GC12 needs maintenance?

[+Korichnovui]

2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

Grid-filling, to me, is no reason to keep an abandoned cache active.  Maybe it's a reason to NOT abandon a cache...or to adopt it out to someone who won't.  Apparently the vast majority of COs of caches that fill those rare grid spots didn't think it important enough to keep them well-maintained.

So the proto-original question I had was, what do people have against an abandoned cache going up for adoption without CO’s consent?

 

The process could look like this:

-The reviewer asks On the cache page for someone to volunteer to be cache guardian

-If no one does in the allotted time frame then cache is archived

-If someone comes forward then they are “cache guardian” until CO comes back and says they’re ready to take care of their cache again (if ever)

 

[+colleda]

30 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

So the proto-original question I had was, what do people have against an abandoned cache going up for adoption without CO’s consent?

 

The process could look like this:

-The reviewer asks On the cache page for someone to volunteer to be cache guardian

-If no one does in the allotted time frame then cache is archived

-If someone comes forward then they are “cache guardian” until CO comes back and says they’re ready to take care of their cache again (if ever)

 

There was a recent post answering that  but I don't remember which thread it was in. Perhaps some one else does?

[+K13]

My thoughts:  If a new caretaker/guardian is appointed, they must only replace the container with one of like size;  and in addition to being able to police logging & log OM, can only adjust Attributes and/or D/T on the cache listing page - No changing the cache listing from its original 'historic' wording.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Korichnovui said:

So the proto-original question I had was, what do people have against an abandoned cache going up for adoption without CO’s consent?

 

If tomorrow I die, I do not want my cache and listing given to someone else.  I do not want the small size family-friendly container to be replaced with a leaky upcycled container, most likely a micro. I do not want it given a new owner--my trailname erased. At the same time I do not want my trailname associated posthumously with a rubbish cache that probably won't get checked seasonally to keep it in reasonably good condition. I want it archived so the history is preserved and it remains in my legacy. If it went to someone it would likely go to someone who is an addicted hider and covets it to add another one to the collection, for the location and most importantly for the old GC code. If I want it saved, I would make plans to give it to the one local geocache hider I admire and trust to keep it swag-size and in good shape. But I prefer that it be removed and archived, to preserve my history.

[+Korichnovui]

These are great points that are helping me to understand the issues better, just having never thought about it before. I was thinking in terms of myself, where if I volunteered to be a caretaker then it would of course be for purposes of respecting the original hide while also keeping an "historic" cache alive. But I can see how it wouldn't always work out that way. Thank you for your insights!

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If tomorrow I die, I do not want my cache and listing given to someone else.  I do not want the small size family-friendly container to be replaced with a leaky upcycled container, most likely a micro. I do not want it given a new owner--my trailname erased. At the same time I do not want my trailname associated posthumously with a rubbish cache that probably won't get checked seasonally to keep it in reasonably good condition. I want it archived so the history is preserved and it remains in my legacy. If it went to someone it would likely go to someone who is an addicted hider and covets it to add another one to the collection, for the location and most importantly for the old GC code. If I want it saved, I would make plans to give it to the one local geocache hider I admire and trust to keep it swag-size and in good shape. But I prefer that it be removed and archived, to preserve my history.

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

15 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Or geocaching was really new back in 2000, and no one knew it would last this long.  Maybe (and I honestly don't know) attitudes were different - after all, geocaching stems from the concept of back country adventurers/hunters keeping caches of supplies hidden for later use, and that was not necessarily an individual thing...

 

This is the reason that any cache from the early years that is still being maintained by the ORIGINAL OWNER has value...because even after all this time they still deem it worthy of their time and attention.  If the person who put it there can't be bothered, I'd argue that nobody should bother doing their work for them.   Just make a new one if you think the place is interesting enough to bring people to.

 

15 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Anyway, to the other question of what makes old caches imporetant to people, and what that threshold is?  It's different for everyone - I have travelled with friends who considered anything older than about 2005 really important to go find, whereas for me I get those sorts of feels for caches in the 2000 to 2001 range. Ultimately it may simply be circular, as in people care about some older caches because they care about those older caches.  Humans generally do love historical stuff...

 

Which is why we should never have an officially defined cutoff point.  It's almost entirely subjective and therefore impossible to assign value to.  Some (myself included) might argue that no single cache is worth saving if it is 100% being propped up by everyone but the CO.  I wouldn't go so far as to argue for it to be archived, but I certainly would never dream of maintaining someone else's cache just because it happens to be from 18 years ago. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Or geocaching was really new back in 2000, and no one knew it would last this long.  Maybe (and I honestly don't know) attitudes were different - after all, geocaching stems from the concept of back country adventurers/hunters keeping caches of supplies hidden for later use, and that was not necessarily an individual thing...

