Jump to content

Old caches and adoption


Recommended Posts

Here is the way I would like to see it go!

1. The reviewer agrees the cache is worthy!

2. The reviewer approves the requesting adopter!

3. The reviewer allows the adoption!

4. The Original Owner now returns and wants the cache back and agrees to maintain it!

5. The reviewer agrees and allows the return - the adopter has input but no real 'SAY' in the matter of the return!

Advantages: The worthy cache is part of history and the cache becomes 'FAR MORE' important than the "one who owns it!" The wonderful logs are what tells the story of this cache and might make or break records if it can live! The logs should be unbroken and the UNBROKEN enjoyment is there for whomever takes on the quest!  Think of a worthy cache like a mountain and all it owners throughout history - one continuous story can be written and one mountain can be enjoyed by many owners and users. Cachers are trying to adopt caches and need ability to Use the password to do the job correctly! The Original owner is given highest ownership priority of ownership!

6. Tom Hanks makes a movie about the cache!

Remember: Even Children and Animals and Property are given a new home if neglect is determined to be significant! 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, GPS-Hermit said:

Here is the way I would like to see it go!

1. The reviewer agrees the cache is worthy!

2. The reviewer approves the requesting adopter!

3. The reviewer allows the adoption!

4. The Original Owner now returns and wants the cache back and agrees to maintain it!

5. The reviewer agrees and allows the return - the adopter has input but no real 'SAY' in the matter of the return!

Advantages: The worthy cache is part of history and the cache becomes 'FAR MORE' important than the "one who owns it!" The wonderful logs are what tells the story of this cache and might make or break records if it can live! The logs should be unbroken and the UNBROKEN enjoyment is there for whomever takes on the quest!  Think of a worthy cache like a mountain and all it owners throughout history - one continuous story can be written and one mountain can be enjoyed by many owners and users. Cachers are trying to adopt caches and need ability to Use the password to do the job correctly! The Original owner is given highest ownership priority of ownership!

6. Tom Hanks makes a movie about the cache!

Remember: Even Children and Animals and Property are given a new home if neglect is determined to be significant! 

Under your proposition, rather than just enforcing the existing guidelines, a reviewer is put into the position to determine (1) whether a cache is "worthy" of an exception to policy, (2) whether a cache owner is absent enough to remove their ability to control their own geocache, and (3) whether a returning cache owner deserves to get their geocache listing back.

I do not think that many reviewers are going to support this proposal.

Children and animals and property are also not just "given a new home if neglect is determined to be significant."  There are procedures in place -- process is due  to the losing parent or owner, in other words -- as guaranteed by the prohibition against takings under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (in the USA; see local laws outside the USA).  Also, a court gets to decide this, not a volunteer reviewer, after giving the parent or owner in question some form of notice and some process by which that owner or parent has the opportunity to be heard.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Remembered you said you "maintain" others abandoned caches in another thread.  That's nice of you, but isn't really a proper maintenance routine, as log actions and OM aren't able to be accessed by anyone but the CO of that abandoned cache.

A cache is the property of a CO.  This site is a listing service for that cache.  A Reviewer explained some time ago how they allowed another to "adopt" a cache from an inactive CO (they could sorta do that years ago) and the CO eventually came back furious that someone had their property.

I guess I don't get why you continue with this, knowing it's not gonna happen.    :) 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Under your proposition, rather than just enforcing the existing guidelines, a reviewer is put into the position to determine (1) whether a cache is "worthy" of an exception to policy, (2) whether a cache owner is absent enough to remove their ability to control their own geocache, and (3) whether a returning cache owner deserves to get their geocache listing back.

I do not think that many reviewers are going to support this proposal.

Children and animals and property are also not just "given a new home if neglect is determined to be significant."  There are procedures in place -- process is due  to the losing parent or owner, in other words -- as guaranteed by the prohibition against takings under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (in the USA; see local laws outside the USA).  Also, a court gets to decide this, not a volunteer reviewer, after giving the parent or owner in question some form of notice and some process by which that owner or parent has the opportunity to be heard.

