Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
rragan

GA experiment on inactive owners analysis

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Because of interest in Lonely caches expressed in this thread (that interest has nothing to do with the HQ Admin Disable) I ran some filters on the caches that had not been found in

2 years (from 15 Jan 2018 back) and had only 1 DNF:

42 caches in that group ~  reading the last 4 logs, I found that 17 of those were either throwdown finds, or finds of a previous throwdown or DNF= Found it! 

25 of the lonely group seem to be original, of those 11 have their last log as DNF. 

 

Were those all throw downs...ie they couldn't find the cache, so made a throw down, or someone making repairs to the original cache? They found the cache, but replaced a broken cache or say wet log, which are not throw downs? There's a difference.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/28/2020 at 9:38 PM, gpsblake said:

I found one of those archived recently since I had it on my GPS unit and it was in fine shape.

 

While I understand what they are doing, if the caches are in good shape and still being found on a regular basis, especially a level 1 terrain in a wooded rural area, I would like to it the formula perhaps tweaked (I did offer to adopt the cache).  https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JR94_squirrel

 

I also took a photo of it as proof it is fine where it is. 

 

This one has had over 20 different finds over the past several months.

 

4426090b-e4c5-4434-93ba-75186f2f7b8b_l.j

 

 

 

I wonder why the reviewer temporarily disabled it? There are a string of recent finds, none of them state it needs maintenance.  If you adopt it, replace the cache with a nicer looking one for outdoors. Sounds like a nice place to hike! 

 

Edited by HunterandSamuel

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I wonder why the reviewer temporarily disabled it? There are a string of recent finds, none of them state it needs maintenance.  If you adopt it, replace the cache with a nicer looking one for outdoors. Sounds like a nice place to hike! 

 

Read the Help Center article linked in the opening post.  That cache (and the 800-something others) were NOT temporarily disabled by a Community Volunteer Reviewer, like we do in the ordinary course for caches that do need maintenance.  This experimental program is different.

  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/28/2020 at 8:55 PM, L0ne.R said:

 

I don't understand the great need to keep this abandoned cache alive. The GC code isn't old. It's just a  pill bottle hide at a trailhead kiosk.

 

Why adopt it? Place your own when it's archived. 

 

Exactly!

 

Looking at what the cache consists of,  I have to wonder what's so important about keeping it going. It'd be best to just let the thing go if its owner doesn't want to mess with it. If someone feels there's a need to have a cache in that location, then they can place one themselves.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, rragan said:

Georgia has 13,611 caches. Of these 418 are currently disabled of which 208 are the ones from the missing owner experiment. That leaves 210 of 13600+ truly disabled. It looks to me like in Georgia NM's are not allowed to linger for months. 

 

Thanks for the information.

 

I doubt that all 210 of those are reviewer disabled (vs. CO disabled) but I bet a majority of them are, again, if your state is anything like my state.  That also doesn't take into account the number of active caches with NM logs (don't worry about running that information unless it's right at your fingertips).

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/28/2020 at 9:38 PM, gpsblake said:

I found one of those archived recently since I had it on my GPS unit and it was in fine shape.

 

While I understand what they are doing, if the caches are in good shape and still being found on a regular basis, especially a level 1 terrain in a wooded rural area, I would like to it the formula perhaps tweaked (I did offer to adopt the cache).  https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4JR94_squirrel

 

I also took a photo of it as proof it is fine where it is. 

 

This one has had over 20 different finds over the past several months.

 

4426090b-e4c5-4434-93ba-75186f2f7b8b_l.j

 

It's not waterproof, and it's got a brand-new throwdown piece of paper in it.  I'm guessing the whole thing is a previous throwdown?  If I had a cache that bad, I'd be ashamed of myself.   OK, it's a Smilie and that's great, but if a Cache Owner can't be bothered to place the dry blank log, nor pick it up after it's archived, that's the same point: It's not properly maintained.

 

And that's what's great about Georgia! :)   Somehow the caches that need to be weeded out are being targeted.  I don't even know how they know.  The one pictured above, with it's nice clean log placed by the previous Finder is the kind I find and sign and move on.  But when "The Hit" (CHS or The Experiment or whatever combination of things it is) happens,  I'm not too heartbroken.  I'm actually a leetle embarassed that I don't do more "NMs" when they actually need it.  And if there's pretty much no acceptable log sheet when I find it, it's likely been that way for a while.  If the Owner was available, he'd address the Hit.  And these generated warnings are very generous with the time you get to address them (especially if you count the previous 5 years of the cache being like that B)).