 

Anyway, to the other question of what makes old caches imporetant to people, and what that threshold is?  It's different for everyone - I have travelled with friends who considered anything older than about 2005 really important to go find, whereas for me I get those sorts of feels for caches in the 2000 to 2001 range. Ultimately it may simply be circular, as in people care about some older caches because they care about those older caches.  Humans generally do love historical stuff...

 

Perhaps not coincidentally,  some of the people that used to participate in the usenet group which was used to announce the first few "stashes" also were participants in a usenet group called rec.backcountry.   I used participate in that group as well and can remember some of the Compass vs. GPS debates when consumer model GPS receivers became available.  

 

I didn't start geocaching until 2007, and there were a few year 2001 caches in my area so I wouldn't have considered a 2005 cache to be old.  

 

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I didn't start geocaching until 2007, and there were a few year 2001 caches in my area so I wouldn't have considered a 2005 cache to be old.  

 

Sure, that may be why some see this so differently .

Every once in a while someone will comment in a found it (or leave an email) that our 2005 cache was the oldest they've found.   

[+cerberus1]

16 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

So the proto-original question I had was, what do people have against an abandoned cache going up for adoption without CO’s consent?

 

You mean besides that caches are the property of the cache owner ?    

We ask for permission for every cache we've ever placed. 

On one of our few remaining I'm grandfathered in that spot,  and when I'm gone that area won't be available to  future hiders.

 

 

 

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

9 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

This is the reason that any cache from the early years that is still being maintained by the ORIGINAL OWNER has value...because even after all this time they still deem it worthy of their time and attention.  If the person who put it there can't be bothered, I'd argue that nobody should bother doing their work for them.   Just make a new one if you think the place is interesting enough to bring people to.

I think you may have misunderstood me - I was suggesting it was possible geocaching was based on caches hidden and looked after by groups of people, not individuals.

 

9 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Which is why we should never have an officially defined cutoff point.  It's almost entirely subjective and therefore impossible to assign value to.  Some (myself included) might argue that no single cache is worth saving if it is 100% being propped up by everyone but the CO.  I wouldn't go so far as to argue for it to be archived, but I certainly would never dream of maintaining someone else's cache just because it happens to be from 18 years ago. 

 

And yet, interestingly, the human race (at least through various organisations and authorities) is capable of defining thresholds and cut-offs for other historical places, buildings, etc and offer them protection...

[+J Grouchy]

11 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

And yet, interestingly, the human race (at least through various organisations and authorities) is capable of defining thresholds and cut-offs for other historical places, buildings, etc and offer them protection...

 

Sorry....but are you really comparing plastic bins and ammo cans to art and architecture? 

[+funkymunkyzone]

12 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Sorry....but are you really comparing plastic bins and ammo cans to art and architecture? 

 

No I'm not, where did you get that from?

 

However, like it or not, people see historical value in old caches.  If you want to keep arguing about that, good for you, you've got a band of followers giving you praise for it, so it's doing wonders for your forum rep.

 

[+J Grouchy]

33 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

No I'm not, where did you get that from?

 

However, like it or not, people see historical value in old caches.  If you want to keep arguing about that, good for you, you've got a band of followers giving you praise for it, so it's doing wonders for your forum rep.

 

 

Seems pretty clear you WERE equating them.

Big difference between historical value placed on an architectural style and a permanent object designed and built with intention...and an ammo can in a tree stump.  

And I don't know what "praise" you are talking about.  I honestly feel like I'm the only one with any real perspective on this thing.  People honestly need to relax a little bit "historical" caches.  

[+funkymunkyzone]

30 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Seems pretty clear you WERE equating them.

Big difference between historical value placed on an architectural style and a permanent object designed and built with intention...and an ammo can in a tree stump.  

And I don't know what "praise" you are talking about.  I honestly feel like I'm the only one with any real perspective on this thing.  People honestly need to relax a little bit "historical" caches.  

 

Nope, never equated them at all.  You said there should never be an officially defined cut-off point, and all I said was that in *other* situations, there can be officially defined cutoff points.

 

Now regarding your perspective on this - you have *your* perspective, but you being the only one with any *real* perspective?  That's a pretty arrogant statement (the statement, not you, just for clarity).  I don't think people "honestly need to relax a little bit" - people are welcome to feel however they feel about "historical" caches.  On the contrary, you need to relax a little bit in telling people how they should think.

