Resolution for 2020: Avoid Cache-Pollution

[+OusKonNé & Cétyla]

I decided to write this post following the Archivage massif post written in French by pepe29.

 

---

 

Yes, our beautiful Earth is more and more polluted with archived or lost caches that have never been salvaged:

• Too many geocachers do not take the time to salvage their archived caches.
• Reviewers archive caches that are not maintained by inactive geocachers.
• Etc.

 

Whether consciously or not, all this is done without any consideration for the environment. These archived and lost caches will continue to pollute our beautiful earth as long as they will not be salvaged.

 

Personally, I often salvaged cache containers abandoned in nature by inactive geocachers. But Groundspeak does not offer any official solution to this problem.

 

Potential solution: When a geocacher or a reviewer archive a cache, have a way to tell to the system that the cache is still in nature and must be salvaged. Then, when a volunteer geocacher salvages such a cache, have a way to notify the system that the cache has been salvaged.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by OusKonNé & Cétyla

[+thebruce0]

HQ won't implement a system for that because the geocache is personal private property, and without direct confirmation that they are abandoning the object in nature, HQ can't claim ownership to give it to someone else.

 

Rather there are self-formed groups, or individuals, who voluntarily take on that role of going out to seemingly abandoned caches to pick them up if they haven't been. However they too make the assumption that the cache is completely abandoned and no longer in use by its implied owner (based on the listing), when being unable to verify that this is true. 

 

Some will do it with permission - sometimes an owner archived a cache but won't get out there to pick it up, so if they're still active, these people can do the owner a favour by salvaging it for them.

 

But if the owner of the object implied by the listing is non-responsive, there's not much you can do without risking "theft" of personal property. So, while HQ won't do it, you (or environmentally conscious people or groups) can   Then if there's an issue just blame the non-responsive person for not responding to requests about the seemingly abandoned geocache

 

[+OusKonNé & Cétyla]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Some will do it with permission - sometimes an owner archived a cache but won't get out there to pick it up, so if they're still active, these people can do the owner a favour by salvaging it for them.

 

We have already done this for a geocaching friend who was not available to salvage his caches.

It was fun and the CO really appreciated that we salvage his caches.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by OusKonNé & Cétyla

[+HHL]

1 hour ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

have a way to tell to the system that the cache is still in nature and must be salvaged. Then, when a volunteer geocacher salvages such a cache, have a way to notify the system that the cache has been salvaged.

 

Your thoughts?

Archived caches could still be listed on competing platforms.

 

Hans

[+Viajero Perdido]

6 minutes ago, HHL said:

Archived caches could still be listed on competing platforms.

 

Archived caches could also still be visited by zombie hunters.

 

It's a thing, yes.  But not enough of a thing to be a counter-argument to the OP's idea.

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Viajero Perdido

[+OusKonNé & Cétyla]

2 hours ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

Potential solution: When a geocacher or a reviewer archive a cache, have a way to tell to the system that the cache is still in nature and must be salvaged. Then, when a volunteer geocacher salvages such a cache, have a way to notify the system that the cache has been salvaged.

 

And have a new Salvaged Caches Counter.

 

 

OK, I'm just kidding but there should definitely be a way to encourage geocachers to salvage archived caches.

[+L0ne.R]

Three strikes and your out--COs who do not respond to DNFs>NMs>NAs>Reviewer Disable should have their accounts locked. No more hides under that account. Perhaps for a time period of 3 months. 

 

For some COs it would be enough of a deterent.

 

Some COs will just open up a new account. But it will likely be enough of a PITA factor to stop many from creating a bunch of accounts for hiding. Also, most addicted numbers-style COs would not want to place caches under another account because the point is stats, they take pride in a high caches hidden number. 

 

[+HHL]

6 minutes ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

OK, I'm just kidding but there should definitely be a way to encourage geocachers to salvage archived caches.

