Who should remove unapproved/archived caches?

October 22, 2003

I have on several occasions removed caches at the request of park officials that were placed without permission and the cache owner would not pick them up after they had contacted from TPTB about they did not want it placed there and it was archived. With that said it has worked great.

In the last six months this has happen only once, a cache placed in a state park while someone was on vacation. NO PERMISSION

Of those original park systems that asked me to do that, TN State Parks , Metro Nashville City Parks, Clarksville City Parks and the Murfreesboro Parks now they all allow caching in there parks.

Folks that’s 218 more parks to put caches in, WOW that works for me.

If there were a cache that was not approved and the cache owner did not respond to the approver about picking it up, and I was asked to fetch it because it was in my regular caching area, You dam skippy I would, but not until I was asked.

If you want to flame me on this fine, but this is proof that it works 218 times………..JOE

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bilder:
Here is what the site has to say about cache maintenance:

quote:
Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair. Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

They are asked to see that their cache is in good repair. If they do not, then someone else will either maintain it for them or remove it when it finally falls apart or falls prey to plunderers. They will not have any argument against the removal of the cache if it has not been maintained.

Sounds reasonable, but I think what Woodsters is pushing for is that this be officially stated so that even cachers with IQ's in the negative digits will understand that their cache may be removed if it is not maintained.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

October 22, 2003

Oh my gosh, is the moon full? Nope, it's about to be 'new'. Why all the forum insanity today? Sorry, OT.

Back on topic here, the issue is moot.

Legally, what you can do with private property is controlled by statutes. None of us may affect that readily (nor want to). (As much as people seem to want to blame GC.com for all their problems--they truely have no authority, nor want any!)

Now, what problem is this discussion supposed to resolve? (Having read the preceding discontinued thread and this one.)

If a cache is not approved or archived and the owner can't be contacted, removing it risks legal prosecution if the owner is so inclined. That doesn't suggest it shouldn't be moved (morally), but reasonable effort needs to be taken to contact the owner.

This is the way it's currently done. (I'm again wondering where the problem is?)

The suggestion to add a button to allow a cache owner to grant right of removal to the site is not an option. First, it involved time/work for a trivial issue. Second, it legally involved the site, something their attorneys would NEVER agree to given the liability exposure. Third, it wouldn't be legally enforceable anyway, making it meaningless. Fourth, were a cache removed according to that proposed system, an owner might still be upset, so it hasn't benefitted anyone.

If the goal of this is to police cache owners--that's not our job, the volunteer approvers' job nor GC.com's job.

Call me ignorant, but I'm missing where the problem in the current process is? (Contact owner, if no response or unavailable after extended time, publicly ask for volunteers to take care of it.) (Were it listed on another system or the owner cared about it, they'd speak up to stop the action.)

I'm baffled at the need to fabricate issues...

Enjoy (even if it's hard),

Randy

October 22, 2003

Here is an interesting cache in Hawaii. The Last Kukui It was placed by an approver that lives in the Vancouver area. I'm sure there is an excellent reason why this cache was approved, despite the fact that it looks suspiciously like a vacation cache.

I'm sure, though, that I don't know the whole story and its all on the up-and-up.

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
Here is an interesting cache in Hawaii. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=8fbccdec-c3bc-414c-89fd-9a4573706434 It was placed by an approver that lives in the Vancouver area.

The cache was placed 1/1/2002. There were no rules about caches placed on vacation at that time. Additionally, do you know the background on this cache? Placer "Braddah Joe & The Kaua'i Boy" may live in the Islands. Many cachers have friends and family that maintain their caches in other states/countries.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

9.4k · October 22, 2003

One last thing. erik88l-r approved the cache listing. Jumping at shadows? Boo!

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

9.4k · October 22, 2003

Gorak, that cache apparantly made it through before the ban on vacation caches was in place. It looks like it has had 1.5 years of found logs with only one not found during that time. Now that the last 2 logs are not-founds, it might be an issue. Mr.Gigabyte posted a not saying it is in fine shape, but we won't really know for sure unless it is found again. I'm curious as to why a Canadian approver says it is ok and not the cache owner.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
I'm curious as to why a Canadian approver says it is ok and not the cache owner.

