Jump to content

Keeping Old ( un-maintained ) Cache's going ( secondary Adoption ) via request to GS , when C.O is no longer active .


little-leggs
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

A situation has arisen here in the south west of the UK . 

Where an old cache has been archived .

The reviewer has , posted the warning message , but the C.O failed to reply in the given time frame .

so the reviewer , activated the next step  

Cache has now been archived .

BUT ?
the cache is still there

it has an offer by a local cacher to continue to maintain it  

and its has been found recently 

 

What I'd like to see is this cache ( Officially Un-Archived , and Official adopted ) by the local cacher 

Make it possible for the reviewer to post the warning message , 30 days to fix / Maintain the cache , if no reply from the C.O , the cache will be offered up for ADOPTION , 

 

C.O , falls to responded

 

anyone ( local to GZ ) who thinks that the cache is worth saving can then request to adopt it , in a given time span ( say another 30 days ) and this could be a second message from the reviewer , cache is now up for adoption apply now   

to the local cacher 

post a note on the said cache page , expressing your interest in adopting the cache confirming that you have completed and submitted the required adoption form   

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Why not a reload?

I once tried this as well, but it was impossible, the CO didn't react to my adoption wishes. So I waited until it was archived, maintained the wee bit maintainable but otherwise fine container and published it as a reload: Mörderschwalben became Mörderschwalben TB-Hotel (reloaded).

I even borrowed most of the listing from the old one, and meanwhile the old owner was here himself and thanked me for the "new" cache. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Saenger said:

Why not a reload?

I once tried this as well, but it was impossible, the CO didn't react to my adoption wishes. So I waited until it was archived, maintained the wee bit maintainable but otherwise fine container and published it as a reload: Mörderschwalben became Mörderschwalben TB-Hotel (reloaded).

I even borrowed most of the listing from the old one, and meanwhile the old owner was here himself and thanked me for the "new" cache. 

this is an option 

BUT

for these trying to fill their , The Jasmer Challenge , the date will be gone for ever 
the newly placed cache ( same location ) will have a new GC code and date .

something to think about for the planners at GS , or re-think so secondary adoption can take place to keep the old dates and GC codes going 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, little-leggs said:

Make it possible for the reviewer to post the warning message , 30 days to fix / Maintain the cache , if no reply from the C.O , the cache will be offered up for ADOPTION , 

It's never going to happen. Groundspeak does not own the cache. Groundspeak does not own the listing. Groundspeak cannot give them away (adopt them out) without consent from the owner.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service. They do not own all the caches listed on the geocaching.com site, and they do not want the liability of owning all the caches listed on the geocaching.com site.

 

If the CO is not available, then a "reload" or tribute cache of some sort is your best bet. I've seen that work nicely when the owners of beloved caches left the game.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

It's never going to happen. Groundspeak does not own the cache. Groundspeak does not own the listing. Groundspeak cannot give them away (adopt them out) without consent from the owner.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service. They do not own all the caches listed on the geocaching.com site, and they do not want the liability of owning all the caches listed on the geocaching.com site.

 

If the CO is not available, then a "reload" or tribute cache of some sort is your best bet. I've seen that work nicely when the owners of beloved caches left the game.

well put 
every days a school day 

question 
if they don't as you say own the listing how can they archive it ?


if all bases are covered , 


CO not responding / not playing any more 

 

a new player who's prepared to take on the ( GC code and date ) 


using a new request form 

following , posts by reviewer 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, little-leggs said:

if they don't as you say own the listing how can they archive it ?

That's a response on their listing site, to a cache/listing that no longer meets their guidelines, terms of service, etc. That is very different from exercising ownership authority over the cache or its listing.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

That's a response on their listing site, to a cache/listing that no longer meets their guidelines, terms of service, etc. That is very different from exercising ownership authority over the cache or its listing.

Time to get it out there and start talking about the subject , of adopting ( old ) historic , pioneering caches 
Time for change , things move on , the constitution was written a long time ago , thing are seen differently ,  
Talk about it , we pay to play , so lets have a say in how we play 

  • Funny 4
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, little-leggs said:

Where an old cache has been archived .

The reviewer has , posted the warning message , but the C.O failed to reply in the given time frame .

so the reviewer , activated the next step  

Cache has now been archived .

BUT ?
the cache is still there

it has an offer by a local cacher to continue to maintain it  

and its has been found recently 

What I'd like to see is this cache ( Officially Un-Archived , and Official adopted ) by the local cacher 
Make it possible for the reviewer to post the warning message , 30 days to fix / Maintain the cache , if no reply from the C.O , the cache will be offered up for ADOPTION , 

 

C.O , falls to responded

We all supposedly know what the "rules" are when we place a cache... 

I'd have thought by now anyone playing in this hobby a while would be familiar with guidelines and the Help Center.

 - It says right on adoption page in a "Note" that, "Archived and legacy cache types cannot be transferred to a new owner."... 

We all understand that if you don't respond to maintenance, the cache will most likely be archived by a Reviewer or HQ.

If the spot's so special, it's not a big deal to put another cache in that spot after archived...

 

Edited by cerberus1
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

As a volunteer, I have absolutely zero interest in participating in the process the OP describes. I would prefer that any interference with a cache owner's "property rights" be handled by Geocaching HQ.

 

These opinions are informed by past negative experiences, which in turn led to the current rules (and restrictions) around cache adoptions.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Keystone said:

These opinions are informed by past negative experiences, which in turn led to the current rules (and restrictions) around cache adoptions.

 So just as the previously mentioned Constitution has changed over the years, so have the Geocaching rules, restrictions and interpretations.  I see a mention of the date being preserved, so is the real interest in the cache or the space it fills in the scorecard of a side game?

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

If we're talking in generalities, then I think the issues have been covered.

 

I can see a specific case where the question isn't whether the cache should be unarchived because "it's OK now" but rather that the reviewer made a mistake to archive because it was OK all along, so the decision to archive it on a technicality should be reversed. Still not at all likely for GS to buy that argument, though, but I could understand the position.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Thank you for all the reply's so far 
It has opened a can of worms 
and brought up things I hadn't thought of before too 

If you don't ask you'll never know 

hence I asked 

seemed like a good idea to me 

but

yes there is more to it 

I hope some one from Ground Speak will read this , and it might just set a seed 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I can see a specific case where the question isn't whether the cache should be unarchived because "it's OK now" but rather that the reviewer made a mistake to archive because it was OK all along, so the decision to archive it on a technicality should be reversed.

That actually was the case here: 3 DNFs from newbies,  but no NM or NA; reviewer temp disables it because of the DNFs; a local well established cacher goes and checks and reports that it is still there; someone else goes along and finds it; reviewer archives it because the CO didn't respond.

 

So it was there all along and shouldn't have been disabled in the first place, but then there was no response from the absentee CO so....

 

I doubt Groundspeak will re-enable it, 'cos they've never done that before have they? err.... https://coord.info/GC1169 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

That actually was the case here: 3 DNFs from newbies,  but no NM or NA; reviewer temp disables it because of the DNFs; a local well established cacher goes and checks and reports that it is still there; someone else goes along and finds it; reviewer archives it because the CO didn't respond.

That's what I was afraid of. A clear case where logic would say the cache should be reenabled, but, at the same time, GS will never ever reenable it because that would require them to admit that their aggressive attempts to get rid of "bad caches" is flawed. It also points out that what hogwash the claims are that the CHS is OK because "a human is always involved".

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Rock Chalk said:

 

If the OP is referencing an original APE cache listing where the original container was found, then by all means, they should contact us about it.

 

But I don't think they are.

sorry nothing to do with any APE cache ,

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...