As I see it the allowance of an abandon caches to be adopted would be the guideline rather than the exception. This proposal MIGHT be heavy in the beginning but settle down rather quickly. I have adopted several caches over time and cared for several abandoned ones! The decisions were just minutes to adopt or not!  The worthyness of a cache would mostly be taken on by the adopter giving his reasons. I assume no one would to adopt a cache that bores them. Only a small percentage of abandon caches would be deemed worthy enough by anyone to take on the task. When I see folks having a great time - I just naturally want to see a good thing continue. So far I have never had the owner of an abandon cache respond at all to any response! No response to cache logs, emails, reviewer inquiries, just nothing! He could  always get it back if needed and good reason are given such as:Job change, Military duty, Prolonged illness or injury, relocation, Jail, renewed interest in GEOCaching!  There don't need to be any stoppers. Just good people finding a way to keep a good thing going! Cache ON! 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, GPS-Hermit said:

As I see it the allowance of an abandon caches to be adopted would be the guideline rather than the exception. This proposal MIGHT be heavy in the beginning but settle down rather quickly. I have adopted several caches over time and cared for several abandoned ones! The decisions were just minutes to adopt or not!  The worthyness of a cache would mostly be taken on by the adopter giving his reasons. I assume no one would to adopt a cache that bores them. Only a small percentage of abandon caches would be deemed worthy enough by anyone to take on the task. When I see folks having a great time - I just naturally want to see a good thing continue. So far I have never had the owner of an abandon cache respond at all to any response! No response to cache logs, emails, reviewer inquiries, just nothing! He could  always get it back if needed and good reason are given such as:Job change, Military duty, Prolonged illness or injury, relocation, Jail, renewed interest in GEOCaching!  There don't need to be any stoppers. Just good people finding a way to keep a good thing going! Cache ON! 

 

As fun as as this hijacking abandoned caches sounds, I don't think the company will allow it. I agreed to maintain my caches when I asked that they be published on this geocache listing service, but I understand that none of my caches are special. 

Maybe the best way to keep these old special caches going is to educate noobies not to post DNF's, NM's, and NA's or just make those features really hard to use on the app.:D

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Remembered you said you "maintain" others abandoned caches in another thread.  That's nice of you, but isn't really a proper maintenance routine, as log actions and OM aren't able to be accessed by anyone but the CO of that abandoned cache.

A cache is the property of a CO.  This site is a listing service for that cache.  A Reviewer explained some time ago how they allowed another to "adopt" a cache from an inactive CO (they could sorta do that years ago) and the CO eventually came back furious that someone had their property.

I guess I don't get why you continue with this, knowing it's not gonna happen.    :) 

 

That is the part of the guidelines I would like to see changed. If the reviewer gives a cache away for a prolonged period of neglect all the owner has to do is ask for it and show intentions to maintain it as the guidelines require! The adopter would have no "SAY" ! It would be a "Use It" or "Lose it" guideline! Except you can always get it back! I predict the number of cachers who want their own missing or destroyed and abandon cache back would be an extremely low occurrence. They may most often want ownership of the location and cache page back! Done! Just ask for it! If the Adopter wants his container back he can go get it! All that is required of any CO is to play the game. If the player does not show up for the game he is off the team, until he shows back up! If you get up from a checker game and stay away too long someone will take you place and you can cry when you come back! It should be made clear anyone playing the game is in fact required to play it and do what is expected or there are consequences as well as relief from some consequences. Again I do not expect many CO's having a problem after clearly demonstrating they don't care to begin with and those that do will have an option! We want the COs' that care and need a great option for great caches that are inspiring great logs of their wonderful experiences! Good things should have a good life!

Edited by GPS-Hermit
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, GPS-Hermit said:

That is the part of the guidelines I would like to see changed.

The point is that this issue (geocaching.com is only a listing service) is not just a guideline that would have to change.  It's the entire mission of the company.  Unless and until Groundspeak decides that they are going to branch into the tupperware and ammo can repossession field, they can't do what you're proposing. 

And even if they do, I don't believe they have a legal ability to retroactively change the terms of use that were in existence when, say, Mingo was hidden.  Back then, the agreement was, you own the cache, you're responsible for it, we'll list it for you.  What legal basis would they have to change that arrangement without permission of the cache owner? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I believe the site's Help Center section on Adopt or transfer a geocache had to be created because of the "but...but..." pleadings on abandoned, ownerless caches that some deemed "special" enough to make an exception.  Their statement, "Geocaching HQ will not process a transfer without permission from the original cache owner"  seems final to me.        :)  

The only thing I see of continuously pushing the issue, is either that cache health score thingy gets more creative, or HQ makes some other ruling.   - Maybe that caches can't be adopted if they have DNFs or NM in the interim.  We've seen a lot of those (some in these forums), folks looking to pretty-much dump their junk, and you get to do their maintenance when you take it over...

Edited by cerberus1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

The point is that this issue (geocaching.com is only a listing service) is not just a guideline that would have to change.  It's the entire mission of the company.  Unless and until Groundspeak decides that they are going to branch into the tupperware and ammo can repossession field, they can't do what you're proposing. 

And even if they do, I don't believe they have a legal ability to retroactively change the terms of use that were in existence when, say, Mingo was hidden.  Back then, the agreement was, you own the cache, you're responsible for it, we'll list it for you.  What legal basis would they have to change that arrangement without permission of the cache owner? 

I wouldn't like it at all if they gave away my caches if I became incapacitated.

All caches have a lifespan and can't live forever. The container will break down, the original log will very likely be long gone, there will be nothing left of the original after a while, except the cache page. The CO may have re-written it several times too if circumstances had changed, it may not be the original either. And when the cache page is given away it too can be re-written.  All that's left is the GC code. Which is really what we're talking about right? Preserving the old GC code.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

The point is that this issue (geocaching.com is only a listing service) is not just a guideline that would have to change.

^This

Here's what's in the Terms of Use, which is the legal document that governs everyone's use of this site:

Quote

3. C. Your Content. All content you submit through our services remains yours; this includes your geocache logs and pictures, your comments and anything you post to our discussion forums.

This precludes forced adoptions, since what we're talking about here is really the transfer of ownership of the listing, not the cache.

Also (bolding mine):

Quote

9. Changes to this Agreement

We may make changes to this Agreement from time to time. Unless we make the change for legal or administrative reasons, or to correct an inaccuracy, we will provide you with notice of the revised Agreement, typically by updating the effective date at the top of the Agreement. By continuing to use our services, you agree to be bound by the revised Agreement. If you do not agree to the revised Agreement, you should stop using our services. Changes will not apply retroactively. If we provide notice of changes via email, you consent to receiving email notice of such changes.

So even if they did change the Terms of Use to allow for forced adoptions, that change wouldn't apply to existing caches.

 

It's time to let this go. There's no way forced adoptions of old caches will happen.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I wouldn't like it at all if they gave away my caches if I became incapacitated.

All caches have a lifespan and can't live forever. The container will break down, the original log will very likely be long gone, there will be nothing left of the original after a while, except the cache page. The CO may have re-written it several times to if circumstances had changed so it may not be the original either. And when the cache page is given away it too can be re-written.  All that's left is the GC code. Which is really what we're talking about right? Preserving the old GC code.

In my thinking what would be preserved is the location and the logs- the original owner has chosen a location he thought was appealing and it turned out he chose a real winner! The cache page has all the logs (Very Important) - because the logs are so complimentary and interesting it shows others want 'all' to know about it! What a compliment to have someone wanting to continue what you started! Only the special ones would will earn this treatment! What happens to an abandon cache is not an insult to the owner it is a continuation of the original thought! The Adoption of an abandoned cache would be done solely based on the fact that the owner does NOT care or cannot respond. If he can get it back later all is well! If he does not care then it is still there for others who do care and want to see it live on! A cache has a lifespan!????  Wouldn't it be great if the same cache page was still there after 14 CO's took part in its survival! If it dies from lack of admiration its lifespan IS gone!

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, GPS-Hermit said:

In my thinking what would be preserved is the location and the logs- the original owner has chosen a location he thought was appealing and it turned out he chose a real winner! The cache page has all the logs (Very Important) - because the logs are so complimentary and interesting it shows others want 'all' to know about it! What a compliment to have someone wanting to continue what you started! Only the special ones would will earn this treatment! What happens to an abandon cache is not an insult to the owner it is a continuation of the original thought! The Adoption of an abandoned cache would be done solely based on the fact that the owner does NOT care or cannot respond. If he can get it back later all is well! If he does not care then it is still there for others who do care and want to see it live on! A cache has a lifespan!????  Wouldn't it be great if the same cache page was still there after 14 CO's took part in its survival! If it dies from lack of admiration its lifespan IS gone!

What makes a certain cache "special"?   Age?  Favorite points?  D/T rating?  Cache type?  Location?

If the owner of Mingo decided to retire, and take his cache with him, wouldn't any subsequent cache placed in the same place be just as good?  That view, the hike to GZ, everything that draws people to that Interstate highway exit would be the same, except the claim of logging the oldest active cache. (Yes, I've been there.)

This is a game of location.  If a cache brings me to a great or memorable location, that's what I remember, not the ammo can with the log inside.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, GPS-Hermit said:

 ... What a compliment to have someone wanting to continue what you started! ...

We had a few people ask to take over a series we had once (now archived).  Asking around,  they just wanted a talked-about cache (before that FP thing...), with a unique set-up no longer allowed, and all the work already done for them. 

When I last got hurt, I had four offers to take over one we still have, the only cache allowed in that area.   Compliment?  No, not really...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, GPS-Hermit said:

Wouldn't it be great if the same cache page was still there after 14 CO's took part in its survival!

Or you could have "Tribute XIII to Royal Nonesuch" which has links to the original "Royal Nonesuch", as well as "Tribute to Royal Nonesuch" through "Tribute XII to Royal Nonesuch". That works for me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, GPS-Hermit said:

In my thinking what would be preserved is the location and the logs...

In that case, why do we need to go to extreme lengths to transfer ownership of a listing? A new cache could be hidden at the same location and link to the old cache in the description. Presto, the experience is preserved!

Let's not kid ourselves. Those who want to preserve old caches at any cost are really just wanting to preserve the low GC code and associated old placed date. The reality is that a replacement listing for a cache in the same spot will provide the same experience as the old one, just with a GC code and date that wouldn't be as useful for challenge caches.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
13 hours ago, K13 said:

What makes a certain cache "special"?   Age?  Favorite points?  D/T rating?  Cache type?  Location?

If the owner of Mingo decided to retire, and take his cache with him, wouldn't any subsequent cache placed in the same place be just as good?  That view, the hike to GZ, everything that draws people to that Interstate highway exit would be the same, except the claim of logging the oldest active cache. (Yes, I've been there.)

This is a game of location.  If a cache brings me to a great or memorable location, that's what I remember, not the ammo can with the log inside.

 

There's also that Mingo is just fun to say.  Mingo. Mingo.  How many other interstate highway exits are in Mingo....Mingo.

The location, and hike to the Spot was quite nice, but that 50cal ammo can with "geocache" stenciled on the side and the original logbook inside was pretty cool too.

Link to comment
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 11:41 AM, humboldt flier said:

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.

       

"Animals" may  be the right word.   Some of the older caches around here are in locations you wouldn't consider easily accessible.   That's what makes them unique in todays age of Geocaching.   It's also a reason why many of them don't get adopted.   Not many people today want to take on that level of commitment.  Fortunately there are still some that are up to the challenge. 

your ramblings have nothing to do with being an "old geezer."  They speak to one who is passionate about the activity.   

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

GC33 is the Hilltop cache that appears to have been adopted out without knowledge/permission of the original CO, and was subsequently archived at the original CO's request.

 

Awesome! That is interesting. Seems the guy that hijacked GC33 archived his geocache listings back in 2003? The site started off bumpy, but looks like Jeremy took care of business in favor of the original cache owner. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Rebore said:

Seems like GS learned that lesson in the early days.

There are several examples in addition to this very early example from the CO who was responsible for suggesting the term "Geocaching" instead of "GPS Stash Hunt."  Once enough negative experiences accumulated, Geocaching HQ adopted its current policy that prohibits "forced adoptions."  I highly doubt that the published policy will change.

  • Upvote 2
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...
×
×
  • Create New...