To incite someone to steal other people's property is a criminal offense. Full stop

 

Hans

[+L0ne.R]

I also want to see a checkbox when a CO archives a cache. 

 

 I have checked the cache location and removed the container, (or it was no longer there when I checked).  

 

 

[+coachstahly]

9 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I also want to see a checkbox when a CO archives a cache. 

 

 I have checked the cache location and removed the container, (or it was no longer there when I checked).  

 

 

 

So for all of those COs who willfully ignore their caches and all of those COs who are no longer actively involved yet still have caches out that a reviewer will eventually archive, you believe a box that can be checked will solve this issue?

 

Those COs who are conscientious enough to pick up their caches won't be bothered by it and those who aren't conscientious enough to pick up their caches won't be bothered by it either.  That leaves a very small group that this box might actually influence.  This is a solution looking for a problem.

 

If you're thinking that it will help you identify COs who archive their caches the "right" way and thus are "better" COs, that means that you want to see some sort of log or something on the cache page showing this box.  If the cache is archived and is no longer showing on the map, how would you know if the CO ticked the box?  How would you know if the CO just ticked it to tick it so the archival could go through?  There are enough COs that don't understand that one actually has to perform maintenance to log that they performed maintenance yet that doesn't stop them from continuing to file OM logs.

 

53 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

It's a thing, yes.  But not enough of a thing to be a counter-argument to the OP's idea.

 

There's a difference between what constitutes a valid and invalid point.  While the percentage might be small, it's still a valid point.  In some of the cases, however rare, there's a factual point that the cache is cross-listed.

 

2 hours ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

But Groundspeak does not offer any official solution to this problem.

 

Potential solution: When a geocacher or a reviewer archive a cache, have a way to tell to the system that the cache is still in nature and must be salvaged. Then, when a volunteer geocacher salvages such a cache, have a way to notify the system that the cache has been salvaged.

 

And they never will.  GS is a listing service.  They only list caches that others have placed.  They have some things they can do to make sure that caches are maintained in a manner they best desire, but that is all contingent upon the owner of the cache living up to those standards within the guidelines.  If a cache falls outside of those standards, they have means to remove the cache from the listings but that's as far as it goes.  It remains up to the owner to do anything about situations like this.  GS will never sanction any sort reclaiming of abandoned caches because they never owned it in the first place.  As both Bruce and Hans have stated, anyone who removes the physical property without permission runs the risk, however minimal, of being charged with theft of personal property.

 

One has to weigh the possibilities and then make a determination about the proper course of action they are willing to take, both as it pertains to their actions as well as any possible consequences of their actions.  

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, HHL said:

To incite someone to steal other people's property is a criminal offense. Full stop

 

Hans

 

Are we talking about the broken containers with no indication that the CO is monitoring and maintaining?

If you were giving a GC presentation to a group of boy scouts would you use these as examples of geocaches, and warn them that removing them would be equivalent to theft? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by L0ne.R
added a ?

[+coachstahly]

13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Are we talking about the broken containers with no indication that the CO is monitoring and maintaining?

If you were giving a GC presentation to a group of boy scouts would you use these as examples of geocaches, and warn them that removing them would be equivalent to theft? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is one extreme of this issue.  While you might not agree, they're still the personal property (and responsibility) of the person who placed the cache.  Abandoned personal property rights vary state by state so a one size fits all solution doesn't work.  I have no idea what other countries' abandoned personal property laws might entail.

 

What if you found caches like these that were archived but never removed?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by coachstahly

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

Potential solution: When a geocacher or a reviewer archive a cache, have a way to tell to the system that the cache is still in nature and must be salvaged. Then, when a volunteer geocacher salvages such a cache, have a way to notify the system that the cache has been salvaged.

 

Your thoughts?

There's no mechanism that GS can provide that would be anywhere near as effective or accurate as you looking at the logs and deciding for yourself whether there's something to clean up. If you decide there is and want to go do it, I don't mind as long as you take personal responsibility in case one of the unlikely possibilities other responders have imagined crop up and you have to, for example, apologize and restore the cache because it's listed on some other site and someone actually notices it's missing.

