Good Idea?! (RECOMMENDATION)

[+CommunistOnions]

Hello, I have been noticing that many perfectly fine geocaches have been archived due to the owner not wanting to maintain them or because of a minor issue. This gave me an idea. What if there can be a little feature where you can make yourself available for adopting a cache and owners can see it in a tab. An owner can also make their cache available for adoption. It would be like a tab which will show up with a list of local cachers which are available and a tab with a list of caches which are available. With buttons like “request for someone to adopt” and “request to adopt”. This will make finding a adoptor or cache to adopt easier then posting in the forums which are not really a place for local affairs. I would like to see this feature implemented in order to ensure that the experience I had can be shared with other cachers.

Edited May 3, 2021 by CommunistOnions

[+SamLowrey]

It isn't well advertized but I think that function exists in some form here:

 

Geocaching > Adopt a Listing

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, SamLowrey said:

It isn't well advertized but I think that function exists in some form here:

 

Geocaching > Adopt a Listing

That's the mechanism for adoption, where a cache owner can offer a cache to a specific person to adopt.

 

What I think CommunistOnions is asking for is a mechanism would allow cache owners to offer a cache for anyone to adopt, or that would allow others to volunteer to adopt a cache.

 

Personally, I don't see the need for this. But that's what CommunistOnions seems to be asking for.

[+Hügh]

Posting a Write Note on the cache page should suffice...?

[+GeoElmo6000]

Two key facts are that the cache belongs to the owner and there is an adoption process already in place.

 

A cache owner can choose to offer a cache up for adoption by many methods (writing a note on the cache page, social media, asking friends, etc.).

 

A cacher can request to adopt a cache from an owner by many methods (writing a note on the cache page, the message center, sending an email, etc.).

 

An unfortunate case is when a cache owner drops out of the game, and lets their caches fall into disrepair and eventually have a reviewer archive them, leaving geo-junk behind.  But because the cache belongs to the owner and the cache owner is (probably) still being notified of messages about their caches, there's nothing to be done.  Unless GCHQ allows adoption without the cache owner's consent, the process works just fine.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

2 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

Two key facts are that the cache belongs to the owner and there is an adoption process already in place.

 

A cache owner can choose to offer a cache up for adoption by many methods (writing a note on the cache page, social media, asking friends, etc.).

 

A cacher can request to adopt a cache from an owner by many methods (writing a note on the cache page, the message center, sending an email, etc.).

 

An unfortunate case is when a cache owner drops out of the game, and lets their caches fall into disrepair and eventually have a reviewer archive them, leaving geo-junk behind.  But because the cache belongs to the owner and the cache owner is (probably) still being notified of messages about their caches, there's nothing to be done.  Unless GCHQ allows adoption without the cache owner's consent, the process works just fine.

 

And adoption without the cache owner's consent is theft.

The cache belongs to the CO.

GCHQ is ONLY a listing service.

If you list your house with a Real Estate company, and never respond to phone calls, can they go ahead and sell your house?

The only thing that could be done is to convince GCHQ (through existing measures) to de-list a cache from their website, then someone could put their own cache there.

But, of course, if you physically remove the old one, dot dot dot, that's theft.

[+MartyBartfast]

31 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

And adoption without the cache owner's consent is theft.

The cache belongs to the CO.

GCHQ is ONLY a listing service.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but....

The Cache belongs to the CO - yep.

But I'm not sure the listing belongs to the CO - there's probably lots of stuff in the Ts & Cs which effectively say that what we put on the GS listing belongs to them, and as the adoption is effectively only adopting the listing and not necessarily the container then it might be doable if the adopter doesn't take posession of the actual cache and places their own at the GZ.

 

Caveat, I'm just speculating and haven't read any of the rules & regs about listings or adoptions.

 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, CommunistOnions said:

What if there can be a little feature where you can make yourself available for adopting a cache and owners can see it in a tab.

An owner can also make their cache available for adoption.

It would be like a tab which will show up with a list of local cachers which are available and a tab with a list of caches which are available. With buttons like “request for someone to adopt” and “request to adopt”. This will make finding a adoptor or cache to adopt easier then posting in the forums which are not really a place for local affairs. 

 

I'd guess you could place a Write Note on any cache as an option, JIC the CO might offer it in the future (or consider archive). 

We see COs leave Write Notes, offer directly in the cache description, or on faceboook to take a cache over in adoption.

Offering adoptions in the forums is (mostly) a losing bid.  IIRC, less than a percent of members ever enter the forums.

 -  Cache pages and social sites are a better option.

[+JL_HSTRE]

The vast majority of caches archived for a lack of maintenance have absentee COs. They wont go through the adoption process any more than they'll do the maintenance.

 

That said, the adoption process has not changed in a long time and the current system is a bit clunky and not real obvious. I think it confuses some folks.

