Jump to content

Adoption of Old Virtual Caches


DubbleG
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Last month I took a trip which included stops at quite a few old virtual caches.  When I got home I tried to log them but found that, for several of them, the CO's haven't been active for some time.  I logged "Needs Archived" with a message that they should be adopted or archived since nobody was verifying finds.

Today I got into a discussion in a Facebook group where I was demonized for my logs.  It was mentioned that these caches cannot be adopted which I don't think is true, given that one of the ones I logged did get adopted within days.

 

My questions to the group are...

  1. Is there some reason why caches should not be able to be adopted, even if the CO doesn't initiate the process?  I can certainly see wanting to check with them first but they may be inactive and not care, deceased, etc.  I don't understand why Groundspeak would prevent this.
  2. Am I violating some unwritten rule by bringing these caches to the reviewer's attention?
  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, DubbleG said:

Last month I took a trip which included stops at quite a few old virtual caches.  When I got home I tried to log them but found that, for several of them, the CO's haven't been active for some time.  I logged "Needs Archived" with a message that they should be adopted or archived since nobody was verifying finds.

Today I got into a discussion in a Facebook group where I was demonized for my logs.  It was mentioned that these caches cannot be adopted which I don't think is true, given that one of the ones I logged did get adopted within days.

 

My questions to the group are...

  1. Is there some reason why caches should not be able to be adopted, even if the CO doesn't initiate the process?  I can certainly see wanting to check with them first but they may be inactive and not care, deceased, etc.  I don't understand why Groundspeak would prevent this.
  2. Am I violating some unwritten rule by bringing these caches to the reviewer's attention?

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/361547-virtual-caches-are-now-adoptable/

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, DubbleG said:

When I got home I tried to log them but found that, for several of them, the CO's haven't been active for some time.  I logged "Needs Archived"

I can understand why some people would be upset with you.

 

On the other hand, I was the first person to log a dnf on a virtual cache in which the answer is long gone. Within a couple hours someone else logged their dnf too. 

 

Does the CHS apply to virtuals? Maybe if enough people log DNFs some action might be taken. 

 

However if word gets around that the owner is not checking the answers then there's probably going to be a lot of armchair logging. Which in my opinion is terrible for the game. Are you expecting an answer from the owner of the virtual geocache? Do they need to ever respond after someone logs it? How do you know they're not checking answers?

 

Separate topic: imagine you own a Virtual Cache and wake up one morning to find out HQ adopted it to someone else because they said you were no longer active. What is your definition of active? You haven't found a cache in the last 3 months? Year? You haven't logged an Owner Maintenance in six months? You only use the app and have not logged on to the website in 2 years?

You haven't answered message center messages for 18 months?

Who gets to adopt a cache in that situation? The first person to ask, or the last person to visit it personally?

Just wondering what the criteria would be. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I can understand why some people would be upset with you.

 

On the other hand, I was the first person to log a dnf on a virtual cache in which the answer is long gone. Within a couple hours someone else logged their dnf too. 

 

Does the CHS apply to virtuals? Maybe if enough people log DNFs some action might be taken. 

 

However if word gets around that the owner is not checking the answers then there's probably going to be a lot of armchair logging. Which in my opinion is terrible for the game. Are you expecting an answer from the owner of the virtual geocache? Do they need to ever respond after someone logs it? How do you know they're not checking answers?

Well, for the virtuals in question I checked the CO's page and they hadn't logged in for some time, in several cases for years.  That aside, their messenger and emails were inactive so there was no way to contact them to send in the required information.  That was the key that told me they were inactive or at least nobody could be checking answers.  In any case, the ultimate decision on how to handle the case falls to the reviewer who would only know about the potential problem via such a log.
 

Quote

 

Separate topic: imagine you own a Virtual Cache and wake up one morning to find out HQ adopted it to someone else because they said you were no longer active. What is your definition of active? You haven't found a cache in the last 3 months? Year? You haven't logged an Owner Maintenance in six months? You only use the app and have not logged on to the website in 2 years?

You haven't answered message center messages for 18 months?

Who gets to adopt a cache in that situation? The first person to ask, or the last person to visit it personally?

Just wondering what the criteria would be. 

