Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
thebruce0

TOU update January 2, 2020

Recommended Posts

The Terms Of Use document has been updated as of January 2, 2020 (compare to May 23, 2018).

Apart from some standard grammatical adjustments, minor content updates, the GDPR changes, and updates relevant to privacy and cookies, there is one BRAND NEW section which very much stood out:

 

Quote

Inactive or Abandoned Geocaches. One of our goals as a company is to keep the world free of abandoned and/or unmaintained geocaches. As a geocache owner, you give us permission to allow other individuals to remove and/or dispose of your physical geocache(s), if any one or more of the following situations are met:

 

  1. We have a reasonable belief that you are no longer active in the game.
  2. You fail to respond to a communication from us that relates to a complaint from a landowner or law enforcement official within a reasonable period of time.
  3. We have a reasonable belief that the geocache has been abandoned (e.g. it’s not actively being maintained or your geocache listing has been archived but the physical container is still in place).
  4. We believe the removal of the geocache container is in the best interest of the geocaching game and/or community.

 

If possible under the circumstances, we will make a reasonable attempt to contact you before we take any of the actions above.

 

In the event that your geocache is removed and/or disposed of pursuant to the above section, you agree to hold harmless and release from any and all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache.

 

Learn more about how we address unmaintained caches in our Help Center.

 

This is a very important change!  (note, below I'm not discussing the definition of 'abandoned' - there are other threads to debate that =P, but we can work with the points listed above)

 

The way I understand this... all things being equal... and ideal...

1. People should not remove what they believe to be abandoned geocaches

2. Unless any of the above points are qualified, then

3. Ask, and HQ will permit someone to adopt/remove/dispose of the container, without blame

 

On the flipside, if someone does take it upon themselves to remove a container they believe to be abandoned (regardless of its physical state) without going through the proper channels, prompting the owner to then complain saying it's not abandoned and it's theft of their property, HQ still won't be held accountable (they haven't progressed through the above points to take the official stance "according to the TOU agreement it is abandoned and we permit a user to remove the container"), and that person did it of their own volition.

 

What I find interesting is that effectively this process is the same as before, but HQ has now put into writing "you give us permission to allow others" to remove the physical geocaches.  I believe before this update, HQ would have otherwise had to remain silent on the matter so as not to be presumed as 'taking ownership' of someone else's property. Now, they can permit someone to remove the property and not be held accountable for doing so.

Additionally, HQ is taking a more prominent stance that geocaching.com is pretty much THE source for geocache listings; or at least, the primary source.

 

TAKEAWAY:

As a cache owner, you MUST now realize that if at any point HQ judges that you have "abandoned" your geocache, and that reasonable attempts to contact you about the matter have gone ignored, then HQ can actively allow someone to remove the property and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

IMO:

This is a good thing. Before, HQ couldn't say 'yes, you can go and pick up that abandoned cache', so people had to make their own judgment calls and risk the (small) potential consequence for theft of private property.  Now HQ can decide, if they wish, to be more proactive and permit someone to clean up an abandoned container where legally they couldn't take the risk before.  Cache owners now implicitly agree to let HQ take that action with their personal property, assumed to be abandoned, if it ever comes to that point.

 

If an owner lists their geocache elsewhere, they have to realize that leaving the container in place but abandoning the listing on geocaching.com (without archiving the listing) could lead to someone retrieving the container, at HQ's behest, even though you may still actively claim ownership of the container. So, you can't just walk away from geocaching.com and expect to retain full legal ownership of your listed physical containers. Your agreement when listing them here implies that you will follow proper process and archive your listings if you do not intend to retain any connection with the website, but still want to leave your property placed for others to find by some other means.

  • Surprised 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

But how will this be handled with the existing geocaches out there? The ones where the owners haven't accepted the new ToU...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

... you agree to hold harmless and release from any and all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, 

 

Well, this is interesting. Do you think it means they will adopt out abandoned listings?

 

 I think they would be wise to archive abandoned listings. Archiving will preserve the history of the cache listing. I've seen owners get very angry about having their listing adopted especially when the adoptee made changes to the description. I've never seen an owner get angry about their broken/abandoned cache container being removed. At least it never happened to any broken abandoned container I removed, and I haven't heard about anyone having an angry owner contact them over removing a broken abandoned container. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thomfre said:

But how will this be handled with the existing geocaches out there? The ones where the owners haven't accepted the new ToU...

 

Do you mean all the already abandoned containers of archived caches that are currently out there?  