 

Edited by kunarion
I have fingers that are basically basketballs.
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Nowhere in the Help Center article is the word "quality" talked about.  I think LOne.R has it essentially correct.  The purpose is to clear Listing pages owned by people that have been absent for 5 years or more.  That appears to be the only metric used for this particular project, with a few exceptions for date of placement, Listing pages that showed trackables, and some vague "special circumstances" (...wondering what that means?).

 

I'm not sure why you brought the word "quality" into the conversation, since I'm not sure that's an achievable goal from a keyboard and monitor.  I think that something that has to be worked out at the local level.

 

By quality, I'm referring only to the maintained state of a cache, not the subjective quality that typically is dependent upon personal preferences.  This initiative is all about maintenance and it either being provided or the cache will be removed from the books.

 

"Cache maintenance is an important (and required) component of geocache ownership. In January 2020, as part of Geocaching HQ’s efforts to keep the geocaching game board fresh and encourage well maintained caches, we began a test in the U.S. states of Georgia and North Carolina. "

 

I don't really have a problem with this idea, other than the fact that it will catch up some caches in good shape just as it will catch more in bad shape.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

Read the Help Center article linked in the opening post.  That cache (and the 800-something others) were NOT temporarily disabled by a Community Volunteer Reviewer, like we do in the ordinary course for caches that do need maintenance.  This experimental program is different.

 

Ah, now I get it. Geocaching HQs. 

Share this post


Link to post

Given that rragan has already done some slicing and dicing on the GA data, I'll  add just this which seems to be some info of interest to coachstahly

412 total disabled in Georgia

208 disabled by Geocaching HQ Admin

111 by LZ33 (Georgia reviewer)

93 by owner

How to - Search for Disabled GA, to bookmark,  to pocket query to GSAK - filter on Logs, Temp Disable by Geocaching HQ Admin,  and Logs Temp Disable by LZ33

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Exactly!

 

Looking at what the cache consists of,  I have to wonder what's so important about keeping it going. It'd be best to just let the thing go if its owner doesn't want to mess with it. If someone feels there's a need to have a cache in that location, then they can place one themselves.

 

I don't think it's so much about keeping it going as it's about the notion that it's a cache that apparently has no issues (other than an absent CO) but we're going to get rid of it.  It's a "nothing special" type of cache (based on what I see) that many newer cachers using the free app would have access to (1/1) and I would tend to skip over (turns out I did, in 2015, and opted to do the nearby EC).  It's got quite a few finds from those whose only cache it is as well as quite a few finds from cachers in the 3 digits or less total finds (hundreds to one).  It's never had a NM log.  It's not causing any problems but it's going to get archived.  I understand the reason (absentee CO for more than 5 years) but I bet that the hide that gets placed there (if one does) will pretty much be the same type of hide that's there right now, a "nothing special" type of cache that's a micro that will be available to newer cachers using the free app, but with a new CO.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that but that's what is there right now.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Given that rragan has already done some slicing and dicing on the GA data, I'll  add just this which seems to be some info of interest to coachstahly

412 total disabled in Georgia

208 disabled by Geocaching HQ Admin

111 by LZ33 (Georgia reviewer)

93 by owner

How to - Search for Disabled GA, to bookmark,  to pocket query to GSAK - filter on Logs, Temp Disable by Geocaching HQ Admin,  and Logs Temp Disable by LZ33

 

Thanks. .8% disabled by the reviewer.  I don't know if that's a high number or not.  I do know that there aren't many active caches with NM logs in the first 100 caches from the one mentioned in this thread and two of them were addressed by the CO but they didn't file the right OM log to clear the wrench.  One has been replaced (apparently with the CO's permission) but the CO hasn't updated the page.  Two caches are disabled due to the test policy being discussed here.  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Touchstone said:

I'm not sure why you brought the word "quality" into the conversation, since I'm not sure that's an achievable goal from a keyboard and monitor.  I think that something that has to be worked out at the local level.

This is a curious comment. What is the point then if it's not to improve the geocaching experience? Until now, at least everyone ragging against owners that don't appear to be active pretended that the point was to get rid of "bad caches". I assumed the help article didn't mention quality because "it goes without saying." It never occurred to me that the actual point was something else. The only something else I can think of is to punish owners that stopped playing by wiping their functioning caches off the board.

 

I certainly agree with you that quality can't be achieved remotely. That's exactly why I keep arguing against all of GS's attempts to fix "bad caches" via central authority such as unilateral archival by reviewers, CHS, and now this new pogrom against inactive COs.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, niraD said:

Well, yes. But that's another issue, that new location-based challenges like USGS quadrangle challenges and DeLorme challenges can no longer be listed.

 

Actually, no. Not stated was that there was an effort to resuscitate the cache after it had been Archived for want of a caring CO and at that point it was discovered that the new guideline you mentioned was in effect. Now, the case can obviously be made that Groundspeak doesn't have to 'care' about this - that the Guidelines (as we must always remember) are there - and cast in Silly Putty. However - if GS doesn't care, Who Is Going To that can make any active difference?

 

It's that there was no way to have this adopted until it was too late. It's a Challenge that Kentucky Geocachers now can no longer participate in - and other such challenges in the country can be adversely affected by mandates with no consideration for this effect.

 

In my original post, I put forward an idea for abandoned caches to be put in for Adoption by 'Credentialed' Geocachers (please see my original post) in an 'Orphanage' run by GS. Wouldn't take much, especially as the numbers seem low - and would put 'eyes on' for the caches in question. Any not measuring up could then be archived. This puts in a level of appraisal that is currently lacking, and I can't see how it would be in conflict with any of the comments regarding archiving caches that any of the cachers in this thread have put forward.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

It's not waterproof, and it's got a brand-new throwdown piece of paper in it.  I'm guessing the whole thing is a previous throwdown?  If I had a cache that bad, I'd be ashamed of myself.   OK, it's a Smilie and that's great, but if a Cache Owner can't be bothered to place the dry blank log, nor pick it up after it's archived, that's the same point: It's not properly maintained.

 

 

Actually the older log is still in there, it's just full and I didn't photograph it in the picture. It's possible someone did a throw down in the past, I don't know. 

 

But others have said just put down a new cache in the same spot... Which honestly, is "just for the numbers" kind of answer.  My point is if the geocaches are still being actively found, why archive them which will create geo-litter? Once it's permanently archived, no one is going to know the container is there thus won't get picked up. I know but if it's archived, I'll quickly forget about it. 

 

Like I said, before permanently archived, the reviewers can take a peek and determine if they are still being found and perhaps allow them to remain if they still viable caches. 

Share this post


Link to post

Throwing in my two cents, because that’s what you do on a forum.

 

I think the idea is ridiculous and so far most of the local community where I am do too.

 

If a cache is still being found, with the owner inactive for 5 years, it’s generally in a finable condition. As such, is there really a need to archive the listing?

 

Archiving a listing where the cache is present, just because the owner is no longer active, only leaves the cache as litter.


The community where I am also maintain a number of caches owned by now deceased cachers, as a tribute to them. This program would absolutely target those caches. 
 

If improving cache maintenance is the aim of this, then I think they need to refocus and target specific caches.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, gpsblake said:

My point is if the geocaches are still being actively found, why archive them which will create geo-litter?


I am surprised that part changed.  But part of the problem is... me.  Or is us.  I “Find” the leaky old thing, and because the last finder placed a clean piece of paper, I get a Smilie and move on.  I don’t mention or even notice the absent CO.  If I do say something, I’m trolled with “Don’t you know that guy died!  He was a beloved pillar of Geocaching, and what are you?  Cache Police, that’s you!”

 

And on it goes.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Lachlan1.77 said:

Throwing in my two cents, because that’s what you do on a forum.

 

I think the idea is ridiculous and so far most of the local community where I am do too.

 

If a cache is still being found, with the owner inactive for 5 years, it’s generally in a finable condition. As such, is there really a need to archive the listing?

 

Archiving a listing where the cache is present, just because the owner is no longer active, only leaves the cache as litter.


The community where I am also maintain a number of caches owned by now deceased cachers, as a tribute to them. This program would absolutely target those caches. 


Well the caches maintained by a community cannot become litter if archived.  The community goes and cleans up that litter.  If it’s a cache where I live, I’ll go clean up the “litter”.

 

But you can’t adopt a cache without cooperation of the CO (except for a new policy they’re testing if that’s a policy).  People can’t just take it over as a community.  So the only thing new about that is the caches actually must go away now.  
 

One is a cookie tin, entirely exposed to the elements and where I found everything perfect... after 10 years!  But that’s the exception.  Most of the others that apply... please, PLEASE make them go away.  They are bad, gross, broken.  They are an important Stat for one’s grid, but, I mean, REALLY?!

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

If someone feels there's a need to have a cache in that location, then they can place one themselves.

 

This seems to come up repeatedly - it doesn't matter if an old cache is archived because someone will soon come along and put a new one there. That may be true in some places, perhaps in those places where this experiment is running, but it doesn't happen around here. Even with the urban caches, it's rare for a new one to pop up in place of one that's been archived. There are far fewer hides around my neighbourhood than there were when I started in 2013, so few now in fact that someone starting today could probably find them all in a weekend and then be asking "What now?"

 

For higher terrain caches, which for me are the lifeblood of the game, the situation is even more grim. In my local government area (the New South Wales Central Coast), there are 162 terrain 3 or higher caches but 95 of those are more than 5 years old. In the last 18 months, there have been 7 new T3+ caches here, but 6 of those were mine.

 

For terrain 4 and 4.5 caches, since the beginning of 2015 there have only been 10 published and 4 of those were mine. The other 26 that are still in play are now more than 5 years old.

 

Most of these higher terrain caches are designed to survive long term with no maintenance. They are typically sturdy metal or plastic containers hidden in places protected from the elements (under rock ledges or in wind-eroded caves are common because such hiding places abound here) and their difficulty of access means they're unlikely to be muggled or ever suffer from a full log book. And yes, they nearly all have proper decent-sized log books, not just scraps of paper. Whether or not such caches have an active owner is largely immaterial unless something goes wrong and then it can be dealt with by the processes already in place (NM/NA logs).

 

Yes, I know this experiment is currently confined to a couple of USA states, but if, by whatever metric is being used to measure success, it's deemed successful and it becomes global, there are 8 T3+ caches here that would get the chop and more would follow in the next few years. Most of those are in good condition and continue to get the occasional find, and it's very unlikely their loss would be made up by new caches of similar terrain rating.

 

If such a scheme were to be applied here, it may well be that in 5 years time I'll be about the only one left owning T3+ caches. Already I'm the only one owning caches in the Patonga area so it's not that far-fetched a scenario. By then I'll be 70 years old so my days of being able to get to T3+ caches will likely be numbered, so after that, unless someone else keen on bushland hides comes along, caching around here will just be the handful of short-lived urban hides.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

For higher terrain caches, which for me are the lifeblood of the game, the situation is even more grim. In my local government area (the New South Wales Central Coast), there are 162 terrain 3 or higher caches but 95 of those are more than 5 years old. In the last 18 months, there have been 7 new T3+ caches here, but 6 of those were mine.

 

For terrain 4 and 4.5 caches, since the beginning of 2015 there have only been 10 published and 4 of those were mine. The other 26 that are still in play are now more than 5 years old.

 

 

I thought the algorithm that was used in NC and GA was specifying caches where the CO has been inactive for 5 years?  An inactive, left the game CO means (in my mind at least) there is no chance of Owner Maintenance should the need arise.  It may NOT arise, and the cache may go along for years without maintenance, but at some point it seems it will need something.  With an inactive owner, it's not being checked on AT ALL unless it's by the community, and that may be apparent from logs.

 

Flagging all caches with CO's inactive for 5 years or more is a start.  Ech of those caches though, should be evaluated on a case by case basis before mass archiving based on an algorithm.  Whose job is that?  I don't know.

 

Cleaning up the books of old inactive cachers and caches they placed that have gone missing is a good thing.  If those caches are geo-litter, they should be picked up (but again, who does this?) If the caches are still being found, in decent shape, it's not time yet for archival, but eventually they will need maintenance, and who does it fall to ?  Who is going to track those caches?

 

I don't have answers, I'm just thinking through this with my keyboard....

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

This seems to come up repeatedly - it doesn't matter if an old cache is archived because someone will soon come along and put a new one there. That may be true in some places, perhaps in those places where this experiment is running, but it doesn't happen around here.

That doesn't happen in many places away from urban areas and the 'near' countryside to urban areas. Because in many places no cacher lives in the area, and in some places no-one lives in the area. In central Australia there is less than one person per hectare for instance. 55,121,763 ha (551,218 Km2) with 38, 798 people. Chances are none of those are geocachers either. So any caches will not be replaced. I too am weary of hearing the comment, 'it doesn't matter if an old cache is archived because someone will soon come along and put a new one there." And also the presumptuous suggestion if an existing cache in those areas is replaced it will be with a pill bottle. That's insulting to the people who take the effort to replace the remote caches with very good replacements.

 

"https://profile.id.com.au/rda-northern-territory/about?WebID=310

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

If the caches are still being found, in decent shape, it's not time yet for archival, but eventually they will need maintenance, and who does it fall to ?  Who is going to track those caches?

Archiving a cache does not remove the litter. The litter remains. It would be better for an (urban) cache and other 'reasonably' populated areas to have a notice on it requesting that the next finder (who can log their find) picks up the old abandoned and falling apart cache and then logs they have done this and how they disposed of the rubbish. Then that cache can be archived and the rubbish has not been left there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I thought the algorithm that was used in NC and GA was specifying caches where the CO has been inactive for 5 years?  An inactive, left the game CO means (in my mind at least) there is no chance of Owner Maintenance should the need arise.  It may NOT arise, and the cache may go along for years without maintenance, but at some point it seems it will need something.  With an inactive owner, it's not being checked on AT ALL unless it's by the community, and that may be apparent from logs.

 

Yes, it's CO's that haven't shown any activity on their account for 5 or more years and the 8 T3+ caches I mentioned would fall in that category. The system being trialed doesn't take any account of the condition of the cache; if the owner's inactive it gets automatically disabled and then archived if there's no response.

 

It's not that hard to make a cache that will last at least a couple of decades. Take this one of mine:

 

Montage.jpg.b72ec227870b7ce11b32364293233909.jpg

 

It's a stainless steel cookpot hidden deep inside a wind-eroded cave so there's probably not a whole lot likely to go wrong with it. Its logbook is a thick waterproof stone paper notepad that could easily hold a thousand signatures, but in the two-and-a-half years it's been there it's had 11 finds so it's never going to need a new log. It'd probably even survive an intense fire, after all a cookpot is meant to be put in a fire. Its biggest risk is muggling, but where it is that's pretty unlikely, and even if it did happen, the DNF/NM/NA process would soon take care of it. Whether I go and visit that cache occasionally really doesn't matter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

It'd probably even survive an intense fire, after all a cookpot is meant to be put in a fire.

The outside might survive, but the contents would be reduced to ash.  I had that experience with an ammo can that was in the path of a forest fire a few years back.  Other than the rubber gasket around the top, the outside was in reasonably good shape.  Opening it up....

 

f97d51be-91f7-4bac-8ca9-442aaf1570a6.jpg

  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

The outside might survive, but the contents would be reduced to ash.  I had that experience with an ammo can that was in the path of a forest fire a few years back.  Other than the rubber gasket around the top, the outside was in reasonably good shape.  Opening it up....

 

f97d51be-91f7-4bac-8ca9-442aaf1570a6.jpg

 

It looks like the char cloth that is sometimes used for firestarting...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

The outside might survive, but the contents would be reduced to ash.  I had that experience with an ammo can that was in the path of a forest fire a few years back.  Other than the rubber gasket around the top, the outside was in reasonably good shape.  Opening it up....

 

f97d51be-91f7-4bac-8ca9-442aaf1570a6.jpg

 

Was that actually in the burning forest? Mine's deep inside a cave at the top of a rocky outcrop so it won't be directly exposed to flame. I'm hoping the thermal mass of the cave and the cookpot would keep its contents below ignition point while the fire front is passing. I thought it might have been put to the test in December but thankfully that part of the forest didn't burn.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

This seems to come up repeatedly - it doesn't matter if an old cache is archived because someone will soon come along and put a new one there. That may be true in some places, perhaps in those places where this experiment is running, but it doesn't happen around here. 


Even if a new cache gets placed in the spot, it might not last 5 years.

 

Whatever the algorithm does, I’m pretty sure that caches that are always in great shape are not the problem it was designed to address.  If in the Experiment, actual great clean and dry irreplaceable caches are archived, we’re gonna say so.  I probably won’t have found it, but somebody knows what it was like.  We shall see.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Was that actually in the burning forest? Mine's deep inside a cave at the top of a rocky outcrop so it won't be directly exposed to flame. I'm hoping the thermal mass of the cave and the cookpot would keep its contents below ignition point while the fire front is passing. I thought it might have been put to the test in December but thankfully that part of the forest didn't burn.

It was hidden under a large manzanita that had some slight burn scars, but still living.  The location is on a peak that also is home to an old Navigational Aid tower, Air Force Tracking Station (now decommissioned) for Vandenburg Air Force Base Launch Range, and buildings used by the Ventana Wilderness Society Condor Facility (endangered species release site).  Some heroic efforts were spent saving the top of the hill, and above the access road that almost circles the top, not a tree was lost.  I think the VWS may have lost one out building (the condors had been evacuated early on).  To say the heat was intense would be an understatement.

Share this post


Link to post

I will never understand why some people find it necessary to become overly involved with the activities or lack thereof regarding other people. Let's try to consider the other person before we get too involved with interfering in their business. People have periods of illness, others become embroiled in their business life for a time, leaving the only group that requires any attention, and that is the person who just became disinterested in the hobby or passed away. One or two DNF's or Maintenance messages does not mean the CO has just given up on their cache.

A bit more consideration for our fellow cachers is in order in most cases. It should fall to Headquarters to determine when action is required or not. Let them make contact, decide to deactivate a members membership and thus cancel ownership of their caches. In some cases it may become necessary because the person has moved far away, or worse, passed away. Not all of us are spring chickens ya know!  This is more in keeping with the spirit of the sport than just penalizing a person for what may be a justified period of inactivity. Headquarters may need to establish a set plan of administrative procedures regarding this type of situation. It could also allow for the suspended member to regain their active status and all that goes with it. This way a conscientious member could take temporary responsibility for the cache, and still leave the original owner, who thought up the initial cache to regain their caches when and if they become willing and able to take over the care of it again.

In all things, look for the compassionate solution to foster the spirit of brotherhood/Sisterhood that this sport was meant to follow. Like all things in life, it goes back to what we learned as children. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Seeker_Knight

Edited by Seeker_Knight
corrections

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Seeker_Knight said:

I will never understand why some people find it necessary to become overly involved with the activities or lack thereof regarding other people. Let's try to consider the other person before we get too involved with interfering in their business. People have periods of illness, others become embroiled in their business life for a time, leaving the only group that requires any attention, and that is the person who just became disinterested in the hobby or passed away. One or two DNF's or Maintenance messages does not mean the CO has just given up on their cache.

A bit more consideration for our fellow cachers is in order in most cases. It should fall to Headquarters to determine when action is required or not. Let them make contact, decide to deactivate a members membership and thus cancel ownership of their caches. In some cases it may become necessary because the person has moved far away, or worse, passed away. Not all of us are spring chickens ya know!  This is more in keeping with the spirit of the sport than just penalizing a person for what may be a justified period of inactivity. Headquarters may need to establish a set plan of administrative procedures regarding this type of situation. It could also allow for the suspended member to regain their active status and all that goes with it. This way a conscientious member could take temporary responsibility for the cache, and still leave the original owner, who thought up the initial cache to regain their caches when and if they become willing and able to take over the care of it again.

In all things, look for the compassionate solution to foster the spirit of brotherhood/Sisterhood that this sport was meant to follow. Like all things in life, it goes back to what we learned as children. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Seeker_Knight

I don't understand why a member who dies should have their membership cancelled. Rather allow a cache to be picked up with the normal method for needing maintenance and then not getting it.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't understand why a member who dies should have their membership cancelled. Rather allow a cache to be picked up with the normal method for needing maintenance and then not getting it.

Better to just adopt it out to a new owner

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Seeker_Knight said:

Better to just adopt it out to a new owner

 

Why. The cache remains a remembrance, especially if they were a well known and established geocacher, but eventually the cache will need maintenance and it will go (whether this is months or years), freeing up the space for another cache. Then if other geocachers live in the area they can place a new cache. Sometimes I find an old cache belonging to a departed geocacher. It's nice to think, ah, this was placed here by so and so.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

This way a conscientious member could take temporary responsibility for the cache, and still leave the original owner, who thought up the initial cache to regain their caches when and if they become willing and able to take over the care of it again.

If you haven't found a cache in the last few years you should really go have a look, I don't think any conscientious member would take responsibility for a "cache" consisting of a fast food container with a scrap of paper and beer bottle caps inside. Since some cachers are reluctant to log a NM, and some owners don't care about their obligation to maintain their caches, where does one start in cleaning up all of the junk caches? This is an initial step by HQ, maybe the right step, maybe wrong, but you have to start somewhere in getting the mess cleaned up. I can give you a list of nearly 500 active caches from one owner, 83 with NM flags, and make a bet that every container is something you would have thrown in the trash.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:

If you haven't found a cache in the last few years you should really go have a look, I don't think any conscientious member would take responsibility for a "cache" consisting of a fast food container with a scrap of paper and beer bottle caps inside.

 

Didn't find it niraD couldn't find 2.gif Trash Cache

Spent  quite a while looking, but came up empty. I did get a lot of CITO done though.

 
  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, niraD said:

It looks like the char cloth that is sometimes used for fire-starting...

 

I started posting and saw this.  Yep.     :)

Thought I said somewhere in these forums an old no-gasket ammo can is what I make char cloth in (for bushcraft outings).

Just pitch it in the burning barrel until all the smoke stops coming out the top (little hole in an altoid container works the same).   ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Seeker_Knight said:

I will never understand why some people find it necessary to become overly involved with the activities or lack thereof regarding other people. Let's try to consider the other person before we get too involved with interfering in their business. People have periods of illness, others become embroiled in their business life for a time, leaving the only group that requires any attention, and that is the person who just became disinterested in the hobby or passed away. One or two DNF's or Maintenance messages does not mean the CO has just given up on their cache.

A bit more consideration for our fellow cachers is in order in most cases. It should fall to Headquarters to determine when action is required or not. Let them make contact, decide to deactivate a members membership and thus cancel ownership of their caches. In some cases it may become necessary because the person has moved far away, or worse, passed away. Not all of us are spring chickens ya know!  This is more in keeping with the spirit of the sport than just penalizing a person for what may be a justified period of inactivity. Headquarters may need to establish a set plan of administrative procedures regarding this type of situation. It could also allow for the suspended member to regain their active status and all that goes with it. This way a conscientious member could take temporary responsibility for the cache, and still leave the original owner, who thought up the initial cache to regain their caches when and if they become willing and able to take over the care of it again.

