Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
pli

New status and souvenir ? - Collectable/Collected

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi

 

From time to time we fall upon remains of caches not cared for. Our sport  has unfortunately introduced more plastic in nature "geolitter" called by someone. More and more public attention has been drawn to  plastic in nature and the consequence for nature. Our dilemma is that on one hand plastic boxes are a very good way to protect our logbooks, on the other hand we a spreading plastic in nature.

 

Our sport deserves a better reputation.

 

I therefore suggest a new status "Collectable" on a cache. This status should only be set by reviewers, on request from user on a "Needs Archived" log, or by other findings. Geocachers who recognizes this status, should rush to collect the remains, and as a reward, could get a souvenir (aggregation mechanism to be developed), or an extra point in the statistics. A Collector Badge could be considered as well. The reward should be given when a "Collected" log is issued. Photo is required.

 

Another situation also arises, where a geocacher leaves the area where his/her caches are placed, and the reviewer feels that the caches should be closed. Today they can be archived but left in nature, but using the suggested feature, a successful collection can be started. More examples could probably be worked out. Where did you meet "geolitter" the last time ?

 

I hope you will receive this suggestion and include the implementation in future releases.

 

Best regards

Peter Lindemann

 

Edited by pli
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

This may be suited to local Geocaching groups, rather than "reviewers". And it's not all trash, I may archive my caches on "Geocaching.com", but list them in some other way, so don't "collect" mine merely because they aren't on this site.  But if someone "falls upon remains of caches not cared for", an archived cache, it then doesn't require a status.  Use common sense, and if necessary, pick it up.

 

For this subject, definitely don't use anything even remotely like the word "Collectable".  Don't create a whole new level of confusing.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pli said:

From time to time we fall upon remains of caches not cared for. Our sport  has unfortunately introduced more plastic in nature "geolitter" called by someone. More and more public attention has been drawn to  plastic in nature and the consequence for nature. Our dilemma is that on one hand plastic boxes are a very good way to protect our logbooks, on the other hand we a spreading plastic in nature.

 

 ... I therefore suggest a new status "Collectable" on a cache. This status should only be set by reviewers, on request from user on a "Needs Archived" log, or by other findings. Geocachers who recognizes this status, should rush to collect the remains, and as a reward, could get a souvenir (aggregation mechanism to be developed), or an extra point in the statistics. A Collector Badge could be considered as well. The reward should be given when a "Collected" log is issued. Photo is required.

 

Another situation also arises, where a geocacher leaves the area where his/her caches are placed, and the reviewer feels that the caches should be closed. Today they can be archived but left in nature, but using the suggested feature, a successful collection can be started. More examples could probably be worked out. Where did you meet "geolitter" the last time ?

 

I don't see us "spreading plastic" in nature at all.      :)

You seem to be confusing people in the outdoors  littering, usually in areas others can see,  with simply placing a container, a geocache, out of those people's sight.

We see it all the time.  We walk out of a park or woods and have an accumulation of empty water bottles and power bar wrappers from people other than cachers, and place 'em in a bag .

 - Don't you remember all the "stuff" you cleaned up in a CITO in '10 ?    This hobby is harmless by comparison...

 

There's a few other sites and cachers  that may have a court case if the site promoted people picking up containers without knowing for sure they're abandoned.   This is only a listing site.

I know a couple folks where your "reward" might well be a good swift kick in the can.      :D    

We caught an ammo can thief once.   He claimed we were "littering" too.  Only ammo cans.  Go figure...

 

For years, most archived caches here used to get picked up.   Many were ammo cans or quality, weatherproof containers.

These days of pill bottles and altoids tins, maybe not too much.    I sometimes grab some in the winter while hunting.

Still a lot less than even the spent shot shells laying around...

 

 

 

Edited by cerberus1
addification
  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wanting a litter-free environment is a noble cause for sure. But if you're serious about that being your cause then I can think of 1001 ways that would be FAR MORE EFFECTIVE (and easier) than worrying about abandoned geocaches.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, bflentje said:

Wanting a litter-free environment is a noble cause for sure. But if you're serious about that being your cause then I can think of 1001 ways that would be FAR MORE EFFECTIVE (and easier) than worrying about abandoned geocaches.

