Adoption of Popular Caches with Inactive Owners

[+niraD]

12 minutes ago, MNTA said:

The action in discussion is 1% of active caches.

I think the point being made by barefootjeff and Goldenwattle is that this "1% of active caches" is actually more than 1%, and that it would disproportionately affect areas where new cache placements are few and far between.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

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.

Where does your 1% come from? Does that mean that in areas with only a few caches, maybe only one or two, the caches have 1% cut of them and disposed of.

It will certainly end caching in those areas when they have no caches left. There likely is no one in those areas to publish new caches, but that doesn't mean that geocachers don't visit and pass through those areas and look for caches to log. This concept of few caches might be beyond your experience (or I can't imagine why you write what you do), but just because you haven't experienced this, doesn't many there aren't places like this.

 

I placed my Virtual GC9P6QB in a place with only one other cache (the closest next two I think were about 70kms away, and after that ocean), doubling the cache numbers in the town. I had to have visited Normanton to do this, which I did. I felt it would be a waste of an opportunity to place it in an area already saturated with caches. In fact I've mentioned this before, I think it's a shame that preferences aren't given to people who can place Virtuals in places with very few or no caches, to spread the game further to more people.

And you think your suggestion won't make a difference here?

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+thebruce0]

The generally suggested alternative option to save an old geocache - apart from the mere Placed Date statistic - is to archive the unmaintained one, and place a new one in the exact location. it can provide the same experience as the legit old one, and even link back to the original listing and duplicate the original listing. The only people it upsets are those who want the old Placed Date in their stats. But if it's a worthwhile cache experience, then everything else about it could remain the same, and it'll have an active owner.

[+Goldenwattle]

57 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The generally suggested alternative option to save an old geocache - apart from the mere Placed Date statistic - is to archive the unmaintained one, and place a new one in the exact location. it can provide the same experience as the legit old one, and even link back to the original listing and duplicate the original listing. The only people it upsets are those who want the old Placed Date in their stats. But if it's a worthwhile cache experience, then everything else about it could remain the same, and it'll have an active owner.

And who is going to replace a cache in the example I gave? No one! One less cache which WON'T be replaced. Also lots of spare space for new caches.

 

Now in places saturated with caches, why do people need to place more caches? Sure in those places packed with caches, archive ones not being maintained that have no value. Won't be missed, as there are plenty of other caches, but in places with few caches they will be missed by visitors (and rarely, if ever, replaced.)

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

it can provide the same experience as the legit old one, and even link back to the original listing and duplicate the original listing. The only people it upsets are those who want the old Placed Date in their stats.

No it can't supply the same experience, and I for one won't go out of my way to find a replacement. My last road trip I made several long drives especially to find old caches. If they were replacements I wouldn't have bothered. Maybe that's not your game, but it is my game at present, and what keeps me in the game, and I wouldn't be alone with this. I drove past a lot of newer caches and ignored them, especially if they were micros. Old ones tend to get maintenance by locals and travellers. Remote ones (at least here in Australia) by travellers. On my 17,000 km road trip last year I replaced some caches and took away the crumbling previous cache to dispose of. Others I found were obviously recent replacements too by other travellers.

[+MNTA]

9 hours ago, MNTA said:

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.

1% comes from the OP talking about mass disabling by what I assumed the new reviewer of Arizona. 

 

43,330 unarchived caches

Currently 445 disabled caches which the reviewer disabled a significant number of so I assumed 1% 

Now there are 1737 caches in Arizona with the red wrench which is ~4%. 

[+MNTA]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your 1% from. As I said earlier, globally about 9% of caches have outstanding NM logs, in my region it's about 14% and I'm sure there'd be other places where it's higher still. But a lot of those NMs are historical where there's no longer a problem, just the NM flag hasn't been cleared.

Answered the 1% for what has been disabled in AZ previously.

 

14% Of the caches in your region is horrible.

 

Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say a good portion of those are not just needs a new log and something is wrong and needs correcting. Now let's assume a family has decided to give geocaching a shot and down loads the app. They hit one or two of these caches and maybe they don't find it because it is missing. Or maybe the container is cracked and filled with water. So this new family says this game is not fun and deletes the app. Now if all the available caches were well maintained and they have a good time. They may change from just a finder to a hider and replenish the caches in your area. 

 

 

 

 

[+MNTA]

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Most of those 14% are historical NMs and no longer have a problem. Either there wasn't a problem in the first place, like in the two example logs I posted earlier, or it's been fixed (either by the owner or another finder) but the NM flag hasn't been cleared. If a cache with an outstanding NM is either missing or in a poor state of repair, it's usually not long before someone will log an NA on it and in due course it gets archived. It's just as likely that a cache without an outstanding NM might have been muggled or have been damaged in one of the recent fires or floods, so your thought experiment isn't really valid.

 

My regional reviewer posted this response that kind of answers your post:

 

Post reviewer note

02/26/2023

I note that someone other than the cache owner has repaired this cache. While I appreciate this action, responsibility for cache ownership includes regular visits to the cache to assure it remains in place and in good repair. This responsibility also extends to responding and addressing issues documented on the cache page as well.

As such, I would look to the cache owner to respond here. Should this not occur, I would consider this cache to be abandoned, and it may be archived moving forward.

[Keystone]

10 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

My regional reviewer posted this response that kind of answers your post:

 

Post reviewer note

02/26/2023

I note that someone other than the cache owner has repaired this cache. While I appreciate this action, responsibility for cache ownership includes regular visits to the cache to assure it remains in place and in good repair. This responsibility also extends to responding and addressing issues documented on the cache page as well.

As such, I would look to the cache owner to respond here. Should this not occur, I would consider this cache to be abandoned, and it may be archived moving forward.

 

I use a similar Reviewer Template when a cache is Disabled, and someone other than the owner comes along and places a new container.  The Reviewer won't re-enable a cache like this in most cases (the exception is for recognized community maintenance arrangements).  It is up to the cache owner to respond promptly, saying "thank you to XYZ for replacing this cache with my permission" and then re-enabling the cache page.  If there is no answer from the cache owner then the replacement is just a "throwdown" and I will archive the cache page when the one-month timeframe expires.

 

There's nothing wrong with community maintenance arrangements (like "the Big City Geocaching Association will maintain the caches hidden by deceased geocacher ABC") and there is nothing wrong with a geocache being replaced by a third party who has the cache owner's consent.  The "community maintenance arrangement" route is a viable alternative to forced adoptions (the subject of this thread).

 

 

[+thebruce0]

15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

And who is going to replace a cache in the example I gave? No one! One less cache which WON'T be replaced. Also lots of spare space for new caches.

That's why I said "the generally suggested alternative" when people complain about the loss of an old cache.

 

15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

it can provide the same experience as the legit old one, and even link back to the original listing and duplicate the original listing. The only people it upsets are those who want the old Placed Date in their stats.

No it can't supply the same experience, and I for one won't go out of my way to find a replacement.

 

If it's identical to the original except for the placed date STATISTIC, then yes it can provide the same experience, unless you're only in it for the statistic. Why does the technically of which URL and GC code you're viewing have any effect on the geocaching experience as you adventure to gz to find the container placed there? Especially if it's even the same container perhaps even with the original log book?

 

15 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

My last road trip I made several long drives especially to find old caches. If they were replacements I wouldn't have bothered. Maybe that's not your game, but it is my game at present, and what keeps me in the game, and I wouldn't be alone with this.

 

Why do you think I'm any different? I LOVE old caches. Of course it's not the same if you know it's a different listing. Did I say any different? I said the generally suggested alternative - to keeping around an unmaintained old cache [if it can't be adopted] is to archive and republish. Did I say I didn't care if that happened? No.  HQ has also made exception for very old geocaches with inactive owners, because of the beloved historicity of old caches.

BUT, absolutely a republished old geocache which is intended to provide the same experience in honour of the original geocache can do so if you're not only in it for the statistic. I chose my words carefully on that. 

 

I qualified for the California fizzy. Do you think I was only doing it for the legitimate experience of specific DTs? No I targeted DTs needed to qualify for the challenge. My experience in qualifying showed me that the general adventure you get with the rare and higher DTs that are much older is more intense than many newer ones of same ratings. I wasn't targeting experiences though, I was targeting the stats - and that included older placed dates.  I'd be put out if an oldie I'd needed got archived and republished with the exact same experience (yay!) but a new Placed Date, because I couldn't use it fort the challenge.

 

There's a tension between experiences and statistics in the way we enjoy this hobby today. HQ understands that. Nonetheless, it's better to have a geocache that is maintained by an active owner, so that people who go to search for them have a better chance of having a better experience, and less about whether numbers stick around to satisfy people's statistical goals. That's how the hobby fundamentally survives.

 

If a DT I needed got archived, I'd have to adjust my challenge goals. That's the nature of that aspect to the game.

[+MNTA]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There's a tension between experiences and statistics in the way we enjoy this hobby today. HQ understands that. Nonetheless, it's better to have a geocache that is maintained by an active owner, so that people who go to search for them have a better chance of having a better experience, and less about whether numbers stick around to satisfy people's statistical goals. That's how the hobby fundamentally survives.

 

 

Well written! Definitely agree. 

 

The experience is everything!

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

On 3/27/2023 at 5:10 AM, thebruce0 said:

If it's identical to the original except for the placed date STATISTIC, then yes it can provide the same experience, unless you're only in it for the statistic.

I was especially thinking of one side trip I made last road trip for an old cache, GC372 . I wouldn't have done this trip for a replacement cache number, and neither I am speculating would most others who have found it. The comments in logs indicate this. It needs a special journey to get to it, as it's about 150km round trip on mostly dusty, rough, dirt roads in mountainous area from the nearest VERY tiny village. However, I am pleased I did take the drive, as the scenery was wonderful. Unlike say the USA, we don't have that many old caches here. Several months we have none for, and other months (and not only for 2000, but following early years, there might only be a few left in all Australia; for one month, only one.).

Photograph; made it. 1550m. (5085 ft). I know, low compared to many countries, but there is still a winding road to get here.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I guess we each have our own motivations for doing remote caches. Most recently, I visited the Lansdowne area, about a 300km drive each way, for a group attempt on some mountain-top caches. The ones on Little Nellie Mountain and Big Nellie Mountain were placed in 2007 but it wasn't the age of those caches that was of interest, it was the locations. Even though I DNFed Big Nellie when we took a wrong turn and I baulked at what was, to me, an almost vertical rock climb, it was still a great experience and it wouldn't have made any difference whether those were original caches or replacements.

 

A few weeks earlier, I drove up to Bulahdelah, 187km each way, to do the brand new T4.5 Alum Ridge cache (GCA48A1) by lee737 and his son Samuel737. Again it was all about the location and the experience of getting to GZ, not the container, the listing, the GC code or the D/T rating.

 

The furthest I've travelled for some caches is probably Lord Howe Island, an 800km flight from Sydney, and those were definitely all about the location! It wouldn't have mattered whether they were old, new or even thowdowns, it was climbing (or in one case swimming) to GZ and soaking up the views that drew me to them.

I now have over 13,000 finds, so now I pick and choose more often. Your trip sounds wonderful and if I had others to cache with in those areas. I would be more likely (within my ability) to visit more remote caches. I was never into power trails, after the first one I did to try one. I thought that was fun and unique, which it was then, but then power trails sprang up everywhere and I lost interest in them. These days I pick and choose more. Not saying if I happen to walk past a cache I won't find it; I likely will, but I target caches now more, which might mean lower numbers, but gees having found over 13,000 I already have plenty of finds. Do I need 50,000 finds; 100,000 finds! No not really. Other things to life too. This I am telling myself for my next holiday, that I must do more than just cache, so often now I am just listing a few targeted caches and telling myself the rest is for exploring the place I am in. Fine if I pass a cache to find it, but not to go out of my way for extra caches. Explore, visit art galleries, historical places, sit in a café observing the passing crowd. (Cafes have always been de rigueur though for my tiny group of geocaching friends and myself on a caching day. They go hand and hand. Remote areas though, sigh, we must bring our own coffee. But when a café exists, it will be sampled.)

[Keystone]

The thread could do with a bit more discussion about forced adoptions, and a bit less discussion on Australian travel itineraries.  (I say this as someone who's hiked up Alum Ridge to the beautiful view above Buladelah.)  Thanks.

[+Goldenwattle]

41 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The thread could do with a bit more discussion about forced adoptions, and a bit less discussion on Australian travel itineraries.  (I say this as someone who's hiked up Alum Ridge to the beautiful view above Buladelah.)  Thanks.

Sorry, I tend to just come in and comment on what goes before, without always checking what the original topic was.

 

On adoption of caches, I see nothing wrong with this if two geocachers come to an agreement. However, unless the cache has something special about it (the container, magnificent view, history, the only cache in the area, etc), I don't see why someone would bother adopting it. If both agree, there is no problem here. Their choice.

 

The problem occurs when a special cache, (say published in 2000, 2000, 2002, or one in a place where it won't be replaced and there are few or no caches), and either the CO won't pass the cache on but won't maintain it either, or the CO is now inactive. That's a problem, and there are caches like that. I know of a couple of 2000 caches in that situation, where the CO won't let another adopt it, even though this other person/people are the ones doing the maintaining. One I wrote a note (won't do a NM on a 2000 cache) saying it needed urgent attention, got very quick responses from local volunteers who look after the cache and they fixed it. Next day I think it was. Much quicker than many COs respond to their own caches.  Unfortunately they can't change things on the listing, only maintain it. They can't do maintenance logs for instance. I think there is a strong argument for forced adoptions in these cases, but leaving the original CO's name as the first name on the heading to acknowledge them. Surely HQ owns the GC number. If the CO is willing to do updated listing (OM, etc) even though they might not be doing the physical maintenance, it's still okay they keep the cache in their name. They just might not be as physical able as they were, but still taking an interest. It's those who won't do at least this, that are the problem. I maintain caches, if I come upon one needing it, for a CO who can't get to many of her caches now, but she still does the online updates. She is appreciative if I maintain or replace her missing caches. This is with permission.

 

More remote caches where few if any other caches exist, likely won't find someone who wants to adopt them. In that case it's often travellers who maintain it. I think that in these cases where they are being maintained by others passing by (and often well maintained), that the reviewer when seeing the log saying say the crumbling cache has been replaced and all is good again, makes the maintenance log, to cancel out the NMs/NAs. It will do nothing for geocaching if an area is left with no caches, although some here (probably living in cache rich areas) have in effect suggested that areas should be left with no caches for hundreds of kms, even though they are being maintained, but because it's not by the CO.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+Ahern Clan]

On 3/24/2023 at 2:43 PM, Clongo_Rongo said:

 

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

Page 502. It also states in the cache page description it was 'dormant' for a period of time. 

[+thebruce0]

14 minutes ago, Ahern Clan said:

It benefits HQ to boast they have 6-7 million users when the fact is they don't.

Most any stat I see boasted about are active users, and IIRC that's defined as having found at least one cache in the past year; something like that. I don't they've ever boasted about how many geocaching accounts merely exists in the system.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

oh, how wrong - underestimated the history now, i did not realise it was 4 years after it was enabled again

 

 

5 hours ago, Ahern Clan said:

Page 502. It also states in the cache page description it was 'dormant' for a period of time. 

 

[+GeoElmo6000]

I just adopted a 21 year old virtual cache in NJ, from May 2002!  The owner just archived it yesterday out of the blue and for some reason I was notified, so I posted a note saying how it was a shame it wasn't offered up for adoption.  So the CO had it unarchived, messaged me and offered it to me, which I took!  So I'm not the adoptive geo-dad of a 21 year old virtual cache.  Fun!

 

GC5A96 is the cache.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 3/26/2023 at 2:28 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

 

You could almost draw the conclusion that the most popular caches here are the ones with inactive owners and/or historical NMs.

 

No, because the area has so little geocaching activity that there isn't enough data to draw any conclusions, except that geocaching isn't popular in Australia.

[+thebruce0]

On 3/27/2023 at 7:43 PM, GeoElmo6000 said:

So the CO had it unarchived, messaged me and offered it to me, which I took!

Intriguing! Around here, unarchival for the sake of adoption is not an option. I've had to republish a cache despite the prior owner recognizing the archival as a mistake but being disallowed to have it unarchived so he could adopt it out. You and the virtual are fortunate!

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by thebruce0