In all things, look for the compassionate solution to foster the spirit of brotherhood/Sisterhood that this sport was meant to follow. Like all things in life, it goes back to what we learned as children. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Seeker_Knight

 

You do realize that DNFs and NAs are a means for a Reviewer or HQ to notice and do something about the cache, right ?.  

 - We don't take it upon ourselves...

When I am no longer a "spring chicken"  I'll archive my own caches and either take my time or ask another to pick 'em  up.

The age of a person doesn't mean they no longer have to honor what they agreed-to when they placed a cache through the site.

We've maintained caches for a lot of people while sick mostly, a couple while on active duty.

 - But if any of those people aren't back within a given time, they all knew that I'm not gonna be taken advantage of.

We got taken by a divorced couple once.  "Friendly" with both.  Maintained while things were happening.  Both moved outta the area.

 

"There's a sucker born every minute" isn't a nice thing.    Pick up after yourself, do maintenance, and make plans if you can't.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

You do realize that DNFs and NAs are a means for a Reviewer or HQ to notice and do something about the cache, right ?

Do you realize that DNFs are a means for one finder to tell the CO and other finders that they couldn't find the cache? It's only in the last couple years that GS has decided that DNFs should be interpreted like tea leaves to make decisions about the cache, thus undermining their original purpose.

 

5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

When I am no longer a "spring chicken"  I'll archive my own caches and either take my time or ask another to pick 'em  up.

The age of a person doesn't mean they no longer have to honor what they agreed-to when they placed a cache through the site.

This subject always gets turned into a vendetta against COs. The other side doesn't deny the responsibility, it just observes that the responsibility can be met even without active engagement, the proof being that the cache is in good shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, dprovan said:

It's only in the last couple years that GS has decided that DNFs should be interpreted like tea leaves to make decisions about the cache, thus undermining their original purpose.

...based on the way people have been using DNFs, or not, compounded by cache owner maintenance habits.  But we've been through all this discussion about the CHS - that's for a different thread.

 

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The other side doesn't deny the responsibility, it just observes that the responsibility can be met even without active engagement, the proof being that the cache is in good shape.

And yet, regardless of the cache's physical state, such a cache owner has effectively abandoned their personal property, littered, and broken their TOU agreement for listing it on the website. Again, hashed out in other threads.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, 31BMSG said:
19 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

This way a conscientious member could take temporary responsibility for the cache, and still leave the original owner, who thought up the initial cache to regain their caches when and if they become willing and able to take over the care of it again.

If you haven't found a cache in the last few years you should really go have a look, I don't think any conscientious member would take responsibility for a "cache" consisting of a fast food container with a scrap of paper and beer bottle caps inside. Since some cachers are reluctant to log a NM, and some owners don't care about their obligation to maintain their caches, where does one start in cleaning up all of the junk caches? This is an initial step by HQ, maybe the right step, maybe wrong, but you have to start somewhere in getting the mess cleaned up. I can give you a list of nearly 500 active caches from one owner, 83 with NM flags, and make a bet that every container is something you would have thrown in the trash.

That wasn't my words. You have attached the wrong name. They were Seeker_Knight 's words.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That wasn't my words. You have attached the wrong name. They were Seeker_Knight 's words.

My apologies, I must of tried to reply to his post by copying his words from your reply, old eyes and early morning.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 31BMSG said:
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That wasn't my words. You have attached the wrong name. They were Seeker_Knight 's words.

My apologies, I must of tried to reply to his post by copying his words from your reply, old eyes and early morning.

Yeah I've fallen prey to that. If you quote text from within a quote in a previous comment, it'll attribute it to the main commenter, not the quotee IN that comment. :P   Block the whole quote box, or just quote the whole comment.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

the proof being that the cache is in good shape.

 

How do we know the cache is in good shape? 

I had no idea the cache would look this neglected when I found it (yes this is often what community maintenance looks like):

 

106618798_2019-11-2813_14_31-Window.png.

 

No NMs. Nothing about the condition in the logs. Later I read older logs and it turned out to be at least the 2nd throwdown. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


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

How do we know the cache is in good shape? 

 

You don't. I could go and check on one of my hides today and something calamitous could happen to it tonight.

 

Today on a group outing I found three caches down the south coast. The first, hidden in 2001, wasn't quite in pristine condition as there's a crack in the side of the container, but it's in a dry location deep inside a disused railway tunnel so it didn't matter, the current logbook is still fine. The older logbook was a bit ragged but that was probably from all the use (it's had 279 finds in its nearly 19 years) and the salty air.

 

20200201_123505.jpg.2f60ade9640b5cce12ad67698a60a86b.jpg

 

The second, hidden in 2007, is an ammo can, a lot more exposed to the elements but the log and abundance of swag inside was clean and dry.

 

20200201_134355.thumb.jpg.b085cf24959cfbc40170f472f631af9f.jpg

 

The third, in a park on the southern outskirts of Sydney, was hidden in 2018. It's a cheap food storage box with no seal and, while protected from direct sun by its camo, would still get wet in heavy rain. Its logbook, while still quite servicable, was noticably damp. I don't have a photo of it as it was hot and getting late in the day so we just wanted to sign the log and be on our way. In any case, GZ wasn't particularly photogenic.

 

When you go caching you take your chances on what you'll find. Sometimes it's a very old cache that's aged remarkably well, sometimes it's something much newer that hasn't. For me, part of the attraction of the game is not knowing what's going to be there, but I guess I have the benefit of rarely encountering one that's completely gone off. If you want to clean up the game, you'd do better targeting the newer caches rather than the really old ones as the latter have generally withstood the test of time.

 

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

When you go caching you take your chances on what you'll find.

Sometimes it's a very old cache that's aged remarkably well, sometimes it's something much newer that hasn't.

For me, part of the attraction of the game is not knowing what's going to be there, but I guess I have the benefit of rarely encountering one that's completely gone off.

 

If you want to clean up the game, you'd do better targeting the newer caches rather than the really old ones as the latter have generally withstood the test of time.

 

You're last sentence (I feel) is only your opinion (and maybe location specific)…     :)

I do agree that the majority of "newer" caches seem to be temporary, not placed as anything long-term.

 

We've met a couple ('00 and '01) cachers who still play occasionally, and did replace their original caches when needed.  Nice folks.

 But many of our "old" caches here were placed by people who pretty-much joined to place a cache and left shortly after.

Your area is dry enough it seems, to be able to hold a container a while.  

Here, rusted-shut cookie tins wrapped in plastic bags in our humidity become a science project that leaves you wondering when was your last tetanus shot.

Many I've been to have been "adopted" by others no longer in the hobby either.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:
9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If you want to clean up the game, you'd do better targeting the newer caches rather than the really old ones as the latter have generally withstood the test of time.

You're last sentence (I feel) is only your opinion (and maybe location specific)…     

No, it's not an opinion. They have stood the test of time. That's just a fact. I guess your experience is that they are uniformly in worse shape than newer caches, so we might have a disagreement about that, but something about them allowed them to last many years, at least speaking statistically. In my area, it's because they're generally higher quality than caches that have fallen by the wayside. In your area, unfortunately, it sounds like it's more because local seekers don't complain about ones that are broken.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

You don't. I could go and check on one of my hides today and something calamitous could happen to it tonight.

 

Yet when you place a cache, you cannot know in advance that it's gonna last. OK, it's great cave.  But you must check it regularly anyway.  "Carry the one, let's see, by my math it will be in perfect shape unattended for... 75 years."  But if you grant that "something calamitous could happen to it tonight", you have to check it regularly.  And it's been flawless until then.  Every time you checked it's fine, why are they picking on me, it's foolproof.  Because once you were absolutely sure it's fine, something calamitous happened.

 

But in practice, we don't got them magic caves in Georgia.  What CO's do around here is get prodded enough to eventually go fix the totally messed up broken or missing container, and the log is all about how annoyed they are because "OK, waste of my time, I checked and it's still perfect as always!"  So this is a suitable place to Experiment on. :ph34r:

 

Some of my most over-engineered designs fail not because of the cave or the design, but because Finders can't put it back correctly.  All they had to do was close the container and put it back on the hook.  It's so easy!  I didn't even imagine it could be jammed up that badly.  Unbelievable.  They had to put special effort into getting it calamitous.  And their log was a Found It. :blink:

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

You don't. I could go and check on one of my hides today and something calamitous could happen to it tonight.

I think Schrodinger explained it better.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

I think Schrodinger explained it better.


 

719D8BE6-5663-4712-B017-3B09FF5BD74F.jpeg

  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

No, it's not an opinion. They have stood the test of time. That's just a fact.

I guess your experience is that they are uniformly in worse shape than newer caches, so we might have a disagreement about that, but something about them allowed them to last many years, at least speaking statistically. In my area, it's because they're generally higher quality than caches that have fallen by the wayside. In your area, unfortunately, it sounds like it's more because local seekers don't complain about ones that are broken.

 

I'm not sure where you found old caches "standing the test of time" as fact, unless you have no concern for their condition.

Even most of the ones that are "pioneer" or "legacy" are on their second or third containers by now....

  • Upvote 1

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 8

×
×
  • Create New...