HQ Archiving ECs of Inactive COs

May 4

There was mention of a couple of ECs in Indiana that had this note placed on them by HQ:

Quote

Geocaching HQ has reason to believe the owner of this EarthCache has been inactive with geocaching for 5 or more years. We want to ensure that the cache owner is actively monitoring the cache page and logs, as required by the Geocache hiding guidelines.

In order for this EarthCache to remain active, the cache owner must post an Owner maintenance log in response to this message. If the cache owner does not post an Owner Maintenance log within 30 days, then the cache listing will be disabled by Geocaching HQ. If the cache listing then remains disabled for 30 days, it will be archived by Geocaching HQ.

More information in the Help Center.

I decided to look at some ECs in Michigan, and several have the same message. Including this one: https://coord.info/GC37PAB

What gives?

2.5k · May 4

The learning activity is an integral part of the EarthCache. It's important to have feedback from the person who develops an EarthCache to the answers the finders send.

The information in the help center covers this situation.

Quote

7.19. HQ emails to inactive EarthCache hider accounts

Cache maintenance is an important (and required) component of geocache ownership. In April 2024, as part of Geocaching HQ’s ongoing efforts to keep the geocaching game board fresh and encourage well-maintained caches, we began a test involving EarthCaches worldwide.

Geocaching HQ identified EarthCaches owned by players whose Geocaching account has not shown activity in more than five (5) years. We asked them to post an Owner maintenance log to their EarthCache page within thirty (30) days. If an Owner maintenance log is not posted in that timeframe, the EarthCache is disabled. If the EarthCache remains disabled for thirty (30) days, then it is archived.

Only 1-2% of EarthCaches worldwide are impacted by the test.

I encourage any EarthCache owners who choose to leave the game to archive their EarthCaches or adopt them to other geocachers.

Edited May 8 by Neos2

2k · May 4

I think there are a lot of ghost-ship EC's floating about. The geology isn't going anywhere, so I'm in favour of archiving them, and allowing others to create new ones.....

May 4

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

I think there are a lot of ghost-ship EC's floating about. The geology isn't going anywhere, so I'm in favour of archiving them, and allowing others to create new ones.....

Many of the earthcaches that I've seen with the note are ones that would not be published again, like artesian wells and erratics. Not that we need more of those types of earthcaches, but they most likely won't be brought back.

2k · May 5

16 minutes ago, sgerbs said:

Many of the earthcaches that I've seen with the note are ones that would not be published again, like artesian wells and erratics. Not that we need more of those types of earthcaches, but they most likely won't be brought back.

That shouldn't be a reason to leave them there though.

May 5

To me it’s like a cache with a soggy log that keeps getting replaced by the community because the CO is no longer active. CO not doing maintenance so it should be archived.

4.4k · May 5

8 hours ago, sgerbs said:

Many of the earthcaches that I've seen with the note are ones that would not be published again, like artesian wells and erratics.

Why wouldn't they be published again?

2.5k · May 5

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Why wouldn't they be published again?

I am guessing sgerbs is referring to the limiting of some types of EarthCaches from 2019. Other than river gauging stations, most of the EarthCaches being archived may still be able to be published again, if the stipulations were met.

4.5 Limiting Some EarthCache Types

Edited May 5 by Neos2
clarification

May 9

I'm happy to take over any EarthCache for an inactive owner...

I've tried to reach out to several inactive COs in the Georgia and Alabama area...no luck unfortunately.

May 18

LOL...just had the thought...

HQ taking down EarthCaches with owners that have not been active for 5 years. Understandable...maintenance needs to occur.

Now...wonder what the community reaction would be if they did that with Virtual Caches.

4.4k · May 18

2 hours ago, thekingofbattle said:

Now...wonder what the community reaction would be if they did that with Virtual Caches.

In some places that might mean no caches. They encourage make and forget ALs, so would be a double standard if they started archiving virtuals.

6.9k · May 18

9 hours ago, thekingofbattle said:

Now...wonder what the community reaction would be if they did that with Virtual Caches.

I think it'd probably be a good thing. Virtuals aren't as scarce now as they once were and without an active CO they become an open door to armchair logging. There's one in Sydney that was originally created as a traditional in 2001 then converted to virtual by its owner when the container went missing, but the description is still mostly encrypted clues to finding the container and says nothing about any logging requirements as a virtual. The CO stopped caching in 2011 and most "finders" just post a photo of themselves at GZ with their log, but some haven't and are little more than TFTC.

There are also virtuals (and ECs for that matter) that rely on signage or other manmade structures that can change over time, and without an active CO to update the listing they can't be legitimately logged. No caches, whether they are physical or virtual, should be expected to last forever, especially once the owner needs to do something but has gone.

May 18

Anyone who takes EarthCaches seriously should be interested in receiving the "correct" answers. I am studying for a degree in Geology in my retirement precisely because my interest has been piqued by this subject. So I always try to answer the questions fully and would say that for around 60-70% of the ECs I visit I never even get a reply from the CO, which I find frustrating. So I give it a week and then log anyway. Most COs say "feel free to log and if there are any mistakes I will get back to you" but they almost never do and IMO this is just an excuse for being lazy. Some COs have set 10s and even 100s of EarthCaches, which tells you straight away that they have no real interest in the answers people send in. For people who know very little about geology, it is like a show 'n' tell where the teacher has left the room. These COs are on some kind of ego trip where we are supposed to rely on the "education" of their cache description, but even there the quality is variable. I have come across several ECs where the stone has been misidentified by the CO or where the questions are so badly written that they are impossible to answer. So there should be some kind of quality control and I support the effort to archive ECs where the owner is inactive. I would be interested in what others think about how to deal with the failure to share correct answers.

1.8k · May 19

2 hours ago, Brucacher said:

Anyone who takes EarthCaches seriously should be interested in receiving the "correct" answers. ...I always try to answer the questions fully and would say that for around 60-70% of the ECs I visit I never even get a reply from the CO, which I find frustrating. So I give it a week and then log anyway. ... I would be interested in what others think about how to deal with the failure to share correct answers.

I'm in agreement with all that you said, except I don't wait the week before logging - I log it as I'm doing whatever other logs I have for that time frame, after I have sent the answers. And I spend time writing my answers. Typically my husband and I cache together, discuss our thoughts and then I will write the CO with our conclusions. We want to get it right!! But as you said, more often than not, we never hear one way or the other.

I have, on occasion, been complimented on my answers, that's always nice to hear! On some, I've asked if my conclusions were correct, because i just don't know! And sometimes hubby and I will disagree, so I give both answers and ask which is correct. Usually we hear nothing in reply, and it is frustrating, but what can we do?

May 19

12 hours ago, Brucacher said:

I would be interested in what others think about how to deal with the failure to share correct answers.

I own a handful and I actively manage them...probably not so well as I should, but I do look at the answers and I'm ensuring that folks that logged it as found actually sent the answers in.

Just last weekend, the Georgia Geocaching Association apparently held an event near one of my ECs...received a flood of answers over a weekend when normally I'll get 1-2 a month. One cacher answered only one out of my four questions. This is a veteran cacher with over 10k finds...over 250 of which are ECs...so, they know what they're supposed to do.

I politely sent her a message, "Hey...there were four questions and you only answered one. Are you able to answer the others?" I didnt indicate that I would delete her answers, but I'd would have been okay with that.

Later that day...she answered all of the questions.

Personally...if I answer questions incorrectly...I do want to know if I'm wrong. A few days ago, I sent in answers for one of the ECs at Mesa Verde NP. The CO, who is also an EC Reviewer, gave me an additional reason why the desert varnish might be missing in certain areas. I thought that was great (and I told him so), because I hadnt thought of that reason.

So...I try to provide as complete answers as I can...as someone that isnt a geologist. I also understand that the VAST majority of folks that find my ECs are also not geologists...and probably dont like ECs as much as I do (it's not a "homework" cache for me)...so I'm most likely going to get single sentence answers.

May 19

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Virtuals aren't as scarce now as they once were and without an active CO they become an open door to armchair logging.

Interesting answer...and that just led me to the thought...

I understand that HQ has been allowing more and more virtual caches...which makes sense as people love them. Like most, I have found that VCs can bring me to some AMAZING places...but they've also brought me to some roadside signs.

Sorry...my thought...I wonder if HQ did the same to VCs as they're doing with ECs...if that would induce them to allow the creation of more virtuals by anyone.

May 19

On 5/18/2024 at 7:53 AM, thekingofbattle said:

Now...wonder what the community reaction would be if they did that with Virtual Caches.

Many of those old virtuals are helpful for the Jasmer grid, so getting rid of them would cause more of a negative reaction. A lot of cachers just do not like earthcaches, so I don't think people will miss some of the earthcaches that are going to get archived.

2.5k · May 26

Let's keep this discussion focused on EarthCaches, please. The comparisons to virtusls have already been made.

I have received only positive feedback on the move to check with owners who appear to be inactive from people I meet at events, and of course those of you speaking up in this forum. Have your friends reacted similarly?

May 27

On 5/18/2024 at 5:35 PM, Brucacher said:

Some COs have set 10s and even 100s of EarthCaches, which tells you straight away that they have no real interest in the answers people send in.

I am one of the Earthcache owners with lots of Earthcaches, 77 currently. I reply to everyone. I track everyone who logs one with a spreadsheet. Most of my Earthcaches are not in areas frequented by lots of cachers, so it's not difficult for me.

I mostly agree with archiving Earthcaches with inactive owners.

I also think that vacation Earthcaches should be more heavily monitored, especially in places where a translation to another language is required. I've seen several badly translated Earthcaches where even the questions differ from the original English.

June 2

On 5/18/2024 at 6:35 PM, Brucacher said:

I have come across several ECs where the stone has been misidentified by the CO or where the questions are so badly written that they are impossible to answer.

Such earthcaches require reviewer attention, and there is a log for that. I would encourage you to use it.

Pending Groundspeak making a Gulfstream available for me (for official use only, of course), I can't visit every earthcache submission. When you see that something has been misidentified, please let us know, because an inaccurate earthcache entirely defeats the educational purpose of the program.

5.3k · June 4

On 6/2/2024 at 5:22 AM, geoawareUSA9 said:

Such earthcaches require reviewer attention, and there is a log for that. I would encourage you to use it.

Pending Groundspeak making a Gulfstream available for me (for official use only, of course), I can't visit every earthcache submission. When you see that something has been misidentified, please let us know, because an inaccurate earthcache entirely defeats the educational purpose of the program.

Yeah but since ECs tend to have a much more extensive reviewer interaction than normal caches, could they at least be checked for spelling and grammar? I have encountered a couple in the last year or so for which I could not even understand the questions.

June 5

On 5/27/2024 at 12:10 PM, Crazedllama said:

I track everyone who logs one with a spreadsheet.

I wondered if I was the only one. I have spreadsheet that lists the cacher name, earthcache found, date found, and date answers were sent. It helps me ensure that I've responded to all of them that have sent answers via geocaching.com message center.

June 28

On 6/4/2024 at 12:14 AM, fizzymagic said:

Yeah but since ECs tend to have a much more extensive reviewer interaction than normal caches, could they at least be checked for spelling and grammar? I have encountered a couple in the last year or so for which I could not even understand the questions.

Please feel free to either leave a Needs Reviewer Attention log for those, or contact me directly.

2.1k · July 2

On 5/5/2024 at 12:23 AM, lee737 said:

I think there are a lot of ghost-ship EC's floating about. The geology isn't going anywhere, so I'm in favour of archiving them, and allowing others to create new ones.....

Bit late to the party. Here there are many zombi ECs with the information (a s***e info panel) missing. As people don't like to post NM or NA I'm totally in favour or tidying up a bit.

July 2

On 5/18/2024 at 6:35 PM, Brucacher said:

I ... would say that for around 60-70% of the ECs I visit I never even get a reply from the CO, which I find frustrating.

That hasn't been our experience.

Of the 28 ECs we have found and sent messages through the message center since January 2020 we have received replies to 19.

We have 1 find in there that is currently disabled due to this sweep by HQ.

3 of the non-replies were one CO on 3 finds on the same day.

The other repeat CO replied separately to each message.

I would say we have seen a reply rate of 70%.

Edited July 2 by schmittfamily

July 3

We're seeing a lot of new earthcache submissions based on older earthcaches that were archived due to absent COs. And that's great! Many of these are popular areas of geologic interest, and they should be the subject of an earthcache.

Please keep in mind the following if you are planning to redo a now-archived EarthCache (this applies in general, not only to those that were archived as a result of this sweep):

- The EarthCache must meet all current guidelines, including having visited the site recently and obtained permission for the EarthCache from the land manager, if required. Some of these ECs are 10-15 years old, and let's face it, some of them are essentially virtual caches with a geology flavor. They're going to need some updates.

https://www.geosociety.org/GSA/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/guidelines/home.aspx

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51

- The write up must be in your own words; not a copy-paste from the original page.

- New logging tasks are required so that geocachers would need to revisit the site if they wished to log a find on the new EarthCache; not just resubmit the same answers from their previous visit. This doesn't just mean old tasks plus a recent photo, this means observation tasks tied to your lesson, so no "guess how tall this rock is" or "do the math on how heavy this rock is."

Finally, these are going to take some time to review, so thanks in advance for your patience.

Edited July 3 by geoawareUSA9

July 4

On 5/5/2024 at 12:13 PM, brcross95 said:

To me it’s like a cache with a soggy log that keeps getting replaced by the community because the CO is no longer active. CO not doing maintenance so it should be archived.

How does an earthcache need to be 'maintained'? It doesn't have a physical container.

11.4k · July 4

1 hour ago, qwertyuiopasdfghjk66 said:

How does an earthcache need to be 'maintained'? It doesn't have a physical container.

If word gets around that the CO isn't maintaining or monitoring the Earth Cache, I suspect there will be lots more armchair logging.

6.9k · July 4

2 hours ago, qwertyuiopasdfghjk66 said:

How does an earthcache need to be 'maintained'? It doesn't have a physical container.

It needs an active owner to check that finders are submitting acceptable answers to the tasks set in the EC. Also things can change at GZ that can impact the EC, such as access closures, landslips, flooding, etc. I ended up archiving my EC based around some large potholes on a coastal headland when repeated major floods in the nearby river filled them with silt, making it impossible to observe a key element of the EC.

July 5

6 hours ago, qwertyuiopasdfghjk66 said:

How does an earthcache need to be 'maintained'? It doesn't have a physical container.

I have had to archive 3 EarthCaches after "maintenance" visits - one because a landslide buried the geologic feature, one because you could no longer see the feature after the trees grew too thick, and one when road maintenance removed the feature.

Maybe you could consider these "inspection" visits instead of maintenance, but the result is the same.

4.5k · July 5

Those seem like good reasons to disallow vacation earthcaches.

Why are they allowed?

2.5k · July 5

2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Those seem like good reasons to disallow vacation earthcaches.

Why are they allowed?

While EarthCaches are a bit more stable than caches with containers, vacation EarthCaches are discouraged, as are other forms of geocaches. Per the geocaching Help Center

5.6. Can I hide a cache while on vacation?

It’s not recommended

We recommend that you do not hide a geocache while traveling. Vacation/holiday caches are usually not published.

Geocache owners must visit their caches to maintain them. Log books fill up, cache contents get wet, or the cache can disappear. If you live far away from your cache, timely maintenance is impossible. It’s best to place physical caches in your usual caching area.

Maintenance plan

If you do place a geocache while traveling, you must have a maintenance plan. For example, a local geocacher agrees to maintain the cache in your absence. When you submit your cache, document your plan in a Reviewer Note. Include the local geocacher’s username, email address, and written consent. Information in Reviewer Notes will auto-archive on publication and will not be available to other players.

6.9k · July 5

14 hours ago, Neos2 said:

While EarthCaches are a bit more stable than caches with containers, vacation EarthCaches are discouraged, as are other forms of geocaches. Per the geocaching Help Center

There's a separate page in the Help Centre specifically on vacation EarthCaches:

image.png.e4f9f45105bddfa72defc1108e3d522f.png

This doesn't come across as especially discouraging, more just a reminder to do your homework before proceeding.

9.1k · July 6

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This doesn't come across as especially discouraging, more just a reminder to do your homework before proceeding.

And the clause "The reviewer may reject the submission if cache maintenance seems likely in the future" is important. The content of one task/question may determine whether the EC gets published.

July 7

On 7/4/2024 at 1:59 PM, qwertyuiopasdfghjk66 said:

How does an earthcache need to be 'maintained'? It doesn't have a physical container.

There's two reasons that earthcaches need to have an active owner.

First, as @egroeg mentioned, there is a continuing responsibility to monitor the cache. A mountain may not have disappeared, but the location for the earthcache might develop access issues. Sometimes drastic changes can happen, like cave collapse, landslide, or forest fires, that alter what is seen now from what was there when the cache was published. Without an active owner, the listing can't be changed to adjust for reality.

Second, as @barefootjeff mentioned, owners should monitor for fake logs.

Finally, earthcaches are supposed to be educational. Part of that means that earthcache owners are supposed to be providing feedback to those who find the cache. It's not required to "score 100%" to log an earthcache. But how do you know how you did on the test if the teacher never tells you?

Logging questions for earthcaches are not supposed to be "fire and forget" - that's why we don't allow things like auto-response emails or cache checkers like certitude. There should be a human on the other side of that email or message center, looking at those answers.

When cachers send me the answers I expect to see for an earthcache, I let them know that what they saw lined up with the experience I expected them to have.

On the other hand, if a cacher's answers miss the mark, I let them know what they may have missed.

(In either case, I thank them for visiting.)

HQ Archiving ECs of Inactive COs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

It’s not recommended

Maintenance plan

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation