Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
frumiousb

Involuntary Adoptions (split from "Irks" thread)

Recommended Posts

I'm frustrated that active cachers can't adopt caches (physical OR virtual) that have basically been abandoned by owners who are long-inactive or even known to be deceased.  I wrote in about it; official response was that the caches belong to the CO and can't be adopted out without their permission.  And if the CO is dead, you're supposed to somehow contact their executor or some such and get a copy of the death certificate!!!  That's an awfully high bar.  There should be a timeout period for inactive and unresponsive but possibly still alive COs of ...I don't know, a year?  Year and a half?  Two?  Three?  before a viable cache becomes fair game for adoption by active locals.  For known-dead COs, their caches should be adoptable after a few months of trying to contact their family.

 

Similarly frustrating:  that certain caches can't or won't be unarchived even if they're still (or again) perfectly findable.  Here's one such that I just came across:
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCHVCH_douglas-18-trappers-trail

Edited by frumiousb

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, frumiousb said:

I'm frustrated that active cachers can't adopt caches (physical OR virtual) that have basically been abandoned by owners who are long-inactive or even known to be deceased.  I wrote in about it; official response was that the caches belong to the CO and can't be adopted out without their permission.  And if the CO is dead, you're supposed to somehow contact their executor or some such and get a copy of the death certificate!!!  That's an awfully high bar.  There should be a timeout period for inactive and unresponsive but possibly still alive COs of ...I don't know, a year?  Year and a half?  Two?  Three?  before a viable cache becomes fair game for adoption by active locals.  For known-dead COs, their caches should be adoptable after a few months of trying to contact their family.

 

I would be irked (that is if a dead person can be irked) if I died suddenly and couldn't remove my caches only to have them "adopted" or propped up by others. I would want them removed and the space freed up so someone else can hide a cache there.  It's the responsible thing to do. I would never adopt out my caches when I was alive. When a cache is adopted it is removed from the original owner's cache history. The new owner can completely change the cache container, the location (within parameters), how it's hidden, and cache description. The only thing that remains the same is the cache's GC code. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I would be irked (that is if a dead person can be irked) if I died suddenly and couldn't remove my caches only to have them "adopted" or propped up by others. I would want them removed and the space freed up so someone else can hide a cache there.  It's the responsible thing to do. I would never adopt out my caches when I was alive. When a cache is adopted it is removed from the original owner's cache history. The new owner can completely change the cache container, the location (within parameters), how it's hidden, and cache description. The only thing that remains the same is the cache's GC code. 

Some of that, sure, but there are some really old ones that are still going just fine - or that were archived because of an inactive CO but are still there and are in perfectly good shape, some of them being virtuals - that should keep going as-is.  As far as recording the ownership, the code could track things differently so that formerly owned caches show up on the original CO's page with some special icon or color. 

There are some really old caches that can't seem to be adopted out because of the way the adoption rules are, and it'd be a shame to lose those oldies.  As far as changing adopted caches - no, you can't stop someone from doing so but generally it's an honor code thing to leave it as close to the original as possible, just like it's an honor code thing to actually log finds and DNFs, to do maintenance when you can if you come across a cache that needs a new bag or log, and so forth.

Edited by frumiousb

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

22 hours ago, frumiousb said:

 

That cache was archived by the owner. The owner of the virtual archived with this note: "A park bench now adorns the place where the plaque used to be."  He did the right thing.  I own a virtual and I would do the same if the object was removed. The whole point of my virtual is the object.

 

Interesting that 2 years later a new plaque was placed nearby. The cache was archived by the owner in 2008. New plaque 2010. 8 people logged the archived virtual between 2010 and 2015. 

Edited by L0ne.R
clarity
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, frumiousb said:

I'm frustrated that active cachers can't adopt caches (physical OR virtual) that have basically been abandoned by owners who are long-inactive or even known to be deceased.  I wrote in about it; official response was that the caches belong to the CO and can't be adopted out without their permission.  And if the CO is dead, you're supposed to somehow contact their executor or some such and get a copy of the death certificate!!!  That's an awfully high bar.  There should be a timeout period for inactive and unresponsive but possibly still alive COs of ...I don't know, a year?  Year and a half?  Two?  Three?  before a viable cache becomes fair game for adoption by active locals.  For known-dead COs, their caches should be adoptable after a few months of trying to contact their family.

 

A Reviewer said in these forums, that they used to do "adoptions" with those interested in taking over a "long-inactive" cacher's hides. 

Well, one time a "long-inactive" CO came back and asked what the "heck" happened to his property And IIRC it was kinda ugly.

The site has that ruling for a reason.  I was out for around 8 months one time, much longer another.  I had someone looking out though.

The couple people we watch caches for said if we couldn't, they'd probably just eventually go bye-bye.  No interest in discussing anything (other than removing a red wrench maybe ;-).

 - Cancer taking priority over this hobby...

No offense, but I find it odd someone even considers a "time frame" when respect for the dead ends.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, frumiousb said:

I'm frustrated that active cachers can't adopt caches (physical OR virtual) that have basically been abandoned by owners who are long-inactive or even known to be deceased.  I wrote in about it; official response was that the caches belong to the CO and can't be adopted out without their permission.  And if the CO is dead, you're supposed to somehow contact their executor or some such and get a copy of the death certificate!!!  That's an awfully high bar.  There should be a timeout period for inactive and unresponsive but possibly still alive COs of ...I don't know, a year?  Year and a half?  Two?  Three?  before a viable cache becomes fair game for adoption by active locals.  For known-dead COs, their caches should be adoptable after a few months of trying to contact their family.

 

Similarly frustrating:  that certain caches can't or won't be unarchived even if they're still (or again) perfectly findable.  Here's one such that I just came across:
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCHVCH_douglas-18-trappers-trail

 

The thing is, Groundspeak are nothing more than a listing service: the caches do not belong to them, so they cannot legally transfer ownership unless the owner requests them to .

The cache setter owns, and is responsible for, the cache. Groundspeak own , and are are responsible for, the database.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd speculate that intellectual property (i.e. a virtual caches listing idea, pictures and wording) might be argued as similarly seen as the property of the C.O.

 

If a physical cache is abandoned and archived, and you think the location merits a cache, what's  to stop you making a new listing for a new container you place in that good spot ? You can recover the old archived container and post a note on its cache page, and send the CO a message offering their container back if they care to get in contact, say in the next month, after which you will bin or re-use it.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post

The other thing to always keep in mind is that because the property belongs to someone else there may well be other uses for said container at the location than a 1:1 relationship with the listing. There are other listing sites. There could be other purposes.  Basically, it is someone else's property, and without first-hand knowledge of what is happening with that physical property, you could really be messing someone else up if you assume anything about it merely by its listing status on gc.com.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I've heard there are a few other listing sites, although if it's listed on geocaching.com one would think it's supposed to be a cache on geocaching.com.  What "other uses" besides letterboxing?

 

And again, what about virtuals that the CO no longer responds about?  It's not like anyone can just place a new virtual nowadays.

Edited by frumiousb

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The other thing to always keep in mind is that because the property belongs to someone else there may well be other uses for said container at the location than a 1:1 relationship with the listing. There are other listing sites. There could be other purposes.  Basically, it is someone else's property, and without first-hand knowledge of what is happening with that physical property, you could really be messing someone else up if you assume anything about it merely by its listing status on gc.com.

 

Good point, I should have mentioned that possiibility !

Sevaral other smaller cache sites  do exist, although Groundspeak would be annoyed for us to name and therefore advertise them on their' forums ... try a web search.

Some of those other listing sites have a marker on their cache page for cross listed or exclusive caches, so you know if it is also on another site.   Groundspeak don't, presumably because again , letting folk know other listing sites are available might be bad for the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, frumiousb said:

And again, what about virtuals that the CO no longer responds about?  It's not like anyone can just place a new virtual nowadays.

 

I understand the frustration in seeing a virtual disappear but hal-an-tow is correct... " intellectual property (i.e. a virtual caches listing idea, pictures and wording) might be argued as similarly seen as the property of the C.O.)" If Groundspeak claims ownership of listings in order to transfer cache listings to other accounts,  they create a liability for themselves. They are doing the smart thing. Yes, it's frustrating for people who like to cache for icons and old gc codes. 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

I understand the frustration in seeing a virtual disappear but hal-an-tow is correct... " intellectual property (i.e. a virtual caches listing idea, pictures and wording) might be argued as similarly seen as the property of the C.O.)" If Groundspeak claims ownership of listings in order to transfer cache listings to other accounts,  they create a liability for themselves. They are doing the smart thing. Yes, it's frustrating for people who like to cache for icons and old gc codes. 

 

 

 

Not to mention the whole idea of a virtual cache is that it requires you to make observations on site and interact with the owner. If the owner has either passed away, archived their page, or "disappeared" from the game then they are no longer able to verify the observations and questions from the GZ were answered correctly.

 

In the example given, GCHVCH  the cache page states: "To claim this geocache, email the following information: From the information on the bottom of the map, list the three trails mentioned."
 

If the CO archived the cache then he/she is no longer willing/able to screen the answers making any attempt to claim the virtual null and void. Sure the person may have visited GZ, but they were unable to fulfill the requirements of the virtual cache; namely contacting the CO with the correct answers.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, frumiousb said:

I'm frustrated that active cachers can't adopt caches (physical OR virtual) that have basically been abandoned by owners who are long-inactive or even known to be deceased. 

 

This would sometimes be good idea. There are many caches that are part of some other mystery series. There may be a hint inside the cache box. When the cache is gone, the whole series terminates. These are often "community adopted" but could be sensible if they could be adopted officially.

This can of course work both ways. If someone can just grab a cache in their possession and change something that was not supposed to change, that might ruin someone else's mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, frumiousb said:

I'm frustrated that active cachers can't adopt caches (physical OR virtual) that have basically been abandoned by owners who are long-inactive or even known to be deceased. 

6 hours ago, papu66 said:

This would sometimes be good idea. There are many caches that are part of some other mystery series. There may be a hint inside the cache box. When the cache is gone, the whole series terminates. These are often "community adopted" but could be sensible if they could be adopted officially.

This can of course work both ways. If someone can just grab a cache in their possession and change something that was not supposed to change, that might ruin someone else's mystery.

 

"Propping up"  caches just extends the inevitable.  No difference whether the CO is "active" or not... 

Fortunately the site realized that other issues may arise when something that doesn't belong to them is "given" to another.  :) 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe we should have a Foster Cache program.  The ownership of the cache doesn't change, but the Cache Foster (CF) has full access to the page and maintains the cache.  If the CO returns they can 'revoke' the fostership and take over maintenance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Maybe we should have a Foster Cache program.  The ownership of the cache doesn't change, but the Cache Foster (CF) has full access to the page and maintains the cache.  If the CO returns they can 'revoke' the fostership and take over maintenance.

 

 

Same problem.

 

Under this 'Foster' program, if the Foster-Owner changes the cache either by moving it or replaces it or making some other physical change, they're still messing with someone else's property. Even replacing a logbook! If they archive and remove it, it's stealing!

 

If they can also maintain the cache page, then GS is letting them change someone else's intellectual property. Can you imagine if Faceplant would let someone take over someone's page just because they hadn't visited the site in a while?

 

What do you mean by "the CO returns"? Aside from setting up a cache, a CO never has to log on to the website, or reflect that they're around in any way whatsoever! If they have a cache that hasn't been found in a long time but has no problems, that CO could be walking out of his house every morning and checking on it. Nothing says he or she has to log anything. If he or she isn't doing any 'finding' (like, I haven't all winter here in the northern hemisphere), then there might be NO indication that I'm still on the planet. But, I'm lookin' at that Altoids tin every single day!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

Maybe we should have a Foster Cache program.  The ownership of the cache doesn't change, but the Cache Foster (CF) has full access to the page and maintains the cache.  If the CO returns they can 'revoke' the fostership and take over maintenance.

We already have a system. The CO can adopt the cache to someone they trust, and then that person can adopt it back when the original CO returns.

 

Or are you proposing an involuntary system? That won't happen.

 

And there's no need for an involuntary system. These aren't children that need a foster parent. These aren't even pets that need a new "forever home". These are containers hidden in the woods as part of a GPS-based scavenger hunt. If the listings are no longer viable for whatever reason, then archive them. It's no big deal.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Same problem.

 

Under this 'Foster' program, if the Foster-Owner changes the cache either by moving it or replaces it or making some other physical change, they're still messing with someone else's property. Even replacing a logbook! If they archive and remove it, it's stealing!

 

If they can also maintain the cache page, then GS is letting them change someone else's intellectual property. Can you imagine if Faceplant would let someone take over someone's page just because they hadn't visited the site in a while?

 

What do you mean by "the CO returns"? Aside from setting up a cache, a CO never has to log on to the website, or reflect that they're around in any way whatsoever! If they have a cache that hasn't been found in a long time but has no problems, that CO could be walking out of his house every morning and checking on it. Nothing says he or she has to log anything. If he or she isn't doing any 'finding' (like, I haven't all winter here in the northern hemisphere), then there might be NO indication that I'm still on the planet. But, I'm lookin' at that Altoids tin every single day!

They aren't "Foster-Owners".  You do understand that in a foster program the foster parents can not make major, permemant changes to their charges (as forsters to cats we can't have them declawed or amuptate the tail if we think the Manx look is the best) without consent of the 'owners' (with us, it's the county animal shelter).  Adoption means ownership changes, foster means you're maintaining someone else's property.  If logbooks need to be replaced (or cache needs to removed) said property would be held for the owner until such time as they collect it, so no stealing involved.  If a Cache Foster got tired of a foster cache, they wouldn't archive it, but retire from fostering and it's back to GS to deal with it using the system we all know (GS can archive the listing and leave the geo-litter.  Hmm, which is worse:  'stealing' a non-viable cache, or leaving geo-litter...  I know where an ammo can is, long time archived, and I've heard the CO passed away after quiting the hobby - is it stealing if I retrieve that container?).  We can't decide to drop out of cat fostering and keep the animals in our care (or "archive" them (i.e.. kill)) - they aren't ours, we have to return them.

 

The "CO returns" was referencing back to one of the episodes that 'killed' forced adotions (mentioned above), where a CO came back to the game years later and wanted to know what happened to their caches.  You're right a CO doesn't have to log on to monitor caches, but if problems do come up they have to log maintenance or the cache might be archived.

 

Fostering wouldn't happen on a whim, effort would be expended to contact the CO before a foster could be assigned (like they do now, before archiving a cache).  But the foster would be able to post OM logs to clear red wrenches and such.  Or prevent a viable cache from being archived due to a reported problem that doesn't exist (we tried that once on a cache that we found after it was TD by a reviewer because someone 'saw' a problem.  The reported problem didn't exist, which we explained in our log, but because there was no response from the CO, it was archived.  Instead we could have offered to foster the cache and when the time limit was hit, we would have assigned to maintained the listing since it was viable.).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, niraD said:

We already have a system. The CO can adopt the cache to someone they trust, and then that person can adopt it back when the original CO returns.

 

Or are you proposing an involuntary system? That won't happen.

 

And there's no need for an involuntary system. These aren't children that need a foster parent. These aren't even pets that need a new "forever home". These are containers hidden in the woods as part of a GPS-based scavenger hunt. If the listings are no longer viable for whatever reason, then archive them. It's no big deal.

To some people, the archiving of viable but unmaintained caches -especially some old or rare caches - is a big deal. 

 

And the current TD and archival system is an "involuntary system", so they do 'happen' in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

{*} Or "... could care less", for Americans? Yes? You have no idea how totally confusing this is for a non-native speaker :rolleyes:!

FWIW, I'm an American, and I learned that "couldn't care less" is correct. Sure, people still say "could care less" anyway, but they also say "literally" when they mean "figuratively", and they also say all sorts of other silly things.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

If an old cache gets archived (because of TD + lack of owner response), even though the container is still there (and usable), the solution is easy: Create a new listing, identical to the archived one, give credit to the CO of the original cache, and provide a link to the original cache listing. Depending on the physical state of the old container, you can even re-use that one (provided you are prepared to substitute a new one, if the original CO claims his property). The result is exactly the same cache as before - same listing, same location, and possibly even the same container. With a link to the original listing, it's also easy to look at the complete "history" of the cache. The only difference is a new CO, who can properly maintain both listing and container.

 

Yeah, I know, there is one more difference: A new GC code. And the old one may have been crucial to some challenge ("Jasmer" comes to mind). Well - so what? To be honest, I absolutely couldn't care less{*}! It used to be a side game, but nowadays it seems that stats, challenges, etc. are the main, and sometimes only, motivation for many cachers.

 

Also, what if the archived old cache was a Virtual or a Webcam? It can't be recreated as a new listing. Still, so what? I know a Webcam cache, where the cam was permanently shut down by the cam owner (a local business). The cache was then logged with selfies, until one cacher logged an NA (for the obvious reason that the webcam doesn't exist anymore). You should have seen the sh*t storm that ensued! Just because someone dared to log NA on an old cache of a "special" type! There were comments which definitely violated the TOU regarding insulting logs. And all the fuss was only because webcam caches are "valuable" for the stats! I could tell many similar stories where geocaching "discussions" went out of control, because people felt that their statistics (and not their geocaching experience) were negatively affected by the action of a CO or another cacher. That said, I've had enough of all the whining when an "old" or "special" cache gets archived!

 

Umm ... sorry for the rant. But this thread is in fact titled "What irks you most?", so a rant is somewhat on-topic, isn't it ;) ?

 

 

{*} Or "... could care less", for Americans? Yes? You have no idea how totally confusing this is for a non-native speaker :rolleyes:!

That's fine if there are people living close enough to publish a new container, which would be most times. However, there are places where no-one lives close enough, the 161kms, (let alone a geocacher) to replace a container. In those cases the ONLY geocache might then be gone. That means that people travelling through the area will have no geocaches to find. I have visited areas where the only caches are old, because no-one can place another container, as no geocacher lives within 161kms, or possibly several hundred kms. Those old caches are valuable and very much appreciated.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

That means that people travelling through the area will have no geocaches to find.

Not every spot in the world needs a geocache.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, niraD said:

Not every spot in the world needs a geocache.

Only someone who lives in a country spoilt with masses of cache could think that.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

However, there are places where no-one lives close enough, the 161kms, (let alone a geocacher) to replace a container. In those cases the ONLY geocache might then be gone.

An example, Barkly highway, Northern Territory. It's a main sealed road, but very few people live there. One cache (place 2009) in 445kms. But lots of geocachers pass through. Last year 46 people found or attempted it. I found it in 2016. It's a very tricky cache to find.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

An example, Barkly highway, Northern Territory. It's a main sealed road, but very few people live there. One cache (place 2009) in 445kms. But lots of geocachers pass through. Last year 46 people found or attempted it. I found it in 2016. It's a very tricky cache to find.

So? This doesn't sound like some "special" old cache, but more like the typical vacation cache, where the CO doesn't live anywhere near the location. The cache will survive as long as "community maintenance" is ongoing (e.g. every now and then a finder brings a new log), but if that fails, the cache will be archived. I don't see what alternative you are suggesting.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, The Jester said:

They aren't "Foster-Owners".  You do understand that in a foster program the foster parents can not make major, permemant changes to their charges (as forsters to cats we can't have them declawed or amuptate the tail if we think the Manx look is the best) without consent of the 'owners' (with us, it's the county animal shelter).  Adoption means ownership changes, foster means you're maintaining someone else's property.  If logbooks need to be replaced (or cache needs to removed) said property would be held for the owner until such time as they collect it, so no stealing involved.  If a Cache Foster got tired of a foster cache, they wouldn't archive it, but retire from fostering and it's back to GS to deal with it using the system we all know (GS can archive the listing and leave the geo-litter.  Hmm, which is worse:  'stealing' a non-viable cache, or leaving geo-litter...  I know where an ammo can is, long time archived, and I've heard the CO passed away after quiting the hobby - is it stealing if I retrieve that container?).  We can't decide to drop out of cat fostering and keep the animals in our care (or "archive" them (i.e.. kill)) - they aren't ours, we have to return them.

 

The "CO returns" was referencing back to one of the episodes that 'killed' forced adotions (mentioned above), where a CO came back to the game years later and wanted to know what happened to their caches.  You're right a CO doesn't have to log on to monitor caches, but if problems do come up they have to log maintenance or the cache might be archived.

 

Fostering wouldn't happen on a whim, effort would be expended to contact the CO before a foster could be assigned (like they do now, before archiving a cache).  But the foster would be able to post OM logs to clear red wrenches and such.  Or prevent a viable cache from being archived due to a reported problem that doesn't exist (we tried that once on a cache that we found after it was TD by a reviewer because someone 'saw' a problem.  The reported problem didn't exist, which we explained in our log, but because there was no response from the CO, it was archived.  Instead we could have offered to foster the cache and when the time limit was hit, we would have assigned to maintained the listing since it was viable.).

 

My friend, you are way out in the weeds on this one.

 

That's a very specific, very detailed setup you have there to be operated by non-employee, random people PLUS more coordination and enforcement by HQ. I think it's a mite ambitious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

So? This doesn't sound like some "special" old cache, but more like the typical vacation cache, where the CO doesn't live anywhere near the location. The cache will survive as long as "community maintenance" is ongoing (e.g. every now and then a finder brings a new log), but if that fails, the cache will be archived. I don't see what alternative you are suggesting.

Yes, it will be maintained by the community; possibly is now. But some people have suggested that if the owner is inactive the cache should be archived, even if it is being maintained. I have seen a cache archived that was being maintained. It was is a great place and had just had a new cache and log added. Just because another cacher made a NA. It was probably because they couldn't find it. The cache was hidden in a tricky place and wasn't an easy find. That example though wasn't 'tragic' as there were other caches around. However, where there are not other caches around, it would be sad. It's very nice on a long drive to have an excuse to stop and stretch the legs. Probably  makes the drive safer too. Less likely to doze off. (Adding, I have never dozed off.)

Added: The cache on the Barkly is special, because it's the ONLY cache in 445kms. To those driving that long boring road, and it is boring, mostly straight, that cache is very special. It's outside the only petrol, accommodation and place to eat on that road too. Besides that roadhouse...nothing but flat, bare countryside with almost no trees. And on one of my crossings, mainly bare dirt. Hours of that.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes, it will be maintained by the community; possibly is now. But some people have suggested that if the owner is inactive the cache should be archived, even if it is being maintained.

I'm not one of these "some people" ;) . If the cache is reasonably maintained, then I don't care if the actual CO is absent. I guess this is the majority opinion among cachers, and it's definitely the way how these situations are de facto handled.

 

5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have seen a cache archived that was being maintained. It was is a great place and had just had a new cache and log added. Just because another cacher made a NA. It was probably because they couldn't find it. The cache was hidden in a tricky place and wasn't an easy find.

An unfortunate situation, and probably rare. How should this be resolved? After the NA (and a TD by the reviewer, I assume) someone has to go out and find the cache to prove that it's there and in good condition. Were there finds after the NA? Or notes by previous finders, who went out and found the cache in good condition? If yes, one of the finders could have sent photos of the current situation to the reviewer. In an "ideal world", the reviewer could then decide that this is good enough, and re-enable the cache on behalf of the absent CO.

Well ... that was an awful lot of speculation from my side, because I simply don't know what exactly happened in your example. But no matter what, every cache can sometimes run into "problems", which require owner intervention. And even with the best reviewers, who are willing to accept non-CO maintenance visits, someone must do this maintenance. And if the cache is so remote, that there is effectively nobody to do this? What do you suggest?

19 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

However, where there are not other caches around, it would be sad.

Maybe it would be sad, but that doesn't change the fact, that a remote cache without anyone who acts as CO (even if they are not formally the owner of the listing) will fail sooner or later.

 

And to be honest: I'd rather have no cache at all than an unmaintained piece of junk, which used to be a geocache a long time ago but is no longer one.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

An unfortunate situation, and probably rare. How should this be resolved? After the NA (and a TD by the reviewer, I assume) someone has to go out and find the cache to prove that it's there and in good condition. Were there finds after the NA?

Yes, my found log. From memory I said the cache and log were good. I might even have given it a favourite point. Shame, but not a bad lose, as that example wasn't remote and there were other caches around.

 

8 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Maybe it would be sad, but that doesn't change the fact, that a remote cache without anyone who acts as CO (even if they are not formally the owner of the listing) will fail sooner or later.

 

And to be honest: I'd rather have no cache at all than an unmaintained piece of junk, which used to be a geocache a long time ago but is no longer one.

Naturally, if the cache has been reduced to an unrecognisable, leaky rusty tin with no log. (Many caches I have found in remote areas have been tins, as they are more fire proof. Sun proof too.) But not just because the log is full or other 'minor' reason. The next person along will hopefully fix those fixable problems.

Share this post


Link to post

The above posts were split off from the "What Irks You?" thread into their own thread, as the discussion has blossomed well beyond the purpose of the "Irks" thread.  Carry on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The above posts were split off from the "What Irks You?" thread into their own thread, as the discussion has blossomed well beyond the purpose of the "Irks" thread.  Carry on.

Thank you. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/7/2019 at 11:43 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

I understand the frustration in seeing a virtual disappear but hal-an-tow is correct... " intellectual property (i.e. a virtual caches listing idea, pictures and wording) might be argued as similarly seen as the property of the C.O.)" If Groundspeak claims ownership of listings in order to transfer cache listings to other accounts,  they create a liability for themselves. They are doing the smart thing. Yes, it's frustrating for people who like to cache for icons and old gc codes.

 

Wow, it would be great if you would consistently argue this position.  Then you would not constantly argue that the owner has legally ceded control of the cache listing to Groundspeak, who should then archive it at the merest whiff of a problem.

 

So stick to one position or another:  does Groundspeak own the listings (and therefore the right to delete them when they don't meet your meticulous quality standards) or not? 

 

Or perhaps your position is basically that only the very best caches should not be archived, so that there is no chance of any kind that you could encounter a cache not up to your lofty standards?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Only someone who lives in a country spoilt with masses of cache could think that.

Nope, I agree with LOneR. If you are inferring communal maintenance then I disagree again as I have seen that fail in the past also. There are many roads in Oz where there are no caches for 100s of Ks but do you drive those roads and miss what isn't there?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, colleda said:

Nope, I agree with LOneR. If you are inferring communal maintenance then I disagree again as I have seen that fail in the past also. There are many roads in Oz where there are no caches for 100s of Ks but do you drive those roads and miss what isn't there?

Yes.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

An example, Barkly highway, Northern Territory. It's a main sealed road, but very few people live there. One cache (place 2009) in 445kms. But lots of geocachers pass through. Last year 46 people found or attempted it. I found it in 2016. It's a very tricky cache to find.

 

6 hours ago, baer2006 said:

So? This doesn't sound like some "special" old cache, but more like the typical vacation cache, where the CO doesn't live anywhere near the location. The cache will survive as long as "community maintenance" is ongoing (e.g. every now and then a finder brings a new log), but if that fails, the cache will be archived. I don't see what alternative you are suggesting.

 

Yup, that's how it goes. I think this example is similar to webcam and grandfathered challenge cashes in that if the cache is archived it can not be replaced according to present rules. GC probably likes to see these caches gone, as soon as there's a problem. The only option is that people refrain from logging those NM and NA and it also helps if it is easy find (no string of DNFs). AFAIK the second oldest cache in Finland is vacation cache. So far, no problems. Fingers crossed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ok my $0.02 take it or leave it.

 

Most caches really do not warrant adoption. Sorry it is true. Yes that's a generality as I have seen great ones too and in fact favorited  several adopted caches GCD2 & GC17 come to mind the later might be in my top 10. My examples stated above  could be deemed historic but they also bring you to wonderful places and in the case of GC17 an amazing view.  While GC12 a few miles away is simply a 5 gallon bucket in the middle of the woods nothing special. I have seen adopted GRC and rusty tin containers adopted and have to ask why.

 

My thoughts are only ones deemed valued by the community should be adopted. GS could have some kind of mechanism to review nominations and then work with the CO for a handoff plan. Call it a living will if you like. Maybe have a grandfather policy for some of the others who have dropped out already, if the CO shows up again explain to them why and what happened and offer to return.

 

All other caches follow the standard abandonment death spiral. DNFs followed by NA followed by Temp Disable and finally archival. Now the map opens up maybe to a great place and someone else can hide a new cache there or nearby.

 

A lot of the driving forces for adoptions is to maintain older caches and enable things like Jasmer Challenges. Fine I get it. Eventually the Jasmer will go away or be modified as certain slots will be come unobtainable. For me I have one month missing and need to travel to Michigan, Utah, or Georgia to qualify. Maybe one day I'll get it will see but it is not easy maybe it never has been.

 

Now i know the folks in remote areas will say we need these caches. I argue no you don't, in fact the fact you don't have a lot of new caches in the area might be what is killing your area. Take one of the abandoned caches archive it and now assuming the location was valued place a newly maintained cache, now the locals have another destination to go for. Win Win.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Similar to MNTA I guess.  Many we see up for "adoption" could have gone bye-bye before they left the area.

We see threads started in the forums "someone to adopt my caches" every once in a while.

Many times, looking at them shows  one or more has a red wrench on it at the time they're asking

It looks like adoption was asked for just because of a problem now.  They live so far away they'll never be able to maintain them if they wanted to. 

 - Of course no issues earlier meant "adoption" wasn't needed before they left...

Dump their junk on another, rather than just pick up their margarine tub, and throw it in the garbage before leaving.  Sheesh...

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Now i know the folks in remote areas will say we need these caches. I argue no you don't, in fact the fact you don't have a lot of new caches in the area might be what is killing your area. Take one of the abandoned caches archive it and now assuming the location was valued place a newly maintained cache, now the locals have another destination to go for. Win Win.

 

This is my local patch, an area of the New South Wales Central Coast known as the Woy Woy Pensinula. In its roughly 80 square kilometres of dry land there are 64 caches and at first glance it might look like a pretty healthy caching environment. On average it's less than one cache per square kilometre so it's nowhere near saturated and there are plenty of places for new hides, one would think.

 

image.png.ee795fc02267290878a483eed3fed7c0.png

 

But look closer. The first thing you'll see is that a full third of the caches are mine. I turn 65 this year so it's likely that sometime in the next couple of decades I'll either kick the bucket or become too frail to get to any of my hides so they'll be archived, adopted or become abandoned (I hope not). But what about the other two thirds? Well, most of those were hidden by people who are no longer actively caching or have left the region.

 

In the last twelve months there have been six new hides: three of them mine, one an EC by someone from Sydney and the other two hidden by a couple from the same family who haven't done any caching at all this year (looks ominous). I then have to go back to January 2017 to find a cache that's been hidden by someone other than me who's still active, but it looks like they've moved interstate and are now caching in Victoria. There's one placed in January 2016 by someone who still pokes his head up occasionally but his most recent find was last October, then the next most recent hide by someone still active and living on the Central Coast is way back in October 2014.

 

My more recent hides haven't been drawing much of a crowd of finders either. The most recent, a 2/3 traditional hidden last month, has had just one finder, while the one before that, a 1.5/3 traditional hidden last October, has had four (two of those from Sydney), so people aren't exactly rushing in to do them when there are new ones to find.

 

Fortunately, with much of this area being bushland, most of those older caches are well-made and are unlikely to become decrepit for a long time yet, but the idea that if you archive them there'll suddenly be an influx of amazing new caches to replace them and with lots of people rushing out to find them is just wishful thinking. All we'll end up with is a map mostly devoid of caches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, MNTA said:

Now i know the folks in remote areas will say we need these caches. I argue no you don't, in fact the fact you don't have a lot of new caches in the area might be what is killing your area. Take one of the abandoned caches archive it and now assuming the location was valued place a newly maintained cache, now the locals have another destination to go for. Win Win.

In remote areas the archived caches will not be replaced, because no-one lives there, or at least no-one who geocaches lives there. So when a rare cache (in the sense of it might be one of a few caches (even the ONLY cache - my example of one cache in 445kms on the Barkly Highway in NT) goes it CAN'T be replaced. I think some people living in other parts of the world, just don't get this.

Map: The cache - yellow arrow - is small because that is 445 kms shown there. See the ONLY cache. Plenty of room for other caches, but it is not allowed to put other caches there, becaue a geocacher must live within 161 kms, and none do; in fact hardly anyone does.

Next photograph shows Three Ways. That is the start of the 445kms to the next state border 445kms away (the whole state is much wider than that).

Next photograph, is on the border of NT and Queensland.

The next two show the road. Do you see any geocachers living there who can place a cache? There is some grass, so it must have rained. I have seen it far worse on another crossing. The last photograph, is some of the traffic you are likely to encounter.

Barkly Highway, NT.jpg

Three Ways Roadhouse, early morning.jpg

Near QLD & NT border.jpg

The road.jpg

Queensland_NT Border.jpg

Road train entering Threeways, NT.jpg

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

Make an earthcache or two. You don't have to live close to those.

Good idea, but I don't like Earthcaches much, however, if that's all there are, I will do them then. I'll leave that to someone else to place Earthcaches.

I do think this sort of area would have been good for the recent release of Virtual caches, and many Virtuals were 'wasted' by being put in areas with many caches already, when they could have been placed in a remote areas like this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/10/2019 at 12:35 AM, Goldenwattle said:

That's fine if there are people living close enough to publish a new container, which would be most times. However, there are places where no-one lives close enough, the 161kms, (let alone a geocacher) to replace a container. In those cases the ONLY geocache might then be gone. That means that people travelling through the area will have no geocaches to find. I have visited areas where the only caches are old, because no-one can place another container, as no geocacher lives within 161kms, or possibly several hundred kms. Those old caches are valuable and very much appreciated.

 

So, are you saying that someone who does not live close enough to a location to publish a new cache at it (because the reviewer would disallow it as a vacation cache) should be able  to  adopt a cache there, which they have no  intention of visiting to maintain as it is too far away from home ?!

 

Will maintenance be performed in the form of throwdowns by folk making the long arduous pilgrimage to this isolated GZ , and feeling they deserve a find once they make the effort to get there ? Would that actually be an old cache ?

 

It all seems rather a strange idea to me.

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

 

So, are you saying that someone who does not live close enough to a location to publish a new cache at it (because the reviewer would disallow it as a vacation cache) should be able  to  adopt a cache there, which they have no  intention of visiting to maintain as it is too far away from home ?!

 

Will maintenance be performed in the form of throwdowns by folk making the long arduous pilgrimage to this isolated GZ , and feeling they deserve a find once they make the effort to get there ? Would that actually be an old cache ?

 

It all seems rather a strange idea to me.

 

 

No I NEVER suggested that an individual should adopt these caches. Weird idea to me, unless they move to live in the area. Many remote caches are maintained now by travellers, and if you are referring to replacing a broken regular cache with a similar sized regular cache, as often happens, as just a throw-down, than a throw-down it is, even if in some cases the throw-down might be a better cache than the original. You are cheapening the generosity and the spirit of geocaching in your term of throw-down, when people who visit these remote caches go to the effort of keeping these caches going. They might have collected suitable containers or bought a selection of containers to take with them on their road trip, so they will have a suitable container to use if necessary. I too have packed containers in case when I have visited these areas. They are the same containers I have used for some of my caches, so not just pill bottles. Although, many people do use pill bottles these days for their own caches.

 

In a sense these remote caches have been adopted by the community and it would be a mean person who would make a NA rather than fix the cache, so that future travellers can make a find. See my explanation of 'remote' with photographs above. And there are far more remote areas than that.

Edited by Goldenwattle
It's a road trip, not a toad trip (usually). t next r on keyboard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

a geocacher must live within 161 kms

 

That's a rule of thumb, and not an absolute.

 

If a cacher can demonstrate an adequate maintenance plan, such as, "I drive through the area once a quarter and can check on the cache as needed," that may be adequate for this particular corridor.  The local reviewer would be the judge of adequacy, so asking ahead of time would help.