 

But I think you'll accomplish a lot more for our beautiful earth by just walking down the trail picking up random trash left by everyone instead of worrying about one specific piece of hypothetical, hidden trash left behind by a geocacher.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

Yes, our beautiful Earth is more and more polluted with archived or lost caches that have never been salvaged:

Potential solution: When a geocacher or a reviewer archive a cache, have a way to tell to the system that the cache is still in nature and must be salvaged. Then, when a volunteer geocacher salvages such a cache, have a way to notify the system that the cache has been salvaged.

Your thoughts?

 

Seems like once a year someone comes up with this nonsense...

We see more garbage from hikers, some leaving their own excrement in bags, than the "quality" containers shown in your example.    

 

Similar to dprovan,  we pick up trash on a regular basis from the same folks who blather so loudly about protecting our environment.

The small fraction of "archived and lost" caches in this hobby isn't even a dent to what we pick up every day while caching.

Some don't seem to understand that CITO isn't just a twice-a-year thing for a souvenir. 

 - Start by putting a can in your pack on your way back.  Too much weight?  No?  Put two cans in your backpack.  Still Good?  Well then...

 

Often a good spot is replaced with another.  That new CO would probably like to pick that piece of carp from GZ when placing his... 

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Are we talking about the broken containers with no indication that the CO is monitoring and maintaining?

If you were giving a GC presentation to a group of boy scouts would you use these as examples of geocaches, and warn them that removing them would be equivalent to theft? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adding to something I thought about later after my first response.  If you had found these and they were still active, then are they caches?  I'm guessing that many, if not most, would file the much needed NM log or, if there is at least one unresponsive NM log, then the NA log that should be filed.  There's no arguing these are way beyond nasty but that doesn't detract from the fact that almost all of us would probably assume it was still a cache and file the appropriate logs even if that meant eventual archival to remove them from the database.  Your point hinges on an interesting question that might not have really been addressed in these forums (at least I can't remember any such discussion).  If these are NOT caches (and we all most likely agree they are if active), then that means that archival turns them into something else - litter, abandoned property, or.....something else other than a cache.  Your point is only valid if this concept is applied.  Are archived caches still caches once archived?  I'm not talking about the state of maintenance of the archived cache either.  I'm talking about the notion that a cache, whatever state it might be in, is no longer a cache once it's archived.

 

The single biggest counterpoint to this question is that we are allowed to log finds on archived caches.  If a cache was no longer a cache once it was archived then we wouldn't be allowed to log finds on it.  That seems to me that GS believes them to be caches, even if they are archived.  So in the examples provided above, I'd posit the notion that they're still caches, albeit absolutely crappy caches.

 

That being said, if you're willing to suffer any possible consequences, no matter how remote they might be (and I'm guessing they might be pretty minuscule), and you strongly believe these examples should be cleaned up and can be cleaned up without any issues arising, then by all means, clean them up.  However, as the previous poster mentions, I see lots of trash that's completely unrelated to the cache that frequently doesn't get picked up (even by me sometimes, to be honest).  Focusing on a very small subset of things, while admirable, doesn't really address the larger issue at hand in a large enough scope to make a dent.

 

[+thebruce0]

Should add... "is it a cache [on geocaching.com]", which, as described, adds another dimension to the question of what it is, what it might still be, and whether it's a 'responsibility' of anyone but its previously implied owner to salvage - regardless of its condition.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

 ...  there should definitely be a way to encourage geocachers to salvage archived caches.

 

There's one near me who recycles archived caches.  They mail/call the CO to make sure it doesn't have an "other use".

We've cached together, them knowing I like to walk, and don't mind placing carpy caches in an old duluth pack to pitch, or keep for later.

We headed to one, then found a letterbox (another outdoors hobby...) nearby. 

 - The GC#s and sigs on the log inside shows whatever they used earlier, the geocache was the better container. 

 

I can't tell you how many times I've found water bottles and candy/"nutrition" bar wrappers at GZ. 

 - Think that's from anyone but geocachers ? 

After a few who've said at events they'll no longer cache/hike with me because I "pick up carp" and "waste time...",  resign yourself to the fact that some will, many won't. 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I also want to see a checkbox when a CO archives a cache. 

 

 I have checked the cache location and removed the container, (or it was no longer there when I checked).  

 

 

 

Just last night, a well-respected cacher here archived one of his caches that was hidden in 2002, one that had survived all that time in near pristine condition with no maintenance, no NMs, not even any DNFs, just 39 finds from happy cachers who were willing to go to this isolated location. Why did he archive it? It's in the middle of the huge Gospers Mountain fire that's been burning since early September and now consumed over 300,000 hectares of land.

 

 

I've marked his cache with the red arrow. The long winding dirt road it's near will be closed for many months after the fire finally goes out (and that will take many days of soaking rain which isn't happening any time soon) so he can't retrieve whatever's left of the cache even if he wanted to.

 

There are other caches that have suffered a similar fate in these fires but thankfully they're still few in number. But the flames are moving inexorably east and will soon enter the Watagan Mountains around Olney and Jilliby where there are lots of caches, and in the south-eastern corner of the map, Brisbane Water National Park where I have eighteen caches in and around the park. So far I've been able to remove one of my caches for safe-keeping, but the park has been mostly closed for the past week so I can't get to any of the others. Many are in caves and some are metal containers so those might survive, but once the fire goes through, the park will likely remain closed for many months or even a year or more due to post-fire hazards, so retrieval of any remains will be difficult.

Edited December 9, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I also want to see a checkbox when a CO archives a cache. 

 

 I have checked the cache location and removed the container, (or it was no longer there when I checked).  

 

 

 

And then someone drops a throwdown and the CO is accused of lying.

[+kunarion]

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Just last night, a well-respected cacher here archived one of his caches that was hidden in 2002, one that had survived all that time in near pristine condition with no maintenance, no NMs, not even any DNFs, just 39 finds from happy cachers who were willing to go to this isolated location. Why did he archive it? It's in the middle of the huge Gospers Mountain fire that's been burning since early September and now consumed over 300,000 hectares of land.

 

I have archived some of my caches due to reasons other than container condition.  But I've also placed new caches in exactly the same spot where the archived cache once was.  Don't go clean it up, it's a new one. 

 

In the case you mentioned, it's best to archive or at least disable the caches while they're inaccessible.  A new one in the future is OK.  The area has changed, and if the cache also needs to be changed, it's great as a new cache page.  And if a concerned cacher rescues the container in the interim, I'd expect most COs would appreciate that.

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, kunarion said:

In the case you mentioned, it's best to archive or at least disable the caches while they're inaccessible.  A new one in the future is OK.  The area has changed, and if the cache also needs to be changed, it's great as a new cache page.  And if a concerned cacher rescues the container in the interim, I'd expect most COs would appreciate that.

 

This raises another scenario that's likely to play out in the months ahead. I've disabled those eighteen caches of mine due to the current park closure making them inaccessible, and when the fire passes through I'll leave them disabled until such time as I can get back in to check, but our Grim Reaper reviewers have itchy trigger fingers for caches that have been left disabled for more than a couple of months and if you don't provide updates every 28 days they are archived without further notice. Perhaps they'll make allowance for the current circumstances or maybe they'll see it as an opportunity to wipe the board clean and start afresh.

Edited December 9, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

Perhaps they'll make allowance for the current circumstances or maybe they'll see it as an opportunity to wipe the board clean and start afresh.

 

I've seen disabled caches that "must get archived", that it's been that way too long, and I've seen some remain on hold for a couple of years.  Maybe it depends on a lot of things?  I hope the reviewers will work with you on that.  Good luck! 

[+The A-Team]

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Are archived caches still caches once archived?  I'm not talking about the state of maintenance of the archived cache either.  I'm talking about the notion that a cache, whatever state it might be in, is no longer a cache once it's archived.

 

Yes, it's absolutely still a cache. This website is not the sole home of geocaching (nor does geocaching require a website or listing service at all). If a cache gets archived on this site, that just means it's a geocache that's no longer listed as active on geocaching.com.

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Three strikes and your out--COs who do not respond to DNFs>NMs>NAs>Reviewer Disable should have their accounts locked

 

Not locked but your idea have some sense. The main problem is that CO just don't read emails sent from geocaching.com. In many cases preventing to post more Find It -logs, until the no response issue is solved, would solve this perfectly.

[+bflentje]

I am not suggesting anyone leave their trash in the woods, ever. But I am pretty sure that if someone does leave their crap in the woods that it doesn't quite have the impact on the environment that some of you think it does. Let's be real here. By the reasoning ability of the typical person that claims to be an environmentalist, if you really wanted to save the planet, you'd all stop using your phones and shutdown the Groundspeak data center.

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, bflentje said:

if you really wanted to save the planet, you'd all stop using your phones and shutdown the Groundspeak data center

 

For the environment it may be worse to drive into the woods to pick up the old container than just let it be there.

Edited December 10, 2019 by arisoft

[+L0ne.R]

It looks bad. 

[+OusKonNé & Cétyla]

Here is an example of a case that makes me sad.

Recently, Geocaching HQ archived all the caches of the EST SMX Power Trail in France.

 

Thus, more than 5000 caches have been abandoned in nature in a few minutes.

In such an example, it would have been great to have a way to allow the community of geocachers to salvage these abandoned caches.

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by OusKonNé & Cétyla

[Keystone]

1.  The abandonment of the 5100 caches is the fault of the owner, not the listing service.  The listing service doesn't want to list caches that are abandoned, missing or in disrepair.

2.  Nothing prevents you from visiting the 5100 spots where these caches were listed.

[+hzoi]

16 minutes ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

Here is an example of a case that makes me sad.

Recently, Geocaching HQ archived all the caches of the EST SMX Power Trail in France.

 

Thus, more than 5000 caches have been abandoned in nature in a few minutes.

In such an example, it would have been great to have a way to allow the community of geocachers to salvage these abandoned caches.

 

Let's not blame HQ for this.  The cache owner, sherpahebbes, announced that the series was abandoned and pretty much dared HQ to do something about it:

 

Quote

SEPTEMBRE 2019 : JE NE VIS PLUS A SMX MAIS PAS D'ARCHIVAGE 

SEPTEMBER 2019: I DO NOT LIVE ANYMORE IN SMX BUT NO ARCHIVING

 

And then when HQ reacted, sherpahebbes used GDPR as a shield to avoid keeping their name on all those abandoned caches.

 

sherpahebbes could have adopted these caches out and avoided this, or even just picked up all their caches like a responsible cache owner, but they didn't.

Edited December 10, 2019 by hzoi

[+L0ne.R]

33 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

Let's not blame HQ for this.  The cache owner, sherpahebbes, announced that the series was abandoned and pretty much dared HQ to do something about it:

 

 

And then when HQ reacted, sherpahebbes used GDPR as a shield to avoid keeping their name on all those abandoned caches.

 

sherpahebbes could have adopted these caches out and avoided this, or even just picked up all their caches like a responsible cache owner, but they didn't.

 

Wow. 

Thanks for the rest of that story. 

I assume it wasn't one person but a team of people, and not one stepped up to the plate and behaved responsibly. 

 

[+OusKonNé & Cétyla]

47 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Nothing prevents you from visiting the 5100 spots where these caches were listed.

 

OK, I am not from France but let's say that a group of French geocachers would like to revisit these caches, is there a way to launch a PQ on archived caches?

[+Isonzo Karst]

7 minutes ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

 

OK, I am not from France but let's say that a group of French geocachers would like to revisit these caches, is there a way to launch a PQ on archived caches?

 

You can query a bookmark list. That query will return archived.

If someone already has the series on lists, that would be easiest. It IS possible to bookmark them now, tedious going, but doable.

 

Someone who has found them all could do it most easily, working from a MyFinds query, and using GSAK to bulk load GC Codes to lists.  5000 caches = 5 lists.

 

Because the CO asked to have his account deleted, the listings are both archived and locked. So they can be revisited, but they can't be logged.

 

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

In such an example, it would have been great to have a way to allow the community of geocachers to salvage these abandoned caches.

I have no doubt that there are scores of Users that would jump at the opportunity for an all expenses paid trip to France to undertake this enterprise.  I suggest one of those online fundraising websites to get the necessary funds to finance this project.

[+ODragon]

On 12/9/2019 at 9:17 AM, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

Potential solution: When a geocacher or a reviewer archive a cache, have a way to tell to the system that the cache is still in nature and must be salvaged. Then, when a volunteer geocacher salvages such a cache, have a way to notify the system that the cache has been salvaged.

 

Its funny, I was just mentioning this story to someone else recently, interesting I can bring it up here.  With an active owner, there is an answer, you use the logs/cache page.

 

Way back in 2005, we had a local who would let people know he was done with the cache.

 

Quote

052305 Time to retire. If the next cacher beats me to this, please remove and let me know, then pass on contents to other caches.

 

This left a good cache for people to find until it got picked up, you knew it was actually picked up so there was no cache pollution.  That was 2005 and since that CO left, I don't remember it ever being a thing after that.  I have one cache I'm thinking about getting rid of; maybe I should try it.

 

In the end, you are still getting COs consent to do it and you have to have both an active and caring cache owner to have it happen.

 

 

[+ODragon]

On 12/9/2019 at 12:26 PM, L0ne.R said:

Are we talking about the broken containers with no indication that the CO is monitoring and maintaining?

 

 

I relatively recently removed one in this kind of condition, had sat there for over 2 years, in the elements after the ammo can was stolen.  I got chastised and berated by the CO.  It showed me that I should let the trash rot as COs would rather have that than someone help them out.

 

[+thebruce0]

17 minutes ago, ODragon said:

It showed me that I should let the trash rot as COs would rather have that than someone help them out.

 

Well, obviously the CO didn't think you were helping them out, and that's the rub in this ethical controversy.

[+The Blue Quasar]

A listing service cannot tell people that it is okay to remove any physical remains.  Those were owned and placed by someone else.  All the listing service can do is offer to host a page to share the details of it online, and remove that page from search results (technically GC could delete the page if they wanted, after all GC is hosting it, but they keep it for historic reasons) if the listing is no longer valid.

 

In the same fashion, if people are concerned about abandoned caches then they should do whatever they feel is right without needing GC to comment on it.  As it stands right now, to the best of my knowledge, GC doesn't tell people to put things out or to remove them.  They archive the listing and suggest remains be picked up by the owner, as per the Cache Maintenance guidelines that the owner agreed to at the time of publication.

[+Lynx Humble]

4 hours ago, Keystone said:

1.  The abandonment of the 5100 caches is the fault of the owner, not the listing service.  The listing service doesn't want to list caches that are abandoned, missing or in disrepair.

2.  Nothing prevents you from visiting the 5100 spots where these caches were listed.

1. Well its also the fault of the listing service to let someone have 5100 active cache. It should be maxed at 500 active cache.

Also, Groundspeak list caches of people deceased or that left the game a long time ago so there are clearly a bunch of cache listed that are abandonned.

So I don't understand the move of Groundspeak here.

2. The caches listings are locked so no incentive to get there and retrieve 5100 geolitters.

 

[+Touchstone]

3 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

 It should be maxed at 500 active cache.

So it sounds like it would take 10 Sock Accounts to get all those caches Published.  Either way, the result is the same, only slightly harder to track.  I think it's better to have them all under one account.  Streamlines the GDPR (or if we're being honest here, self-banning/geocide) action down the road.

[+The Blue Quasar]

8 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

1. Well its also the fault of the listing service to let someone have 5100 active cache. It should be maxed at 500 active cache.

 

That is like saying The Beatles can only have 150 songs in a streaming service because no one can listen to more than that in 24 hours.

Netflix hosts thousands of hours of content.  Libraries have thousands of books.... not all of them are accessed daily.

 

13 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Groundspeak list caches of people deceased or that left the game a long time ago so there are clearly a bunch of cache listed that are abandonned.

 

How would Groundspeak determine that?  If I didn't sign onto the website for six months but am getting the emails, how can anyone tell that there is a problem unless one gets reported.  Groundspeak takes action on cache listings that have been brought to their attention, and does not simply go on "Search and Destroy" missions.

[+Ragnemalm]

Abandoned caches is definitely a problem, but if we honor ownership of an abandoned cache, should we honor ownership of a McDonalds bag by the side of the road instead? Litter is litter and should be taken care of!

 

When I archive caches, I always remove them!

 

I am more selective when taking away other CO's archived caches. I do that when:

• it is hopelessly broken
• it can be confused with an active cache
• it is in a location where it can cause disturbances
• it is likely to drop into some place where it will definitely turn into litter

In the picture, we see one that fulfilled #1 and #4. It was destroyed by the sun and pieces were dropping into a lake in a nature reserve, a sensitive place. We salvaged every piece that we could find!

 

Otherwise, I note its location and put it on my list of "archived caches that I monitor", making myself a kind of maintainer of them. Logging archived caches is a fun little bonus sometimes, if the cache is not in a totally awful shape.

 

Also, I make a point in always removing significantly more litter from nature than my caches can ever become. I have carried at least four bags of litter out of a forest in the same day, and I didn't bring a single bag but collected all litter in bags that I found!

[Keystone]

17 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

2. The caches listings are locked so no incentive to get there and retrieve 5100 geolitters.

 

Ahhh, so it's about getting a smiley.  The environmental incentive evaporates if there is no smiley.

 

Thanks for clarifying your motives.

[+L0ne.R]

26 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

1. Well its also the fault of the listing service to let someone have 5100 active cache. It should be maxed at 500 active cache.

 

I think 500 is too high. It should be 200. That's a generous and reasonable amount of caches to monitor and maintain. 

 

It would also help with addicted cache hiders who want to be the leaderboard winner with the most amount of cache hides. There would be less incentive to saturate their town/city and move on to the next town. I know of one city (and surrounding towns)  where it's hard to find a cache that doesn't belong to a certain CO (more than 2500 hides). 

Edited December 10, 2019 by L0ne.R

[+Ragnemalm]

22 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

2. The caches listings are locked so no incentive to get there and retrieve 5100 geolitters.

 

Oh yes there is! You get 5100 film canisters or petlings! (Or, if you are unlucky, pastilles boxes).

 

...but what would I do with 5100 petlings? I bought 100 and regretted it. I don't log nor make power trails or any other mass logging caches so I only use one now and then.

[+Ragnemalm]

4 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I think 500 is too high. It should be 200. That's a generous and reasonable amount of caches to monitor and maintain. 

 

It would also help with addicted cache hiders who want to be the leaderboard winner with the most amount of cache hides. There would be less incentive to saturate their town/city and move on to the next town. I know of one city (and surrounding towns)  where it's hard to find a cache that doesn't belong to a certain CO (more than 2500 hides). 

 

I have 162 active caches, and that is too much. I have my own "Deadpool" of caches (which obviously means "good odds to get killed") that I can archive on any opportunity. These are typically caches that have been around for some time without collecting many FPs. (I don't care about number of logs, easy and boring caches get many logs but nobody think they are fun.) I take some away once in a while, archive+remove. I strongly consider working myself down to under 100.

 

The cache saturation is a problem though. I know that it is hard to get a new place, and that makes me hesitate to archive a half-decent cache, knowing that it is likely to be replaced by a 1.5/1.5 petling. Archiving "so someone can make something better here" never works.

[+cerberus1]

27 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

1. Well its also the fault of the listing service to let someone have 5100 active cache. It should be maxed at 500 active cache.

 

Also, Groundspeak list caches of people deceased or that left the game a long time ago so there are clearly a bunch of cache listed that are abandonned.

So I don't understand the move of Groundspeak here.

2. The caches listings are locked so no incentive to get there and retrieve 5100 geolitters.

 

While I agree it'd be tough to keep track of 5100 solo, I could see a community "Team" account handling it (see below).     

 

Groundspeak won't know when you die or leave the hobby.  How would they? 

 - Well, maybe when paypal doesn't pay up on a "recurring" pm they'd have an idea...      

I have my password attached to my will.  We know of others with the same.  I know where my guns n fly rods are going too.  Won't you ?

JIC the other 2/3rds kicks the bucket with me (she's hoping not... she'll be livin' large :-), she or a relative will collect n archive, or adopt caches out. 

We have a couple cachers nearby (I thought were friends...) that have already said they can't wait...  

The site didn't publish them after one died or left the hobby,  deceased/left  (to me) is a non-issue.

 

I'd guess that enough of those caches might have been in cool spots.  Why can't local folks who found the originals  place new caches there ?

Assuming all had permission, a lot of cachers could keep that cache-run alive. 

Isn't that an incentive ?  Does it really have to only be about the smiley ?

 

[+cerberus1]

34 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

You get 5100 film canisters or petlings!

Thanks for that.     The few pics of any container  I saw looked like low-end centrifuge, or bd vacutainer.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Abandoned caches is definitely a problem, but if we honor ownership of an abandoned cache, should we honor ownership of a McDonalds bag by the side of the road instead? Litter is litter and should be taken care of!

 

=/ We've gone through this very discussion before, recently in the forum, and I know I for one have directly addressed the difference between inferred abandoned geocaches that were listed on gc.com and the definition of physical "litter" inferred abandoned in the general public (technically all private/government land with bylaws, save a few exceptions)

[+barefootjeff]

58 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

I have 162 active caches, and that is too much. I have my own "Deadpool" of caches (which obviously means "good odds to get killed") that I can archive on any opportunity. These are typically caches that have been around for some time without collecting many FPs. (I don't care about number of logs, easy and boring caches get many logs but nobody think they are fun.) I take some away once in a while, archive+remove. I strongly consider working myself down to under 100.

 

The cache saturation is a problem though. I know that it is hard to get a new place, and that makes me hesitate to archive a half-decent cache, knowing that it is likely to be replaced by a 1.5/1.5 petling. Archiving "so someone can make something better here" never works.

 

I currently own 38 caches (3 adopted from others), none of which currently have any maintenance needs other than the 18 I've disabled due to fire-related park closures. Where that will stand at the end of the current fire season is anyone's guess, but in the past year I've visited all those caches at least once and performed some form of maintenance on nine of them, but apart from two missing waypoints those were mostly just aesthetic issues that didn't prevent the caches from being found. 22 of my caches have never needed any maintenance at all (they're still the original waypoints, the original container, the original logbook and the original pencil hidden in the original place). With one exception, they have each only had a few dozen finds at most so replacing full logbooks is never going to be a problem for me. Being now retired, I could easily handle several times that number of caches, especially if I avoided putting them in troublesome places like watercourses, sea caves and popular scouting haunts.

 

Saturation isn't a problem around here, with the number of caches now in accelerating decline. Archiving "so someone can make something better here" doesn't work because no-one will put another cache there.

Edited December 10, 2019 by barefootjeff