Adoption of Popular Caches with Inactive Owners

[+CCFwasG]

Hello,
The search function isn't working on Chrome (I know I should say so in the website forum) and it is super slow in Firefox, but there are only some very old discussions on this topic. I wanted to ask questions and make comments on the Cache of the Week from today's newsletter, so I figured I would start a thread. (And it would be great if this thread continues with such discussion but who can predict?!)

Today the cache is https://coord.info/GC1NABN which looks like a great spot! But I noticed the CO is inactive on the website since 2013 and hasn't found a cache since 2011 - wow! So with over 2600 find logs, and about to hit 700 FPs, clearly *someone* is maintaining the cache. Couldn't find who takes care of it but discovered a few oddities along the way: (1) there seem to be two caches there! It's listed as a micro but there's several people talking about trading TBs (?!) and (2) a log I saw says there is a container with swag... So this is either a cache with a vigilant local cacher who is the defacto CO (heck too bad they can't adopt!) or it's community maintained - so to speak. Either way, I was intrigued. The photos alone look like fun, regardless!

(Separate topic, I know, but I do wish Groundspeak had a way for COs to adopt active caches that are owned by inactive players. I appreciate the reviewers who are willing to overlook this when there are lots of finds and FPs, but... keeping old caches that are great going strong can only benefit the game - right?!)
 

 

Edited February 28 by CCFwasG

[+Jayeffel]

(Separate topic, I know, but I do wish Groundspeak had a way for COs to adopt active caches that are owned by inactive players. I appreciate the reviewers who are willing to overlook this when there are lots of finds and FPs, but... keeping old caches that are great going strong can only benefit the game - right?!)
 

 

Maybe a determined time frame of no action on CO part of hiding or finding any caches, maybe have a programmed nudge to the CO after a period of time and a place for the CO to respond with reason. No response - open for adoption IF the cache is verified in place etc.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

2 hours ago, Jayeffel said:

(Separate topic, I know, but I do wish Groundspeak had a way for COs to adopt active caches that are owned by inactive players. I appreciate the reviewers who are willing to overlook this when there are lots of finds and FPs, but... keeping old caches that are great going strong can only benefit the game - right?!)
 

 

Maybe a determined time frame of no action on CO part of hiding or finding any caches, maybe have a programmed nudge to the CO after a period of time and a place for the CO to respond with reason. No response - open for adoption IF the cache is verified in place etc.

 

Proposed and argued against many times here.

Not hiding or filing logs is no indicator of whether or not I'm here.

GS has no authority over a container in the wilde.

It's MY box, and if I want it to sit in the woods, that's my prerogative.

GS owns the online listing, ONLY. If GS wants to hand over the webpage for my cache to you, that's their right, but YOU'D have no right to do anything to my cache beyond what's allowed for finders.

So, you'd own the webpage, but not the cache. Now what?

[+CCFwasG]

3 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Proposed and argued against many times here.

Not hiding or filing logs is no indicator of whether or not I'm here.

GS has no authority over a container in the wilde.

It's MY box, and if I want it to sit in the woods, that's my prerogative.

GS owns the online listing, ONLY. If GS wants to hand over the webpage for my cache to you, that's their right, but YOU'D have no right to do anything to my cache beyond what's allowed for finders.

So, you'd own the webpage, but not the cache. Now what?

 

1. If you are no longer active (moved, stopped playing, or died) then you wouldn't know - or probably care - about that physical cache. [Edit to add: actually you might own the physical cache but if inactive then nothing would stop someone putting a new one there, and disposing of the original, or just leaving both - apparently that might be the case in the cache I started the discussion about.]
2. Pretty sure Groundspeak makes all the rules themselves, regardless of community input (not saying they ignore it but they don't have to pay attention), so it must be their call at the end of the day.

Dagnabit though, this was about the Cache of the Week! :-)

Edited March 1 by CCFwasG
add text

[+TheRolphsUk]

7 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Hello,
The search function isn't working on Chrome (I know I should say so in the website forum) and it is super slow in Firefox, but there are only some very old discussions on this topic. I wanted to ask questions and make comments on the Cache of the Week from today's newsletter, so I figured I would start a thread. (And it would be great if this thread continues with such discussion but who can predict?!)

Today the cache is https://coord.info/GC1NABN which looks like a great spot! But I noticed the CO is inactive on the website since 2013 and hasn't found a cache since 2011 - wow! So with over 2600 find logs, and about to hit 700 FPs, clearly *someone* is maintaining the cache. Couldn't find who takes care of it but discovered a few oddities along the way: (1) there seem to be two caches there! It's listed as a micro but there's several people talking about trading TBs (?!) and (2) a log I saw says there is a container with swag... So this is either a cache with a vigilant local cacher who is the defacto CO (heck too bad they can't adopt!) or it's community maintained - so to speak. Either way, I was intrigued. The photos alone look like fun, regardless!

(Separate topic, I know, but I do wish Groundspeak had a way for COs to adopt active caches that are owned by inactive players. I appreciate the reviewers who are willing to overlook this when there are lots of finds and FPs, but... keeping old caches that are great going strong can only benefit the game - right?!)
 

 

HI,

I saw your post and I refer to your point about active cachers which have inactive players who own them, I recently had the same conversation with my Husband about this  and we both completely agree with you about how much of a shame it is that there currently is no way for Groundspeak to allow these caches to be adopted by cache owners who are local to the cache in need of saving to keep it going especially when it is a very popular cache and more so if it also is hidden in a very interesting geographical location. I have a fair amount of caches and all are hidden in places which we have found locally and only where they bring cachers to places which are rarely known of due to their forest locations, or special because of some other reason and we wanted to share the places with others. On the other hand, I also think that with the cache you have mentioned above and the sheer amount of FP's , I also think that in fairness the FP's for that cache would have to be reset, or somehow (if the original CO still had the Geocaching account, regardless of active status) being placed to them and not given to new owner upon adoption, this definitely would not be fair to others who maybe work hard to gain their FP's etc.

There are a few CO's locally to me who like to throw a cache into a hedge or on a sign post etc, nothing fun about that in my opinion, even more frustratingly these caches are so poorly maintained and lots of reports of maintenance required, but nothing gets done for years!! these caches scattered about are blockers in my view, they stop others placing better caches in better places or even expanding their own series which might be close but are blocked by the inactive, or irregular CO's who fail to maintain their hides.

sorry..... Rant over.

 

My point is, I agree about the inactive players and how their caches should be able to be adopted out.

 

Ok, that's really rant over now...

 

Haley.

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, TheRolphsUk said:

On the other hand, I also think that with the cache you have mentioned above and the sheer amount of FP's , I also think that in fairness the FP's for that cache would have to be reset, or somehow (if the original CO still had the Geocaching account, regardless of active status) being placed to them and not given to new owner upon adoption, this definitely would not be fair to others who maybe work hard to gain their FP's etc.

 

In my view, the best way to achieve that would be to archive the defunct abandoned cache and let someone new create their own interpretation of that awesome location. That way, the original owner retains all their FPs, should they return to the game at some later date, and the new hider gets the FPs attributed to their creation. If an old cache with an inactive owner remains in good condition, perhaps with some minor TLC from finders occasionally, then fine, let it be, but if it falls into disrepair or goes missing then really it should be archived and let something else go in its place if the location is really that cache-worthy.

 

Here's an example of how that can play out in practice. In 2012, one of my caching friends placed a traditional in one of the best scenic spots around here (GC41F6J), but in late 2021 a hazard reduction burn-off melted the cache and, since he's no longer very active, he archived it rather than replace it or put it up for adoption. When he suggested I should put something there I jumped at the opportunity and, after numerous site visits and a lot of deliberation, decided on a multi (GC9M6X5) giving a quite different interpretation of the site to his tradtional. Whether mine's any better I'll leave for others to decide (its six finders seem to have liked it but, well, there's only been six of them in the year and a bit since publication), but at least it's a fresh cache with an active owner close by who loves visiting the site. My friend got to keep his 7 FPs, the 5 I've got have been for my own creation and, I think, everyone's happy.

[+BirdSearcher]

9 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Today the cache is https://coord.info/GC1NABN which looks like a great spot! But I noticed the CO is inactive on the website since 2013 and hasn't found a cache since 2011 - wow! So with over 2600 find logs, and about to hit 700 FPs, clearly *someone* is maintaining the cache. Couldn't find who takes care of it but discovered a few oddities along the way: (1) there seem to be two caches there! It's listed as a micro but there's several people talking about trading TBs (?!) and (2) a log I saw says there is a container with swag... So this is either a cache with a vigilant local cacher who is the defacto CO (heck too bad they can't adopt!) or it's community maintained - so to speak. Either way, I was intrigued. The photos alone look like fun, regardless!

I looked through some of the photos & logs, there are at least 3 caches there 2 magnetic key holders plus a big bag of swag & trackables stashed in the (xxx)… Well you can figure it out by looking at a few of the most recent pix. Assuming the original was a micro/nano (magnetic key holder)I am guessing the majority of favourite points are being given for the big stash location..whoever created that does deserve those points!

Edited March 1 by BirdSearcher

[Hynz]

8 hours ago, TheRolphsUk said:

On the other hand, I also think that with the cache you have mentioned above and the sheer amount of FP's , I also think that in fairness the FP's for that cache would have to be reset, or somehow (if the original CO still had the Geocaching account, regardless of active status) being placed to them and not given to new owner upon adoption, this definitely would not be fair to others who maybe work hard to gain their FP's etc.

 

7 hours ago, BirdSearcher said:

whoever created that does deserve those points!

Favourite Points are allocated to caches and not to cache owners.

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, Hynz said:

Favourite Points are allocated to caches and not to cache owners.

 

Yes, and that was fine until they started tallying them on the owner's profile:

 

 

I'm a bit embarrassed by that as 91 of those are on caches I adopted where all the effort that went into picking the location, writing the cache page and making the container was done by someone else and I'm just piggy-backing on their good work. Yes, FPs are given to the cache but usually it's because of the effort its creator went to in making it happen.

[+JL_HSTRE]

16 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Not hiding or filing logs is no indicator of whether or not I'm here.

 

But you should be obligated to show in some way that you are "still here." I have no problem with someone who continues to maintain their hides despite otherwise no longer geocaching. But they need to demonstrate that activity through an occasional log, even just once a year.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Besides the worry that Groundspeak will adopt out a seemingly abandoned cache only to face the wrath of the returning or quietly still active CO, there's a bigger issue.

 

Don't assume only one person wants to adopt the abandoned hide. Especially if it's a popular cache. How does Groundspeak decide who gets to adopt the cache? Individual COs can adopt out to whomever they want, but Groundspeak would need to have a consistent abandoned cache policy. Whatever criteria they used would probably lead to more complaints than simply leaving the cache abandoned. 

 

There's technically already a system for dealing with abandoned caches: when it falls into disrepair due to lack of maintenance then it gets archived. 

 

Edited March 1 by JL_HSTRE

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, and that was fine until they started tallying them on the owner's profile:

[+cerberus1]

16 hours ago, TheRolphsUk said:

... about how much of a shame it is that there currently is no way for Groundspeak to allow these caches to be adopted by cache owners who are local to the cache in need of saving to keep it going especially when it is a very popular cache and more so if it also is hidden in a very interesting geographical location.

 On the other hand, I also think that with the cache you have mentioned above and the sheer amount of FP's , I also think that in fairness the FP's for that cache would have to be reset, or somehow (if the original CO still had the Geocaching account, regardless of active status) being placed to them and not given to new owner upon adoption, this definitely would not be fair to others who maybe work hard to gain their FP's etc.

There are a few CO's locally to me who like to throw a cache into a hedge or on a sign post etc, nothing fun about that in my opinion, even more frustratingly these caches are so poorly maintained and lots of reports of maintenance required, but nothing gets done for years!! these caches scattered about are blockers in my view, they stop others placing better caches in better places or even expanding their own series which might be close but are blocked by the inactive, or irregular CO's who fail to maintain their hides.

The reason the policy is "Owner needs to be the one starting the process" has been well documented...

A Reviewer here said a few times that it used to be sorta up to them, and they "gave" a cache to another once. 

Some time later the CO asked what the heck happened to his property, and it was an awkward time.

 Too many reasons not to log into the website.  Over the years we've seen that some do intend to return to the hobby when able.  

Our FPs are for the cache, not the CO.  I know a few people I just can't stand, but they have great caches...

When we first got our mega dose of FPs when they came out (12/2010...), we were one of only a handful that gave FPs to caches we already did, many years earlier and some already archived. 

They were our favorite caches at the time. That doesn't change years later...

Curious...  Does "lots of reports of maintenance required" mean people are leaving NMs?  Thanks. Wish we saw that here...

Simply writing conditions in a log doesn't get noticed by a Reviewer (and even the CO sometimes).

Numerous NMs over a good amount of time, someone coulda left an NA by now for the Reviewer. We all should be leaving action logs...

 

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

But you should be obligated to show in some way that you are "still here." I have no problem with someone who continues to maintain their hides despite otherwise no longer geocaching. But they need to demonstrate that activity through an occasional log, even just once a year.

 

No, you shouldn't. Don't conflate the two issues;

1. Ownership of the website listing. Doesn't belong to me.
2. Ownership of the geocache. Doesn't belong to Groundspeak.

 

If GS 'adopts out' a cache to someone, that someone would assume that they're free to do whatever they want with the cache. They might re-describe it, they might re-container it, and they might move it or archive it, taking the container and its contents for use elsewhere, and that's theft.

 

Here's a clearer example: I put a cache in a tree on the edge of my property. It doesn't get much traffic, and I don't go out caching. Mostly, I rely on email to see if anyone finds it.  Eventually, GS grants ownership of the geocache to you.

 

Oh, they sent me email messages, but it's been so long that I hardly ever look at that email account. After all, I know it's OK because I can see the thing in my tree.

 

Then, one day I see you pull it out of my tree and throw it in your car! Do you think we'll have words? You tell me it belongs to you! I disagree!

 

This seems pretty obvious, but there's NO real difference between this scenario and one where it's off in the woods. 

 

As I said before, GS has the right to do whatever they want with the online listing, but if they adopt it out, they'd better tell you that you can't do anything with the actual, physical cache.  NOT doing so could land them in hot water as well. Here in the U.S., giving someone else's property away is in itself theft, and having it as an adopted policy could be chargeable under a 'conspiracy' statute. 

 

Overly dramatic? Sure, who'd reasonably call the cops over a five dollar geocache? What if it were a five hundred dollar specialty cache? If it's only a matter of degree before it gets criminal, then five bucks or five hundred, it's wrong.

[+Jayeffel]

When I responded above I intended It to  include only those caches where it is known the CO is no longer active, and also that the cache is still viable and ready.  When a cache is adopted do the finds continue under original COs names or show under the adopters name? I thought the latter.

 

But since a CO no longer active, for whatever reason, will likely not be able to agree to adoption anyway,  archiving that one and starting a new would serve the purpose. 

 

Edited March 3 by Jayeffel

[+JL_HSTRE]

2 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Oh, they sent me email messages, but it's been so long that I hardly ever look at that email account. After all, I know it's OK because I can see the thing in my tree.

 

And how does anyone know you see it in your tree? Even if we know it was placed by you on your property how do we know it's still your property? (And most caches aren't on private property.) That you're not incapacitated or dead?

 

There's a simple alternative to adopting abandoned caches. They get archived because they need maintenance that they're not getting. Then someone CITOs the geo-trash. 

 

Your property? Your responsibility too. There are laws about abandoned property. Cars and boats get towed away accordingly. Why not geocaches?

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

And how does anyone know you see it in your tree? Even if we know it was placed by you on your property how do we know it's still your property? (And most caches aren't on private property.) That you're not incapacitated or dead?

 

There's a simple alternative to adopting abandoned caches. They get archived because they need maintenance that they're not getting. Then someone CITOs the geo-trash. 

 

Your property? Your responsibility too. There are laws about abandoned property. Cars and boats get towed away accordingly. Why not geocaches?

 

 

Three things - First, whether or not someone knows I see it in my tree, or whether it's still my property doesn't matter. It's not yours, so you can't take it. Am I dead? Doesn't matter. Taking the example to the extreme for the same purposes I mentioned above, my heirs or the authorities are the entities empowered to dispose of my property, not simply a fellow hobbyist. Real world? Of course that's silly, but in principle it's not wrong.

 

Second, if Groundspeak wants to archive a listing, they can. What they CANNOT do is hand over a listing to someone else and say or imply that the physical part goes with it. That's law.

 

Finally, you can't compare this to cars and boats because there are specific legal criteria that define 'abandonment of vehicles' and local laws in many places that set the conditions under which you can keep vehicles on your property. For example, in many places you can't keep cars 'up on blocks' or otherwise immobile.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

But you should be obligated to show in some way that you are "still here." I have no problem with someone who continues to maintain their hides despite otherwise no longer geocaching. But they need to demonstrate that activity through an occasional log, even just once a year.

 

Back around the time I started, there was another very active cacher around here who put out a series of high D/T caches. The containers are well-made and most are deep inside sandstone caves so aren't exposed to weather. With the number of finds they get (these days you could count them on the fingers of one hand), the logs aren't going to need replacing any time soon, so these are essentially zero-maintenance caches. His last find was in 2017 and he last visited the website in 2018, but that doesn't mean he won't find his lost mojo and return to the game at some future date. It would be a shame if his caches were archived or involuntarlly adopted out simply because he's been away from the game for more than a year, as this region needs all the caches it can hang onto so future players will have something to find.

[+CCFwasG]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

His last find was in 2017 and he last visited the website in 2018, but that doesn't mean he won't find his lost mojo and return to the game at some future date. It would be a shame if his caches were archived or involuntarlly adopted out simply because he's been away from the game for more than a year, as this region needs all the caches it can hang onto so future players will have something to find.

 

Reading this made me think: surely it would be possible for Groundspeak to implement two new policies - 
(1) that there is a time limit on inactivity, for example if you have not logged into the website OR found a cache OR used an official app in [just for example not a suggestion] say 5 years, then the account becomes disabled. At that point it could be a first-come first-served for adoption? And if there is a property issue (I can't see that happening despite the legal eagle comments) then perhaps the rule could be that if the original CO ever wants the container back they have to agree to give it back and place a new one? 

My thoughts are oriented to the good of the game: a legacy cache or long term one with a bunch of FPs is worth keeping around, and on that note I am constantly surprised at what gets archived - e.g. some of the caches on the list of oldest in each US state.

 

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 Too many reasons not to log into the website.  Over the years we've seen that some do intend to return to the hobby when able.  

Our FPs are for the cache, not the CO.  I know a few people I just can't stand, but they have great caches...

When we first got our mega dose of FPs when they came out (12/2010...), we were one of only a handful that gave FPs to caches we already did, many years earlier and some already archived. 

They were our favorite caches at the time. That doesn't change years later...

Curious...  Does "lots of reports of maintenance required" mean people are leaving NMs?  Thanks. Wish we saw that here...

Simply writing conditions in a log doesn't get noticed by a Reviewer (and even the CO sometimes).

Numerous NMs over a good amount of time, someone coulda left an NA by now for the Reviewer. We all should be leaving action logs...

 

 

Agree not everyone needs to log in, so they could monitor activity on the account generally or have a rule that to keep an active account you have to SIMPLY log into the app or the website or log a find once every [just for example] 5 years or something. Just a thought.

FPs - I am in agreement with those who say this - FP for the CACHE not the CO... but OMG the number of people who get uptight about collecting FPs (including two of my best caching friends). I do get that they attract more people but ... well, sigh. I liked getting bonus FPs in my account recently but I dislike that Groundspeak are pushing them. Personally I appreciate when my caches get them but never watch the counts, and don't care - I place caches for the fun of placing them and just hope people like doing them. 

 

On the last point about NMs etc - I'm going to post about that in the "what irks you" thread but I have to say that I have cached in a handful of countries and lived and placed caches in several states and two countries and WOW DO REVIEWERS VARY! I get that it's volunteer but OMG. Some stick to the rules, some flaunt them. I've seen a reviewer stick notes on a cache that had two DNFs and then two subsequent finds, telling the CO they need to check it! Crazy. 

We haven't even started on what happens to caches when the CO passes away! 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, CCFwasG said:

Reading this made me think: surely it would be possible for Groundspeak to implement two new policies - 

Groundspeak is just a listing service. They do not own the geocaches listed on their site.

 

They like it that way. Their lawyers like it that way. They aren't going to do anything that might imply any kind of ownership (or authority to transfer ownership) of the geocaches listed on their site.

Edited March 2 by niraD

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

Reading this made me think: surely it would be possible for Groundspeak to implement two new policies - 
(1) that there is a time limit on inactivity, for example if you have not logged into the website OR found a cache OR used an official app in [just for example not a suggestion] say 5 years, then the account becomes disabled. At that point it could be a first-come first-served for adoption? And if there is a property issue (I can't see that happening despite the legal eagle comments) then perhaps the rule could be that if the original CO ever wants the container back they have to agree to give it back and place a new one? 

My thoughts are oriented to the good of the game: a legacy cache or long term one with a bunch of FPs is worth keeping around, and on that note I am constantly surprised at what gets archived - e.g. some of the caches on the list of oldest in each US state.

 

Just using the absent cacher I mentioned in my previous post as an example, his caches were great ones to find when I did them back in late 2014 but boy, they were some challenging climbs and I'm now eight years older than I was then so, even if they were offered to me, I wouldn't be too keen to adopt them. I'm about the only one around here who's still hiding that sort of T3.5+ bushland cache so even if they came up for first-come-first-served adoption, I doubt there'd be a first-come. What would happen then? Would they be automatically archived?

[+CCFwasG]

37 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

... so even if they came up for first-come-first-served adoption, I doubt there'd be a first-come. What would happen then? Would they be automatically archived?

 

I'd go with yes... or no. Good question.

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Groundspeak is just a listing service. They do not own the geocaches listed on their site.

 

They like it that way. Their lawyers like it that way. They aren't going to do anything that might imply any kind of ownership (or authority to transfer ownership) of the geocaches listed on their site.

 

Ok, so then does it not make sense what I suggested, a policy could be "if the original CO ever wants the container back they have to agree to give it back and place a new one?" i.e. GS doesn't claim ownership, the original owner still owns it and the new CO can manage it... or even stick a new container there, as apparently happened with the original cache in my first post? 

BTW I'm not tied to any ideas, just curious and am enlightened by the discussion. 

Edited March 2 by CCFwasG

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Groundspeak is just a listing service. They do not own the geocaches listed on their site.

 

They like it that way. Their lawyers like it that way. They aren't going to do anything that might imply any kind of ownership (or authority to transfer ownership) of the geocaches listed on their site.

 

I vaguely remembered a change a year or three back to the Terms of Use, which all COs agree to when they list a cache, that allowed them to dispose of or adopt out abandoned caches. After a bit of searching, that is indeed now the case:

 

Edited March 2 by barefootjeff

[+JL_HSTRE]

14 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Finally, you can't compare this to cars and boats because there are specific legal criteria that define 'abandonment of vehicles' and local laws in many places that set the conditions under which you can keep vehicles on your property. For example, in many places you can't keep cars 'up on blocks' or otherwise immobile.

 

But the vast majority of geocaches are not on private property, just as the vast majority of abandoned cars and boats are not on private property either.

 

Presumably there are laws addressing abandoned non-vehicular property. If not, that seems like a significant legal oversight. 

[+JL_HSTRE]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I vaguely remembered a change a year or three back to the Terms of Use, which all COs agree to when they list a cache, that allowed them to dispose of or adopt out abandoned caches. After a bit of searching, that is indeed now the case:

 

 

This relates to my biggest concern about abandoned caches: geo-trash. Too many containers are knowingly abandoned by active COs. Then you add the listings abandoned then archived that no longer have a CO to pick them up.

 

If adopting out abandoned caches (after giving the CO a chance to demonstrate they are still paying attention) will make a significant decrease in abandoned containers then to hell with private property rights. Failure to meet responsibilities should equate to a loss of rights. Whether the abandonment is voluntary (ex: disinterest) or involuntary (ex: medical issues), won't or can't have the same end result.

 

As I said earlier, I don't expect Groundspeak to start adopting abandoned caches because of headaches more than legal liability. I'm skeptical we'll ever get Virtual Rewards 4.0 for the same reason: too many complaints from those that didn't get them or that were unhappy with how they were used.

[+niraD]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I vaguely remembered a change a year or three back to the Terms of Use, which all COs agree to when they list a cache, that allowed them to dispose of or adopt out abandoned caches. After a bit of searching, that is indeed now the case:

True. But that's about removing abandoned geocaches, not about transferring their ownership to someone else. And as a practical matter, removing abandoned geotrash has been part of the game since I started.

[+GeoElmo6000]

This thread is mislabeled, it's about adopting geocaches from COs who have stopped playing, not about the Geocache of the Week.

[+BirdSearcher]

Ok I’ll try…

On 2/28/2023 at 6:45 PM, BirdSearcher said:

I am guessing the majority of favourite points are being given for the big stash location

I thought it was too bad that the person who placed the big swag bag in a very clever location seems to *not* be the CO (who seems to have placed a magnetic key holder originally) and therefore the favourite points don’t show on their account (the opposite of barefootjeff’s situation) But presumably that person doesn’t care about that & is happy to maintain a great cache anonymously. 

[+CCFwasG]

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

This thread is mislabeled, it's about adopting geocaches from COs who have stopped playing, not about the Geocache of the Week.

DUDE. It was supposed to be about the Geocache of the Week... LOL! But it morphed into this because of the circumstances surrounding the actual cache I wanted to discuss. :-) But it's been interesting and - as I said - also enlightening! (Hi btw )

[+CCFwasG]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I vaguely remembered a change a year or three back to the Terms of Use, which all COs agree to when they list a cache, that allowed them to dispose of or adopt out abandoned caches. After a bit of searching, that is indeed now the case:

 

Well I for one am super pleased to see this. Thanks for finding and sharing!

[+GeoElmo6000]

33 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

DUDE. It was supposed to be about the Geocache of the Week... LOL! But it morphed into this because of the circumstances surrounding the actual cache I wanted to discuss. :-) But it's been interesting and - as I said - also enlightening! (Hi btw )

 

Usually Keystone will step in and say "hey everyone, let's keep this on topic, we're supposed to be talking about <topic>".  But there's been minimal talk about geocache of the week and lots of talk about adopting caches from CO's who no longer participate.

 

Hi back.  I never did return to NYC to find that cache near the the ferry.  

 

Edited March 2 by GeoElmo6000

[Keystone]

So as not to disappoint my fan base, I've edited the topic title.  It seemed easier than urging people to only talk on topic about the Geocache of the Week.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

True. But that's about removing abandoned geocaches, not about transferring their ownership to someone else. And as a practical matter, removing abandoned geotrash has been part of the game since I started.

 

It does say at the bottom "you agree to hold harmless and release from all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache".

[+CCFwasG]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

So as not to disappoint my fan base, I've edited the topic title.  It seemed easier than urging people to only talk on topic about the Geocache of the Week.

 

Ha... thanks. We couldn't have both, huh? After all it did evolve from that geocache! (It's ok next week there will be a new cache of the week and I can try again! )

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It does say at the bottom "you agree to hold harmless and release from all claims both Groundspeak and any person who has adopted, removed, and/or disposed of your geocache".

 

I'm not surprised by the legal language and I think it makes sense and is good for the game. [I really wanted a thumbs up emoji but signal only does that in the bottom right if I choose "helpful" ... LOL!]

[+MNTA]

Instead of adopting after inactivity. I'm a fan of auto-disable/archival should a CO become inactive. Say 5 years from last maintenance log as a possible example. Get out of the "property" discussion. If the CO cared to have the cache continue after leaving the game then they would have made arrangements. Instead they are abandoned and should be treated as such. Even if the cache is high quality. Allow others potentially to hide their own cache and allow the community to revisit the location for a new cache.

 

As an example a former prolific hider who ran into conflict with our reviewer and a few locals for relying upon community maintenance had over 1,000 active caches in the area, most being PNG park benches or stop signs. 5 years after leaving he still has 275 active caches and with time they get an NM and archived or in the case of a several puzzles remain unsolved indefinately. Now if all of these caches were to suddenly disappear I don't expect a hundreds of new caches to be placed but it might open up the map a bit for some new folks to hide a cache or two. This is an extreme case but if there was an expiration date it would save the cachers from visiting unmaintained caches and save the reviewer from having to eventually intervene on each one individually.

[+barefootjeff]

59 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Instead of adopting after inactivity. I'm a fan of auto-disable/archival should a CO become inactive. Say 5 years from last maintenance log as a possible example. Get out of the "property" discussion. If the CO cared to have the cache continue after leaving the game then they would have made arrangements. Instead they are abandoned and should be treated as such. Even if the cache is high quality. Allow others potentially to hide their own cache and allow the community to revisit the location for a new cache.

 

As an example a former prolific hider who ran into conflict with our reviewer and a few locals for relying upon community maintenance had over 1,000 active caches in the area, most being PNG park benches or stop signs. 5 years after leaving he still has 275 active caches and with time they get an NM and archived or in the case of a several puzzles remain unsolved indefinately. Now if all of these caches were to suddenly disappear I don't expect a hundreds of new caches to be placed but it might open up the map a bit for some new folks to hide a cache or two. This is an extreme case but if there was an expiration date it would save the cachers from visiting unmaintained caches and save the reviewer from having to eventually intervene on each one individually.

 

Not all caches need constant maintenance to remain viable. Of my 46 active hides, 32 still have their original container and logbook, including an adopted one that was placed in 2005. My goal when creating a cache is for it to ideally be zero-maintenance, with a robust container suitable for the location and a logbook big enough to easily cope with all the finds it's likely to get. Sometimes I don't succeed, such as when what I thought was a dry hiding place turns into a subterranean watercourse during heavy rain and some reworking is required, but a lot of the time I seem to get it right. Today I archived a cache that I'd placed in 2018 because its hiding place had been compromised by muggles. The cache itself, still original and with its original logbook and pencil, was in excellent condition and I'll likely redeploy it somewhere else, as I've done with some of my other archived caches. Most of my archivals have been due to problems with the location rather than problems with the cache.

 

When I looked at the 25 nearest traditionals to me in relation to another thread, I saw that about a third of them have owners who are no longer active, yet most of those caches, often hidden in protected spots like caves or deep under rock ledges, remain in good condition. Until there's actually a problem that an owner would need to address, archiving them simply because their owner is absent would achieve nothing other than to create more empty spaces on the map and leave fewer caches for new players and visitors to go out and find. As I've said before, of the 16 caches I've archived, none have had someone else place a new cache within 161 metres of it. On only two occasions have I placed a new cache where there was previously an archived one, but those have been mostly shunned by the local community as they've already visited the location and the scenery hasn't changed even if the cache has. With only 500 caches spread across 1854 square kilometres, what's holding back new caches here isn't a lack of hiding places, it's a lack of hiders. Archiving otherwise good caches simply because their owners are no longer active would only make things worse.

 

Local problems need to be solved locally, not by bringing in new rules that impact everyone else.

[+JL_HSTRE]

13 hours ago, MNTA said:

Instead of adopting after inactivity. I'm a fan of auto-disable/archival should a CO become inactive. Say 5 years from last maintenance log as a possible example. Get out of the "property" discussion. If the CO cared to have the cache continue after leaving the game then they would have made arrangements.

 

Groundspeak experimented with this a few years ago. Georgia (USA) was one of the regions. I don't know how many caches were archived due to inactive owners but it seemed like many of those archived were still viable.

 

Archiving abandoned caches removes them from the board but doesn't remove the abandoned containers. In Georgia one of the geocaching associations fortunately stepped in voluntarily to try to remove many of the caches from Groundspeak's trial run. Many regions lack a vibrant and active organization that would do that.

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Archiving abandoned caches removes them from the board but doesn't remove the abandoned containers. In Georgia one of the geocaching associations fortunately stepped in voluntarily to try to remove many of the caches from Groundspeak's trial run. Many regions lack a vibrant and active organization that would do that.

 

And ultimately that's another reason why GS is a listing service. They can't police physical property, and the property owners have to be the ones responsible for stuff they put out in nature. If HQ lays any form of claim to those items there's risk that perhaps they could be held accountable for it too. But if it is clear that anyone who lists the property on the website must follow expectations for activity with it, while not rescinding ownership to the website but allowing the website to take action if they're deemed inactive, then it'd be more feasible I think. 

 

It's less likely these days that they'll have the container listed on another website as well and want to keep it physically available if they don't seem active here. There's really only one reasonable website for this activity now (others have much smaller niche userbases and sparser placements). And if the clause for listing is that it's assumed it's ONLY listed here, then it's much easier to justify handing over abandoned listings while not being responsible for the owner's physical property.

[+JL_HSTRE]

18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

They can't police physical property, and the property owners have to be the ones responsible for stuff they put out in nature.

 

And when they're irresponsible what consequences have they ever faced? None.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

And when they're irresponsible what consequences have they ever faced? None.

 

HQ can't be the responsibility police over people's personal property. They can only provide requirements for using the system and assume there's no lying about the physical property being listed. Shirking your cache owner responsibilities is breaking the terms of use. IF the terms at the beginning state that listings can be adopted out if deemed abandoned, then that's part of the agreement. But HQ can't control what a CO does with their physical property out in nature. It's all down to a matter of a person's integrity. Just like reviewers can't verify a physical container isn't laced with a drug, or that it HAS been placed before publishing a listing, but if they find out something that is disallowed they can judge that the listing should be disabled or archived, because the listing should be reflective of, well, truth, a physical container to find (or whatever the type is). But then they can't force the owner to collect the physical container if for some reason they think it should be. HQ can only disable the account if they deem that the best they can do. etc

"They can't police physical property, and the property owners have to be the ones responsible for stuff they put out in nature."

 

CO's have and do face consequences for being irresponsible, per the user agreement. But those consequences only go as far as HQ has rights and ability to affect.

 

Edited March 4 by thebruce0

[+HoochDog]

Adoption of popular caches shouldn't be a black and white issue of (yes always allow) or (no never allow).
There is no reason it cannot be done on a case by case basis.
The following factors should be taken into consideration.
1) Is the cache on public or private property?  If public continue.
2) Is the cache owner active/have they logged in or responded to messages within the last 2 years?  If no, continue.
3) Are there other factors that make this cache unique and irreplaceable?  If yes, continue.

If all the above factors are true, then what should happen is that after said cache is archived (or disabled).  It is put into a state by which other cachers can add their name to a potential list of adopters.  After some time (1 week?).  One of the people who offer to adopt the cache get assigned the cache listing.

If you place a cache on public property and you abandon it, you have littered, which is illegal in most places.  I don't like seeing edge-cases prevent people from doing what is right (allowing adoption).

Here is a great example of one such cache: https://coord.info/GC13A

It is an old Jan 2001 cache.  It is on public property.  The current cache owner, who is also an adopter, is no longer active.  You can't even send the current CO an email because they have invalidated their account.  This popular park doesn't allow placement of any new caches.  So, this cache is about to die and their will be a hard-to-find ammo can still on the mountain wedged between some stones.  Caches like this that meet all of the criteria should be allowed to be adopted because they represent the heritage and history of this hobby.

[+CCFwasG]

2 hours ago, HoochDog said:

Here is a great example of one such cache: https://coord.info/GC13A

It is an old Jan 2001 cache.  It is on public property.  The current cache owner, who is also an adopter, is no longer active.  You can't even send the current CO an email because they have invalidated their account.  This popular park doesn't allow placement of any new caches.  So, this cache is about to die and their will be a hard-to-find ammo can still on the mountain wedged between some stones.  Caches like this that meet all of the criteria should be allowed to be adopted because they represent the heritage and history of this hobby.

 

Perhaps obviously, I agree!

One thing I do wonder: there may or may not be any way to know if the CO is inactive (& has dead email) because sadly they are deceased? Many - if not most - COs are involved in their local community of geocachers but NOT all and some folks keep to themselves, which is totally fine. I haven't looked to see if Groundspeak has a policy around deceased COs/acounts (I suspect they do), but surely there is never a way to know in some cases? Just my train of thought on this now...

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, HoochDog said:

Here is a great example of one such cache: https://coord.info/GC13A

FWIW, owners of caches placed in 2000 have been given the opportunity to create a "geo-will" specifying what happens to their caches when they die. That does not apply to owners of caches placed in 2001 (like GC13A) or later though. Maybe someday it will.

 

For more information, see Keystone's post from 2021:

 

[+CCFwasG]

9 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, owners of caches placed in 2000 have been given the opportunity to create a "geo-will" specifying what happens to their caches when they die. That does not apply to owners of caches placed in 2001 (like GC13A) or later though. Maybe someday it will.

 

 

That certainly begs the question why there is (apparently) no policy on anything after 2000 !!! (I have not checked stats but there have to be millions of COs in the world, and probably very regularly we lose them when they pass away. "Only two sure things in life..." etc.)

[+niraD]

12 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

That certainly begs the question why there is (apparently) no policy on anything after 2000 !!!

The latest info I've seen was Keynote's comment in the post I linked to: "Perhaps in the future this experiment might be extended to other caches and cache owners, but there are no current plans to do so nor any site infrastructure to facilitate larger-scale geo-will efforts."

 

Note that "geo-will" support for owners of caches placed in 2000 was an experiment, and that there was no site infrastructure to support "geo-will" efforts on a larger scale. My take on this is that there were few enough caches placed in 2000 that Groundspeak could support "geo-wills" by hand, without any site infrastructure, and that the success of that experiment would determine whether developing such site infrastructure would be added to the developers' wish list.

 

Don't hold your breath. There are plenty of bugs and other projects on the developers' wish list already.

[+Smitherington]

But any CO could have a personal GeoWill and leave his wishes and log-in info with a trusted individual who could then archive or offer the cache for adoption through a state or regional geocaching organization.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Smitherington said:

But any CO could have a personal GeoWill and leave his wishes and log-in info with a trusted individual who could then archive or offer the cache for adoption through a state or regional geocaching organization.

Sure. But that's on each individual CO to do, apart from Groundspeak or the geocaching.com site.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

you may be pleased to know - https://coord.info/GC13A has been maintained 

 

 

 

 

[+MNTA]

29 minutes ago, Ahern Clan said:

Interesting topic.

 

Here in my neck of the woods (intentionally omitted), we have a reviewer who is sending out the obligatory notifications of disabling caches that have an NM wrench on the cache page (some as far back as 8 or 9 years ago, way before he became a reviewer for our area). Then of course in due time they are getting archived because there's 'no response' from the cache owner. Mind you, someone (quite possibly even the owner) replaced the cache along the way and getting found logs. But that doesn't matter to this reviewer since it's the cache owner's responsibility. Here is a 'portion' of what is posted on the cache page:

 

"I've noticed that this cache has one or more issues which really do need to be addressed by the cache owner.

The guidelines state that periodic visits to check on a cache, as well as prompt attention to any logs that indicate there is a problem, are part of the cache owners responsibilities. Only an OWNER MAINTENANCE log will clear the NEEDS MAINTENANCE attribute. If you can't attend to the issue promptly, then you need to Disable it- I have Disabled it for you this time.

Please respond to this situation (or indicate your intention) within 30 days, so others know exactly what is happening with this cache....."

 

And although many of these caches are from apparent 'inactive' cachers still being found, what poses as an conundrum is my state's oldest cache is in the category of 'endangered' species because the original CO is no longer active (some that knew him state he has passed away). It's been maintained for many years by other local (responsible) cachers. So all it takes is one newbie to log it as 'Needs Maintenance' because a log is wet or full and by 'letter of the (GCHQ) law' our state's oldest could end up archived as well. 

 

A lot of good points about property ownership and the rules recently posted about 'abandonment', which probably weren't in place 22 years ago. Most of the other basic caches that needed maintenance were probably replaced by well intended geocachers trying to be helpful to the game. So many may not have any property to claim anyway. 

 

Has anyone else in other parts of the country experienced reviewers taking such an active (and aggressive) role in weeding out the NM wrenched caches? Just wondering if it's a movement on their part. 

 

Ultimately, GCHQ will do what they want since it's their game. 

Awesome!  Needs to be done world wide.  The number is shocking but in reality only accounts for ~1% of the caches. Time to clean up. 

 

Filed 8 NM logs this month. Most on inactive COs, getting tired of unmaintained caches and soggy mushy logs.

 

If your cache is truely that special. CO needs to have a plan and communicate that plan should they pass away. I do think a small (very small) number should be taken over doubt most of those disabled come close to qualifying. Few favorite points in 20 years.

 

 

Edited March 24 by MNTA

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

Awesome!  Needs to be done world wide.  The number is shocking but in reality only accounts for ~1% of the caches. Time to clean up. 

 

Filed 8 NM logs this month. Most on inactive COs, getting tired of unmaintained caches and soggy mushy logs.

 

If your cache is truely that special. CO needs to have a plan and communicate that plan should they pass away. I do think a small (very small) number should be taken over doubt most of those disabled come close to qualifying. Few favorite points in 20 years.

 

Not all caches with outstanding NMs are damaged with soggy mushy logs. Consider this one from 2010 on a cache near me:

 

 

It turned out the roadworks didn't disturb the cache, which remains in good condition and is still getting regular finds, a lot more finds than my newer caches around here are getting. Then there's this NM on an old remote cache after two DNFs had been logged:

 

 

A couple of weeks later someone else went out and found it. Since then it's had 5 more finds and 4 more DNFs. It's just a tricky one to find, which is why it has a difficulty rating of D3.5.

 

In my region with 500 caches, 71 have outstanding NM logs so it's about 14%, not the 1% you quoted (globally it's about 9%). A lot of those are similar to the two above, or are for minor things like a full log that the next finder replaced. They're also mostly in more remote locations away from the population centres so are unlikely to be blocking anyone else from hiding a cache.

 

 

What's a better experience, attempting an old cache that's had a couple of recent DNFs so there's a chance it could be missing, or that's had a full logbook that someone replaced, or not having a cache to attempt?

 

About a quarter of the caches here are more than ten years old and 77% are more than five years old, so a lot of those are going to have inactive owners. This region is already in a death spiral towards caching extinction and archiving everything that doesn't have an active owner will only make that happen a lot sooner.

 

Sure, if any of those caches really are in need of repair or replacement, and the owner isn't forthcoming, then they should be archived, but that's easily done by someone who's been there logging an NA.