 

For traditional caches, the reviewer logs a note that the CO needs to respond to strings of DNFs, NM logs, etc.  Something similar can apply to virtuals.  Reviewer posts a note to the CO stating that they need to indicate that they want to retain ownership of their cache.  If they don't respond in 30 day, same as a traditional (at least around here), then the cache is up for adoption.  I think first to ask would be fair but would have to give that some thought.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

As I understand it, virtuals can't be adopted.  No caches can be adopted if the CO doesn't initiate the process (with rare exceptions). This is a listing service. Gc Com doesn't own the caches, so they are not theirs to give to someone else.

Because virtuals are so few, every one that is taken off the board is bound to upset people.   If the CO is not maintaining their cache they should be archived, virtual or not.  Of course with virtuals, maintaining doesn't mean fixing a container, it means policing the logs.  If a virtual is consistently receiving "armchair" logs, then it is a candidate for archiving. 

So technically, you did nothing wrong.  You encountered an unmaintained cache and posted a NA (A NM might have been the better choice), however you need to understand the people who were angry with you.  A popular virtual that was under GC com's radar, was brought to their attention thanks to your log and was taken off the board.



  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, DubbleG said:

Well, for the virtuals in question I checked the CO's page and they hadn't logged in for some time, in several cases for years.

I'm sure you're right about them being inactive, but this alone is not a determination. You can be a very active geocacher but if you don't log into the website for years, rather only use the app,  it'll say your last log in was years ago. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, briansnat said:

As I understand it, virtuals can't be adopted.  No caches can be adopted if the CO doesn't initiate the process (with rare exceptions). This is a listing service. Gc Com doesn't own the caches, so they are not theirs to give to someone else.

Because virtuals are so few, every one that is taken off the board is bound to upset people.   If the CO is not maintaining their cache they should be archived, virtual or not.  Of course with virtuals, maintaining doesn't mean fixing a container, it means policing the logs.  If a virtual is consistently receiving "armchair" logs, then it is a candidate for archiving. 

So technically, you did nothing wrong.  You encountered an unmaintained cache and posted a NA (A NM might have been the better choice), however you need to understand the people who were angry with you.  A popular virtual that was under GC com's radar, was brought to their attention thanks to your log and was taken off the board.

One of the caches I logged as NA did get adopted within a couple of days of my log.  So now we have an old virtual that is being properly monitored which I think is a good thing.

NM wouldn't work for an inactive CO and I thought the reviewers only got notified by NA's.  I could be wrong, happened once before ;-)

I find the concept of GC not "owning" the cache to be interesting.  With a traditional that certainly makes sense.  But what is "ownership" of a virtual?  To me, that means taking responsibility for it - primarily by ensuring valid finds.  In this case I think these have been abandoned and therefore not "owned" by anyone anymore.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Just now, Max and 99 said:

I'm sure you're right about them being inactive, but this alone is not a determination. You can be a very active geocacher but if you don't log into the website for years, rather only use the app,  it'll say your last log in was years ago. 

Yes, but not being able to be contacted, to verify the logs, is itself enough to indicate these were abandoned.  The only thing preventing armchair finds for virtuals is the CO.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, DubbleG said:

One of the caches I logged as NA did get adopted within a couple of days of my log.  So now we have an old virtual that is being properly monitored which I think is a good thing.

NM wouldn't work for an inactive CO and I thought the reviewers only got notified by NA's.  I could be wrong, happened once before ;-)

I find the concept of GC not "owning" the cache to be interesting.  With a traditional that certainly makes sense.  But what is "ownership" of a virtual?  To me, that means taking responsibility for it - primarily by ensuring valid finds.  In this case I think these have been abandoned and therefore not "owned" by anyone anymore.

The reviewers do get notified if the CHS drops, which could be affected by not responding to an NM, but so far it is unknown by me if virtuals are affected by the CHS. 

I'm curious if you checked the caching history of those owners, since the most recent log on is wildly inaccurate at times. 

 

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment
Just now, Max and 99 said:

The reviewers do get notified if the CHS drops, but so far it is unknown by me if virtuals are affected by the CHS. 

I'm curious if you checked the caching history of those owners, since the most recent log on is wildly inaccurate at times. 

 

Sorry, not sure what "CHS" means.