 

Give us your top ten.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I really like the idea. But.

The GC site is only a listing service. They could get themselves in legal trouble if they suggest ownership or responsibility for the geolitter. Some owners will suddenly appear claiming GS had no right to encourage anyone to take their property. They may be sued. It would be similar to the idea of allowing others to adopt a listing without the permission of the owner.  But they could try harder to prevent geolitter. I'm waiting for bflentje's top 10 ideas. Maybe we can figure out something GS can actually do to discourage/prevent abandoned plastic without suggesting ownership of the physical caches listed on their site. I agree, our sport deserves a better reputation. 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Better sentence
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, pli said:

Our sport deserves a better reputation.

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

. I agree, our sport deserves a better reputation. 

 

 Curious, is there really a negative opinion about the hobby in your areas ?

We've rarely heard of any negative reviews about littering and the hobby in most states we've cached. 

 - Memorials and site destruction I believe tops littering...  Had some a few years ago, but it was permission issues.  Again not littering.

Most people we meet are just happy that we have extra water to give them (that walk in the woods and no water thing...), and don't give this hobby a second thought.     :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pli said:

I therefore suggest a new status "Collectable" on a cache. This status should only be set by reviewers, on request from user on a "Needs Archived" log, or by other findings.

Based on 16 years' volunteer experience in enforcing the "Cache Maintenance" section of the listing guidelines, I would not agree to take on this responsibility until (a) I am hired as a paid employee, and (b) the website terms of use are rewritten to permit the suggestion.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bflentje said:

Wanting a litter-free environment is a noble cause for sure. But if you're serious about that being your cause then I can think of 1001 ways that would be FAR MORE EFFECTIVE (and easier) than worrying about abandoned geocaches.

 

Ah, yes.  I decided I needed a hobby.  A 'park' set by Friends of the ? River and a major motor vehicle company.  Its not a town park. The land is owned by a railroad, so I could not hide a cache there.  Three garbage cans (the town only picks up the garbage from one).  A picnic table and a bench.  I decided to clean up the area!  A half hour a day for the last six months.  I've probably removed over a ton of garbage.  Do you know how much a sleeping bag left out in the rain, snow and mud for three years weighs???    I don't go near the homeless person's tent  And 'they' seem to be tossing out less garbage since I've been cleaning up.  

  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Organize a CITO Event

 

There was a CITO Event 2 years ago. During the event, a prolific hider (100s of hides) couldn't find a cache in the park so he left a throwdown, and recorded his 'find'. Did he go back to maintain what he left behind. No.

But a CITO event to gather abandoned archived caches could work, with rules that no one leaves a throwdown (and records NMs and NAs) for any caches that should be there but are missing or broken. 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Organize a CITO Event

 

Would a CITO event to remove abandoned archived caches be approved? Or do you mean clean up a park as restitution?  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
26 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Organize a CITO Event

 

Would a CITO event to remove abandoned archived caches be approved? Or do you mean clean up a park as restitution?  

1. No.

2. No.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Keystone said:

8. Follow "leave no trace" principles while hiking, camping and geocaching (excluding the "trace" left by cache containers)

 

I'd add to this to ensure that, when your cache is finally removed, there's no lasting evidence that it was ever there, i.e. it should be purely an addition to the environment, not a modification to it.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

@pli I've been thinking about it some more and I think this is one way you can help remove the abandoned plastic.

