds on these even if they haven't been anywhere near the cache and no one can do anything about it - seems to be totally against the principle of CO maintenance. Only the CO can delete the log, though others could question spurious loggers they can't do much more than that
So in order to maintain integrity for these iconic ancients surely an agreed adoption protocol could be put in place for the special occasions such as this (all other adoptions to be done with the agreement of old CO)

5.7k · February 5, 2018

28 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site.

However if there is a really old cache (2001 for example) where the CO has not been active for many years (but the cache seems to be maintained by locals).
Can this adoption process be done without the 'presence' of the old CO who is probably not aware that it is still active and probably doesn't care either but at the same time uncontactable due to not being involved for so long.

The reason for the question is that - it is acknowledged that these old caches are desirable and all cachers would like them to be preserved and continue - however without an active CO the misuse of the system is such that many could log finds on these even if they haven't been anywhere near the cache and no one can do anything about it - seems to be totally against the principle of CO maintenance. Only the CO can delete the log, though others could question spurious loggers they can't do much more than that
So in order to maintain integrity for these iconic ancients surely an agreed adoption protocol could be put in place for the special occasions such as this (all other adoptions to be done with the agreement of old CO)

So the main concern of allowing geocaches to be ownerless is the fear of armchair logging?

4.8k · February 5, 2018

Well, I never say never, but I would assume that this conversation to "force" the Adoption, as you suggest, would have to take place with HQ. They may take into account a long history of community maintenance, but I've never heard of them making any exceptions in this Policy.

If it were me, I'd just continue with what I was doing and ignore the bogus log entries.

February 5, 2018

8 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

So the main concern of allowing geocaches to be ownerless is the fear of armchair logging?

No - it doesn't frighten me, but if the concept of ownerless caches is one that is allowable then the whole principle of log online only if you have signed the proper log, becomes pointless - however to get a cache published now you have to have a maintenance regime - CO maintenance isnt just about replacing the piece of paper every so often

February 5, 2018

11 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Well, I never say never, but I would assume that this conversation to "force" the Adoption, as you suggest, would have to take place with HQ. They may take into account a long history of community maintenance, but I've never heard of them making any exceptions in this Policy.

If it were me, I'd just continue with what I was doing and ignore the bogus log entries.

and then throw into disarray all the challenge caches that these caches could potentially link to

February 5, 2018

17 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

... but I've never heard of them making any exceptions in this Policy.

I know at least one example... even if the reasons to maintain the cache were well different than the above suggested.

5.7k · February 5, 2018

The simple solution is to not allow caches from inactive owners. If we don't check in to our accounts in 12 months, start the process to remove them from the data base.

4.8k · February 5, 2018

13 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

and then throw into disarray all the challenge caches that these caches could potentially link to

Sorry if you take this the wrong way, but it seems like you have diverging goals in this situation. What sounded like an altruistic activity in your first post, has slowly morphed into a more sinister goal of Control Freakery to me.

I agree that these older Listings are basically going to have a big bullseye on them due to various Challenge requirements, as well as, people that just like to seek them out for their own personal goals.

I would stick with the first objective if I were taking the issue to HQ and not mention "bogus logs". HQ will more than likely reject such a request if it produces an outcome that potentially fills their Inbox with angry cachers asking for their log entries to be restored.

A better approach would be to appeal to HQ's sense of responsibility, of keeping the page up to date (D/T, coordinate updates, cache size, Hint, etc.) and leave out the bogus log concerns.

February 5, 2018

9 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Sorry if you take this the wrong way, but it seems like you have diverging goals in this situation. What sounded like an altruistic activity in your first post, has slowly morphed into a more sinister goal of Control Freakery to me.

I agree that these older Listings are basically going to have a big bullseye on them due to various Challenge requirements, as well as, people that just like to seek them out for their own personal goals.

I would stick with the first objective if I were taking the issue to HQ and not mention "bogus logs". HQ will more than likely reject such a request if it produces an outcome that potentially fills their Inbox with angry cachers asking for their log entries to be restored.

A better approach would be to appeal to HQ's sense of responsibility, of keeping the page up to date (D/T, coordinate updates, cache size, Hint, etc.) and leave out the bogus log concerns.

Yea - control freakery - bit strong that - thanks (not)

However I do take your point regarding how to approach this. My main point was whether a cache could be adopted when the CO was no longer avaialble

February 5, 2018

16 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

The simple solution is to not allow caches from inactive owners. If we don't check in to our accounts in 12 months, start the process to remove them from the data base.

Not a desired outcome for a cache as old as this that many would want kept alive

February 5, 2018

Caches are the property of the owner, and Groundspeak will surely stick to this business model. They offer just a listing service. So no, there's no "forced adoption" without owner's consent.

3.7k · February 5, 2018

This gets suggested all the time, but to me the sentimentality over an old cache is pointless...and it's usually just the desire to fill some square in a grid that brings out the loudest supporters of keeping old-but-dead caches going. If the CO that put it there can't be bothered to maintain it or adopt it out to someone who will, it should die a natural death and get archived.

February 5, 2018

27 minutes ago, Rebore said:

So no, there's no "forced adoption" without owner's consent.

I just recall another one... so make that two, maybe three.

1.3k · February 5, 2018

22 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

and then throw into disarray all the challenge caches that these caches could potentially link to

Adopting out a neglected cache in order to prop it up just for the sake of a challenge cache (or potential challenge cache) is just about as far down the list of reasons to keep a cache alive as you can get.

If "X" cache is the only cache in the entire world that fulfills a challenge cache requirement...then that challenge cache will no longer be loggable if the cache should be archived. If you create challenge caches or seek them out, that is the kind of risk you take, that any cache at any time could be archived and turn all of your work into digital dust.

As for adopting out caches which have absentee owners, I don't think that is a good idea. I know cachers love finding caches from the earliest days of geocaching but all caches have a lifespan. A cache living on without an owner just feels wrong to me. Yes, I know that community maintenance can prop up a cache forever (see power trails), but how many replacement handles and heads are needed before Ol' Grand-dads axe is no longer Ol' Grand-dads axe?

5.7k · February 5, 2018

29 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Not a desired outcome for a cache as old as this that many would want kept alive

So

30 minutes ago, Rebore said:

Caches are the property of the owner, and Groundspeak will surely stick to this business model. They offer just a listing service. So no, there's no "forced adoption" without owner's consent.

This really sounds like the Waymarking site where those left want to be in control by hijacking abandoned categories.

February 5, 2018

OK the link to challenge caches was a bit spurious - my main reason for the OP was to query whether caches can be adopted without the original CO
Yes some old caches are propped up and I wont do anything to rock the boat with those - though I do agree that if the CO is not longer active then surely consideration should be made to rethinking their existence - for me an old cache with an active CO is worth much more than one without

Thanks to all for responses - my query has been answered

13.8k · February 5, 2018

2 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site.

However if there is a really old cache (2001 for example) where the CO has not been active for many years (but the cache seems to be maintained by locals).
Can this adoption process be done without the 'presence' of the old CO who is probably not aware that it is still active and probably doesn't care either but at the same time uncontactable due to not being involved for so long.

The reason for the question is that - it is acknowledged that these old caches are desirable and all cachers would like them to be preserved and continue - however without an active CO the misuse of the system is such that many could log finds on these even if they haven't been anywhere near the cache and no one can do anything about it - seems to be totally against the principle of CO maintenance. Only the CO can delete the log, though others could question spurious loggers they can't do much more than that
So in order to maintain integrity for these iconic ancients surely an agreed adoption protocol could be put in place for the special occasions such as this (all other adoptions to be done with the agreement of old CO)

Most times we hear from folks helping to maintain, and now wanting to "adopt" a now-ownerless cache, would like to be able to remove NM wrenches from the cache page, or be able to place an "non-OM" (for fear the Reviewer finally makes it go bye-bye). Fake loggers is an unusual one. Thanks.

2.7k · February 5, 2018

3 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

This gets suggested all the time, but to me the sentimentality over an old cache is pointless...and it's usually just the desire to fill some square in a grid that brings out the loudest supporters of keeping old-but-dead caches going. If the CO that put it there can't be bothered to maintain it or adopt it out to someone who will, it should die a natural death and get archived.

Totally agree with JG

7.5k · February 5, 2018

13 minutes ago, colleda said:

3 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

This gets suggested all the time, but to me the sentimentality over an old cache is pointless...and it's usually just the desire to fill some square in a grid that brings out the loudest supporters of keeping old-but-dead caches going. If the CO that put it there can't be bothered to maintain it or adopt it out to someone who will, it should die a natural death and get archived.

Totally agree with JG

Me too.

14k · February 5, 2018

15 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Me too.

I disagree. It doesn't have anything to do with the sentimentality of keeping an 17 year old cache alive. I haven't done a lot of really old caches but when I have it just feels a little more special to me when I've found a cache that has managed to stay viable for 15 years or more. I doubt that it would ever happen but I would not be opposed to having HQ grant an exception on a very limited basis.

3.7k · February 5, 2018

14 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I disagree. It doesn't have anything to do with the sentimentality of keeping an 17 year old cache alive. I haven't done a lot of really old caches but when I have it just feels a little more special to me when I've found a cache that has managed to stay viable for 15 years or more. I doubt that it would ever happen but I would not be opposed to having HQ grant an exception on a very limited basis.

It only stays "viable" due to the CO taking a continued interest in maintenance...or passing it on to someone to adopt or to have a surrogate maintain it. True viability is dependent on that.

The rest are just old listings that are continuously propped up by well-meaning cachers that don't end up being a real substitute for a conscientious cache owner.

5.7k · February 5, 2018

3 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Yea - control freakery - bit strong that - thanks (not)

However I do take your point regarding how to approach this. My main point was whether a cache could be adopted when the CO was no longer avaialble

However your post starts with "I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site."

7.8k · February 5, 2018

I'm surprised this discussion went on for as long as it has. This is pretty simple to answer:

No, forced adoptions won't happen. While there may have been a few extremely rare exceptions, "because it's old" most likely wasn't the reason in those cases.

As for ownerless caches that are getting bogus-logged, you can always submit a Needs archive log for non-maintenance (cache listing maintenance is part of it too). I assure you, the sky will not fall and the world will not end if an old cache gets archived.

2.7k · February 5, 2018

35 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I disagree. It doesn't have anything to do with the sentimentality of keeping an 17 year old cache alive. I haven't done a lot of really old caches but when I have it just feels a little more special to me when I've found a cache that has managed to stay viable for 15 years or more. I doubt that it would ever happen but I would not be opposed to having HQ grant an exception on a very limited basis.

Many caches out there today may eventually become 'old'. Where's the cut off point? 5 Years, 10 years? How would an exception be defined? Then who's going to look after them?

13.8k · February 6, 2018

7 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I disagree. It doesn't have anything to do with the sentimentality of keeping an 17 year old cache alive. I haven't done a lot of really old caches but when I have it just feels a little more special to me when I've found a cache that has managed to stay viable for 15 years or more. I doubt that it would ever happen but I would not be opposed to having HQ grant an exception on a very limited basis.

Similar to colleda I guess, at what point does a cache become "special" enough that the normal channels for an inactive owner are disregarded?

The OP even said (and I was sure to bold it above...) "I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site ", yet feels the cache they're interested in deserves special treatment.

That's called entitlement...

14k · February 6, 2018

15 hours ago, colleda said:

Many caches out there today may eventually become 'old'. Where's the cut off point? 5 Years, 10 years? How would an exception be defined? Then who's going to look after them?

I'm not going to suggest a specific cut-off point or try to define an exception, other than an exception could be granted in the most exceptional cases and require a very convincing argument for why the exception should be granted. I need it for a challenge isn't a convincing argument.

5.7k · February 6, 2018

11 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Similar to colleda I guess, at what point does a cache become "special" enough that the normal channels for an inactive owner are disregarded?

The OP even said (and I was sure to bold it above...) "I am aware that in order to adopt a cache the original CO is required to be 'around' to get the process started as it is they who click on to the adopt section of the site ", yet feels the cache they're interested in deserves special treatment.

That's called entitlement...

Then the reward for poor cache ownership is entitlement?

2.4k · February 6, 2018

20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Me too.

For the most part I also agree....BUT. There are some caches that should continue for posterity sake. For example "First Mass" which was the first cache placed in Massachusetts should never come to the point where it has no owner and relies solely on community maintenance. Thankfully it's had owners that have ensured it hasn't and probably never will. In some rare cases I'd have no problem with GS stepping in and allowing ownership of certain caches to be transferred.

5.7k · February 6, 2018

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

For the most part I also agree....BUT. There are some caches that should continue for posterity sake. For example "First Mass" which was the first cache placed in Massachusetts should never come to the point where it has no owner and relies solely on community maintenance. Thankfully it's had owners that have ensured it hasn't and probably never will. In some rare cases I'd have no problem with GS stepping in and allowing ownership of certain caches to be transferred.

To whom should these old relics be transferred to? Seems the oldest cache in my home State has been adopted by a prolific hider that is slacking heavy on their own 700 hides.

14k · February 6, 2018

14 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

To whom should these old relics be transferred to? Seems the oldest cache in my home State has been adopted by a prolific hider that is slacking heavy on their own 700 hides.

That, to me, would be a matter of convincing HQ that an exception should be granted. It would not only be based on the merits of the cache but the reputation of the geocacher requesting the adoption.

14k · February 6, 2018

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

For the most part I also agree....BUT. There are some caches that should continue for posterity sake. For example "First Mass" which was the first cache placed in Massachusetts should never come to the point where it has no owner and relies solely on community maintenance. Thankfully it's had owners that have ensured it hasn't and probably never will. In some rare cases I'd have no problem with GS stepping in and allowing ownership of certain caches to be transferred.

There was a time last year that there seemed to a possibility that "The Spot" (oldest cache in NY, and 4th oldest active cache in the world) might get archived. The original owner did get involved (but not immediately after it was reported as missing) and although it appeared that the cache may have gone missing it was eventually discovered that it was, in fact, not missing and still contains it's original log book.

15.4k · February 6, 2018

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

There are some caches that should continue for posterity sake.

The Original Stash was archived ages ago. There is now an Original Stash Tribute Plaque in its place. Somehow, I think it's okay for less historic caches to be archived as well.

2.4k · February 6, 2018

35 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

To whom should these old relics be transferred to? Seems the oldest cache in my home State has been adopted by a prolific hider that is slacking heavy on their own 700 hides.

In our case the cache was adopted from Jeremy Gilbert by g-o-cachers who is a very well respected cacher in these parts. I have no doubt g-o-cachers will make sure it's transferred to someone who will continue to see that this historic cache is well cared for.

It's sad that the owners of some of your oldest caches did not entrust the future of those caches to the right people.

Very few caches are worthy of such attention but, like many things in our culture, history and longevity are prized. Having the ability to visit a piece of geocaching history is something special and should be preserved.

5.7k · February 6, 2018

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

It's sad that the owners of some of your oldest caches did not entrust the future of those caches to the right people.

Very few caches are worthy of such attention but, like many things in our culture, history and longevity are prized. Having the ability to visit a piece of geocaching history is something special and should be preserved.

Now just hold on a minute, the oldest cache in my home State deserves entitlement too.

2.4k · February 6, 2018

16 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Now just hold on a minute, the oldest cache in my home State deserves entitlement too.

It sure dose. Hopefully the current owner is taking care of it now and will in the future.

5.7k · February 6, 2018

10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It sure dose. Hopefully the current owner is taking care of it now and will in the future.

It's in care of our local prolific hider that has more red wrenches than I care to count, and their own caches fall to the wayside and get archived. But I still trust them to keep up this old one better than their own.

2.4k · February 6, 2018

16 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

It's in care of our local prolific hider that has more red wrenches than I care to count, and their own caches fall to the wayside and get archived. But I still trust them to keep up this old one better than their own.

Well that's something. First chance I got to wrestle it away from them I'd take it. Any idea how they got their hands on it in the first place?

14k · February 6, 2018

21 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Now just hold on a minute, the oldest cache in my home State deserves entitlement too.

You keep on using that word (entitlement). I do not think it means what you think it means. To me, entitlement requires that one expects or assumes they will get special treatment. There would be no expectation that a cache could be adopted without a co initiating the process if GS made it very clear that it one only be done in very exceptional cases. Frankly, I wouldn't even consider the "oldest cache in the state", by itself, to be an adequate justification.

5.7k · February 6, 2018

10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Well that's something. First chance I got to wrestle it away from them I'd take it. Any idea how they got their hands on it in the first place?

I would say being one of and still connected to some of the old players in the area that once had the best of the best caches, and many are still active.