No, I only checked last logon time.  As mentioned above, even if I grant that that isn't a good indicator, the inability to send them the required information should be concrete evidence that they aren't checking the logs.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, DubbleG said:

Sorry, not sure what "CHS" means.

No, I only checked last logon time.  As mentioned above, even if I grant that that isn't a good indicator, the inability to send them the required information should be concrete evidence that they aren't checking the logs.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement. 

CHS is the Cache Health Score, determined by an algorithm. DNFs, NM, among other things, can affect that score. If it goes under a certain threshold, the CO is notified. If they do nothing, the reviewer is notified. 

Link to comment

I looked up your most recent virtual find in which the cache owner had not logged in within the past few months. Last login was three and a half years ago and last geocache find was four and a half years ago. And they adopted that virtual cache from someone else, but I'm way too lazy to look through the logs to see if there's any indication of when this happened. But yes, in my opinion, that cache is likely abandoned. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, DubbleG said:

I find the concept of GC not "owning" the cache to be interesting.  With a traditional that certainly makes sense.  But what is "ownership" of a virtual?  To me, that means taking responsibility for it - primarily by ensuring valid finds.  In this case I think these have been abandoned and therefore not "owned" by anyone anymore.

Groundspeak is just a listing service. They like it that way. Their lawyers like it that way. They do not own the caches listed on the geocaching.com site (with a relatively small number of exceptions).

 

For them to force the adoption of cache listings where the owner did not initiate the adoption, they would be exercising an ownership role that they do not want.

  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, DubbleG said:

That aside, their messenger and emails were inactive so there was no way to contact them to send in the required information. 

When I went to the profile of the CO for the V you logged the most recent NA on,  there was an option to use the message center and to email them. Where did you run into trouble with this? Granted I did not actually send them anything so maybe that's when you got a message? 

Edited by Max and 99
Changed "a" to "most recent"
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

When I went to the profile of the CO for the V you logged a NA on,  there was an option to use the message center and to email them. Where did you run into trouble with this? Granted I did not actually send them anything so maybe that's when you got a message? 

Can you send me the GC code so I can check?  I logged 40+ virtuals on my trip, with several needing adoption/archiving, so it is entirely possible I messed one of them up.  Ironically,  if I did, the CO should've disallowed my log or at least contacted me to provide the required info.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, niraD said:

For them to force the adoption of cache listings where the owner did not initiate the adoption, they would be exercising an ownership role that they do not want.

 

How does that differ from them archiving caches where the CO has not responded to a string of DNFs or a NA log for a cache that has been verified muggled?  They are controlling the instance, are they not?  I see no difference.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, DubbleG said:
1 hour ago, niraD said:

For them to force the adoption of cache listings where the owner did not initiate the adoption, they would be exercising an ownership role that they do not want.

 

How does that differ from them archiving caches where the CO has not responded to a string of DNFs or a NA log for a cache that has been verified muggled?  They are controlling the instance, are they not?  I see no difference.

 

When they archive the cache, they are simply deactivating the listing. They are a listing service, so they can do that.

 

When they give a cache away, they are exercising ownership over the cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, niraD said:

 

When they archive the cache, they are simply deactivating the listing. They are a listing service, so they can do that.

 

When they give a cache away, they are exercising ownership over the cache.

With a virtual, there is no "cache", only the listing.  So they would be exercising ownership of the listing which they can, and IMO, should do.  If not in the rules today, the could be amended if GC so chose.  Much as they grandfathered certain caches they can control adoption of them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment

A number of responses:

1) virtual caches, both published and unpublished, can now be adopted

2) the cache owner, or in the case of death, the cache owner's heirs can do this

3) the cache and the listing are the property of the creator, this is the basis of the service - see niraD's post above, "exercising an ownership role".

4) if the profile is inactive, indicates directly that you cannot reach the owner by message or email, NA is the proper log. I've archived a few virts based on that log for that circumstance. In both cases new hides arose (another virtual, an earthcache).  In both cases the person logging NA took heat. They were right however.

 

 

  • Helpful 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, DubbleG said:

With a virtual, there is no "cache", only the listing.  So they would be exercising ownership of the listing which they can, and IMO, should do.

As palmetto pointed out, Groundspeak doesn't own (or want to own) the listing either. They own the listing service. They don't want to cross the line from allowing owners to use their listing service, to exercising ownership over the caches or the listings.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, DubbleG said:

I logged "Needs Archived" with a message that they should be adopted or archived since nobody was verifying finds.

 

I think that, if you had used this phrasing, I would not have rolled my eyes so much when I was alerted to action this virtual cache.  Think of a "Needs Archived" log as a public message to the local Reviewer.  By saying "Why hasn't this been adopted or archived long ago," you seemed to suggest that this was somehow my fault.  The owner is gone, and that's why their virtual cache hadn't been adopted or archived.  Reviewers have zero involvement in the adoption process.  Regarding archival, we don't go hunting for virtuals that are receiving finds, but which have an inactive owner.  Such caches need to be brought to our attention.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I'm sure you're right about them being inactive, but this alone is not a determination. You can be a very active geocacher but if you don't log into the website for years, rather only use the app,  it'll say your last log in was years ago. 

I always check their cache finds - even just using the app doesn't stop those from showing up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

I think that, if you had used this phrasing, I would not have rolled my eyes so much when I was alerted to action this virtual cache.  Think of a "Needs Archived" log as a public message to the local Reviewer.  By saying "Why hasn't this been adopted or archived long ago," you seemed to suggest that this was somehow my fault.  The owner is gone, and that's why their virtual cache hadn't been adopted or archived.  Reviewers have zero involvement in the adoption process.  Regarding archival, we don't go hunting for virtuals that are receiving finds, but which have an inactive owner.  Such caches need to be brought to our attention.


The actual text of my log was "CO hasn't logged in since 2009! Why hasn't this been archived or adopted long ago? Nobody is verifying the finds.".  Not terribly different from what I wrote above.  A tad harsher, yes, but the core of "adopt or archive" is there.  I certainly did NOT mean to imply there was any fault/responsibility to the reviewer.  It was more rhetorical, as in I can't believe nobody had brought this up long ago.

Edited by DubbleG
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
23 hours ago, DubbleG said:

When I got home I tried to log them but found that, for several of them, the CO's haven't been active for some time.  I logged "Needs Archived" with a message that they should be adopted or archived since nobody was verifying finds.

 

This may be a bit off tpoic, but still relevant to the discussion, I think...

 

In a majority of cases (and as I interpret things and have done) is that the Virtual cache requires you to send answers to the CO (via email. or message center) as proof of your visit, and then you can log the Find online.  Once I log it, it is up to the CO to "verify", and my log stands, or question me, and delete the log.  In my (somewhat limited) experience, occasionally a CO has confirmed my answers, and thanked me for visiting the Virtual.  More often, though, I hear nothing and the log stands.  I have never had a log deleted.

 

And truth be told, I have never really considered whether the CO is an active cacher or not - if I hear nothing, I "assume" my answers were correct and really don't think of that cache again - I send my answers, log the find and forget it.  The same goes for Earthcaches....but now I really digress!

 

How is it that you "tried to log them" - were you waiting for the CO to respond before logging?  If that were the case, for me, I would rarely log a Virtual, or EC for that matter.  A response is the exception...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

How is it that you "tried to log them" - were you waiting for the CO to respond before logging?  If that were the case, for me, I would rarely log a Virtual, or EC for that matter.  A response is the exception...

In most of the cases (I've since learned that I messed up on one of them) I attempted to send the information via email and/or the messaging system and was unable to do so.  That spurred me to check when the CO last logged in (I've since learned to check on their cache history) and when I determined that they were unreachable and and inactive I logged the NA.
As long as I am able to send the information, for V's, EC's, etc., I consider the matter closed (unless the CO replies that I've gotten something wrong).  I don't expect a response although I do appreciate them.  However, the inability to send the information is a trigger that the cache isn't being monitored and a prime target for armchair cachers.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
22 hours ago, DubbleG said:

 

How does that differ from them archiving caches where the CO has not responded to a string of DNFs or a NA log for a cache that has been verified muggled?  They are controlling the instance, are they not?  I see no difference.

It's very different.  A listing service can write it's own rules as to what is allowed and when items can be removed. They can control what their site is used for.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, briansnat said:

It's very different.  A listing service can write it's own rules as to what is allowed and when items can be removed. They can control what their site is used for.

You're making my point for me.  They can write their own rules so they can determine how to manage abandoned caches.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, DubbleG said:
2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

How is it that you "tried to log them" - were you waiting for the CO to respond before logging?  If that were the case, for me, I would rarely log a Virtual, or EC for that matter.  A response is the exception...

In most of the cases (I've since learned that I messed up on one of them) I attempted to send the information via email and/or the messaging system and was unable to do so.  That spurred me to check when the CO last logged in (I've since learned to check on their cache history) and when I determined that they were unreachable and and inactive I logged the NA.
As long as I am able to send the information, for V's, EC's, etc., I consider the matter closed (unless the CO replies that I've gotten something wrong).  I don't expect a response although I do appreciate them.  However, the inability to send the information is a trigger that the cache isn't being monitored and a prime target for armchair cachers.

Ahhh, OK.  It wasn't clear to me from the original and subsequent posts that you were unable to contact them via messaging or email, and therefore unable to even send answers.  In that case, I can understand your logging the NA, though it seems a bit harsh, it is is the right answer.  A "gentler" approach that may not draw as much negative feedback might be to log a NM, and explain that you could not reach the CO to send answers.  Then wait a month, log the NA, and let the reviewer handle it from there.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, DubbleG said:

I attempted to send the information via email and/or the messaging system and was unable to do so.

I can be wrong but i believe when sending email or messages using the gc homepage you will not get any feedback in case the email or message could not be delivered.

I guess the email link is removed from profiles when the email is either not confirmed (for new users) and eventually when gc receives multiple bounces of sent emails. But messaging is always possible, or isn't it?

What lead you to the impression that you are "unable" to do? Was there a error message?

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 11/15/2021 at 6:03 PM, DubbleG said:

Last month I took a trip which included stops at quite a few old virtual caches.  When I got home I tried to log them but found that, for several of them, the CO's haven't been active for some time.  I logged "Needs Archived" with a message that they should be adopted or archived since nobody was verifying finds.

Today I got into a discussion in a Facebook group where I was demonized for my logs.  It was mentioned that these caches cannot be adopted which I don't think is true, given that one of the ones I logged did get adopted within days.

 

My questions to the group are...

  1. Is there some reason why caches should not be able to be adopted, even if the CO doesn't initiate the process?  I can certainly see wanting to check with them first but they may be inactive and not care, deceased, etc.  I don't understand why Groundspeak would prevent this.
  2. Am I violating some unwritten rule by bringing these caches to the reviewer's attention?

YOU DID WHHHHAAATTTTTT

 

           Calling for archival seems rather over the top.  

 

           I agree there needs to be a method to adopt caches where the CO's have "moved on or passed on".

 

A large number of "orphaned caches" have significant value and it would be a shame to lose them.   

  • Funny 3
  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Hynz said:

I can be wrong but i believe when sending email or messages using the gc homepage you will not get any feedback in case the email or message could not be delivered.

I guess the email link is removed from profiles when the email is either not confirmed (for new users) and eventually when gc receives multiple bounces of sent emails. But messaging is always possible, or isn't it?

What lead you to the impression that you are "unable" to do? Was there a error message?

I don't know the answer to your question but I think the archive log provides some information. I too am curious if there is an error message generated. 

 

Because the cache owner's account is inactive, they are unable to receive and respond to emails regarding this virtual cache. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Hynz said:

I can be wrong but i believe when sending email or messages using the gc homepage you will not get any feedback in case the email or message could not be delivered.

 

If you include your email address when sending an email through geocaching.com, I believe the site will send the email as if it came from you directly, and you'll then get a daemon error or whatnot if the email bounces.

 

You're correct that there is no notification when a message fails to deliver through the message center. I have a few earthcaches in areas with poor or no cell coverage. Several times, I have messaged finders who hadn't sent in messages, only to get a response along the lines of, oh yes I did send in answers. I'm guessing a drop in signal meant they appeared to send but never went through.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

Calling for archival seems rather over the top.

...

A large number of "orphaned caches" have significant value and it would be a shame to lose them.   

 

Well, yes and no.

 

If there's no one on the other end, it's going to be abused. We've seen that over and over; it's how "Greetings from Germany" became a punchline.