 

You can find instructions on how to set up a map of archived caches on the Project-GC site

 

My suggestions: 

  • Check the logbook for recent finds in the very unlikely chance that it is in play on another site.
  • Check to see if the other site's name is written somewhere on the cache.
  • Post a note on the archived cache page saying you found the archived container and will be keeping it for a month so the owner can contact you and arrange to get the container back. I've done this a few times after caches I NA'd were reviewer archived, and have never had the owner of an abandoned cache ask for it back. But it helps you if accused by other geocachers of taking property.
Edited by L0ne.R
typo

Share this post


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

Post a note on the archived cache page saying you found the archived container and will be keeping it for a month so the owner can contact you and arrange to get the container back. I've done this a few times after caches I NA'd were reviewer archived, and have never had the owner of an abandoned cache ask for it back. But it helps you if accused by other geocachers of taking property.

 

I don't agree with this thinking...

The folks we know who are now into other hobbies, don't...look...back.   They don't care about what they used to do.

Someone not contacting you about a note on an archived cache page from a hobby they used to do, doesn't mean a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I don't agree with this thinking...

The folks we know who are now into other hobbies, don't...look...back.   They don't care about what they used to do.

Someone not contacting you about a note on an archived cache page from a hobby they used to do, doesn't mean a thing.

The point is that the offer was made to return the property. If the previous owner no longer cares about the cache container, then they don't pose a problem regardless. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TheLimeCat said:

The point is that the offer was made to return the property. If the previous owner no longer cares about the cache container, then they don't pose a problem regardless. 

 

The "point" was one thought that they'd take it upon themselves to "clean up" an area that may not need it. 

 - The fact that they tried to contact someone who may not have anything to do with this hobby any longer doesn't matter.

It's not their property...

We know two who use their archived caches, in their original spot as letterboxes now.  

We also know a few that have gone to another site with their archived caches still in place, because they feel they have less issues with members.

Those caches all used for "other" purposes.

Those caches don't belong to the site,  the spot placed doesn't belong to the site.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

I had caches that were originally listed on GC and AtlasQuest. Eventually, I archived a couple on GC (tired of people using them for covetted challenge caches and leaving me cut n paste non-logs),  but left them in play at AQ. I put that information on the archived cache page, i.e. that it was still in play. I also wrote "Letterbox" and the AQ web address on the box and in the logbook. The logbooks were regularly stamped by visitors which indicated an active gamepiece. 

 

I had a few opencaching.us caches and labelled those as OC caches. One was both GC and OC for a while. I never had trouble. But then an extremely tiny percentage of finders do a search on Project-GC for archived caches so they can clean up litter.  I understand the OP suggesting a motivator by offering a souvenir reward, few people are that altruistic of their time, when they could be seeking active caches. 

 

The caches I retrieved were caches that were abandoned and in terrible shape. There was no indication that the owners were ever interested in their caches beyond the day they posted them on the GC site. Caches that looked like:

 

ba102d951cdf448cf9cdb5a8a6b708f9.jpg 

 

and an index card box stuffed with a freezer bag that was full of stagnant yellow water, 

and a glass mason jar filled with black mold covered trinkets and logbook (left by a teacher to teach his geography class). 

 

I'm guessing, based on experience, that 98% of the stuff that ends up reviewer archived will be similar. They will be poor quality containers in rough shape that the owner doesn't have in play anywhere else (otherwise she would protect it better and let people know it's being monitored and maintained). 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

The "point" was one thought that they'd take it upon themselves to "clean up" an area that may not need it. 

 - The fact that they tried to contact someone who may not have anything to do with this hobby any longer doesn't matter.

It's not their property...

We know two who use their archived caches, in their original spot as letterboxes now.  

We also know a few that have gone to another site with their archived caches still in place, because they feel they have less issues with members.

Those caches all used for "other" purposes.

Those caches don't belong to the site,  the spot placed doesn't belong to the site.

Pardon me, but I find it hard to believe that this hypothetical individual actually exists. This individual who would ignore a cache for so long that a "needs archived" log is warranted, then refuse to respond when asked about the container, yet is somehow involved enough to perform some maintenance action and list the container on some other site. How could one so dedicated to the life of their cache containers be so completely oblivious to the state of those containers and their contents?

 

I don't approve of going out and snatching up just any archived cache, but one that was archived at the hands of a reviewer at one's own request seems like a reasonable exception. For what it's worth, I also don't approve of a system which incentivises the removal of archived caches, but I wouldn't conflate that with L0ne.R's actions.

