POLL: Should physical caches have a set lifespan?

2.3k · September 11, 2003

I don't know if this has been discussed before. Forgive me if it has.

Point: remove and archive physical caches after a set amount of time in order to keep the game and ideas fresh, open up new land for hiding, and avoid degradation of caches.

Counterpoint: let the caches remain as long as they want, they have been around this long anyhow, why change it now?

So, should physical caches be removed after a set amount of time?

3.5k · September 11, 2003

Been through this topic many times before. The answer is no.

"See the wonderous works of Providence! The uncertainty of human things!" Geo.Washington

1.2k · September 11, 2003

Here we go again.....

No. On the other hand, no. But, if you look at it another way, NO.

Leave it alone folks, it's hard enough to just go Geocaching as it is. There were caches in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho and Utah I planned on hitting for a year as I planned our trip to Yellowstone last year. If they were set to expire at some pre-determined date I'd have had to constantly rearrange our plan as caches came and went. Enough of that happened just with the natural cache casualties that occur, plundered caches, caches lost to wild animals, etc.

Let it go...... just let it go....

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

3.9k · September 11, 2003

It has been discussed, and I believe they should be. Maybe not a set time limit, but more by common sense.

If you have a cache in a well cache populated area and it hasn't had a log in 6 months...archive it and open the area for a new cache that all can enjoy. Please note I said an area that is well populated with caches.

After a while most of the local cachers have found it...assuming they wanted to in the first place. Why keep the area tied up? This sport is growing so fast we are going to grid lock sooner than you might realize!

Just my 2 cents worth.

El Diablo

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

8.4k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
Here we go again.....

No. On the other hand, no. But, if you look at it another way, NO.

Leave it alone folks, it's hard enough to just go Geocaching as it is. There were caches in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho and Utah I planned on hitting for a year as I planned our trip to Yellowstone last year. If they were set to expire at some pre-determined date I'd have had to constantly rearrange our plan as caches came and went. Enough of that happened just with the natural cache casualties that occur, plundered caches, caches lost to wild animals, etc.

Let it go...... just let it go....

What he said.........

PUT....THE CANDLE.....BACK!!

Sngans

Sacred cows make the best hamburger....Mark Twain.

September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:
It has been discussed, and I believe they should be. Maybe not a set time limit, but more by common sense.

If you have a cache in a well cache populated area and it hasn't had a log in 6 months...archive it and open the area for a new cache that all can enjoy. Please note I said an area that is well populated with caches.

After a while most of the local cachers have found it...assuming they wanted to in the first place. Why keep the area tied up? This sport is growing so fast we are going to grid lock sooner than you might realize!

Just my 2 cents worth.

El Diablo

I totally agree with El Diablo

Let the caches stay as long as the owner wants.

I think the key to what 360 is asking is maintenance. Cache owners are supposed to maintain their caches. That’s why vacation caches are not allowed. If too much traffic is creating a problem (“Geotrail” being trampled to the cache) then the owner should archive it. The owner should remove anything they don’t want in their cache that has caused the cache to as some say "degrade".

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

2.3k · September 11, 2003

Caches should stay active as long as the owner feels as long as no enviromental damage happens. ghost trails is a good reason to archive or move a cache.

CO Admin

The Frog is my friend

24.7k · September 11, 2003

Caches should always stay as long as they can and no longer than they should.

1.5k · September 11, 2003

No.

Brian

Team A.I.

2.1k · September 11, 2003

I questioned that as well as couple months ago 360. My reasoning was for the future and future cachers. Some areas are so intensely saturated that a few years down the road that it will definietely be more difficult. I do agree with a couple of statements here. First of all, if the cache is being visited constantly and stays in good repair, then the cache should remain until otherwise. And then on the other hand, caches that are found with months of time in between or that are falling in disrepair, need to go. There are caches out there (recent forum discussion of one in Hollywood) that went 6 months plus of not being logged. And then when someone found it, the log book was ruined and the owner no longer lived there. That should of been archived and let someone else move in on the territory. I think it will take some checks & balances, but if done on a offensive note, then it will not only make the caching experience better, but the future of caching brighter as well.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

2.6k · September 11, 2003

Here In So Cal I think we get new cachers faster then we get caches, yes we have a lot of caches but there again we have a lot of cachers. Also cachers drop out and quit playing. So I would say no.

