GCs in need of adoption and/or archiving.

[paulweig]

There are a number of GCs in my rural, forested area which seem to have been abandoned.    At the least they all need some TLC.     The notional owners have not replied to either messages or emails.   I've asked HQ to archive one GC which has gone missing altogether, but there's been no response except to say 'leave a note'.   Well, a fat lot of good that did!    Please tell me, is there any way to adopt the derelict GCs,   and also to get some action out of HQ about the one which no longer even exists yet remains listed?

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, paulweig said:

There are a number of GCs in my rural, forested area which seem to have been abandoned.    At the least they all need some TLC.     The notional owners have not replied to either messages or emails.   I've asked HQ to archive one GC which has gone missing altogether, but there's been no response except to say 'leave a note'.   Well, a fat lot of good that did!    Please tell me, is there any way to adopt the derelict GCs,   and also to get some action out of HQ about the one which no longer even exists yet remains listed?

As the Help Center article Adopt or transfer a geocache explains, "Geocaching HQ will not process a transfer without permission from the original cache owner."

 

As the Help Center article When a cache needs maintenance explains, after you post a Needs Archived log, "The cache will not be archived automatically and you may not see a public response to your log." In my experience, the only time the volunteer reviewer will archive a cache immediately is when the cache didn't have permission and the property owner/manager wants it removed. Otherwise, the volunteer reviewer will give the CO a few weeks to respond before the cache is archived, even if the CO has been unresponsive to non-reviewer posts in the past.

[geoawareUSA9]

1 hour ago, paulweig said:

Please tell me, is there any way to adopt the derelict GCs

 

No. They are not your property, nor are they Groundspeak's. If the owners consent to you adopting the cache, they can adopt it over to you. Otherwise, you cannot forcibly adopt it without their consent.

 

1 hour ago, paulweig said:

to get some action out of HQ about the one which no longer even exists yet remains listed?

 

Groundspeak (a/k/a HQ) does not generally archive caches. Reviewers do, and they do not check every cache that's out there - there are only a hundred or so of us actively reviewing, and there are over 3,000,000 active geocaches out there.

 

So how do we know which caches need our attention? By cachers like you indicating that a cache either needs maintenance or needs to be archived.

 

If you log using the website, then you need to not just post a note, but also click the "Report a problem" link below the text window. See screen capture.

 

 

If you use the Android app to log finds, you can report a problem by scrolling down in the cache description to the part that says "Report a problem with this geocache."

 

 

If you use the iOS app, or a third-party app, to log your caches, you may need to play around a little to see how to report a problem.

 

I am guessing that this cache is one that is at issue. I have taken the liberty of posting a log to alert your local reviewer. (edit: Oops, did that with my player profile, but what's done is done.) In the future, you can report wet logs or missing caches yourself by going through the steps above.

Edited April 11, 2022 by geoawareUSA9

[Keystone]

I'm following up with links to build on geoawareUSA9's helpful response.  Please see this Help Center article about maintenance issues and how to start the process of getting a cache archived.  You should follow that process rather than emailing Geocaching HQ.  The Community Volunteer Reviewers take care of these requests for their local areas, and logs to the cache page is how we become aware of issues.

 

Please also see this Help Center article about the cache adoption process.

 

Once a cache is archived, if it's in a great spot you should hide a cache of your own there.  This will give your local community a great reason to return to that location and earn a new smiley.

[+Max and 99]

2 hours ago, paulweig said:

There are a number of GCs in my rural, forested area which seem to have been abandoned.    At the least they all need some TLC.     The notional owners have not replied to either messages or emails.   I've asked HQ to archive one GC which has gone missing altogether, but there's been no response except to say 'leave a note'.   Well, a fat lot of good that did!    Please tell me, is there any way to adopt the derelict GCs,   and also to get some action out of HQ about the one which no longer even exists yet remains listed?

I have to ask. Did they really tell you to "leave a note"? That doesn't do any good.

[Moun10Bike]

7 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I have to ask. Did they really tell you to "leave a note"? That doesn't do any good.

 

I had to check just to be sure. No, that is not what was said. Here is the full response from HQ:
 

Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ.

The best way to bring this to your local reviewer's attention is to post a 'Needs Maintenance' attribute to the cache page.

If you find a geocache in need of help (such as a logbook is full or the container is damaged), you can add a “Report a problem” option to your log.

When you select “Report a problem” on Geocaching.com, the system adds a “Needs Maintenance” log and a Needs Maintenance attribute to the page to alert the cache owner and other geocachers that the cache may need attention.

To Add “Report a problem” to your log on the Geocaching® app:

1. On the cache details page, scroll down to the bottom.
2. Select Report a Problem.
3. Select Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived.
4. Explain the issue in your log text, and post your log.