[Moun10Bike]

12 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

IIRC, less than a percent of members ever enter the forums.

 

If you consider accounts active in the past year, the number is 0.19% (and that's not even looking to see if the accounts active in the forums are the same ones that have been active in geocaching).

[+thebruce0]

Love that you pull out these stats @Moun10Bike 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

58 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but....

The Cache belongs to the CO - yep.

But I'm not sure the listing belongs to the CO - there's probably lots of stuff in the Ts & Cs which effectively say that what we put on the GS listing belongs to them, and as the adoption is effectively only adopting the listing and not necessarily the container then it might be doable if the adopter doesn't take posession of the actual cache and places their own at the GZ.

 

Caveat, I'm just speculating and haven't read any of the rules & regs about listings or adoptions.

 

 

 

 

Yes, you're right, the listing is most likely entirely the property GS. The problem there is that if HQ tells CO#2 that he is now the owner of a cache, then you betcha that new CO will feel free to interact with it in the field. 

 

What's always brought up is that there are other similar games, and people have certainly listed the same cache on more than one at a time. So if the CO walks away from Groundspeak because he thinks they're a bunch of &*&^$%s, but continues to play to "Find-A-Cache.com", then when CO#2 changes it or TAKES it, then........theft.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

12 hours ago, CommunistOnions said:

<...> What if there can be a little feature where you can make yourself available for adopting a cache and owners can see it in a tab. <...>

 

This has been suggested several times before and the feeling has been that while it might be an occasionally useful feature, it establishes a formal procedure for CO harassment.

If you have a popular spot and the wrong local caching community, you could be bombarded with endless notes to give up your place because someone wants to put in a trail, or you've had it long enough or you have too many, or a host of other rude arguments.

Then, when you finally get pissed off enough and ask GS to get that guy to leave you alone, they're in the middle and for that reason, they'll most likely never do this.

 

Yes, someone can pester you through email or the Message Center, but it isn't a FORMAL button that says to people "Click Here to Ask Someone to Give Up Their Cache", or, in another interpretation, "Click Here to Attempt to Gain Control of This Cache".

[+Lostboy1966]

As others have said, when a cache gets to the point of a NA (or even a non-responded to NM), the odds are that the owner has already bailed on it, and won't reply to any adoption requests. I'm sure there are exceptions, but in general these hides are set to become geotrash. What I'd like to see is an option to view nearby archived hides so I can opt to go clean them up if they look like they have been abandoned. I have created a Notification for myself that sends me an alert when something close gets a "Log type(s): Archive, Needs Archived, Temporarily Disable Listing, Needs Maintenance". Admittedly, this is more opportunistic than altruistic; yes, I'd happily clean up some geotrash, but I also want to know where a new hide spot opens up! 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

54 minutes ago, Lostboy1966 said:

As others have said, when a cache gets to the point of a NA (or even a non-responded to NM), the odds are that the owner has already bailed on it, and won't reply to any adoption requests. I'm sure there are exceptions, but in general these hides are set to become geotrash. What I'd like to see is an option to view nearby archived hides so I can opt to go clean them up if they look like they have been abandoned. I have created a Notification for myself that sends me an alert when something close gets a "Log type(s): Archive, Needs Archived, Temporarily Disable Listing, Needs Maintenance". Admittedly, this is more opportunistic than altruistic; yes, I'd happily clean up some geotrash, but I also want to know where a new hide spot opens up! 

 

Again, technically theft.

You don't know someone's intentions. You don't know who's given me permission to leave stuff on their property.

 

Sure, if it's smashed, or if it's all moldy then common sense should prevail and of course it's junk, but do YOU want to write that policy?

 

[+Lostboy1966]

1 minute ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Again, technically theft.

You don't know someone's intentions. You don't know who's given me permission to leave stuff on their property.

 

Sure, if it's smashed, or if it's all moldy then common sense should prevail and of course it's junk, but do YOU want to write that policy?

 

Please note that I said 'I'm sure there are exceptions', and used the term geotrash multiple times. If I came across a sack of McDonald's wrappers tossed along a trail, my first thought would not be "perhaps this stuff is placed with permission". For every example that can be found of an archived cache still being active on some other platform, I'd be willing to bet there are hundreds that are abandoned plastic, and therefore litter. I would 'steal' those McDonald's wrappers and never lose a wink of sleep over it. Peace!

[+CommunistOnions]

I think you are getting this all wrong. It is about a new mechanism to build on adoption not to create adoption itself. To adopt a cache using the mechanism, it still needs the past owner’s consent.

Edited May 4, 2021 by CommunistOnions

[+Hügh]

On 5/3/2021 at 10:54 PM, CommunistOnions said:

I think you are getting this all wrong. It is about a new mechanism to build on adoption not to create adoption itself.

 

The existing tools are good enough to facilitate the adoption process that you're asking for.

 

I also worry that making it 'easy' (ie. clicking a single button; no thought required) to relinquish geocache ownership won't encourage good 'geocache stewardship' ("ah, I'll just give it away to somebody when I can't deal with it anymore", but also "I'll just adopt all these caches [even though I cannot possibly properly maintain them all] because it's so easy!")

Edited May 5, 2021 by Hügh

[+GeoTrekker26]

3 minutes ago, CommunistOnions said:

I think you are getting this all wrong. It is about a new mechanism to build on adoption not to create adoption itself.

 

A solution looking for a problem! (And not finding one.)

[+Hügh]

11 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

And adoption without the cache owner's consent is theft.

The cache belongs to the CO.

 

I too will play the devil's advocate.

 

There is language in the Terms of Service that protects Geocaching HQ in the event that they decide to seize a geocache and hand it off to another individual.

 

Quote

Inactive or Abandoned 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.

[...]

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.

 

(Any emphasis added through both italics and underlines are my own.)

 

So yes, you are in effect signing an agreement with the real estate company that allows them to sell your house if (you stop responding to them, and) "it's in the best interests of the community." Ha. That's pretty (intentionally) vague.

 

It's a similar deal with the content of your cache page(s)—while you are, under law, the copyright owner, you do grant Geocaching HQ the right to do a whole bunch of stuff with it. I won't bore you with that too, though.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Hügh

[+oz_bean_counter]

2 hours ago, CommunistOnions said:

I think you are getting this all wrong. It is about a new mechanism to build on adoption not to create adoption itself. To adopt a cache using the mechanism, it still needs the past owner’s consent.

 

Are you wanting to put your caches up for adoption?

If so, I'll do some maintenance for you.

 

No sarcasm, I really will.

[+CommunistOnions]

2 minutes ago, oz_bean_counter said:

 

Are you wanting to put your caches up for adoption?

If so, I'll do some maintenance for you.

 

No sarcasm, I really will.

Please message me and I will send you the details. We can negotiate from there.

[+JL_HSTRE]

21 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

If you consider accounts active in the past year, the number is 0.19% (and that's not even looking to see if the accounts active in the forums are the same ones that have been active in geocaching).

 

Some years ago I read the observation that the very act of posting in an online forum about a fandom or hobby of any kind puts you in a fringe minority of that community. I suspect for the most part that is still quite accurate. The statistic above certainly supports it.

 

The result is a strange contradiction: the more willing you are to share your opinions online the less your opinion matters, statistically speaking, because the less you resemble an average participant.

Edited May 4, 2021 by JL_HSTRE

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

the more willing you are to share your opinions online the less your opinion matters, statistically speaking, because the less you resemble an average participant

 

Interesting hypothesis, but when it comes to an opinion, you could post in forums and still share the same opinion as a majority of non-forum users. So I'd say you could still resemble an average participant - but perhaps the strength or conviction to that opinion when it comes to making it known, well, the statistics certainly imply one would be an outlier on that front = )

[+cerberus1]

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Interesting hypothesis, but when it comes to an opinion, you could post in forums and still share the same opinion as a majority of non-forum users. So I'd say you could still resemble an average participant - but perhaps the strength or conviction to that opinion when it comes to making it known, well, the statistics certainly imply one would be an outlier on that front = )

 

Yep.  When there's an interesting forum topic worthy of discussion, we ask others.  Usually at events, but sometimes on trail.

Sometimes I remember to add in forum posts , "From talking with others about this subject..." just so some see it's not just me.   

[+DARKSIDEDAN]

I always adopt any caches that become available in my local area. What would be nice is to be able to adopt the caches that are old and the CO dose not cache any more. These are the caches worth hanging onto but sadly the sometime go missing or fall into disrepair causing them to be archived. There are plenty of geocachers who would love to keep the old caches going.

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, DARKSIDEDAN said:

These are the caches worth hanging onto but sadly the sometime go missing or fall into disrepair causing them to be archived. There are plenty of geocachers who would love to keep the old caches going.

Truly worthy caches can be recreated once the original listing has been archived. The new owner can link to the original listing in the description of the new listing.

 

As long as it's actually the cache that is worth preserving, this works great. Of course, it doesn't work if it's just the GC code that you're trying to preserve.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Truly worthy caches can be recreated once the original listing has been archived. The new owner can link to the original listing in the description of the new listing.

 

This is precisely what I did with one cache I own.  The prior CO archived without realizing adoption had to be done first, and it can't be unarchived to be adopted. So I just republished preserving the original container (and logbook - which is disgusted and is waiting for me to record all the pages' history, no longer in the geocache, heh)