PS then there are cachers that would rather start polls, maybe they should be out caching

All who look are not lost

2.1k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by vagabond:
Here In So Cal I think we get new cachers faster then we get caches, yes we have a lot of caches but there again we have a lot of cachers.

That is for your area and not necessarily the same everywhere. I imagine the cache density is pretty thick there. i know when I do a search within 100 miles of my house I get 1500 results. And about 1000 are probably within 50-75 miles of my house, around Boston and below it. Then you have cachers that own 50-100+ caches. I say put a limit on the number of caches a person can own. That way, if they reach their limit and they find a cooler spot to place one, then they must archive one of their caches. There goes a new spot for another cacher.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

3k · September 11, 2003

NO - if a hider is properly maintaining a cache and there are no problems, then why? MORE RULES? No. NO NO NO NO NO! Maintain, that's it.

If a hider is not an active cacher, and never maintains we have our handy "This cache should be archived button". And adoption procedures. So no.

Cache you later,

Planet

So many caches, so little time.

2.6k · September 11, 2003

Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors: Then you have cachers that own 50-100+ caches. I say put a limit on the number of caches a person can own. That way, if they reach their limit and they find a cooler spot to place one, then they must archive one of their caches. There goes a new spot for another cacher.

Sounds like a great Idea,

All who look are not lost

1.5k · September 11, 2003

Following the logic of some w/o finds for months being archived, would that apply to highly difficult caches as well? There are a number of difficult caches where terrain difficulty 'causes' it not to be found frequently. Then there are the mentally difficult caches that also go months without a find. I know of several that go decent lengths of time without finds. Mission: Silica Currency is one of them that comes to mind.

Brian

Team A.I.

September 11, 2003

No.

Caches that haven't been visited recently are usually the better more challenging ones. Eliminate the caches that get hit once-a-week instead.

Don't limit the number of caches a player can place, that inhibits good caches from good placers, that inhibits people who place them from enjoying.

No--even I can't find an upside of that idea.

(Caches around here don't degrade anymore, new caches place the same quality that they've seen, so they generally start poorly stocked.)

Sorry,

Randy

38.2k · September 11, 2003

Nope. I usually place caches for a reason. Often it's a nice hike, great view, or an area of historic importance. The reason I placed it doesn't go away after 6, 12 or 18 months, so why should the cache?

I do like the idea of cache renewal, where after a set amount of time (a year?, 18 months?), the owner is sent an e-mail asking if they are still interested in maintaining the cache. If they don't respond, or respond in the negative, then a note is placed on the cache page saying something like "this cache has expired. Would the next finder remove the container and post an ARCHIVE THIS CACHE note once you've done so"

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

1.4k · September 11, 2003

I do like the idea of cache renewal, where after a set amount of time (a year?, 18 months?), the owner is sent an e-mail asking if they are still interested in maintaining the cache.

I like this idea and would support such an endeavor.

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

September 11, 2003

I think they should be able to stay. Especially because of snowfall. PA had a snowy winter. Still able to cache, but its harder with everything buried under snow.

SOme of the best caches i've found only get a handful of visitors a year, would be sad to see them go, they usually offer a beautiful view, or something exotic that you'd never see unless you went on the hike for the cache.

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

24.7k · September 11, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
......Would the next finder remove the container...

That implies that Geocaching.com owns the cache. Which is doesn't. The cache could be listed on several geocaching sites, the local ATV homepage or other places. It might be valid to check up on owners if they do not appear to be active on geocaching.com about their geocaching.com listing. Beyond that though there is no authority.

September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

That implies that Geocaching.com owns the cache. Which is doesn't. The cache could be listed on several geocaching sites

If you do a quick comparison between caches listed on this site and the *other* site, you will discover many caches that have been archived here (some with notes from their owners stating they removed the cache) still listed on that site. What does that imply?

2.1k · September 12, 2003

I agree with RK, when it comes to removing a container. First of all it's not GC's property. I think if one went and removed soemone's container without permission, then there would be some recourse. The caches are listed by GC, not owned. If that was the case, then they would put the caches out themselves. If I placed a cache and decided I wanted to put it on another site, then what can you do about it? GC may not like it and remove the listing, but that's all they can do. And then anyone who removes the container is doing so as a representative of GC. Not a good way of handling things. Also what if someone has placed a cache near there that is not listed on GC and the next "finder" finds it and takes it?Now they've stolen property.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

38.2k · September 12, 2003

quote:
And then on the other hand, caches that are found with months of time in between or that are falling in disrepair, need to go. There are caches out there (recent forum discussion of one in Hollywood) that went 6 months plus of not being logged.

Why? I have caches that go months between finds (sometimes as many as 6). They were good caches when I placed them and they still are, so I don't see why I sould archive them. There are new geocachers joining the sport all the time. Why deny them the opportunity to look for caches that most of the veteran area geocachers enjoyed a long time ago?

quote:
I say put a limit on the number of caches a person can own. That way, if they reach their limit and they find a cooler spot to place one, then they must archive one of their caches. There goes a new spot for another cacher.

Some people enjoy placing caches and are good at it. I don't see any benefit of limiting their number of placements. If they have the ability to maintain 100, or 200 caches, let them.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

3.1k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
If you do a quick comparison between caches listed on this site and the *other* site, you will discover many caches that have been archived here (some with notes from their owners stating they removed the cache) still listed on that site. What does that imply?

It implies the owner shouldn't have listed on the other site if they didn't plan on keeping the listing there up-to-date.

On the other hand, there's a cache near me that was rejected by gc.com as a vacation cache. It was subsequently listed at the other site. I'm 100% in favor of cleaning up archived caches, but situations like this need to be considered. I don't think it's right to remove a cache just because it isn't listed on your site of choice.

2.1k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Why? I have caches that go months between finds (sometimes as many as 6). They were good caches when I placed them and they still are, so I don't see why I sould archive them. There are new geocachers joining the sport all the time. Why deny them the opportunity to look for caches that most of the veteran area geocachers enjoyed a long time ago?

If they are in good repair and the owner is active, then I don't see a problem. But when you have people who place a cache or two and never even have a find to their name or haven't cached in a long time. Then those need to be weeded out. The time limit(6 months) was something I threw up. Kind of like your renewing at time intervals. Along with that suggestion, i would recommend some way that when the owner says yes, they want to keep their cache active, they need to show that they are activily maintaining it and have gone and checked on it.

quote:
Some people enjoy placing caches and are good at it. I don't see any benefit of limiting their number of placements. If they have the ability to maintain 100, or 200 caches, let them.

The fact of limiting the number of caches per owner helps eliminate people from hogging, basically. I could of easily gone into the park where I placed my cache and submitted many caches or one big multi cache and taken up the whole place, but why? There are plenty of other caches out there that others have placed, why fill up the area with your own? For some small towns, they will need to rename the town after the cache owner if someone goes and places 100 or 200 caches. Keep it down to 10 or so. Sure new cachers might like finding caches that veterans have found, but they may also want to place a cache too.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

September 12, 2003

I think they should be able to stay as long as they can (and should be maintained by the hider . . . or someone else that agrees to). It's interesting to see how long a cache actually stays in a place.

September 12, 2003

Cache ownership is a farce. In most cases, as soon as a cache has been placed, it has been effectively abandoned by its "owner".

Want proof? Spend an hour reading cache logs for caches placed more than 6 months ago. Keep tally of the cache condition as reported by finders over the months. Take note of how often cache owners ignore the problems reported and when/if the problem was corrected, it was corrected by a finder.

Yes, this website needs to institute a periodic reverification of the cache owner's interest in and responsibility for the caches they placed.

I think the "good" cache owners wouldn't have a problem with such a procedure, and it would help to ear mark for retrieval/archival a lot of the abandoned "junk caches".

6.5k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
Cache ownership is a farce. In most cases, as soon as a cache has been placed, it has been effectively abandoned by its "owner".

Want proof? Spend an hour reading cache logs for caches placed more than 6 months ago. Keep tally of the cache condition as reported by finders over the months. Take note of how often cache owners ignore the problems reported and when/if the problem was corrected, it was corrected by a finder.

Zap, if things are that bad for you then just start removing the junk ones as you find them. Post a SBA stating the cache is damaged etc etc and you've removed it, and that the owner should contact you within the next week if they want the moldy gladware back. Then in a week toss it out. "Good" cacher owners, which you must have beaten to the cache for a maintaince visit will contact and make arrangements for the return. "Bad" cachers probly won't contact you at all. Either way the cache is getting attention.

No, gc.com does not need to enforce a time limit. It would just complicate a simple thing, and would be pretty arbitrary. What can you use for determing a time limit other than the 'average' cache?

2.1k · September 12, 2003

Marking for archiving and then archiving them is one thing, but as stated before, a person that removes anothers cache might be asking for trouble. Especially if they accidentally take the wrong one.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

6.5k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
Marking for archiving and then archiving them is one thing, but as stated before, a person that removes anothers cache might be asking for trouble. Especially if they accidentally take the wrong one.

Take the wrong waterlogged trash filled cache

If you feel uncomfortable removing an 'active' cache, then post a SBA and wait for it to be archived. When that finally happens go back and physically remove it...

2.1k · September 12, 2003

No what I'm saying is, is that unless you have permission from the owner to remove it, it might cause some problems. I don't think that someone that represents gc.com should ask cachers to retrieve a cache and then mark it SBA as to deputizing a cacher. Someone else mentioned that the cache might be listed elsewhere. That will cause problems for sure. Especially if an owner is no longer using geocaching.com and are not using the same email address they used before. But what are you going to do if someone places a cache that is listed on another site, next to one that is listed on geocaching.com? There's bound to interference down the road if not already....

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

6.5k · September 12, 2003

6.5k · September 12, 2003

hiccup...

6.5k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
No what I'm saying is, is that unless you have permission from the owner to remove it, it might cause some problems.

I see it as if they can't bother to fix it themselves, its not really theres, so I don't need their permission to get rid of it. I am talking about obvisously abandoned caches, ruined damaged pieces of litter that are known to be a specific location.

quote:
I don't think that someone that represents gc.com should ask cachers to retrieve a cache and then mark it SBA as to deputizing a cacher.

is that being done

quote:
Someone else mentioned that the cache might be listed elsewhere.

I don't care wheres its listed, trash is litter.

quote:
That will cause problems for sure. Especially if an owner is no longer using geocaching.com and are not using the same email address they used before. But what are you going to do if someone places a cache that is listed on another site, next to one that is listed on geocaching.com? There's bound to interference down the road if not already....

It seems we're talking about different things. Im talking about removing litter, and your talking about? cache density?

9.4k · September 12, 2003

Wow, triple post! Almost a home run...

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.3k · September 12, 2003

I am self-imposing a limited lifespan on my physical caches. They will be pulled and archived after a set amount of time passes, in order that I may keep my hiding techniques fresh and offer the local cachers the continuous challenges of new finds. Additionally, this move will keep any environmental damage around a site to a minimum.

9.4k · September 12, 2003

Just wait until AFTER Halloween so I can find 'em all first

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.3k · September 12, 2003

No prob. I will wait till after you get em, and then start to change some over.

9.4k · September 12, 2003

Cool, thanks!

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CO Admin:
Caches should stay active as long as the owner feels as long as no enviromental damage happens. ghost trails is a good reason to archive or move a cache.

"I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife, She'll confirm it"

September 12, 2003

I just started caching, and am enjoying finding some of the older

ones more than the newer ones... they have a character of history.

Besides, why make a rule? Let freedom reign... if you want your

caches to expire, pull them. But don't impose that on everyone else.

Some people go to great lengths to find a location and place

a cache. Just take a look at Cables and Pulleys and Bells.

That one took the owner a lot of work, and I would recommend

it to anyone coming from out of town, or new to the game.

"I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife, She'll confirm it"

9.4k · September 12, 2003

Is that one of those new Magellan Cache Detectors?

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.2k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
Cache ownership is a farce. In most cases, as soon as a cache has been placed, it has been effectively abandoned by its "owner".

Yes, this website needs to institute a periodic reverification of the cache owner's interest in and responsibility for the caches they placed.

I think the "good" cache owners wouldn't have a problem with such a procedure, and it would help to ear mark for retrieval/archival a lot of the abandoned "junk caches".

I believe you do have a bit of a point here, however bluntly put...lol. I see no problem with a cache verification process. At the very least an automatically generated e-mail could be sent to the owners of caches once the cache reaches, say, one year of age. The e-mail could contain suggestions for cache maintenance and how to archive any caches the owner no longer cares to take care of.

We could also establish an adoption forum. If you have caches you don't want to take care of anymore you could put them up for adoption in a more formal manner than just *Hey, anybody want a cache?* in the local forums...

If a cache owner does not respond to the e-mail, for any number of reasons, then after 60 days (or however many days) it could be assumed to be abandoned and placed on the adoption forum. Rather than archiving it this gives the owner an additional chance to wake up and smell their cache going bye bye. If it is adopted the new owner would be free to restock it, archive it, rename it, or leave it as is. Their choice.

This would of course add complications to TPTB in implementing this feature, but I think it might be time for some kind of upkeep and a method of culling some of the *geotrash* some of you have mentioned.

I too believe we should be careful about just removing caches we *feel* are just trash or litter. Your idea of litter is one you have developed over your lifetime. That does not mean my idea of litter is exactly the same. So applying either of these definitions to someone else's cache is an assumption, and we know how dangerous those are. If after a cache owner has been contacted, or at least exhaustive efforts to do so have taken place, and there is no interest by others to adopt the cache, perhaps a *sanctioned* proceedure for cache removal can be developed.

Just taking the cache because you think it should be taken isn't the way to go.

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

1.2k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
I am self-imposing a limited lifespan on my physical caches. They will be pulled and archived after a set amount of time passes, in order that I may keep my hiding techniques fresh and offer the local cachers the continuous challenges of new finds. Additionally, this move will keep any environmental damage around a site to a minimum.

A noble sentiment. Or, you could hide some on the Gulf Coast, and the hurricanes will re-arrange the area, wash away your caches, or cover them in so much debris they are no longer usable. This way you get to re-do them regularly and it keeps them fresh....LOL.

Trust me, I know of what I speak... just replaced three caches. But, that means, new logbooks, new ammo cans, new contents. Is there such a thing as FTFAH? (First To Find After Hurricane?).

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
No what I'm saying is, is that unless you have permission from the owner to remove it, it might cause some problems.

Ask the irresponsible "owner" who abandoned the cache for permission to remove something they neglected all along? That's nuts.

I agree that the website should archive the cache and arrange for a volunteer (like the local anonymous approver) to remove it.

1.5k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mark 42:

quote:
Originally posted by CO Admin:
Caches should stay active as long as the owner feels as long as no enviromental damage happens. ghost trails is a good reason to archive or move a cache.

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/146103_1200.jpg

_ "I'm not Responsible... just ask my wife, She'll confirm it" _

That's it! Time to start dropping live 12-gauge rounds at random in high grassy areas. After seeing what one did to a riding lawnmower a few years ago...and it wasn't me. Some kids took a box of shells out of a pickup bed and tossed them around the common area of the townhomes I lived in. We found most of them....

Brian

Team A.I.

24.7k · September 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox:
...Ask the irresponsible "owner" who abandoned the cache for permission to remove something they neglected all along? That's nuts.

I agree that the website should archive the cache and arrange for a volunteer (like the local anonymous approver) to remove it.

Where are you coming from on this? It's my cache I don't need any other cachers permission to place it. Maintainance is up to me at my sole discression at whatever interval I choose if I even choose any.

If "Geocourt" wants to get involved they can kiss by ***. That's the fastest way for most of us to pull the plug on this hobby.

By the way, now that you have deleted all your finds, thanks for being a jerk. Your logs are why I place caches. If you delete them to "prove it's about the numbers" you are no better than the cache owners you are *****ing about. Did you also go back ot the caches and delete your physical logs?

Don't answer that. I don't want to know. Based on your other comments you would probably think that's ok too.

September 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:
Where are you coming from on this? It's my cache I don't need any other cachers permission to place it. Maintainance is up to me at my sole discression at whatever interval I choose if I even choose any.

Are your standards so low that you enjoy finding broken, water-filled containers that owners have failed to maintain despite repeated logs to their cache page?

Of course, I understand your other hobby is collecting "Trucker's Friend" bottles from along the highway, so your position is understandable.

September 13, 2003

no, no, no! the older caches are a part of the history of the game, and as long as there are no problems should remain out there. it doesn't matter how long between finds either. the cache is out there to be found regardless of how often someone seeks it. no more rules! -harry

September 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by shawhh:
no, no, no! the older caches are a part of the history of the game, and as long as there are no problems should remain out there.

And what about the plethora of older caches that are neglected or abandoned and do have problems? Not addressing a serious problem doesn't make it go away.

POLL: Should physical caches have a set lifespan?

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

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