 

Per the guidelines (emphasis added):

 

Quote

Don't hide caches far from home.

  • Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published because they are difficult to maintain. It's best to place physical caches in your area so you can respond quickly to maintenance needs. In rare circumstances a vacation cache with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published.

 

Per the Help Center (again, emphasis added):

 

Quote

5.5. Can I hide a cache while on vacation?

 

It’s not recommended

 

We recommend that you do not hide a geocache while traveling. Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published.

Geocache owners must visit their caches to maintain them. Log books fill up, cache contents get wet, or the cache can disappear. If you live far away from your cache, timely maintenance is impossible. It’s best to place physical caches in your usual caching area.

 

Maintenance plan

 

If you do place a geocache while traveling, you must have a maintenance plan. For example, a local geocacher agrees to maintain the cache in your absence. When you submit your cache, document your plan in a Reviewer Note. Include the local geocacher’s username, contact information, and written consent. Information in Reviewer Notes will auto-archive on publication and will not be available to other players.

 

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
  • Involuntary adoption was a mistake; it didn't preserve caching history, it destroyed it.   Take DOGBONE  - looking at his profile, you see a few finds, and one hide. In fact he hid 10 caches, (he hid some before he found any) all but Ed's Place involuntarily adopted.    One of his was not only adopted, but moved from a remote island paddle cache to a walk in park.  There's still an active cacher who found the remote paddle, but there's nothing on this site that preserves the cache that he found.  When the land manager complained about it, it should have been archived. The person who placed the walk in the park with permission should have started a new listing.
  • Replacing a damaged container with a new comparable container when out in remote areas with few hides, isn't a throwdown to my thinking.  A 'throwdown' is placing a cache where you found nothing or so little of something that it's not clear that you really found cache remains.  (I'm not much of a fan of it, regardless,  particularly as it's much done now - ie, a regular or small with a pill bottle, but I get why people do it. I replaced a cache once early in my career. Sorry, now, but at the time I thought it was a good idea. )

 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

That's a rule of thumb, and not an absolute.

 

If a cacher can demonstrate an adequate maintenance plan, such as, "I drive through the area once a quarter and can check on the cache as needed," that may be adequate for this particular corridor.  The local reviewer would be the judge of adequacy, so asking ahead of time would help.

 

Per the guidelines (emphasis added):

 

 

Per the Help Center (again, emphasis added):

 

 

That's why those areas don't have caches.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's why those areas don't have caches.

 

Why, because the local reviewer won't accept "I drive through the area once a quarter and can check on the cache as needed" as a maintenance plan, or because no one has asked them?

 

That was, I suspect, this cache owner's maintenance plan, and apparently it was good enough for the original reviewer.

 

Until someone else steps up to the plate, asks the current reviewer to take action on this cache, and submits a cache of their own, apparently "community maintenance" will have to do.  After all, the same cacher who reported that this cache needed to be archived, left a replacement cache for Camel that Barks - clearly they didn't want to be the ones to kill it off.

 

I'm not knocking community maintenance.  Normally I don't think it is appropriate - if you hide a cache, you're committing to keeping it going as long as you keep the listing active.  But without some limited allowance, or at least grudging acceptance, of community maintenance, caches would not exist in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, it seems, Tablelands, NT.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

Why, because the local reviewer won't accept "I drive through the area once a quarter and can check on the cache as needed" as a maintenance plan, or because no one has asked them?

 

That was, I suspect, this cache owner's maintenance plan, and apparently it was good enough for the original reviewer.

 

Until someone else steps up to the plate, asks the current reviewer to take action on this cache, and submits a cache of their own, apparently "community maintenance" will have to do.  After all, the same cacher who reported that this cache needed to be archived, left a replacement cache for Camel that Barks - clearly they didn't want to be the ones to kill it off.

 

I'm not knocking community maintenance.  Normally I don't think it is appropriate - if you hide a cache, you're committing to keeping it going as long as you keep the listing active.  But without some limited allowance, or at least grudging acceptance, of community maintenance, caches would not exist in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, it seems, Tablelands, NT.  

Apparently there are two caches there at Camel that Barks, as the cache was not missing, according to later logs; it's just that person could not find it. The original cache is still there. https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=b1e3a487-8017-488f-8aed-0470ecb0479b

We will have to disagree on remote caches being maintained by the community, because I find that is fine. But then in your country you are spoilt for caches everywhere (not hundreds of kms to the next), so that is an easy comment for you to make.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

We will have to disagree on remote caches being maintained by the community, because I find that is fine.

 

I don't think we actually did disagree:

 

58 minutes ago, hzoi said:

I'm not knocking community maintenance.  Normally I don't think it is appropriate - if you hide a cache, you're committing to keeping it going as long as you keep the listing active.  But without some limited allowance, or at least grudging acceptance, of community maintenance, caches would not exist in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, it seems, Tablelands, NT.  

 

26 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

But then in your country you are spoilt for caches everywhere (not hundreds of kms to the next), so that is an easy comment for you to make.

 

I am indeed spoiled at the moment - Germany is one of the most cache-dense areas there is, due to the popularity of geocaching, strict community planning, and property laws that favor placement.  So here, community maintenance should not be a thing.  But as I stated above, it's not the same everywhere else. 

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...