 

Let's be clear, you are entirely welcome to never entertain the possibility of helping out with the maintenance of any cache you didn't place.  Feel free to post NA logs on "historical" caches where you think the CO is awol and the community is maintaining the cache...

[+J Grouchy]

10 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Let's be clear, you are entirely welcome to never entertain the possibility of helping out with the maintenance of any cache you didn't place.  Feel free to post NA logs on "historical" caches where you think the CO is awol and the community is maintaining the cache...

 

Thanks for the permission i never needed in the first place.

 

Personally, I think my perspective is probably shared by Groundspeak itself.  If an honest and verified case could be made for NA on Mingo, I doubt TPTB would give a second thought to archiving it.  So my advice to those who assign unearned value to these caches would be "it's a geocache".  That's really and truly all that needs to be said.

[+Harry Dolphin]

1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

However, like it or not, people see historical value in old caches.  If you want to keep arguing about that, good for you, you've got a band of followers giving you praise for it, so it's doing wonders for your forum rep.

 

It always astounds me when I get a log "Thanks for maintaining this great old cache."  Okay.  I have some that are twelve to fifteen years old.  Don't get found too often for hiking caches.  

[+J Grouchy]

11 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

It always astounds me when I get a log "Thanks for maintaining this great old cache."  Okay.  I have some that are twelve to fifteen years old.  Don't get found too often for hiking caches.  

That's boilerplate language.  Follow that person's cache logs and they say that same old [thing] on every log they write.  One of my many peeves

Edited January 24, 2020 by Keystone
potty language removed by moderator

[+funkymunkyzone]

30 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

That's really and truly all that needs to be said.

 

Well I guess all the rest of us should just shut up then!

[+coachstahly]

31 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Thanks for the permission i never needed in the first place.

 

Personally, I think my perspective is probably shared by Groundspeak itself.  If an honest and verified case could be made for NA on Mingo, I doubt TPTB would give a second thought to archiving it.  So my advice to those who assign unearned value to these caches would be "it's a geocache".  That's really and truly all that needs to be said.

 

And yet the new "test" policy for inactive COs of more than 5 years precludes all caches placed before 2004 (or whatever the month of that cutoff date is).  I'm not sure they're quite as on board with this as you think they are.  

[+colleda]

54 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

 "Thanks for maintaining this great old cache." 

 

In my mind that could be a signal it is time to archive and place another. After 10 or 15 years it could hardly be looked upon as "churning" and it could possibly give previous finders an opportunity to return to a nice/scenic/historical place.

Edited January 24, 2020 by colleda
quote & post error

[+BethDaddyKaty]

If people cared deeply enough for no-one else to own the cache they could archive the listing and remove the physical cache.

 

Otherwise you are leaving something out there that presumably, at some point, someone has to judge to be litter and remove. Because pretty clearly if you're dead you can no longer control when the cache will be archived, that becomes the choice of the cachers and, to an extent, the reviewer, although of course it will be someone on the ground physically removing it.

 

The responsible thing you often see around here is COs who will no longer be able to maintain their caches offering them for adoption, and archiving/removing if no adoptee is found.

Edited January 24, 2020 by BethDaddyKaty

[+NYPaddleCacher]

13 hours ago, colleda said:

In my mind that could be a signal it is time to archive and place another. After 10 or 15 years it could hardly be looked upon as "churning" and it could possibly give previous finders an opportunity to return to a nice/scenic/historical place.

 

If it's a nice/scenic/historical place, does it really need a new geocache to get people to revisit the location?

[+L0ne.R]

40 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

If it's a nice/scenic/historical place, does it really need a new geocache to get people to revisit the location?

 

True. If it's nice people will visit and re-visit.

 

Some may enjoy the incentive to visit if there's a new cache at the location. 

 

I'm not in favour of "churning" though. I'd say every 3 to 5 years is a good separation of time between new caches, and preferably by new owners, for some variety and fairplay. 

 

Throughout the years, after we removed and archived our caches at scenic locations, the spots were scooped up quickly.  One new hide turned out to be a much better hide then the one we had hidden and maintained for 5 years. 

 

I find generally, that a re-visit after 5 years can be a significantly different experience. 

[+cerberus1]

16 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

That's boilerplate language.  Follow that person's cache logs and they say that same old [thing] on every log they write.  One of my many peeves

 

Not to take anything away from the person you responded to, but I believe that as well.    

We've a couple folks here who's last sentence is "thanks (CO name)  for placing and maintaining this cache".

