Jump to content

Adoption of Popular Caches with Inactive Owners


CCFwasG

Recommended Posts

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 by CCFwasG
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment

(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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
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?

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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 by CCFwasG
add text
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
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 by BirdSearcher
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

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 by JL_HSTRE
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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...:laughing:

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...

 

 

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

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 by Jayeffel
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
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?

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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...:laughing:

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! 

Link to comment
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 by niraD
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
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 by CCFwasG
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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:

 

image.png.735c6f724624046ac6cc21bc571a1416.png

 

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.

Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

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. 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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 :))

Link to comment
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:

 

image.png.735c6f724624046ac6cc21bc571a1416.png


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

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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 by GeoElmo6000
Link to comment
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 :smile: 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. :cool: [I really wanted a thumbs up emoji but signal only does that in the bottom right if I choose "helpful" ... LOL!]

Link to comment

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
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.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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 by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment

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.

  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
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...

Link to comment
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:

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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.)

  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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 by MNTA
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ahern Clan said:

Yeah, I had this conversation with a caching buddy about what to do with each others' respective caches should one of us pass. But 22 years ago when this game was so new, who'd have thought their first hide would still be around let alone this hobby? Sucks seeing the oldest caches go away since that may make things like a Jasmer Challenge impossible. 

 

There was a case where one old cache was archived and reactivated by HQ for their 10th anniversary after being inactive for something like 7 years. GC4D (https://coord.info/GC4D). It's one of only 4 left in the world hidden in August, 2000 (and only one not in the U.S.). 

 

And if it is a GCHQ directive to get rid of the 'red-wrenched' caches, why not delete all the inactive accounts while they are at it? Probably 67% are inactive (based on what I can calculate from PGC stats). 

 

GC4D - can you show us the log (screen shot) of it been archived and re-enabled  - thanks

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ahern Clan said:

And if it is a GCHQ directive to get rid of the 'red-wrenched' caches, why not delete all the inactive accounts while they are at it? Probably 67% are inactive (based on what I can calculate from PGC stats). 

What would be the point of deleting inactive user accounts?

 

Just to be clear, no one is deleting cache listings. Cache listings remain a part of everyone's history even after they're archived. And they're archived to indicate that they are no longer active, so geocachers don't try to find them any more. Inactive user accounts don't "clog up the map" the same way that missing abandoned geocaches do.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

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

 

Does not matter NMs need to be cleared.

 

The rules state you need to maintain your caches. So the reviewer is giving multiple options from his log:

 

You have lots of choices so pick the one that applies from this handy list:

  • Check on the cache, repair and/or replace the cache or do whatever else is needed, post an Owner Maintenance log indicating the cache has been checked and ENABLE your cache. Then sit back and wait for the praises.
  • If you really hope to get it fixed but there is some unusual reason why you can't do it soon, then at least post a Write Note log (within 15 days). Be sure to indicate when you expect to have it fixed so that everyone knows you are on top of it. For ongoing issues, please ensure you visit the page and post a note every 28 days so as to keep everyone up to speed.
  • If you don't plan on fixing it then you could consider passing it on to another geocacher by asking them to Adopt it or alternatively, you need to Archive it, so it is removed from searches and someone else can have the spot. Don't forget to remove any remnants of your previously enjoyed cache too.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, MNTA said:

Does not matter NMs need to be cleared.

Yippee, leave nothing in those areas with few caches to find. You do have 'kind' thoughts. It will do wonders for geocaching; few or no caches to find.

Archive good condition caches, just because the owner is now inactive. Spite; archive them; no exceptions, clear the area. 

 

 

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, Clongo_Rongo said:

 

GC4D - can you show us the log (screen shot) of it been archived and re-enabled  - thanks

 

Well, just a cursory glance without taking time to search out the date details:

 

image.png.d068eaa68909df8e0eebac3c5c9b741b.png

 

Red File Folder = Archive Logs

Red Filing Cabinet (?) = Needs Archive Logs

Green File Folder = Unarchive Logs

 

Amusing - only one DNF log.

 

 

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yippee, leave nothing in those areas with few caches to find. You do have 'kind' thoughts. It will do wonders for geocaching; few or no caches to find.

Archive good condition caches, just because the owner is now inactive. Spite; archive them; no exceptions, clear the area. 

 

 

The action in discussion is 1% of active caches. This is is not going to bring down the game. I believe GS agrees that maintenance is the key.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
22 hours ago, Ahern Clan said:

And if it is a GCHQ directive to get rid of the 'red-wrenched' caches.... 

To be clear, there is no such "directive" that's been given to Community Volunteer Reviewers.  We do have a standing directive in the Hiding Guidelines to deal with unmaintained caches, including but not limited to those where a valid "Needs Archived" log is filed, and those with a Low Health Score below a defined threshold.  That is different from "every cache with a Needs Maintenance attribute."

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 3
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...
×
×
  • Create New...