Share this post


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

 

Do you mean all the already abandoned containers of archived caches that are currently out there?  

Yes.
I guess most owners of those won't ever log in and accept the new terms.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Cache owners now implicitly agree to let HQ take that action with their personal property, assumed to be abandoned, if it ever comes to that point.

 

Some COs will be grateful for this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, thomfre said:

Yes.
I guess most owners of those won't ever log in and accept the new terms.

 

My guess is they don't care. It will be interesting to see if there's any reaction from COs who set-em-and-forget-em. 

 

I think they never intended to pick up their caches and may be happy that that job will go to CiTcO (cache in - trash cache out)  volunteers. 

Share this post


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

Well, this is interesting. Do you think it means they will adopt out abandoned listings?

 

I don't think so. The actions above all refer to the container. The only mention of adoption is in: "..the event that your geocache is removed and/or disposed of pursuant to the above section, you agree to hold harmless and release from any and all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache."

 

To me that implies nothing has changed about adoption - the same process has to occur: permission from the owner.  This only applies to the physical container.

But it seems that someone can "adopt the container", and publish a new listing. But the old listing will remain in its as of when it's deemed the container was abandoned. (eventually force-archived)

 

3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Cache owners now implicitly agree to let HQ take that action with their personal property, assumed to be abandoned, if it ever comes to that point.

 

Some COs will be grateful for this.


True. Though HQ isn't obligated to, so if more people think that they can just abandon their litter and HQ will "clean up the mess" - well they'd be wrong, and they'd still retain full blame for leaving their trash out in nature.  To me this means that HQ can (if they wish) allow (on request) or request themselves, someone to go and retrieve it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

My guess is they don't care. It will be interesting to see if there's any reaction from COs who set-em-and-forget-em. 

 

I think they never intended to pick up their caches and may be happy that that job will go to CiTcO (cache in - trash cache out)  volunteers. 

You're probably right. Most of them won't ever know. And in the end, this is for the better for all of us.

But since this has been added:

Quote

... you agree to hold harmless and release from any and all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache.


I guess that the owners that haven't accepted this, still can make claims towards Groundspeak. I'm just curious if this has been given any thought by Groundspeak. Cleaning up the playing board is in the best interest of all of us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Now, they can permit someone to remove the property and not be held accountable for doing so.

 

Adoption is also possible in the new version.

Share this post


Link to post

I remember being criticised here by some when I mentioned I removed a broken down cache (basically plastic chips) as it wasn't my property. Apparently I was meant to leave it there to break all the way down into plastic microchips, rather than do the responsible thing for the environment and clean up the mess. This is a good change.

 

(I took no notice of those irresponsible comments.)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

I remember being criticised here by some when I mentioned I removed a broken down cache (basically plastic chips) as it wasn't my property. Apparently I was meant to leave it there to break all the way down into plastic microchips, rather than do the responsible thing for the environment and clean up the mess. This is a good change.

 

Nono, this isn't about whether it's "good" for someone to pick up private property they believe to be abandoned, without confirmation.  You can debate that in the other thread.

 

This is about whether HQ can be held accountable for doing so, or anyone they explicitly permit to do so, once the agreed-upon set of conditions are met per the TOU.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:
40 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Now, they can permit someone to remove the property and not be held accountable for doing so.

 

Adoption is also possible in the new version.

 

That's not explicitly clear, per the comment I posted previous to yours.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thomfre said:

Are you sure about that?

 

" you agree to hold harmless and release from any and all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache. "

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Nono, this isn't about whether it's "good" for someone to pick up private property they believe to be abandoned, without confirmation.  You can debate that in the other thread.

 

This is about whether HQ can be held accountable for doing so, or anyone they explicitly permit to do so, once the agreed-upon set of conditions are met per the TOU.

My comment was apt for this thread.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

This is about whether HQ can be held accountable for doing so, or anyone they explicitly permit to do so, once the agreed-upon set of conditions are met per the TOU.

 

Like thomfre said, this isn't enforceable at this point. The statement:

Quote

As a geocache owner, you give us permission to allow other individuals to remove and/or dispose of your physical geocache(s)...

...only applies to those who have accepted the updated ToU. As per section 9:

Quote

Changes will not apply retroactively.

...so this new version of the ToU doesn't apply to any inactive owners. It will only apply going forward to caches whose owners accept the new ToU starting today.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

It will only apply going forward to caches whose owners accept the new ToU starting today.