To Add "Report a problem" to your log on Geocaching.com:

1. On a cache page, select Log geocache (in the new log flow).
2. Below the text box, select Report a problem.
3. Select the most appropriate reason.
4. Explain the issue in your log text, and post your log.

Tip: This will not increase your find count. Return to the cache page to compose any other logs about your experience.

More information about reporting a problem can be found in our Help Center.

[paulweig]

Some very helpful responses,  thanks to all.    Was beginning to think no one is listening, however, delighted to find that is not the case.   I'm still learning and have a long way to go.

My understanding of the rules is that COs assume all responsibility for their placements,  and if for any reason are no longer interested surrender the location by requesting the GC to be archived.     Seemingly,  no consideration for flawed human nature has been taken into account.

 

Let's look at one case in point.    A CO stated in June 2019  ...  "This is part of a gradually increasing series of caches I am putting in this part of the forest to encourage geocachers to explore this neglected, but fascinating area. The caches are designed to allow a full circumnavigation of the Southern Forest, with a couple of diversions.   [edit]   When the series is completed, it will be possible to do it as a complete loop, of around some 10km (sic) in total distance."     

 

Well, three years later,  there is no sign of any progress from the initial three GCs, and certainly no loop has been established.   The CO has not responded to messages or emails, yet appears to have 'Last Visited 28.03.2022', so the CO seems to know the problems,  thus bringing into question the matter of personal responsibility, or the obvious lack of it.    Further, the CO erroneously claims the GCs are on public land and permission is not required to place them there.   Wrong on both counts;  which raises the question of why was approval granted by Geocaching.com in the first place,  since no permission could possibly have been proved.       BTW,  to gain permission for myself to place GCs in the forest,  I have contacted the forest manager, a company acting on behalf of the respective land and forest owners.  It took some time, but is possible.

 

Regarding derelict GCs where the CO doesn't respond to messages or email,  that CO may have died,  who knows?     Who then assumes responsibility for the maintenance and viability of the GC,  since it seems that under the rules it can be neither adopted nor archived.    Such a restrictive policy isn't making a lot of sense to me at the moment.   How is the question of enduring responsibility handled please?

 

Looking forward to some interesting, logical debate.

 

 

 

 

[+Max and 99]

14 minutes ago, paulweig said:

Regarding derelict GCs where the CO doesn't respond to messages or email,  that CO may have died,  who knows?     Who then assumes responsibility for the maintenance and viability of the GC,  since it seems that under the rules it can be neither adopted nor archived.    Such a restrictive policy isn't making a lot of sense to me at the moment.   How is the question of enduring responsibility handled please?

What rules say a cache can't be archived?

[+Max and 99]

27 minutes ago, paulweig said:

which raises the question of why was approval granted by Geocaching.com in the first place,  since no permission could possibly have been proved.

I don't understand this.

 

Many years ago, I went to a lot of trouble to locate the owners of a land where I wanted to place a geocache. I wrote to the owner, who sent me a letter back stating she did not want a geocache on her property. No problem. It's her property!

But then along comes a new geocachers who places a geocache right smack where I was told no. I logged a NA log, which set off a firestorm of nasty responses since "No one owns the property! I asked the neighbors and they said no one owns it, so I can place a cache there!"  The cache was allowed to remain.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Max and 99

[+barefootjeff]

44 minutes ago, paulweig said:

Regarding derelict GCs where the CO doesn't respond to messages or email,  that CO may have died,  who knows?     Who then assumes responsibility for the maintenance and viability of the GC,  since it seems that under the rules it can be neither adopted nor archived.    Such a restrictive policy isn't making a lot of sense to me at the moment.   How is the question of enduring responsibility handled please?

 

If you think a cache has fallen into disrepair, log a Needs Maintenance on it, then if the owner doesn't repond within a reasonable length of time (typically a month or two) then follow it up with a Needs Archived. The latter will notify a reviewer who will then decide whether to archive the listing, usually they'll disable the cache and give the owner another month to respond. That system generally works pretty well at removing defunct caches from the game board, but it requires players to be actively logging those NMs and NAs. If everybody leaves it to someone else, nothing will happen.

[+Mermaid.Man]

3 hours ago, paulweig said:

Further, the CO erroneously claims the GCs are on public land and permission is not required to place them there.   Wrong on both counts; 

 

Er no they don't. 

 

What they say is "The public are free to walk and bike the forest roads and tracks provided they respect forest operations, restrictions and stay away from active worksites."

 

Which is completely true. 

[+Mermaid.Man]

As others have mentioned, there is a well established and mostly satisfactory procedure to follow if you come across a cache which you feel requires attention from its owner. 

 

There is no need to involve HQ or to come onto the forums with misleading stories. It is a small community up there and I wonder if there is more to this than you are letting on? 

 

Also I am astonished that a reviewer in Virginia would post a NA log on a cache on the other side of the world on the say-so of a player with 7 finds to their name. Perhaps now I really have seen it all. 

[Keystone]

With multiple logs from experienced geocachers saying that the cache was wet / was retrieved from a pond, and with coordinates that have been off by 40 meters since the publication date, it does not require the skills of an on-scene rocket surgeon to determine that the cache needs reviewer attention.

 

It's pretty clear that the CO used the "corrected coordinates" feature, mistakenly believing that this updated the coordinates for everyone else.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

19 hours ago, paulweig said:

 

 

Let's look at one case in point.    A CO stated in June 2019  ...  "This is part of a gradually increasing series of caches I am putting in this part of the forest to encourage geocachers to explore this neglected, but fascinating area. The caches are designed to allow a full circumnavigation of the Southern Forest, with a couple of diversions.   [edit]   When the series is completed, it will be possible to do it as a complete loop, of around some 10km (sic) in total distance."     

 

Well, three years later,  there is no sign of any progress from the initial three GCs, and certainly no loop has been established.   The CO has not responded to messages or emails, yet appears to have 'Last Visited 28.03.2022', so the CO seems to know the problems,  thus bringing into question the matter of personal responsibility, or the obvious lack of it.    

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Did I miss something? Are you saying that because the CO initially stated there would be a long series of caches but then only placed the first three caches...that some kind of action needs to be taken?

 

It's not against the guidelines, nor spirit, of geocaching to dream up ambitious cache ideas and then realize after starting that maybe the project was a little too ambitious and opt out of completing it. Are the caches that were placed in good shape and being taken care of? If that's the case, surely you aren't trying to hold this CO's feet to the fire because they decided not to finish placing the rest of the series, right?

[paulweig]

What we're seeing in some of the unhelpful replies is typical of flawed human nature.   I've simply stated the facts.   Nobody's feet are being held to any fire, simply that the owner made a claim, then failed to follow through, and now years later doesn't respond to correspondence.  Thus we have a perfect example of the pattern of irresponsibility seen throughout today's society.    I'm willing to adopt the three caches in question and bring them up to scratch,  i.e.  take some responsibility for making the hobby more enjoyable.  Please tell me why there is a problem with that offer?     As barefootjeff sensibly said, "If everybody leaves it to someone else, nothing will happen."    

 

To: Max and 99.   Answering your question: "What rules say a cache can't be archived? "  (without the CO's consent)    The rules as explained to me are that a cache can never be adopted without the CO's consent  -  fair enough  -   or archived without the CO's consent except maybe under some circumstance determined by a 'reviewer'.       If my understanding is wrong, please explain it to me.

 

To:  mermaid.man.   You obviously did not read the CO's cache profile before it was changed.   This should not need to be explained,  but seemingly it is necessary.    To leave anything in a privately-owned forest without consent, including geocaches or dumped rubbish, are marks of misplaced entitlement and criminal abuse of private land respectively,  while taking anything from the forest without consent is theft, plain and simple.   Ask any forest manager.   My old fashioned standards don't always meet with approval in this age of mediocrity where everyone pushes their 'rights' and few accept the responsibilities which go with them.    You're free to wonder as much as you like, there is no conspiracy,  only an old fella trying to learn the ropes.     Rather telling that you're astonished by someone with apropos knowledge, albeit in Virginia, giving someone with only seven finds,  help with questions.   Roll on more friendly Virginians, I say.  QED.

[+barefootjeff]

48 minutes ago, paulweig said:

To: Max and 99.   Answering your question: "What rules say a cache can't be archived? "  (without the CO's consent)    The rules as explained to me are that a cache can never be adopted without the CO's consent  -  fair enough  -   or archived without the CO's consent except maybe under some circumstance determined by a 'reviewer'.       If my understanding is wrong, please explain it to me.

 

Your understanding of archival is wrong. Caches are frequently archived by reviewers without the CO's consent, that's how the whole NA log thing works. A player who thinks a cache is no longer functional, and on which the CO hasn't responded adequately (or at all) to an NM, can log an NA and, if the reviewer agrees with that player's assessment, they will typically disable the cache and give the owner a month to respond. If they don't, the cache then gets archived by the reviewer without the CO's consent. This is not an exceptional circumstance, it's the most common outcome for abandoned caches where the owner has left the game, but someone has to log the NM and follow-up NA to set the ball rolling. Just posting a WN won't do anything.

[+TriciaG]

11 hours ago, paulweig said:

or archived without the CO's consent except maybe under some circumstance determined by a 'reviewer'.       If my understanding is wrong, please explain it to me.

Since only a reviewer (and HQ, of course) can archive a cache without the CO's consent, it's self-evident that caches cannot be archived without the CO's consent "except under some circumstance determined by a reviewer." And those circumstances are as explained: the filing of NA logs starts the process.

[paulweig]

Thank a lot for your responses,  the situation is becoming clearer for me.