Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
KungBolander

GC12 needs maintenance?

Recommended Posts

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)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post

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!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

deathbed-request.jpg

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.   :)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...