Except it won't let me accept the Terms of Use. I can't get past that and into the site, no matter how many times I click.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

" you agree to hold harmless and release from any and all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache. "

 

That just says that you can't sue Groundspeak for any of those reasons. It doesn't say that forced-adoption is allowed. They could just as easily word that statement as follows...

Quote

...you agree to hold harmless and release from any and all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, painted, photographed, danced with, yelled at, punt-kicked and/or disposed of your geocache.

...but that wouldn't mean Groundspeak endorses all of those actions.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, The A-Team said:
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

This is about whether HQ can be held accountable for doing so, or anyone they explicitly permit to do so, once the agreed-upon set of conditions are met per the TOU.

 

Like thomfre said, this isn't enforceable at this point.

 

Sure. As indicated, it only applies to new situations that arise; ie in the case of owner-users who have accepted the new TOU (in effect, are 'active' in that they've used the website - I don't think 3rd party apps are requiring people to accept the new TOU in order to use the API, but I haven't checked)

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

That just says that you can't sue Groundspeak for any of those reasons. It doesn't say that forced-adoption is allowed

 

Basically you may forcefully "adopt" the container but not the listing.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Basically you may forcefully "adopt" the container but not the listing.

 

Correct. That's been the case for many years (since they stopped forced adoptions after that incident).

Edited by The A-Team

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

As indicated, it only applies to new situations that arise; ie in the case of owner-users who have accepted the new TOU (in effect, are 'active' in that they've used the website - I don't think 3rd party apps are requiring people to accept the new TOU in order to use the API, but I haven't checked)

 

I just logged into Cachly with my test account that hadn't accepted the new ToU yet. I wasn't prompted to accept at any point and was able to access the API data. So far, the new ToU doesn't apply to that account, and seemingly won't until it logs into the website and accepts there. That sure makes application of the ToU messy.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

 

Correct. That's been the case for many years (since they stopped forced adoptions after that incident).

Now I’m curious - what was “that incident”???

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Double_Helix said:

Now I’m curious - what was “that incident”???

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks thebruce0 to have found that. I am susprised (well not really they are so bad at communication) that Groundspeak put that change under the rug.

 

I guess it's the recent massive archival of 5000 caches in France that prompted them to the change.

 

I just wonder for point #1 how long someone needs to be out of the game to be considered inactive? 6 months? 1 year? More?

Share this post


Link to post

I have a seemingly unsurmountable problem to pass through the pop-up window that announces the changes and asks for my consent. Clicking on the "Í agree" button but nothing happens and I remain effectively stuck in the middle of the process. Is there any additional check-in box I need to activate or what? Not sure about that because of my visual imparment but anyway I can't see anything more than the announcement and blue "I agree" button below. Where I am expected to click or what additional action to peform in order to express my consent and to be eventually able to log a cache (as I had intended before the whole redirect to this ToU matter). In contrast, the changes of bookmarking interface in autumn, desoite seemingly using similar pop-up window interface work fine (although with some degree of visual inconvenience) for me. So what's wrong?
 Thanks for your advice and help.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Had the same issue when automatically logged in with Safari.

Launched Firefox, whch doesn't automatically sign me in, and was able to send a note to Groundspeak via their Contact us webform, then

came here,found it was possible to read without signing in, and read the thread to here, noting the two posts reporting the same issue.

 

Before attemptng to reply, I opened a new browser window in Firefox, went to geocaching.com, and manually signed in.

The full screen pop-up quickly appeared. I clicked the button, and lo and behold…

 

…the pop-up disappeared, and I was good to go.

 

TW

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The issues with the I Agree button not working are showing up in MANY threads in the forum for numerous pages on the website. It's most likely related to the web-based scripts for the new cookies acceptance, and I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen a thread dedicated to this website bug started (maybe I missed it?). Maybe one of the recent release notes threads would be more topically appropriate for reports of the button not working.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The way I understand this... all things being equal... and ideal...

1. People should not remove what they believe to be abandoned geocaches

2. Unless any of the above points are qualified, then

3. Ask, and HQ will permit someone to adopt/remove/dispose of the container, without blame

 

 I see this  differently.  We may both be on the wrong boat ;-)

 

I see nothing here that suggests your point 3. I don't think HQ is wanting cachers to reach out to them about removing containers.  I think that under some circumstances, they may reach out to others about removing containers.

I think this for several reasons, one of them because I can't imagine them being interested in dealing the volume of correspondence this would generate.

 

The agreement here is between the original CO and Groundspeak.  You (ie, being any cacher who might want to initiate container removal) aren't part of it. 