One always says "thanks (CO name) for the hide and smiley." on every find.

On one cache, along with their Found It, both had their boilerplate endings on a cache I NA because it wasn't even there for some time.  

 - One even said so  (along with that boilerplate ending) in their log.   

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by cerberus1
cash cache

[+colleda]

5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

If it's a nice/scenic/historical place, does it really need a new geocache to get people to revisit the location?

Yes and No.

Some people may need a little motivation.

Edited January 24, 2020 by colleda
for clarity

[+IceColdUK]

3 minutes ago, colleda said:

5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If it's a nice/scenic/historical place, does it really need a new geocache to get people to revisit the location?

Yes and No

One of the things I love about caching is discovering so many great places that I’d have been unlikely to visit otherwise.  I also like finding caches.  I’m not saying I never go back, but if I’m planning a trip, I’m generally looking for unfound caches on the map...

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

One of the things I love about caching is discovering so many great places that I’d have been unlikely to visit otherwise.  I also like finding caches.  I’m not saying I never go back, but if I’m planning a trip, I’m generally looking for unfound caches on the map...

 

OTOH, if there's a new replaced cache at a location I know is great, I'll have no qualms about returning with the incentive of logging the new cache.

I've also passed up going back to find a cache I was at mundane place I was just at when no published cache had yet existed.

 

So yeah, a new cache can be incentive to revisit a great place.  And a cache alone is not always incentive enough just to revisit a location.

[+IceColdUK]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

OTOH, if there's a new replaced cache at a location I know is great, I'll have no qualms about returning with the incentive of logging the new cache.

That was what I was trying to imply: new cache in a great location = win/win! ?

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Throughout the years, after we removed and archived our caches at scenic locations, the spots were scooped up quickly.  One new hide turned out to be a much better hide then the one we had hidden and maintained for 5 years. 

 

Usually when I've seen a new cache pop up where an archived one used to be, it soon suffers whatever fate befell the archived one, typically either muggles or flooding. One of mine is hidden in a gully where there'd been a couple of earlier caches archived a decade or more before, and it's survived for over four years, but it's been a high-maintenance cache both with muggles and flooding.

 

Most of the time in these parts, though, when a cache is archived it just becomes another empty spot on the map, especially for bushland hides which take a fair bit of effort to set up and get to. Within 16km of home, 72% of the T2.5 or higher caches (excluding my own) are more than five years old and 7% are more than ten years old.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Not to take anything away from the person you responded to, but I believe that as well.    

We've a couple folks here who's last sentence is "thanks (CO name)  for placing and maintaining this cache".

One always says "thanks (CO name) for the hide and smiley." on every find.

On one cache, along with their Found It, both had their boilerplate endings on a cache I NA because it wasn't even there for some time.  

 - One even said so  (along with that boilerplate ending) in their log.   

 

As someone who uses templates, I used them because as a CO I find it more interesting to get a bit more of a narrative rather than just the paragraph I could realistically write if logging in the field whilst herding small kids.

 

I normally set up my template as

 

<top>Narrative about what we're doing that day, change each day.</top>

 

Custom paragraph for each cache about how we found it, what it was like, what kids thought etc.

 

<footer>Log signed "Beth + Daddy" and cache replaced as found. Thank you CO for placing and maintaining this cache.</footer>

 

When I have a cacher finding 50 caches in one day and mine is one, I would rather know a bit about their day even if it's an app copying and pasting it in for them instead of a one line log. Each to their own.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

On 1/21/2020 at 6:09 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

If tomorrow I die, I do not want my cache and listing given to someone else.  I do not want the small size family-friendly container to be replaced with a leaky upcycled container, most likely a micro. I do not want it given a new owner--my trailname erased. At the same time I do not want my trailname associated posthumously with a rubbish cache that probably won't get checked seasonally to keep it in reasonably good condition. I want it archived so the history is preserved and it remains in my legacy. If it went to someone it would likely go to someone who is an addicted hider and covets it to add another one to the collection, for the location and most importantly for the old GC code. If I want it saved, I would make plans to give it to the one local geocache hider I admire and trust to keep it swag-size and in good shape. But I prefer that it be removed and archived, to preserve my history.

I read an estate planning guide that recommended that all of one's online accounts should be documented, and given to the personal representative(s) or executor(s). Just like the mundane things like cancelling phone service and credit card accounts, online accounts should also be managed. Geocaching accounts, eBay accounts, online advertising,  Facebook, twitter, Hulu, etc, should all be taken into consideration.