Edited by TheLimeCat
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, TheLimeCat said:

Pardon me, but I find it hard to believe that this hypothetical individual actually exists. This individual who would ignore a cache for so long that a "needs archived" log is warranted, then refuse to respond when asked about the container, yet is somehow involved enough to perform maintenance action and list the container on some other site. How could one so dedicated to the the life of their cache containers be so completely oblivious to the state of those containers and their contents?

 

I dont approve of going out and snatching up just any archived cache, but one that was archived at the hands of a reviewer at one's own request seems like a reasonable exception. 

 

I guess if it’s been a moldy broken container forever, sure.

 

I haven’t refused to respond if contacted, but a couple of my caches have accumulated DNFs, and at least suggestions that the cache is gone, when it’s just fine.  If a cache might ever require “more than one visit to find”, I might not jump merely because it’s your first “visit”.  The cache is there and it’s ready to be found.  I do not guarantee that the find will occur.  I might not check it even for an NM, and I might not log an OM or any log,  when it’s not found and assumed has issues.  The logs being more like a deliberate hassle delivered to the CO because the cacher can’t find it.

 

If the situation devolves to NM or NA, I could imagine archiving it. And listing it elsewhere, especially if the logs elsewhere are more agreeable.

 

Yeah, that’s probably the exception.  But I could see it happen. B)

 

How they go collect my cache they can’t find, I dunno.  That would be a good question to ask them. :P

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

I guess if it’s been a moldy broken container forever, sure.

 

I haven’t refused to respond if contacted, but a couple of my caches have accumulated DNFs, and at least suggestions that the cache is gone, when it’s just fine.  If a cache might ever require “more than one visit to find”, I might not jump merely because it’s your first “visit”.  The cache is there and it’s ready to be found.  I do not guarantee that the find will occur.  I might not check it even for an NM, and I might not log an OM or any log,  when it’s not found and assumed has issues.  The logs being more like a deliberate hassle delivered to the CO because the cacher can’t find it.

 

If the situation devolves to NM or NA, I could imagine archiving it. And listing it elsewhere, especially if the logs elsewhere are more agreeable.

 

Yeah, that’s probably the exception.  But I could see it happen. B)

 

How they go collect my cache they can’t find, I dunno.  That would be a good question to ask them. :P

 

I think the purpose of the original suggestion was to remove litter produced by abandoned listings. A cache that is archived by its owner is not abandoned. I'm not sure that one could find anyone to advocate for community involvement in the removal of caches archived by their direct owner. 

Edited by TheLimeCat

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, TheLimeCat said:

I think the purpose of the original suggestion was to remove litter produced by abandoned listings. A cache that is archived by its owner is not abandoned. I'm not sure that one could find anyone to advocate for community involvement in the removal of caches archived by their direct owner. 

 

These caches would inevitably be swept up along with the reviewer-archived caches, especially if the process was incentivized. Just look at the poor caches that are unfortunate enough to have a power trail spring up around them, leading to the container being caught up in three-cache-monte and other PT-specific tactics. It would be great if everyone was diligent and made sure they knew what they were doing, but experience has shown that we can't rely on that to be the case (plus, there would be a subset of members who would knowingly do it in order to game the system).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

 

These caches would inevitably be swept up along with the reviewer-archived caches, especially if the process was incentivized. Just look at the poor caches that are unfortunate enough to have a power trail spring up around them, leading to the container being caught up in three-cache-monte and other PT-specific tactics. It would be great if everyone was diligent and made sure they knew what they were doing, but experience has shown that we can't rely on that to be the case (plus, there would be a subset of members who would knowingly do it in order to game the system).

As I've said, I don't approve of this idea, but it doesn't seem right to conflate an individual removing reviewer archived caches (the topic I was addressing) and GS instituting a site-wide program to incentivize the removal of archived caches. 

  • Upvote 2

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 4

×
×
  • Create New...