 

Also, I'm rather unclear about the use of adopt in this new section, but I doubt it  means "adopt the listing". It may refer to take the container and reuse it for another cache? Or something? 

 

 

Edited by Isonzo Karst

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I see this  differently.

 

I don't think so, I think we're on pretty similar planes by your description ;)

 

9 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I see nothing here that suggests your point 3 [Ask, and HQ will permit someone to adopt/remove/dispose of the container, without blame]. I don't think HQ is wanting cachers to reach out to them about removing containers.  I think that under particular circumstances, they may reach out to others about removing containers.

 

I agree, I don't think HQ wants to generate more requests. But functionally it wouldn't be different. People would likely still do the same they always did - if they feel strongly enough about it, they'll go and pick up what they believe to be abandoned. From HQ's perspective, in that case they can't take any blame since they didn't "okay" the pickup. But if the person were to ask first, HQ could choose to give the green light, and under the clauses, no one could be held to blame since the CO has been deemed by the TOU to have abandoned the container. So whether HQ initiates the request or responds to someone else's request to do so doesn't really matter, and without a person requesting first, nothing else will change.

 

9 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Also, I'm rather unclear about the use of adopt in this new section, but I doubt it  means "adopt the listing". It may refer to take the container and reuse it for another cache?

Or something?

 

Yep, commented about that above.  The only mention of adopt is descriptive - if the container "has been" adopted by someone. It doesn't say HQ can adopt out the listing if they decide to do so, so no change to that process.

 

 

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks a lot for helpful advice. The issue of the "impassable "I agree" button really seems to be somehow related to log-in/log-out status. I run FF 52.9... under Windows XP and do not allow the browser to remember my username and password (i.e. the incorrectly remembered status apparently stems from the GC.com site itself, be it settings, cookies or whatever). At first I tried to log out in FF, but due to aforesaid pop-up window blocking the whole screen I found this effectively impossible. But after installing Midori 0.5 I was able to log in and click through the ToU consent, finally breaking the whole curse. :-)
In total c. 16 hours of anger and time-wasting just because of some minor bug unnoticed/unresolved by GS programmers. Instead of greeting my friends at airport, instead of sending New Year's wishes and reports about cache maintenance recently performed, I was forced to waste my time in IT matters (Greek to me) - just because of some formal legal clauses added to ToU & PP - as a subscriber I found this a very unsatisfactory day of service. Tongue-in-cheek: GS makes us celebrate the official GC Day (and other GC "holidays" yearly. And they also bless us with several unofficial "IT Awareness Day" celebrations per year. ;-) So I pray: Let those more conservative users live and play in peace - less novelties (or at least opt-out possibility accompanying each of them) and more stability.

Share this post


Link to post

Has consideration for the possibility that a cache container may not just be linked to Geocaching dot com - it may also be listed on one or more of the other similar sites (opencaching/terracaching for example) and so although the CO may be inactive on GC and fail all the points 1-4 but the container may still be active on the other site(s) and so should be left in place ?

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Has consideration for the possibility that a cache container may not just be linked to Geocaching dot com - it may also be listed on one or more of the other similar sites (opencaching/terracaching for example) and so although the CO may be inactive on GC and fail all the points 1-4 but the container may still be active on the other site(s) and so should be left in place ?

I'd say yes, there's been consideration.

If they're a responsible cache owner with an archivable cache here that is listed on another site,  they'll personally archive a cache here rather than simply abandoning it. I cannot think of any good reason for a CO to fail all of points 1-4 and yet have their cache active on another site, such that it warrants so much concern over the possibility.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I'd say yes, there's been consideration.

If they're a responsible cache owner with an archivable cache here that is listed on another site,  they'll personally archive a cache here rather than simply abandoning it. I cannot think of any good reason for a CO to fail all of points 1-4 and yet have their cache active on another site, such that it warrants so much concern over the possibility.

 

To be honest this has always been my thinking - however you say 'responsible cache owner' - many archived caches have not been archived by the CO but by the reviewers and containers are still out there - and only a handful of GC cachers who are involved on the other sites will know whether that cache is linked to the others or not.
Equally there are many COs who just archive caches with no intention of retrieving the containers and again we do not know if they have decided to remain with the other sites.

It would be nice to have that knowledge but there are still unknowns here.

That said - personally I will always err on the side of caution and retrieve the container anyway ;) :D

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

To be honest this has always been my thinking - however you say 'responsible cache owner' - many archived caches have not been archived by the CO but by the reviewers and containers are still out there - and only a handful of GC cachers who are involved on the other sites will know whether that cache is linked to the others or not.

 

Yes, that is why this is a significant TOU update for geocache owners, especially those who use other sites. It means you have more responsibility with this site because you can't just up and leave, or else HQ just may have every right to assume your property is abandoned and request or allow another user to retrieve it.  So don't abandon your listing! :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I believe Geocaching HQ has been heading this way for awhile now. Early last year, I was contacted about what I would like them to do with my Y2K geocache if I became inactive, died, or whatever. They gave a few choices. I told them, it isn't an issue and not do anything.

 

Quote

Hello Corfman Clan,

 

Greetings from Geocaching HQ. One month ago, we reached out to all the owners of active geocaches that were placed in the year 2000. We offered each of them an opportunity to protect their historic legacy geocache from being archived if it needs attention and they cannot be contacted. Many of those cache owners responded quickly to share their wishes for their cache should they ever be impossible to contact, and those caches are now protected.

 

We have not heard back from you yet, which means your cache is still at risk if you cannot be reached. Because it is your property, there is little that can be done to save it if you are unreachable and unable to care for it. Therefore, we are providing you with an opportunity to state your wishes now for the future care of GC7B T824 Table Mesa. We will record this information and refer to it only if your cache needs attention and you cannot be reached.

 

Suggested requests you can make for your cache:

 

Designate one or two specific geocachers to adopt the cache
Designate a geocaching organization to choose an owner for it
Give permission for HQ to choose a responsible cache owner to adopt it

 

In the future, if your cache needs attention, your reviewer will contact you. If there is no response from you within 60 days, HQ will attempt to follow any written future care wishes you have provided to us.

 

We emphasize that this is strictly a backup plan. You will retain control of your cache as long as you own it, including adopting it to anyone you wish without involving HQ. You can make changes to the future care wishes you have provided to us at anytime by contacting HQ and letting us know.

 

Please reply to this email with one of the suggested requests above, or let us know that you don’t wish to take advantage of this opportunity.

 

We look forward to documenting your wishes and ensuring that your pioneer cache will always be available for the geocaching community to find and enjoy.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Corfman Clan said:

I believe Geocaching HQ has been heading this way for awhile now. Early last year, I was contacted about what I would like them to do with my Y2K geocache if I became inactive, died, or whatever. They gave a few choices. I told them, it isn't an issue and not do anything.

 

 

 

That is so cool. I had suggested something like that. So  nice to see it being implemented on old cache listings. 

 

I assume by "it isn't an issue and not do anything" that you are OK with the listing being archived if you should suddenly kick-off. 

 

Addendum: On our hiding account we still have 2 caches. One is quite old. On our profile page we've added that we would like our caches removed and archived if are no longer playing (dead or otherwise). We don't want our caches becoming trash, or the history of the cache changing. Archival will preserve the history and ownership. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

That is so cool. I had suggested something like that. So  nice to see it being implemented on old cache listings. 

 

Okay, I read that letter again, written early last year...   

The only thing I got out of it was the site's desire to keep as many "pioneer", "historic", or "legacy"  hides as possible for the hobby.

"We look forward to documenting your wishes and ensuring that your pioneer cache will always be available for the geocaching community to find and enjoy."

That (to me) seems to be just legalese for "it's needed for the bottom line".     :)

 

Guess I don't understand why it's "cool"  that a cache that obviously benefits the site already had more "protections" than any other geocache...

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

The only thing I got out of it was the site's desire to keep as many "pioneer", "historic", or "legacy"  hides as possible for the hobby.

 

Probably because of the uproar from the community when one of these gets archived. I don't see it at all as some kind of "best for the business" move, even though that might be an effect. I believe it was brought on specifically because of the community in general loves them and hates to see them go.

 

But it's nice to see they are making some exceptions. In this case the state/age of the listing is what prompted the move to allow 'transfer' of property to someone else without necessarily a direct okay from its owner.  Now with the TOU update it'll be automatically assumed if the listing qualifies as being 'abandoned' by its owner.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

Now with the TOU update it'll be automatically assumed if the listing qualifies as being 'abandoned' by its owner.

 

Yeah...  I'd like to see how the other geocaching sites took this when it was discussed with them.   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Yeah...  I'd like to see how the other geocaching sites took this when it was discussed with them.  

 

I would assume as far as they could take - alert their userbase that it would no longer be recommended to cross-list geocaches on their competing site (this one) because a TOU update allows them to take ownership of your property (and I'd assume the wording would be more antagonistic as well, forgetting to mention that the user/owner would have to have been negligent in their responsibilities for any issue to really arise anyway).

 

I would be surprised if the change didn't have any effect on other listing sites' opinions of this one :P

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Probably because of the uproar from the community when one of these gets archived. I don't see it at all as some kind of "best for the business" move, even though that might be an effect. I believe it was brought on specifically because of the community in general loves them and hates to see them go.

 

But it's nice to see they are making some exceptions. In this case the state/age of the listing is what prompted the move to allow 'transfer' of property to someone else without necessarily a direct okay from its owner.  Now with the TOU update it'll be automatically assumed if the listing qualifies as being 'abandoned' by its owner.

 

Right. And they are making COs aware that they can memorialize there old caches or not. They can make an active decision now about what they want done with their old caches before the day comes that they can't or don't want to keep monitoring and maintaining those old caches. If they do nothing those caches will likely end up archived. And grid/stats/challenge players who cry foul have less reason to blame GCHQ, reviewers, or those who log legitimate NMs and NAs. 

 

And I personally don't want my caches on artificial life support. So I would welcome GCHQ contacting me and getting a definitive answer that I do not want it adopted out or propped up. 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

It's really old (to me) that I see the same people who'd think nothing of stalking a cache until it's "time" is up to place an NA, now think saving caches is a great idea if they're old enough...

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

It's really old (to me) that I see the same people who'd think nothing of stalking a cache until it's "time" is up to place an NA, now think saving caches is a great idea if they're old enough...

 

If you mean me, no I don't think an old cache is worth saving just because it's old. Especially an old abandoned cache that is one throwdown after another throwdown.

 

I don't think my cache is worth saving because it's old. I think it's best for everyone if it gets removed and properly archived when I can no longer take care of it. 

 

I'm not crazy about GCHQ offering adoption as a choice, but I do think they went in the right direction by making active owners of old caches consider the future and remind them that they should continue to be responsible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

That is so cool. I had suggested something like that. So  nice to see it being implemented on old cache listings.

 

I'd like to see it made an option for all COs and not just for those owning "pioneer" caches. I guess my preference would be for my caches to be archived and retrieved in the event of my demise as I don't think any are worthy enough to warrant preservation. Hopefully when the time comes to hang up my GPSr, I'll have enough advance warning to go out and do that myself or get a friend to do it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I assume by "it isn't an issue and not do anything" that you are OK with the listing being archived if you should suddenly kick-off.

No, I'm not okay with that. If I suddenly kick-off, then it is up to my wife/family to decide what to do with the cache. I do know that my geocaching friends would also help out and help her take care of things. Geocaching HQ need not get involved. If, in the future, I am no longer able or motivated to manage my caches, I'll deal with that then but at this time, that is not an issue and nothing needs to be done.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'd like to see it made an option for all COs and not just for those owning "pioneer" caches. I guess my preference would be for my caches to be archived and retrieved in the event of my demise as I don't think any are worthy enough to warrant preservation. Hopefully when the time comes to hang up my GPSr, I'll have enough advance warning to go out and do that myself or get a friend to do it.

That's my feelings too. I think there should be an option on every cache for the CO to specify how to handle the cache in these situations, not just some set of "historic legacy" caches. I'm actually a bit loath to specify how mine should be handled when I feel this option should be available for all caches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Corfman Clan said:

That's my feelings too. I think there should be an option on every cache for the CO to specify how to handle the cache in these situations, not just some set of "historic legacy" caches. I'm actually a bit loath to specify how mine should be handled when I feel this option should be available for all caches.

 

If you wrote something in your profile that asked Groundspeak to adopt your the cache to “GC account” should you die,  would they honour it? I don’t see why they wouldn’t. 

I think the adoptee should have an active account to make it a legitimate request. You can update the adoptee if over the years the original person isn’t active anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Corfman Clan said:

No, I'm not okay with that. If I suddenly kick-off, then it is up to my wife/family to decide what to do with the cache. I do know that my geocaching friends would also help out and help her take care of things. Geocaching HQ need not get involved. If, in the future, I am no longer able or motivated to manage my caches, I'll deal with that then but at this time, that is not an issue and nothing needs to be done.

 

Giving your account to your next of kin is the usual way that Groundspeak handles it. I’ve seen this done locally. The wife and sons kept those caches going for about a decade after the cacher’s death. 

Edited by L0ne.R

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 7

×
×
  • Create New...