I'm no longer interested in geocache ownership. I'm just a casual player. It is these old caches that still interest me, and I don't mind doing community maintenance.

13.8k · February 6, 2018

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

To me, entitlement requires that one expects or assumes they will get special treatment.

Yep.

5.7k · February 7, 2018

Another example of entitlement is the person I have blocked here keeps quoting me to tell me that I am mistaking, and what I really mean is bla, bla, bla.

That is self entitlement.

2.4k · February 8, 2018

17 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Another example of entitlement is the person I have blocked here keeps quoting me to tell me that I am mistaking, and what I really mean is bla, bla, bla.

That is self entitlement.

Sorry to be off topic but what do you mean by blocked? Can you actually block people on this forum?

February 8, 2018

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Sorry to be off topic but what do you mean by blocked? Can you actually block people on this forum?

You can ignore users, but you will still see what they wrote if somebody quotes them. Hover over the profile pic and you'll see the option.

2.4k · February 8, 2018

12 minutes ago, Rebore said:

You can ignore users, but you will still see what they wrote if somebody quotes them. Hover over the profile pic and you'll see the option.

Thanks Rebore. Didn't even know that was there and to be honest I never even thought of blocking anyone.

5.7k · February 8, 2018

5 hours ago, Rebore said:

You can ignore users, but you will still see what they wrote if somebody quotes them. Hover over the profile pic and you'll see the option.

If you would allow me to respond and not answer for me, there is the ignore users feature here in this forums and there is an option to block users from communicating in the message center.

February 8, 2018

13 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

If you would allow me to respond and not answer for me, there is the ignore users feature here in this forums and there is an option to block users from communicating in the message center.

I'm sorry, I thought I remembered a comment from you plonking NYPC and it seemed to fit. Have a good day.

5.7k · February 8, 2018

14 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I'm sorry, I thought I remembered a comment from you plonking NYPC and it seemed to fit. Have a good day.

Please, don't start trouble where there is none, just leave me be.

15.4k · February 8, 2018

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Thanks Rebore. Didn't even know that was there and to be honest I never even thought of blocking anyone.

It would be more useful if you could block both the person trolling the forum and everyone who replies to him/her/it. Back in the days of USENET, I used a newsreader that had that feature, and it worked well. Blocking trolls in this forum without blocking the people who respond to the troll is less effective.

14k · February 9, 2018

19 hours ago, niraD said:

It would be more useful if you could block both the person trolling the forum and everyone who replies to him/her/it. Back in the days of USENET, I used a newsreader that had that feature, and it worked well. Blocking trolls in this forum without blocking the people who respond to the troll is less effective.

Back in Usenet days an "ignore user" list was called a kill file and the act of putting someone into the kill file was called "plonking". For some reason, rather than just silently ignoring someone it was common to respond to that person with "plonk" to that they, and everyone else knew you were going to ignore them. There was also something called a Briedbart index (created by Seth Briedbart, someone I know fairly well). It was a metric for measuring whether posts coming from a specific account could be characterized as "spam". Usenet site administrators (I was one from 1984 until 1990) could implement a feature would not only block posts with a BI higher than a specified threshold but would also not forward those messages to another usenet server.

1.8k · February 12, 2018

On 2/8/2018 at 2:37 AM, justintim1999 said:

Sorry to be off topic but what do you mean by blocked? Can you actually block people on this forum?

Ohhhhhhhh, indeed folks can be blocked ... I can think of two who "energized" these pages who got bit rather hard. I, in fact have received a reprimand for a tongue in cheek comment.

To an earlier post in this thread ... for some of us "sentimentalists" it is important to get in touch with our heritage. I, like others, am amazed at some of the locations that host the old caches. Those old time cachers were "animals".

I have been saddened to see some excellent caches go by the wayside as un-adoptable because the original owner had the nerve to up and die before they could make arrangements for an adoption. Sometimes "the end" does not gradually approach giving one times to get the ducks all in a row.

Granted, a cache is simply a container with a log book and in the grand scheme truly lacks significance in the world order. However, within the construct / context of this silly activity there is an importance attached to the heritage. Maybe it is my old age talking but treks to visit the oldies are important and should be preserved to demonstrate to newer cachers that not all caches are pill bottles under lamp post skirts.

Forgive the ramblings of a doddering old geezer.

Old caches and adoption

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation