No "NM", when not finding a cache?

[+barefootjeff]

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Who's to say the geocache is not abandoned trash, except for an active, responsive owner.

 

Um, the recent finders? They've probably been there more recently than the CO anyway, even if the CO is still active. That ammo can my friends abseiled down to a couple of weeks ago didn't look like abandoned trash, even though the owner last logged a visit to it in 2007. Caches like that don't just suddenly turn to trash of their own accord, and unless something catastrophic happens they're likely to remain in good condition indefinitely, or at least for several decades. What harm is it doing the game if it's in good condition and players are enjoying finding it? It's out in the middle of nowhere so it's not likely to be blocking anyone else's hide.

 

A lot of the more remote caches scattered around the country away from the cities and towns are like this, robust containers more than a decade old that are still in good condition and providing enjoyable finds even though their owners have departed the scene. We don't have anywhere near enough active COs to be refreshing the game board just for the sake of it. I've become the most prolific hider in my region, not from any desire to be and not from placing power trails or long roadside series; all my caches are off-road and require at least a bit of effort to get to. They don't get many finds and don't contribute much to the global smiley count, so perhaps it doesn't matter now that there are few others hiding caches like these. Except it does matter for those of us here who prefer finding the more remote and challenging hides rather than just quick-and-easy roadside micro after quick-and-easy roadside micro.

 

Deal with problems when they happen, not before; you're never going to make the game DNF-proof unless you archive every cache.

[+Team Canary]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Um, the recent finders? They've probably been there more recently than the CO anyway, even if the CO is still active. That ammo can my friends abseiled down to a couple of weeks ago didn't look like abandoned trash, even though the owner last logged a visit to it in 2007. Caches like that don't just suddenly turn to trash of their own accord, and unless something catastrophic happens they're likely to remain in good condition indefinitely, or at least for several decades. What harm is it doing the game if it's in good condition and players are enjoying finding it?

This cache you keep talking about is in good condition, no NM, no Reviewer Notes about archiving, no NA. Just an inactive owner. 
 

What does this have to do with cache with identified problems and inactive owners?

 

It is both parts that create a reason to archive it. Not one or the other. 

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, Team Canary said:

What does this have to do with cache with identified problems and inactive owners?

 

The reviewer-archived caches that started this discussion just had a few DNFs, not even consecutive ones, or in one case a 5-year-old unanswered NM that appeared to have been resolved in the meantime. They weren't archived because they had actual current problems, they were archived simply because the absent owner didn't respond when the CHS flagged them. There seems to be a growing push to archive any cache that doesn't have an active owner, regardless of its condition.

[+Team Canary]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The reviewer-archived caches that started this discussion just had a few DNFs, not even consecutive ones, or in one case a 5-year-old unanswered NM that appeared to have been resolved in the meantime. They weren't archived because they had actual current problems, they were archived simply because the absent owner didn't respond when the CHS flagged them. There seems to be a growing push to archive any cache that doesn't have an active owner, regardless of its condition.

They had current DNFs. They had NM logs, although very old.  This cache has neither.
 

I see no evidence to back up your argument that ANY cache with no reported problems has been archived. Can you provide any?

 

I see way more evidence of caches gone missing that take forever to get Archived. Like this one with multiple DNFs, NM log, NA log and nothing. 
 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2WNW9_crossroads-cemetery

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

They had current DNFs.

 

One had just one DNF after two consecutive finds, with a scattering of earlier DNFs interspersed with finds. Maybe its D rating was too low, but does that justify archival? DNF logs by themselves aren't reports of problems, they're just accounts of unsuccessful attempts.

 

11 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

I see no evidence to back up your argument that ANY cache with no reported problems has been archived. Can you provide any?

 

I didn't say caches were currently being archived with no reported problems, I said "there seems to be a growing push to archive any cache that doesn't have an active owner", which has been frequently suggested in the forums in recent years, such as in this thread, also the growing calls from HQ to refresh the game board and clear out old caches.

 

20 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

I see way more evidence of caches gone missing that take forever to get Archived. Like this one with multiple DNFs, NM log, NA log and nothing. 
 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2WNW9_crossroads-cemetery

Yes, that one does need attention and I expect the reviewer will respond to your NA in due course. I know he's been very busy of late fighting bushfires (he's a volunteer fire fighter as well as a reviewer) so it may take a little longer than usual.

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

One had just one DNF after two consecutive finds, with a scattering of earlier DNFs interspersed with finds. Maybe its D rating was too low, but does that justify archival? DNF logs by themselves aren't reports of problems, they're just accounts of unsuccessful attempts.

 

I've DNF'd caches where, upon my doing that, the CHS kicks in and it gets archived.  Yet I literally said in my log that I'm terrible at finding caches, and it's simply that I didn't find it.  Now there's that familiar There May Be A Problem With This Cache thing, and without an active CO, it's archived in a few weeks.

 

Wow, I didn't expect the fact that I didn't find it to mean anything other than I didn't find it.  However, it's evident that the Cache Owner is absent, no logs of any type have occurred in years, and I can believe the cache is gone.  It may well be.  But how did the CHS suspect this?  Is it psychic?  Does it have ESPN?  

 

However, a bunch of local CHS'd caches somehow become adopted to new Owners, so the caches can carry on.  Historical, cool, Charter Member Cache Owner, now owned by a new guy who won't maintain it.  But the caches that do get archived... sure there may not be another one placed right there, but... it was only a matter of time...

[+Om_and_Nom]

22 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

 

For remote areas in contrast to urban areas I would be very reluctant to do a NM. The COs often live a long way away. Doing a check on some remote caches, that can be thousands of kms away. They can't just take that drive to check the cache. Some might get to it in a year's time. Many people, especially grey nomads (older retired people) regularly drive around Australia with their caravans, and some are geocachers. Some are on the road for years. However, caches in remote areas are often maintained before that by other travellers. Each country, and part of a country is different, and the rules for urban caches and populated country areas, shouldn't apply everywhere, because 'everywhere' is not the same.

Ok, but that doesn't matter.  I'll refer back to the geocaching website hiding guidelines;

• Don't hide caches far from home.
  • Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published because they are difficult to maintain. It's best to place physical caches in your area so you can respond quickly to maintenance needs. In rare circumstances a vacation cache with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published.

AND...

 

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

• Visit the geocache regularly.

 

So again, if the CO is placing a container that is thousands of KM's away, then they really aren't following the guidelines geocaching guidelines.  They are hiding cache's far from home AND are not able to visit it regularly.  Which keeps going back to the point that is made - it's ultimately up to the CO to maintain their cache.  If a CO wants to place a cache a good distance away from where they live, cool...as long as they can maintain when necessary.  If they can't, then they really can't complain when there are some DNF's or there is OM requested, or if there is a request to archive it.  

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, Om_and_Nom said:

Ok, but that doesn't matter.  I'll refer back to the geocaching website hiding guidelines;

• Don't hide caches far from home.
  • Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published because they are difficult to maintain. It's best to place physical caches in your area so you can respond quickly to maintenance needs. In rare circumstances a vacation cache with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published.

AND...

 

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

• Visit the geocache regularly.

 

So again, if the CO is placing a container that is thousands of KM's away, then they really aren't following the guidelines geocaching guidelines.  They are hiding cache's far from home AND are not able to visit it regularly.  Which keeps going back to the point that is made - it's ultimately up to the CO to maintain their cache.  If a CO wants to place a cache a good distance away from where they live, cool...as long as they can maintain when necessary.  If they can't, then they really can't complain when there are some DNF's or there is OM requested, or if there is a request to archive it.  

They might travel there for work, etc. It's the only way places like that are going to get caches. Plus some caches were placed before that rule. Exceptions; Earthcaches and Virtuals are allowed in those areas. I placed a Virtual in a remote place (in the white area on the bottom map), but I had to visit it to be allowed to, which is reasonable though. Unfortunately Virtuals are hard to get, and the few available are given out to anyone, even those who will place them in cache saturated areas that don't need another cache, and where a physical cache could be maintained by the CO.

I looked to see where you live, so I could understand where you are coming from, but you failed to put where you live. However, you have found caches in Texas, so I'm guessing you live in Texas. Texas has a population of over 30,000, 000 (2023). Australia (March 2023) 26,473, 055 people. Texas is smaller than some of our states, but with a higher population. Imagine less than the population of Texas spread across Australia, in relation to your comment.

Then Australia's population is not evenly spread out, because we don't have the rivers in the central areas that the USA has, which means not many people can live there, and the rivers we have often run dry. With your comment, you are in effect advocating that most of Australia should be empty of caches. That doesn't matter to you, who doesn't live here and have to face this, but not good for us who would drive through all that white area and never be allowed to find a cache. Yes, people holidaying, many pulling their own caravan, do travel in those places. There are the occasional roadhouses (photo of the Nullarbor Roadhouse below) for fuel, food, water, camping and a motel or donga room. You, who will never be far from a cache and therefore okay, are demanding we can't have caches to find as you can. Thoughtful of you, not!

I should also point out, that some of those red areas are not very populated either. There will be some people who live in the white areas, but as per the general population, very few will be geocachers, if any.

Sparsely populated regions of Australia

White areas are less than 0.1 person per square kilometre. Several of the red regions in the outback only just missed the cutoff having slightly more than 0.1 people per square kilometre.

Roadhouse, on the Nullarbor.

 

 

I should point out too, that because of the try weather in most of the white area, caches last quite well out there, if placed in a suitable place, or in an ammunition tin, which means less maintenance required. Also that geocachers travelling in those areas tend to maintain caches they find, if the cache needs it.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+MNTA]

Work with the reviewer and/or HQ developing an acceptable maintenance plan, rule exemption possible that will not be published. Or better yet place virtual, earth caches, or long distant multis that meet the maintenance requirements. 

 

My Virtual is over 290 miles away from my home location. The population density of the county is not as remote but still 0.74 person/mi^2  But that population is centered around the only 2 cities 110 miles away. So very remote. N 42° 31.000 W 118° 31.000 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, Om_and_Nom said:

Ok, but that doesn't matter.  I'll refer back to the geocaching website hiding guidelines;

• Don't hide caches far from home.
  • Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published because they are difficult to maintain. It's best to place physical caches in your area so you can respond quickly to maintenance needs. In rare circumstances a vacation cache with an acceptable maintenance plan might be published.

AND...

 

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

• Visit the geocache regularly.

 

 

Yes, those are indeed what the guidelines say, but I'm guessing this is what they had in mind when they wrote them:

 

 

rather than something like this:

 

 

The latter is a cache I placed just on a year ago. It lives inside that small cave, which is on a narrow ledge just below the top of an isolated rocky hill in a trackless bushland reserve surrounded by market gardens, orchards and horse studs. It's had 8 finds in that time, 3 of which were in one family, hardly enough to fill its 200-page A5 logbook. I ask, seriously, how much "regular maintenance" do you think that cache is going to need to keep it in "proper working order"? There's no rain or direct sunlight inside the cave, there's no evidence of muggles ever visiting the location and it's too big for any of the native animals around there to dislodge or otherwise harm. I reckon if I left it there and never visited it again, it'd still be sitting there in pristine condition the day they cart me off to the mortuary.

 

7 hours ago, Om_and_Nom said:

If a CO wants to place a cache a good distance away from where they live, cool...as long as they can maintain when necessary.  If they can't, then they really can't complain when there are some DNF's or there is OM requested, or if there is a request to archive it. 

 

Most DNFs on higher terrain caches like these aren't due to problems with the cache, they're more like this one I got on another of my caches recently:

 

 

What was I supposed to do in response, buy the DNFer some water shoes and a decent torch?

 

If someone reports an actual problem with one of my caches, preferably with an NM (OAR) log, I'll happily go and check it out as soon as I can (weather/tides permitting), and if anyone logs an NA (RAR) I'll archive it immediately to save bothering the reviewer. I hide caches for the benefit of the community, not my own gratification, so it's no skin off my nose if I have to archive one although I'd prefer not to have to do that.

 

For caches that are far more remote and hard to get to than any of mine, I think it's reasonable for a CO to place a rugged container like an ammo can with a large logbook that will never fill and in a hiding place protected from the elements and any muggle interference, on the basis that if they ever have to revisit it, it will be to retrieve it after archiving the listing. Such caches typically get few finds; the one that comes immediately to mind is a 1.5/4.5 challenge cache (GC5KEY1) which has had just 6 finders in the 8 years since it was published, the most recent being in 2017. With its low D rating (it was placed before the guidelines recommending setting that to reflect the difficulty of the challenge), low find count and length of time since the last find, it would probably only take one or two DNFs from people unprepared for the rugged terrain to trigger the CHS into action. If the CO responded at all, (he's still about but not very active or responsive these days), it'd most likely be with an Archive log rather than a cache visit as that one takes a lot of planning, preparation and favourable weather to get to. I hope that doesn't happen before I'm able to complete the challenge and get out there to make the find (with friends, it's too tough and potentially dangerous for me to do alone).

 

You don't have to like caches like these, or even attempt any of them, if bison tubes hanging in suburban parks are more your thing, but archiving them unnecessarily won't make those bison tubes any less soggy.

[+Goldenwattle]

  

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Or better yet place virtual, earth caches, or long distant multis that meet the maintenance requirements. 

I put my Virtual 2,588 km by road from home. I wanted to put it somewhere that was devoid, or almost devoid of caches. When I planned where to put this it was going to be the only cache for about 75km one way and up to 300km another direction. However there is also now one other cache in the small town. Unfortunately that might be the only Virtual I will ever get, so I can't help fill up the empty spaces with Virtuals. I visited the place before putting it there to qualify.

My geology isn't good enough to place Earthcaches. As for long distant multicaches, they can have WP problems and require constant tweaking. The longest multi I have found was at least 5,000kms one way, and then I had to drive home. A lot of work to set up one of those.

The road to my Virtual cache. It is sealed. Almost there; less than 200kms to go... Just me and my Tom Tom occasionally speaking to me. Very occasionally; lots of long stretches.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 9/22/2023 at 3:49 PM, RuideAlmeida said:

After seeing a lot of NM logs here in Brazil, I posted a link to the Help Center about it in social media... and even if the text is not precise concerning to NM's, it is when related to NA's. So if we shouldn't use a Need Archive log when we didn't found the cache, surely we should not use also a Needs Maintenance.

The OP was about NM logs NOT NA logs 
I don't think there is any dispute about whether to use a NA log when you dont find a cache and you go to log a DNF - you don't !!
However NA is an escalation of NM not the other way round so your line "we shouldn't use a Need Archive log when we didn't found the cache, surely we should not use also a Needs Maintenance." is back to front
Yes - if in certain circumstances when it is evident that the cache is very likely to be missing then to highlight this issue to the CO (Not all take notice of their logs, found or DNFs) then use a NM along with your DNF log - when I do this I always add the line in my log that I am adding a NM to highlight this for the CO as I know they dont all read their logs and I reiterate that this cache MAY be missing (as opposed to this cache IS missing) as that is one of the options you get when you click on the NM button

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 9/22/2023 at 3:54 PM, RuideAlmeida said:

 

From the Help Center:

 

Do not select this option (NA) if:

• You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t find it” log.

But that isn't relevant to the OP - he is refering to NM logs not NA logs - the two are different log types 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 10/10/2023 at 4:09 AM, Team OPJim said:

I support the notion that NM should not be used for a DNF unless there is clear evidence that the cache was missing

So in essence a NM (or OAR) log CAN be used with a DNF - with the checkbox 'cache may be missing' ticked since that is what it is there for !!

[+thebruce0]

On 11/11/2023 at 4:21 AM, barefootjeff said:

You don't have to like caches like these, or even attempt any of them, if bison tubes hanging in suburban parks are more your thing, but archiving them unnecessarily won't make those bison tubes any less soggy.

Who on earth said no one liked such caches? Especially the sort you're always using in anecdotes in your area? Far from it.

And you say "archiving them unnecessarily" -- who's doing that? As repeated over and over again, a reviewer has judged that a cache with a raised concern that is owned by someone blatantly unresponsive and has received no explanation or defense as to why the listing should receive leniency, should be archived after a reasonable window of opportunity to reverse the decision. That is 100% reasonable and rational for a website that aims to list active geocaches, and not abadoned trash.  It's such a simple concept.  And all that happens is a digital listing of an object placed in nature is no longer listed as an active geocache on geocaching.com. That's it. EVERYTHING else about the intended initial experience is still there for anyone to have, in theory. But the owner decided to abandon what they agree to maintain in order to have the privilege of listing it on this website. 

If you want your geocache to remain active, be active and responsive.

If you want someone else's abandoned trash to remain active, convince the reviewer or HQ that it should.

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:32 AM, thebruce0 said:

Who on earth said no one liked such caches? Especially the sort you're always using in anecdotes in your area? Far from it.

 

I was replying to Om_and_Nom who, judging from their posts here and their D/T grid, I'm guessing are much more into suburban caches than higher-terrain ones like the examples I've given. I might be wrong, and apologies if I am, but I'd say most cachers don't like caches that require traversing trackless scratchy scrub and scrambling 30 or 40 metres up rocky peaks to get to an ammo can in a cave on a narrow ledge above a cliff. The miniscule number of finds such caches get is testimony.

 

Look, the point I was trying to make was that caches like these have vastly different maintenance requirements to, say, a bison tube hanging in a bush in a suburban park. The latter needs an active CO to keep it in good nick, even if just to replace the logsheet when it fills or to periodically replace the seal and dry it out whenever it gets a bit wet, but a remote ammo can in a cave atop a rocky hill doesn't. For those, it makes no practical difference whether the CO is active or not, until an actual problem arises which may be decades into the future or longer. Then, if the cache really is missing or in disrepair, sure, archive it if the CO doesn't respond, but until then, why? Especially if there's little likelihood of anyone else putting a new cache there to replace it. Much of what makes caching such a rich experience around here are the older well-built caches that take the searcher to somewhere amazing that they wouldn't have otherwise discovered. You don't need an active CO making regular visits to do that.

 

Archiving a perfectly good cache because the owner didn't clear a 5-year-old NM about something that's since been fixed or because its pattern of finds and DNFs doesn't match some statistical model for what a cache of that D rating should get might satisfy the letter of the Guidelines, but it's not helpful to communities where caches are already a scarce resource and where new caches other than suburban micros are increasingly rare.

[+CCFwasG]

On 11/6/2023 at 4:19 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

How does blaming an absent owner improve the game? You can blame all you want, but at the end of the day there's still one less cache for the community to find.

I absolutely agree. And it really does create geo-trash. Some excellent caches get maintained by the local community and I could give several great examples. (Edit to add: one such example was Cache of the Week recently!!! Absent owner, maintained by community, celebrated by HQ!) In one case I was worried the active cache in great shape would get archived after a NM log (for full log) and asked the finder very politely to remove NM and explained why. They were super nice about it and took it off. It still saddens me there is no way to adopt caches for owners who left or died, without their permission. (In one case locals were lucky to get the widow to log on, but I think it's so intrusive and I know they didn't want to have to go that route, but the caches left were plentiful and good.) Anyway we have been down that discussion road before. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by CCFwasG

[+barefootjeff]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:32 AM, thebruce0 said:

And you say "archiving them unnecessarily" -- who's doing that? As repeated over and over again, a reviewer has judged that a cache with a raised concern that is owned by someone blatantly unresponsive and has received no explanation or defense as to why the listing should receive leniency, should be archived after a reasonable window of opportunity to reverse the decision.

 

There's another aspect to this you're overlooking, and that's active and responsive COs of older caches that have received a false-positive CHS email, or perhaps had an NM logged by a newbie searching for a puzzle cache at its listed coordinates or whatever, and decide, well, it's an older cache that's had a good run but it's a tough hike to get out to in the middle of summer so they take the path of least resistance and archive it. In situations like that, it never goes to the reviewer to make a judgement call.

 

I know COs of high terrain caches who, while they still monitor their emails and occasionally visit the website, don't do much caching these days as work and family commitments have taken priority, or simply because the game has lost its gloss for them. Faced with the choice of doing a half-day or full-day jaunt to check on a cache they know is okay, just so they can log an OM to reset the CHS or clear an erroneous NM, or just taking the path of least resistance and logging Archive, I can guess which way they'd go. I'd probably fall into that category too, particularly at this time of year, since most of my hides get few finds these days, even the newer ones. If I got a CHS email on GC6JMDK, for example, which was last found in 2020, I'd almost certainly just archive it and go to retrieve the cache next winter. After a decade in the game, I don't feel strongly attached enough to any of my hides now to want to go to the effort of defending them against the system, except perhaps something I put a lot of effort into creating like Dead Stars or The Bushranger's Legacy.

 

I have archival logs included in my instant notifications and I'm seeing a lot of owner archivals on older caches at the moment. I have no way of knowing if any of those are in response to a false-positive CHS flag, and most probably aren't, but it wouldn't surprise me if a few were. That's not a problem if they're hiding new caches to make up for the archived ones, but the tone of many of the archival logs suggests that's not the case.

[+thebruce0]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Look, the point I was trying to make was that caches like these have vastly different maintenance requirements to, say, a bison tube hanging in a bush in a suburban park.

And we are saying - it's not about the maintenance requirements. It about a simple, active cache owner.  Again, if the owner can't be bothered to give even a simple response to request which is effectively asking "Hey, you still there?" then I have no sympathy for their own property (not GC's) being archived from this listing service. Ain't no other way around that.

 

Once again, the experiences are not being archived. Only the active geocache listing which is no longer an active geocache. It has no claim. It is not owned. There are SO many other nuances that this small company is Seattle might have to deal with if they were to assume that such an item were owned when it's not, or assume some level ownership of such an item when they have none. It doesn't matter if the container is or may be in good quality or not. It is simply not an active geocache which is a requirement in order to be listed on this website.

 

Ranting and complaining about "archiving quality hides" will do nothing to change this.

Blame the physical property owner who abandoned their item to the wind and themselves created "geolitter".

 

 

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

just so they can log an OM to reset the CHS or clear an erroneous NM, or just taking the path of least resistance and logging Archive, I can guess which way they'd go

If they'd rather archive the listing for their own property than be responsive, then look at it this way: They effectively giving the geocaching community the middle finger.  In a way they are saying "you say the ball is flat? meh, you deal with it, I'm going home" (far from a perfect analogy but that's their mentality). They're not even saying that. They've already left. And the group of kids playing with the ball turn around and no one's there.

1. THEY ABANDONED THEIR PROPERTY

2. they are ignoring any request that shows they still care in the slightest

3. AND no one in the community has given any good reason as to why it should remain

Three major points here, two of them clearly laid out as responsibilities and agreed upon when using the website to list.  It can't be more simple than that.

 

 

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Archiving a perfectly good cache because the owner didn't...

yadda yadda... To list a geocache on this website you agree to a minimum standard of responsibility and active communication - reasonable as determined by both your local reviewer (because it's worldwide) and HQ proper. You break that, and YOUR property can no longer be listed. There is NO ONE to blame but the owner.  Even if you look at it like the owner led the community on by listing a "great cache" and then abandoning it.

No, an unresponsive owner has zero excuse for having their cache archived.  And if no one has made any sufficient defence for it not to be, then it has every right to be.

 

 

12 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

I absolutely agree. And it really does create geo-trash.

An owner who placed a container in nature has already created geotrash. They are just laying claim to its ownership and listing it on a website. And we call it a geocache. If the listing gets archived (because GC has no obligation to keep it listed except by their own standards for the "geocache" label which includes not listing blatant trash), then it is now officially abandoned geotrash, according to GC.

 

In a way, having it listed is a privilege that bumps your object up an arbitrary class from "trash", which most of the world would consider it otherwise, to "geocache" {as defined by geocaching.com}.

 

GC is under zero obligation to list objects people leave out in nature on their website. They have every right to enforce a minimum standard for this arbitrary label. Don't abide by that standard? You can't list your trash on the website. Simple. Because geocaching.com wants to be known for listing NOT trash, but things that people can enjoy, reliably knowing that such objects are owned and trustable to be found, as far as they are able to enforce. It's for their and everyone's safety and security that every listing on the website has a reasonable expectation to be owned and maintained by their rightful owner to an expected standard.  Do not abide by that standard then do not list your object on the website.

Simple concept.

 

 

12 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

It still saddens me there is no way to adopt caches for owners who left or died, without their permission

I know, but this has also been addressed repeatedly. It's not the website's property to decide what to do with. And it seems they are trying to figure out a way to better handle a situation like that, while dealing with effectively a lowest common denominator of laws and regulations worldwide, and no taking on any potentially drastic inferred responsibilities or ownerships.  Here's the thing again: a Listing implies ownership. Therefore if that's the case, HQ cannot adopt the listing of someone's property to someone else (implying new property ownership) without the original owner's permission. Another simple concept.

 

Unfortunately sometimes simple concepts have results that aren't universally wonderful.  But that's life.

[+thebruce0]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

There's another aspect to this you're overlooking, and that's active and responsive COs of older caches that have received a false-positive CHS email, or perhaps had an NM logged by a newbie searching for a puzzle cache at its listed coordinates or whatever, and decide, well, it's an older cache that's had a good run but it's a tough hike to get out to in the middle of summer so they take the path of least resistance and archive it. In situations like that, it never goes to the reviewer to make a judgement call.

What the point of this? The property's owner said they don't want to list on the website any more. So? That has nothing to do with anything but that person's subjective judgment about their own property. If they archive it, that's on them. 100%.  They don't have to. They chose to.  Regardless of a CHS ping email which does nothing.

 

 

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Faced with the choice of doing a half-day or full-day jaunt to check on a cache they know is okay, just so they can log an OM to reset the CHS or clear an erroneous NM, or just taking the path of least resistance and logging Archive, I can guess which way they'd go.

So? That's their choice. If they're active they could adopt the listing out - change the implied ownership to another active geocacher who IS willing to maintain it, and continue the standard of "every listing is owned by a geocacher who is held to a minimum standard of ownership", implying a safe and trustworthy hobby.

 

 

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If I got a CHS email on GC6JMDK, for example, which was last found in 2020, I'd almost certainly just archive it and go to retrieve the cache next winter. After a decade in the game, I don't feel strongly attached enough to any of my hides now to want to go to the effort of defending them against the system

And that's perfectly legitimate and no one should fault you for that choice. There is absolutely NO reason why anyone should. It's your property, and you chose to remove it (another good step to remove your otherwise geotrash). If you want people to still have an amazing experience there are plenty of other ways than by placing a physical item in nature and listing it on a website.

Sad for the community, but if you wanted the community to keep it, you could attempt to find another active geocacher to adopt it to. If not, then it's off the geocaching map because it'd otherwise be unowned abandoned trash. Somewhere in nature.

 

 

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

That's not a problem if they're hiding new caches to make up for the archived ones, but the tone of many of the archival logs suggests that's not the case.

It's not a problem unless you believe there's an obligation on someone to keep the landscape populated with geocaches.

There is not.

That's the baseline.

ANY geocache listed and available to find is a privilege. And comes with an expectation and (very simple) minimum standard.

I don't want geocaching to keep abandoned trash listed.

Someone else can start a website for that.

 

Seriously. It could be a very successful website.

But it'd probably attract lots of people who would go out and "claim" the trash as their own. In that case, the website probably wouldn't last very long, unless it's billed as a sort of "abandoned treasure" FTF race website. And would likely also list objects that are not geocaches. And then probably even objects errantly believed to not be owned, but actually are. Then who'd take responsibility for stolen items someone thought was not claimed by anyone? Even as innocent as geocaches or letterboxes still listed on some other website? It'd probably fall on to the website owners. They may have to settle cases, or withdraw the website from some countries for legal reasons. Yeah I don't think it'd ultimately be all that successful listing implied unowned trash objects in nature to "find"...

[+thebruce0]

Make a website that lists "virtual locations of past geocache hides that were amazing experiences". Then you import the list of "quality" but archived geocache listings as analyzed from a Project-GC search result. Then no one has to claim anything, disclaimers can be added showing the reason the location is listed, whether the geocache may still be there, its last known condition, etc. No one claims to own anything, just a series of waypoints people can visit, either for the amazing experience, or to experience whatever is left of the most-likely abandoned and unmaintained object at gz.

 

That's not what geocaching.com wants to do, but who knows, it could be the start of a new game.

Benchmarking was kind of like that.

Waymarking IS like that.

 

Is there no "needlessly archived geocache listing" categories on Waymarking.com? Maybe there should be.

 

Anyway, I'm going to bow out because clearly I'm getting frustrated and this is no longer directly related to the thread topic. But still hopefully valuable points being made. *shrug*

But honestly, I DO think that this context of archived cache listings could make for a good Waymarking category and solve a whole LOT of people's gripes about what's lost with their archivals.

 

 

To recap: This isn't about caches archived that had reported problems. This is about caches archived because their owners are unresponsive (reported problem or not). Caches archived having responsive owners means that a reviewer has decided that the cache warrants archival even so, not the CHS. Those are instances to take up with the owner and the reviewer. Caches archived [by a reviewer] because of nonresponsiveness means that they have not been convinced, at all, that the listing is worth keeping active. So once again, it's something to take up with the non-owner and the reviewer. Not the CHS. There's no basis for it to consider a highly subjective "wow factor" about the cache itself. It can, but that once again is a call by HQ. Not the CHS.

 

And per the thread's proper topic:

Should a NM be placed when not finding a cache? It depends on the reason for the NM - the Owner Attention Requested - log (now a more appropriate name given its enforceable intent). And if the owner does not respond, that leads it down the road to archival. It's always been that way, but now it's more clear with the OAR log type name.

Edited November 14, 2023 by thebruce0

[+edexter]

Old wine in new bottles:  Needs Maintenance and Needs Archive become Owner and Review Attention Requested.  As far as I can tell the change is grammatical and will have about as much positive effect as most label changes have...For instance here's a local cache history:  

4/2/22  Found log stated "No container just a log - and it is wet - tried to hide so not wet"  At this point cache has 20 consecutive finds.

4/15/22:  Owner Attention Requested log

4/24/22:  Owner replies:  "I will replace when I can get out there as I'm out of work currently for medical reasons."

4/20/23 :  A year later and following five more finds of "the log with no container" second Owner Attention Requested log is posted

7/25/23:  Following the first and only dnf a third Owner Attention Requested log

9/19/23:  First reviewer attention requested log noting that cache is missing.  It has been 17 months since the CO acknowledge the cache was missing but cache hasn't been replaced or disabled.

11/11/23:  Second Reviewer Attention Requested Log.  

To sum up:  Five logs requesting attention, one "I'll get to it when I can" response a year and a half ago.  The cache has a very specific hint and is clearly gone yet a year and a half later, still listed as active.  

So the change in language has not been useful for increasing the accuracy of the listing service.  Missing caches are still listed as present.  

As for the issue of the over eager reviewer archiving viable caches:  I personally have seen no evidence of that in my area (SE Massachusetts).  Generally if a CO monitors thier caches and responds to requests it's not an issue.  Abandoned caches are a different story...

edexter

 

[+Om_and_Nom]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

 

 

To recap: This isn't about caches archived that had reported problems. This is about caches archived because their owners are unresponsive (reported problem or not). Caches archived having responsive owners means that a reviewer has decided that the cache warrants archival even so, not the CHS. Those are instances to take up with the owner and the reviewer. Caches archived [by a reviewer] because of nonresponsiveness means that they have not been convinced, at all, that the listing is worth keeping active. So once again, it's something to take up with the non-owner and the reviewer. Not the CHS. There's no basis for it to consider a highly subjective "wow factor" about the cache itself. It can, but that once again is a call by HQ. Not the CHS.

 

 

This topic is awfully frustrating - I don't understand the issue.  We're playing the "but what if..." and "how about this example" game.  As you've stated numerous times, the CO needs to be active and engaged.  Period, end of story.  And active CO prevents 99.99% of problems.  

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, Om_and_Nom said:

This topic is awfully frustrating - I don't understand the issue.  We're playing the "but what if..." and "how about this example" game.  As you've stated numerous times, the CO needs to be active and engaged.  Period, end of story.  And active CO prevents 99.99% of problems.  

Yes, extremely frustrating for those of us the comments here will effect. And I don't understand why you can't understand the issue. 

That in some countries it is possible to drive a hundred or even hundreds of kms (especially after the first trip there) without finding a cache, and so any existing ones are precious. Too many people here, who won't encounter this are telling those of us who will, bad luck, they need archiving if the owner is inactive, even when the cache is okay. They are alright, so what do they care about others with different experiences. Doesn't effect them!

That's what is to understand. If this issue doesn't effect them, they don't care about people who it will effect. They are alright mate! That's all that matters.

[+barefootjeff]

12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Anyway, I'm going to bow out because clearly I'm getting frustrated and this is no longer directly related to the thread topic. But still hopefully valuable points being made.

 

Likewise, I guess we just need to agree to disagree. What you see as abandoned trash, I see as good quality robust caches capable of providing many more years of enjoyment in spite of no longer having an active owner.

 

To finish up, a couple of examples of community maintenance I've been directly involved in, that might help get across my perspective on this. In 2019, when planning to attempt GCGB40, I saw the previous logs reporting that the original 2-litre Sistema container had become brittle from the heat of a recent fire and its lid was rapidly turning into a pile of plastic fragments. So I purchased an identical container and, upon finding it, swapped everything over into the new one. Its hiding place protected it from the weather so the contents, including the large original logbook going right back to 2003, were dry and in excellent condition. Its owner was elderly and infirm, so if I'd done the "right" thing then and logged an NM, it probably would have ended up archived, but instead the cache lived on, ultimately being formally adopted by Geocaching NSW earlier this year (along with all that CO's other surviving early-2000s caches) and is now maintained by volunteer members of that organisation.

 

The other one is GC4YF8F, a 3.5/4 traditional placed by a prominent player here in the mid 2010s who's since left the game completely and fallen out of contact. It's one I found in 2014, not long after it was published, but in 2020 I happened to see it'd had a run of 4 DNFs from some quite experienced players. Knowing the nature of the hide, I thought I knew what had happened so I went out there. My suspicion was confirmed, with the cache still intact but pushed too far into its hiding place in a honeycombed cave so it couldn't be easily seen without knowing exactly where to look. I managed to prise it out with a couple of sticks, confirmed that its contents were still good, placed it back where it was meant to go and posted a WN to that effect. Three of those DNFers were then able to return and make their finds. I see now that it's recently had a couple more DNFs so the same thing may have happened again. When we get a cool day I'll probably go back out to take another look, so if it's just been pushed too far in again I can reset it and it can live on, otherwise if it has actually gone missing this time I'll log an NA.

 

This is how community maintenance works around here. It's not about dropping throw-downs or replacing an ammo can with a mint tin, it's about trying to preserve what little we have left of the awesome caches this area once had a reputation for. Is that really such a bad and evil thing?

[+Mermaid.Man]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

This is how community maintenance works around here

Ah that's great that the locals have found a way to manage the issue of absent cache owners and unmaintained geocaches.

 

Remind us though, what exactly is it that you have been complaining about for the last four pages of this thread?  Because to me it sounds as if the system is working as it should.

[+fizzymagic]

6 hours ago, Om_and_Nom said:

This topic is awfully frustrating - I don't understand the issue.  We're playing the "but what if..." and "how about this example" game.  As you've stated numerous times, the CO needs to be active and engaged.  Period, end of story.  And active CO prevents 99.99% of problems.  

 

While I agree that the thread is not particularly clear, I believe you understand the issue. 

 

The problem is that there are many excellent caches out there (usually in hard to reach places) for which the owner is not "active and engaged."  Removing those caches when a significant problem has not been reported is not in the best interests of geocaching.  The "active owner or else" crowd is mainly representative of newer cachers who demand guaranteed finds and consider themselves privileged consumers.  That was not the original spirit of geocaching, and I, for one, miss it.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Ah that's great that the locals have found a way to manage the issue of absent cache owners and unmaintained geocaches.

 

Remind us though, what exactly is it that you have been complaining about for the last four pages of this thread?  Because to me it sounds as if the system is working as it should.

Clear to me what  barefootjeff has been saying, and I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the points he has been making.

[+Mermaid.Man]

35 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

the points he has been making.

Well perhaps I have missed something but his points have centred around how the CHS system is too blunt an instrument and that remote geocaches run the risk of being archived when there isn't an active CO to confirm that all is well with them when problems are reported.

As others have patiently pointed out though, the dreaded CHS system doesn't archive caches. That is the job of your local reviewer who by definition is a keen local geocacher who will carefully review the evidence before taking any action.  In my experience they are open to being persuaded by the locals that the situation is in hand, as demonstrated by BFJ's last post.

To give some context, I am a player who places caches in remote places.  I also adopt significant caches where it is possible, and take other ones under my wing where adoption is not an option.

[+Team Canary]

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

 

While I agree that the thread is not particularly clear, I believe you understand the issue. 

 

The problem is that there are many excellent caches out there (usually in hard to reach places) for which the owner is not "active and engaged."  Removing those caches when a significant problem has not been reported is not in the best interests of geocaching.  The "active owner or else" crowd is mainly representative of newer cachers who demand guaranteed finds and consider themselves privileged consumers.  That was not the original spirit of geocaching, and I, for one, miss it.

There’s another group. 
 

Those that believe caches should be maintained and in good condition.  I’m part of the adoption of many old caches, both formally and informally, that will now survive. 

I’m not in favour of inactive owners on caches with issues being kept alive for no good reason except it’s another cache to find. 

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

As others have patiently pointed out though, the dreaded CHS system doesn't archive caches. That is the job of your local reviewer who by definition is a keen local geocacher who will carefully review the evidence before taking any action.  In my experience they are open to being persuaded by the locals that the situation is in hand, as demonstrated by BFJ's last post.

 

Those two caches I mentioned never came to the attention of a reviewer, BECAUSE they received community maintenance before anyone had logged an NM/NA or they'd had enough DNFs to trigger the CHS.

[+Mermaid.Man]

And that's great.  I have done exactly the same myself a number of times.

I'm sure you will agree though that if it weren't for the actions of a concerned local like you (or me) then archival would have been the correct course of action.

I've even had an occasion where I have been able to track down the long-gone CO and convinced my reviewer to unarchive the cache so that I could adopt it.  These guys generally want to keep the game alive as much as we do.  They certainly aren't the enemy.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Mermaid.Man

[+Mermaid.Man]

But really this is a very unsatisfactory and confusing thread.  At the start almost everyone was united in the view that folks should be posting OAR and RAR logs as required, whether they had found the geocache or not.  But then it morphed in the opposite direction, and the folks who were most strident in the original view were also the most strident in the opposite one.

To answer the original post, yes of course we should be reporting problems using the tools available to us.  Whether the cache is in a city or in the middle of nowhere makes no difference whatsoever.  Unmaintained geocaches have no place in this game and will lead to it's demise.

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Unmaintained geocaches have no place in this game and will lead to it's demise.

 

What's killing the game here is a lack of new caches, with archivals outpacing new placements by a good margin. Since the beginning of July, there have been 11 new caches in this region, 4 of them mine, but those 4 are the only ones out in nature, the other 7 are all roadside or suburban hides. Even if someone prefers roadside and suburban caches, 7 new ones in almost half a year isn't much to maintain interest.

 

I don't see a map full of unmaintained caches, I see a map full of empty spaces where caches used to be plentiful.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Unmaintained geocaches have no place in this game and will lead to it's demise.

 

When you use word "unmaintained", do you mean caches that has inactive owner or caches that needs maintenance or something else?

 

There are six options when CHS causes issues by NM or DNF posts.

 

1. Active CO, cache does not need maintenance

2. Active CO, cache needs maintenance

3. Active CO, cache maintained by visitors

4. Inactive CO, cache does not need maintenance

5. Inactive CO, cache needs maintenance

6. Inactive CO, cache maintained by visitors

 

Which options have no place in this game?

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by arisoft

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

When you use word "unmaintained", do you mean caches that has inactive owner or caches that needs maintenance or something else?

 

I was wondering that too. For me, "unmaintained" simply means the cache hasn't had any maintenance done to it, which might be because it's never needed any. Most of my own hides are like that, still the original container with its original logbook sitting snug and dry in its original hiding place. I know the Help Centre says that all caches need regular maintenance to keep them in good working order, but that's simply not true for a lot of the larger and more remote hides.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

But really this is a very unsatisfactory and confusing thread.  At the start almost everyone was united in the view that folks should be posting OAR and RAR logs as required, whether they had found the geocache or not.  But then it morphed in the opposite direction, and the folks who were most strident in the original view were also the most strident in the opposite one.

Welcome to the forums. Threads don't have points of view. Threads have topics. People with different points of view are free to discuss a topic, and to disagree about the topics.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Whether the cache is in a city or in the middle of nowhere makes no difference whatsoever.  Unmaintained geocaches have no place in this game and will lead to it's demise.

If I come upon a cache in a cache rich area, such as an urban area and it needs maintenance, unless I have permission from the CO I can fix that cache, or a past understanding that I can do maintenance on their caches, I won't maintain those cache because I don't have permission, but I will make a NM. I am more likely to make NM than many others I have found. Then a month or so later I'm likely to do a NA if no word or action from the CO. Tough though when a reviewer says a NA is the wrong log on a cache with already more than one NM and reported problems by finder over some time, as once happened to me. Not saying which country.

 

If it's a cache in a remote area, where there are few or no other caches for a long way, and the CO won't be easily able to maintain it, or they are now inactive, then I won't do a NM or NA, unless there is some very extreme reason why I should. The land where the cache is has fallen into the sea for instance, and it's dangerous to go anywhere near the place. That would get a NM; likely a NA. But otherwise, unlikely from me. These caches will almost never be replaced, and anyway there is lots of room for other caches. While I am visiting I will maintain that cache if I can. Replace the crumbling container, or add a new log. One of the first caches I maintained was a 2001 cache in a semi-remote area, along a sandy side track off the highway. I replaced the cache and put the old log into that. That cache is still going. Many other travellers do the same. When travelling to those areas I pack cache containers of different sizes. This is to keep caching alive in those areas. The lack of caches in those areas could be partly solved if more Virtual caches were allowed in remote, cache lacking areas. And for those good at geology, publishing more Earthcaches in those areas. I have just realised I can tick the attribute for NM. Next time I travel to a remote area I will try to remember to check which caches NM.

 

I also won't do NMs on old caches.

 

5 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Unmaintained geocaches have no place in this game and will lead to it's demise.

So will no caches.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+thebruce0]

One response, because this really seems to be the core of your position:

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What you see as abandoned trash, I see as good quality robust caches capable of providing many more years of enjoyment in spite of no longer having an active owner.

 

What you see as "good quality robust caches [without anyone claiming ownership]" I see as a person who has given the finger to the community and left trash in nature, for which no one else has provided a convincing reason to a reviewer that it should remain active in such a "good quality robust" state, for argument's sake. Even if it is indeed still an amazing experience and quality container with no reported issues (other than whatever factors led to it being archived by a reviewer).

-- knowing that there would be no 1st hand confirmation for the personal property to be transferred to a different owner

-- knowing that there will be no 1st hand confirmation of its consistent and intended experience and status and safety

-- knowing that they're leaving something in a trash-like limbo state like that unowned, unclaimed, in nature

That to me is disrespectful (in most cases - sometimes there may be a death or extenuating circumstances, but those really are the exceptions to the rule), to the community, to the game, to the owners of the listing service, and ultimately to nature.

To those caches - the ones you love to see active, and hate to see archived "merely" because of an unresponsive owner, I too mourn their loss, but remain adamant that if it truly is a great experience that's "lost" from geocaching, there is zero reason why it can't still exist for those who would fully enjoy it --- just not as an active geocache owned by an active geocacher. That is the required standard for the listing service. Anyone is free to disagree with that standard. Go make a different website if you do. And I have no sympathy for someone who simply drops their ball and walks away, but for the sake of that local region that may be greatly lacking in active geocaches would absolutely encourage someone to replace it with a new and shiny one for the community to keep playing there.

 

As I said, take up those abandoned and archived listings, and create virtual locations, such as Waymarks on Waymarking.com, and promote them as unfortunate or unnecessary archivals. If there's enough desire, people will still go find them.  But I would bet that there isn't, and that people generally are in it for the geocaching stats and smileys, with the experience being the bonus (as amazing as they may be).  If people want the Waymarking stat enough, then it'll stay alive. It's almost exactly the same process. And if the container is still there, what really is the difference? A smiley on a different website, yet providing the same fantastic hike and nature experience and amazing container that's being both praised and mourned (alive for as long as it lasts without an actual owner, assuming it's not listed somewhere else and it really IS still owned; which really means they did give the finger to the geocaching.com community)

 

It's like "the app that shall not be named" that's basically giving geocaching.com the finger by refusing to use the API. Does that mean it, of its own merit, is not a good app? Of course not. But there is a standard for having the privilege to share someone else's data reliably and with permission. Don't abide by it, and you get banned head to toe. Likewise, there is a standard expectation for listing your personal property on geocaching.com. Don't abide by it (or by extension abandon it) and it gets delisted. It's as simple as that. Even if you made an amazing listing. Because clearly the website owners would rather one less "amazing geocache" on the map than list abandoned trash, YOU, the unresponsive owner, you alone, are "leading to the demise of the game". If you don't think so, then start another website with lower standards.

[+Team Canary]

12 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

When you use word "unmaintained", do you mean caches that has inactive owner or caches that needs maintenance or something else?

 

There are six options when CHS causes issues by NM or DNF posts.

 

1. Active CO, cache does not need maintenance

2. Active CO, cache needs maintenance

3. Active CO, cache maintained by visitors

4. Inactive CO, cache does not need maintenance

5. Inactive CO, cache needs maintenance

6. Inactive CO, cache maintained by visitors

 

Which options have no place in this game?

 

 

2, 3 and 5. 

 

6 is okay for an old, interesting, historic and remote cache only.

[+Team Canary]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

What's killing the game here is a lack of new caches, with archivals outpacing new placements by a good margin. Since the beginning of July, there have been 11 new caches in this region, 4 of them mine, but those 4 are the only ones out in nature, the other 7 are all roadside or suburban hides. Even if someone prefers roadside and suburban caches, 7 new ones in almost half a year isn't much to maintain interest.

 

I don't see a map full of unmaintained caches, I see a map full of empty spaces where caches used to be plentiful.

 

Central Coast and Illawarra are similar in that respect and there are no new cachers to make new caches.

 

What the existing community can do to fix that is another discussion we should have.

[+CCFwasG]

16 hours ago, Team Canary said:

I’m not in favour of inactive owners on caches with issues being kept alive for no good reason except it’s another cache to find. 

Apparently HQ doesn't agree, or at least they've promoted some such:

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2023/02/so-confused-geocache-of-the-week/ 

There are two caches there (or were) and it's clear from reading old logs it's maintained by the local cacher community, just FYI (other caches by CO archived for non-response over 10 years ago). It has a maintenance flag from summer 2021 as well, FWIW.

 

And just for fun, and not in support of anything really, a 20yrs unfound cache - blog from today:
https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2023/11/they-would-have-loved-it-geocache-of-the-week/
I note in the above link you can look at the CO's profile who - despite having logged in last month apparently - has not found a cache beyond 2013, so I wouldn't call them active at all!

I guess some at HQ would argue a CO does not need to be maintaining a cache for it to stay in the game? As long as someone else is, it seems ok. Just sayin'.

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What you see as "good quality robust caches [without anyone claiming ownership]" I see as a person who has given the finger to the community and left trash in nature, for which no one else has provided a convincing reason to a reviewer that it should remain active in such a "good quality robust" state, for argument's sake. Even if it is indeed still an amazing experience and quality container with no reported issues (other than whatever factors led to it being archived by a reviewer).

 

So here's what I'm not clear about. Do you consider caches where the owner is no longer active (for whatever reason) but don't have any issues, don't have outstanding NMs and haven't been brought to the attention of the reviewer, either by an NA or the CHS, to be abandoned trash? Or is it okay for those to remain listed until such time as issues arise?

 

To clarify my position:

• No NMs or NAs, no CHS flag, no DNF logs that suggest the cache might be missing, just an owner who's no longer active - no problem, let them be. They can still be a great caching experience for years or decades to come.
• Historical outstanding NM that was either a false alarm or a minor issue that was addressed by the community - no problem as long as the community are staying across it.
• CHS flag that's a clear false positive or where the problem is just the D-rating being a bit too low to fit the algorithm's expected distribution of finds and DNFs - I would hope the reviewer would let it be, but some of the examples posted here suggests not (which is what started this discussion).
• NM about a more serious issue that can't be readily addressed by the community, such as a missing cache or one that's really reached end-of-life - if no CO response in a reasonable time, follow with an NA if the reviewer isn't already across it.

As for reasons COs become inactive, usually it's not a conscious decision or something that happens overnight, more likely a gradual waning of interest accompanied by a change in life situation, such as starting a family or moving away from the area. Perhaps, with a change of email provider, they stop getting log notifications without really noticing, particularly if their caches are rarely found these days. With the 25th anniversary fast approaching, many of those early players who might have been in their 50s or 60s when they started in the 2000s would now be in their 70s and 80s and a lot of things can creep up on people in that age range that would ulitimately lead them to becoming inactive COs. Dementia, stroke and death are three of the more extreme possibilities, but there are lots of other conditions that limit physical activity. I'm sure most aren't intentionally giving the finger, they've just gradually drifted away until they lose contact.

 

I just turned 69 so it's likely that, somtime in the next decade or so, I'll have to consider what to do with at least my higher terrain hides. They were designed as much as possible to be maintenance-free, such as that ammo can in the remote hilltop cave, so when I reach a point where I can no longer get out to them (and even that's more likely to be a gradual impairment than something overnight), I'll have to decide whether to leave them there for the benefit of any new players or visitors to the area, try to find an adopter (not easy around here) or just archive them and persuade a friend to go out and collect them. My wish, should I no longer be in a position to make that decision, is for them to be archived and, as an aside, I think it would be a great addition to the website to be able to leave a geo-will saying what you want done with your caches if you become uncontactable.

[+CCFwasG]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I think it would be a great addition to the website to be able to leave a geo-will saying what you want done with your caches if you become uncontactable.

 

Aside from this oddity: ""good quality robust caches [without anyone claiming ownership]" I see as a person who has given the finger to the community and left trash in nature" 

... the above point is one I've either made or agreed with. Cachers die. Sometimes suddenly. There is no set way to deal with this. If I die tomorrow in a car accident, are my caches geo-trash just because I am inactive? It just can't be so black & white as some would argue. There is nuance and complexity and some issues within that need addressing. Like death.

 

p.s. edit to add that the middle paragraph above from @barefootjeff makes the same point differently... and I agree.

Edited November 16, 2023 by CCFwasG

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What you see as "good quality robust caches [without anyone claiming ownership]" I see as a person who has given the finger to the community and left trash in nature

It certainly will be trash if archived. Trash just sitting there with no finders now to maintain it. Archiving a cache doesn't make the 'trash' disappear. A big waste too if the cache is in good order.

[+fizzymagic]

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What you see as "good quality robust caches [without anyone claiming ownership]" I see as a person who has given the finger to the community and left trash in nature

 

Wow.  Harsh.

 

As if everyone who stops geocaching does so on purpose to "give a finger" to the community.  Like, for example, people who have the temerity to die before adopting out all their caches.

 

I think you have perfectly expressed the contempt and entitlement inherent in your position. I don't think I could put it any better.

[+arisoft]

12 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

Apparently HQ doesn't agree, or at least they've promoted some such:

 

Community maintenance has been part of this hobby for decades. This is somehow difficult subject because controversary opinions can be justified for different reasons or just by different opinions. Sometimes you may find obvious double standards.

Edited November 16, 2023 by arisoft

[+thebruce0]

13 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

I guess some at HQ would argue a CO does not need to be maintaining a cache for it to stay in the game? As long as someone else is, it seems ok. Just sayin'.

That's been addressed. "Reviewer or HQ can be convinced otherwise."  If not, then archived.

 

12 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

the above point is one I've either made or agreed with. Cachers die. Sometimes suddenly.

That's been addressed. "more the exception than the rule."  Nonetheless, it's personal property which by report is essentially no longer claimable by anyone. HQ has to decide if they want to 'risk' implying ownership if they decide to adopt it out without 1st hand permission in order to keep it active.

 

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It certainly will be trash if archived. Trash just sitting there with no finders now to maintain it. Archiving a cache doesn't make the 'trash' disappear. A big waste too if the cache is in good order.

It's already trash, as many who dislike geocaching would claim. It's literally stuff left in nature with an arbitrary "owner" per a website claiming to maintain it. If according to the website there is no longer an owner or someone who passed on ownership 1st hand, then to the website it is now arbitrarily unowned trash being listed on the website. Regardless of how much joy it may bring people who find it. And you echoed my point - archiving it doesn't make it disappear. First, because it's a listing service, not any form of proxy ownership; and second, that means that experience is, for all intents and purposes, still there to enjoy even if it's not listed actively.  The only "waste" is that there's no longer a statistic to be gained by finding it (if the listing is locked), and it's no longer searchable as an active geocache in good standing - the standard geocaching.com seeks to uphold.

 

 

5 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

23 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What you see as "good quality robust caches [without anyone claiming ownership]" I see as a person who has given the finger to the community and left trash in nature

 

Wow.  Harsh.

 

As if everyone who stops geocaching does so on purpose to "give a finger" to the community.  Like, for example, people who have the temerity to die before adopting out all their caches.

 

I think you have perfectly expressed the contempt and entitlement inherent in your position. I don't think I could put it any better.

 

Yeah, it was harsh. I needed to cool down.

As for dying and other extenuating circumstances, you missed where I addressed that. And by my educated guessing, those situations are by far the exception not the rule.  My point was addressing the resulting feeling something is "lost" to the community because of the action of the ex-owner who has set-it-and-left-it, knowing (by implication of agreeing to the terms of listing on the website) that they are abandoning a potentially wonderful geocache with no way for it to legitimately remain active if it comes to a reviewer's attention that it needs a check or its owner needs to prove responsiveness.  So that is entirely on that owner.  So yeah, such people are effectively leading to that reaction, because they are 'taking away' that experience for others (as described here) by simply abandoning it to the ether.

 

 

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Community maintenance has been part of this hobby for decades.

 

Yep, and just like reviewers have a 'no precedent' rule, HQ can decide on a case by case basis whether a cache listing merits upkeep either by community or some other means once it's determined that an owner is AWOL.

 

Someone with power needs to be convinced.  That's what it comes down to.

 

--

 

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Do you consider caches where the owner is no longer active (for whatever reason) but don't have any issues, don't have outstanding NMs and haven't been brought to the attention of the reviewer, either by an NA or the CHS, to be abandoned trash?

 

I would say, what does it take to be "active"?  If I don't respond within a day, does that make me inactive? Is it abandoned trash if I've never revisited the physical container or made a change to the listing in 10 years having no issues, while being an otherwise active geocacher?

My point would be that if there are no issues - at all - with a cache and listing, having never been brought to a reviewer for some form of attention, then it's effectively no different than such a cache with an owner that is still actively geocaching. The implication of the listing details is that it is owned by someone.  Once it comes to a point that said ownership is required to be verified, then the question of whether the listing should be archived arises.

 

On one hand: I know that there have been cachers who've gone AWOL and people have been hush-hush about caches they own which have been great experiences, trying not to ruffle any feathers so that they don't get archived (knowing they can't adopt it themselves, or they would).  The moment there's any kind of attention drawn to the listing for a reviewer, then it rightly goes into the inevitable process towards archival, if the reviewer deems it appropriate. In some cases people have recreated the listing and published it to keep the experience alive. Yay

Additionally, on the other hand: I believe I have seen reviewers take proactive action on listings that are effectively in good standing mainly because they've been informed a geocacher is no longer in the game and they decided to review all of their existing owned listings. Giving them, of course, a chance to 'save' them by being responsive.

 

My stance? As I mentioned earlier - it's literally already stuff left in nature we hope no one considers trash. We just imbue it with subjective value with listings that imply property ownership by someone.  So, until that ownership can no longer be verified, then yes it's a privilege to have it listed while abiding by a minimum standard, which was greed to when posting the listing. And there's always an extensive grace period (excepting essential immediate issues), a long window of opportunity for that owner, or any passionate community, to make a reasonable case that the listing should not be archived as abandoned unowned trash.

 

Because of all of that leeway in place, I do believe that if the ownership of an item cannot be actively verified when deemed necessary, its listing should follow the procedure HQ has laid out towards inevitable archival. That means - once it arises that someone in power feels it necessary to verify ownership of the item.

By extension, absolutely yes an item may be found and enjoyed for 10 years before anyone even realizes the owner has been AWOL. If it was known 9 years ago, it'd almost certainly have been archived 9 years ago. If it's known after 10 years, then it may be archived after 10 years. That is the process I believe is logical, clear, and reasonable.

 

And if someone not in geocaching comes along at any time and decides to pick up the item left in nature and dispose of it because they felt it was trash, well, they really aren't wrong. But, that's a matter that the owner of the item and the picker-upper need to hash out themselves, because it's a matter of property ownership (not item listing), with rules/laws afaik that may differ around the world.  Geocaching.com wouldn't be able to fight back against the picker-upper claiming theft, nor could it be blamed for its theft since it was listed by its owner's choice and discretion - because GC is just a listing service, not an owner of any of the items it lists. And that mechanic has to apply universally, across the worldwide board, as the baseline. There can be exceptions. But those are just that - exceptions to the rule.

Geocaching.com is a worldwide website that lists active, trusted, owned items in nature as geocaches; that's the expected baseline. The moment that status for a listing is called into question, unless a reasonable defence can be made to make an exception (which can differ from region to region, per local reviewers), the standard result is a generous grace period in the process towards archival of the listing during which the defence can be made. If no defence can be made, it is inevitable demise. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

[+CCFwasG]

Well just for fun and because it is relevant to the thread. Check this out: https://coord.info/GC8RK5H

The cache had NM from someone who is notorious here for not finding things others seem to find easily (take that as you will!). It then got reviewer disabled. I then found it and it was a REALLY good cache. You can see my log. And next thing I know - archived today. I note that yes it is TOTALLY the CO's fault for not putting an OM log after my find. More surprising is that they last found a cache only a month ago and before that went after a few new ones. So they've been active since my find. Now do not scold me that it is the CO's fault, I get that... but I would argue that there was zero reason to archive it - the only thing that happened is the CO didn't tag it with OM and enable. It's a huge waste because now it *is* geo-trash and it was actually a really nicely built thing. It's the CO's own fault but it's kind of on the reviewer now that it is geo-trash. Pretty sad IMHO. (YES I get your opinions may vary.)

[Keystone]

25 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

It's the CO's own fault but it's kind of on the reviewer now that it is geo-trash.

 

I see the cache history differently.  A problem was reported to the CO in February and a Reviewer archived the cache in November?  That's really generous.  Had the "bad neighbor experience" been reported directly to HQ, the cache would've been archived in February.  Had I disabled the cache, instead of the friendlier local Reviewer here, the cache would have been archived four weeks after I disabled it.

 

Yes, there may now be unmaintained, unmonitored trash out in the wild.  The Reviewer didn't cause that result.