 

At least virtuals can be adopted now if the CO or next of kin answers the call. Before, if they had turned into armchair caches, they'd just get nuked from orbit, regardless of whether someone could get hold of the CO. Now, they can potentially be adopted out, if someone in a position to consent agrees to do so. But at the end of the day, adoption by force is still not an option, and if a cache is truly orphaned, regardless of its value, it might be time for it to go.

 

A community can prop up a container if it so chooses - I'm doing it now for all the orphaned caches at Guantanamo Bay - but with virtuals, earthcaches, and webcams, there's only so much that can be done if something needs fixing and only the CO can fix it.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 11/16/2021 at 11:47 PM, CAVinoGal said:

Ahhh, OK.  It wasn't clear to me from the original and subsequent posts that you were unable to contact them via messaging or email, and therefore unable to even send answers.  In that case, I can understand your logging the NA, though it seems a bit harsh, it is is the right answer.  A "gentler" approach that may not draw as much negative feedback might be to log a NM, and explain that you could not reach the CO to send answers.  Then wait a month, log the NA, and let the reviewer handle it from there.

 

I often do that but in these cases my impression was that the CO was long gone.  I'd checked the last time they'd visited the site and it was years ago.  I've since found out that that isn't always a valid way to check but follow ups (checked their last caches logged) bear out that they are MIA.  Regardless, the reviewer gets to handle it whether one waits or not.  Frankly, I think it comes down to people being upset with the old caches getting archived regardless of whether or not it is technically the right thing to do.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 11/18/2021 at 7:59 PM, DubbleG said:

Frankly, I think it comes down to people being upset with the old caches getting archived regardless of whether or not it is technically the right thing to do.

I can tell from the recent logs that you are correct about this! Some people just don't want old abandoned Virtuals archived, even if the CO is not active, not checking logs, not involved in the game, and not responding to the reviewer note.

Link to comment

Potter's Pond GC3B appears to have been unofficially adopted by the reviewer BlueRajah for almost 10 years now. CO has not logged in since 2017, nor found a cache since 2007 and last maintenance log was 2009. Unless he is secretly the CO :) 

 

Personally I'm glad some of these caches that are deemed important to the geocaching community are preserved. He posts useful information as notes if he was given ownership the information would be readily available in the description. Thanks for this service. Just would be great if other important caches get the same treatment. Maybe in the listing agreement put a clause in there to assume ownership if deemed important enough. None of my caches should fall into this category.

 

I'm not saying all virtual should be kept. But there should be a process to keep them around. Such as if signage changes. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, MNTA said:

Personally I'm glad some of these caches that are deemed important to the geocaching community are preserved. He posts useful information as notes if he was given ownership the information would be readily available in the description. Thanks for this service. Just would be great if other important caches get the same treatment. Maybe in the listing agreement put a clause in there to assume ownership if deemed important enough. None of my caches should fall into this category.

 

I'm not saying all virtual should be kept. But there should be a process to keep them around. Such as if signage changes. 

 

There's an old cache that was published as a traditional in 2001 but was soon changed to a virtual after the container was muggled (back then the CO could change cache types if they wanted to). But the cache page didn't get updated, with the description and hint still mostly about how to find the container, and there's no mention of any task needed to complete it as a virtual. Most people who've done it have just included a photo of themselves or their GPSr near GZ, which is what I did when I logged it during the Cache Carnival promotion a couple of years back. It has 67 FPs (from 630 finds) so it scored top points in that promotion, but apart from its age and its usefulness in "old timer" challenges, I'm struggling to see what merit it really has in its present form, what with nothing to find and nothing to do to get the smiley.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There's an old cache that was published as a traditional in 2001 but was soon changed to a virtual after the container was muggled (back then the CO could change cache types if they wanted to). But the cache page didn't get updated, with the description and hint still mostly about how to find the container, and there's no mention of any task needed to complete it as a virtual. Most people who've done it have just included a photo of themselves or their GPSr near GZ, which is what I did when I logged it during the Cache Carnival promotion a couple of years back. It has 67 FPs (from 630 finds) so it scored top points in that promotion, but apart from its age and its usefulness in "old timer" challenges, I'm struggling to see what merit it really has in its present form, what with nothing to find and nothing to do to get the smiley.

There were a lot of old virtuals that had no task, as that wasn't a thing back then.  Different time, different rules (guidelines).

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

I wish I could copy/paste my point from the FB thread, but it appears to have been deleted.  So, I will try to recreate my take on the issue here:

Yes, calling out these abandoned Virtuals is technically the right thing to do because they are not being maintained.  Of course that has nothing to do with the actual location, maintenance in this case is just a non-response to an email or message.

But since they are a rare, grandfathered cache type, why?  Why does it matter if somebody in Germany wants to armchair log every unwatched Virtual in the world?  Does their find count have any bearing on your enjoyment of the game?  Why let the actions of a few cheaters create a situation where an old virtual is removed from the gameboard?  Old virtuals have brought me, and many others, to some of the coolest places, often places where a physical container could not be practically hidden and maintained.  Especially when I'm on a road trip in an unfamiliar area, Virtuals point me to some of those must stops.  Policing them like this only serves to remove them from the map, so others in the future will miss that opportunity.

 

Sure, I'll give you that these spots could still be identified if someone wanted to recreate it using an Adventure Lab for example.  But it loses that luster of an oldie, which come with the added bonus of helping to fill Jasmer grids and qualifying for other challenge caches.  I could see if it was keeping somebody from placing a better cache there, but unlike physical container caches, Virtuals aren't limited by the proximity rules.

 

Now, if there is something wrong with the actual location, ie the item doesn't exist anymore, or there is a threat of danger or private property concerns, archive away.

I wish there was a way to adopt abandoned Virtuals, but without the CO present to initiate the adoption, it's not possible.  And it has been made clear by HQ that this will not change.  As others have pointed out, they are a listing service, the caches (even Virtuals) aren't their property to give away.

Edited by TyroneShoelaces
spelling
  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
On 11/15/2021 at 8:23 PM, DubbleG said:

What I'm trying to determine is if caches can be adopted out if the CO can't initiate the adoption.

 

I will say "probably" this is similar to why Cacher Names can't be given to other people even if the original owner of the name (note: OWNER) hasn't been on the site for years. In an interview on a podcast, Bryan Roth ventured that there are some legal 'grey areas' as to who has ownership of the intellectual property of a Cacher Name. I'd venture that the same 'grey areas' may well pertain to ownership of the virtual cache as it appears on the website. And YES, Geocaching/Groundspeak created the cache code number and the cache only lives on their servers - Bryan indicated there's still questions.

 

I'd say for more info, message Bryan Roth 😁

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, TyroneShoelaces said:

But since they are a rare, grandfathered cache type, why?  Why does it matter if somebody in Germany wants to armchair log every unwatched Virtual in the world?  Does their find count have any bearing on your enjoyment of the game?  Why let the actions of a few cheaters create a situation where an old virtual is removed from the gameboard?  Old virtuals have brought me, and many others, to some of the coolest places, often places where a physical container could not be practically hidden and maintained.  Especially when I'm on a road trip in an unfamiliar area, Virtuals point me to some of those must stops.  Policing them like this only serves to remove them from the map, so others in the future will miss that opportunity.

 

Hear, hear Tyrone! I like to put it a bit simpler: People are people wherever they go and whatever to do. Geocaching® doesn't improve them, except as hunters of caches.
 

As you noted, as long as the activity doesn't harm anyone else - who cares?

 

And, quite honestly, if THIS is what the poster was talking about ... well, I'm just missing "demonizing" by a mile. Some people like to whine online, though; that's for sure although attacks do happen.

 

For me it's just nice to know that Virtuals CAN be adopted. I never liked the "Clear the Gameboard" craze doing away with old caches. Crappy ones, fine. 😎

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

The scenario specifically when someone cannot successfully reach out to an inactive Virtual cache owner regarding cache adoption.... that is a tough topic.

People really want to keep old virtuals alive and one getting archived is a really sad day. Someone adopting a cache without knowledge and consent of the cache owner is also potentially a sad day. I'm glad I don't have to make the policy but I'm guessing without cache owner permission, adoption is a no starter.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jimrky said:

"And, quite honestly, if THIS is what the poster was talking about ... well, I'm just missing "demonizing" by a mile. Some people like to whine online, though; that's for sure although attacks do happen."

 

 

Most of the posters on that FB thread kept it a civil discussion, but there was mudslinging by some as well...

 

  • Surprised 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, TyroneShoelaces said:

 

Most of the posters on that FB thread kept it a civil discussion, but there was mudslinging by some as well...

 

 

I can imagine - but since most of the 'people' engaging in that activity would never be anything more than a 'passle of pixels' on a screen (lacking male appendages but with bravery behind an ASCII appliance) I find it excruciatingly easy to IGNORE them. Or, better still (yes, I am a poor example of a human being) engage in Passle-of-Pixels-Baiting. Triggering, anyone?

I do wonder: was the Health Cycle of a cache discussed? Was it made known that Reviewers get notice from HQ when a cache is logged as Needs Maintenance and the Cycle takes care of Archiving 'needy' caches? (Almost can't believe I said that with the number of [sh#&*$] caches hanging on for years, locally! But the system exists.) 

I ask as you were there, Walter Cronkite...er TyroneShoelaces. From the little shown I'd wonder if Archive messages were deserved. If the cache functions, it functions. And if no maintenance was needed, the cache functioned. We found our first Earth cache - that was NOT a find - a few weeks ago: the needed Historical Marker had gone aglimmer in the week between our visit and the last. Was able to log with minor research as the basis for the cache and marker was still there - the Earth part hadn't gone away. But within 3 days of our message to the CO and log with the facts showing the situation (OK, aaaaand posting it on FB) an Earth cache Reviewer had investigated and put it on Temporary Archive. If the CO doesn't show up, the cache will go away.

Seems, to me, that the System is working - without my sending a Needs Archive 😎👍 (OMG! I was actually nice, and respectful, to the original poster of this thread throughout that - could it be ... no. I am NOT 'growing up'! I re-FUSE! 🤣)

Peter_pan_1911_pipes.jpg

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jimrky said:

 

I can imagine - but since most of the 'people' engaging in that activity would never be anything more than a 'passle of pixels' on a screen (lacking male appendages but with bravery behind an ASCII appliance) I find it excruciatingly easy to IGNORE them. Or, better still (yes, I am a poor example of a human being) engage in Passle-of-Pixels-Baiting. Triggering, anyone?

I do wonder: was the Health Cycle of a cache discussed? Was it made known that Reviewers get notice from HQ when a cache is logged as Needs Maintenance and the Cycle takes care of Archiving 'needy' caches? (Almost can't believe I said that with the number of [sh#&*$] caches hanging on for years, locally! But the system exists.) 

I ask as you were there, Walter Cronkite...er TyroneShoelaces. From the little shown I'd wonder if Archive messages were deserved. If the cache functions, it functions. And if no maintenance was needed, the cache functioned. We found our first Earth cache - that was NOT a find - a few weeks ago: the needed Historical Marker had gone aglimmer in the week between our visit and the last. Was able to log with minor research as the basis for the cache and marker was still there - the Earth part hadn't gone away. But within 3 days of our message to the CO and log with the facts showing the situation (OK, aaaaand posting it on FB) an Earth cache Reviewer had investigated and put it on Temporary Archive. If the CO doesn't show up, the cache will go away.

Seems, to me, that the System is working - without my sending a Needs Archive 😎👍 (OMG! I was actually nice, and respectful, to the original poster of this thread throughout that - could it be ... no. I am NOT 'growing up'! I re-FUSE! 🤣)

 

 

 

I don't recall the health cycle of a cache being discussed in this particular thread.  But I am interested regarding that point...

 

Let's say there's an old virtual and the CO is no longer active.  The item at GZ is still there as it was when the cache listing was created.

 

Finder #1 visits the spot, sees cool item, sends answers and logs a find.  "Finder" #2 logs a find from their computer chair thousands of miles away. Is the health "score" of the cache affected differently between log #1 and log #2?  And was the fun for either of the loggers #1 or #2 increased or decreased by the log of the other?

 

What was pointed out on that FB post was the process that follows after a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log are posted.  The OP defended himself numerous times, claiming that "he" wasn't the one who got the caches archived, because all he did was post the log.  The way he understood it, was that after such log is posted, it was up to the discretion of the reviewer to decide whether or not to take action.  This is simply not true, and I'm still not sure if the OP understands that.  Regardless if it's a NM or NA posted, if the CO is no longer active, either of those logs is a death sentence.  One just takes longer than the other to get there.

 

So like you said, if the cache functions, it functions.  Why not let it be?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...