Click on profile. It is listed under Mr.Gigabyte's account. He's commenting on his own cache listing, so apparently he has a local checking in on it from time to time. Not sure where erik88l-r comes into the equation.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
The cache was placed 1/1/2002. There were no rules about caches placed on vacation at that time. Additionally, do you know the background on this cache? Placer "Braddah Joe & The Kaua'i Boy" may live in the Islands. Many cachers have friends and family that maintain their caches in other states/countries.

I guess I was confused by Braddah Joe & The Kaua'i Boy's profile being that of an approver in Vancouver.

Like I said:

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
I'm sure, though, that I don't know the whole story and its all on the up-and-up.

Thanks for the clearing that up. Just to clarify - vacation caches are ok as long as you have someone else who is willing to maintain it for you? Cool.

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

1.1k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
...

Since the listing in question is neither unapproved nor archived, it's a bit moot for this discussion. Back to the topic at hand...

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
Since the listing in question is neither unapproved nor archived, it's a bit moot for this discussion. Back to the topic at hand...

You are most absolutely correct. My most humblest of apologies to you, sir, for this extremely off-topic post. My bad. I actually meant to post this to a different topic. I seek your gracious forgiveness for this most thoughtless blunder. I'll endeavor to pay more attention to what I am doing in the future.

Humbley,

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

1.3k · October 22, 2003

After spending the better part of an hour reading this thread, this is what I got out of it. Woodsters suggests that a note be placed on the cache submission page that lets a potential hider know that should an apparent condition of abandonment be associated with the cache, it may be removed by someone other than the hider.

Or more plainly, "If other people think your cache is abandoned, you agree to let them remove it."

There are some problems associated with this idea. If it were implemented, an irresponsible cacher could quit the sport without worrying about retrieving their caches, thinking that someone else will remove the caches for them.

Caches that are not abandoned would be removed by people who just didn't like them, citing abandonment as the reason.

The environmental extremeists will claim that all caches are abandoned and use this as an excuse to begin systematically removing every cache they come across.

It would be nice to have a way to know if a cache is truly abandoned, but it falls under judgement on a cache by cache basis. One hard and fast guideline can't possibly cover all of the possible scenarios.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.6k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
I want names!

...I'll see if I can dig up that email for you.

Please do.

Found it. Dated 11/10/02. In response to my query, you said, "Thanks for your help. I have archived the cache. If you could retrieve the leftovers I'd greatly appreciate it!"

Now, I didn't mind going and doing my part to help the community. I don't really mind the part of picking up destroyed caches.

What I have a problem with is saying that the folks at gc.com don't tell people to pick up caches--"We do not tell people to remove caches and I don't believe we have the right to do so"--when, in fact, I got a message to do that very thing.

Granted the cache in question was in very bad shape, but it was salvagable. I think I still have th log somewhere around here, but all of the salvagable trades have gone out to caches. I was fully willing to replace the container, put in a new logbook, replace the salvaged items and add a few more. In fact, we've done this very thing to another abandoned cache nearby--we just didn't officially adopt it.

Like I've said, I don't have a problem with doing my part for the community or retrieving destroyed caches. I do have a problem with some of the attitudes here thinking gc.com has the last word on if a cache needs removing--even if I agree to it in some TOS.

It's my cache. It's there for you to hunt it, to trade out of it, and to log it. Otherwise, leave it alone.

CR

1.4k · October 22, 2003

I see it like this. From GC's position, there should be no responsibility or program for physically removing a cache. A policy that facilitates the removal a cache with the owners consent is obviously excepted. GC may remove/archive/disable, any cache listing it chooses, for (ultimately)any reason at all. I own my cache. I am responsible for it's care and feeding. If I neglect that responsibility, I should'nt be surprised if a geocacher/land manager/muggle CITO's it. I don't think it could actually qualify as littering as it was originally a game piece. Abandoned personal property is more fitting.

"Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!"

9.4k · October 22, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
After spending the better part of an hour reading this thread, this is what I got out of it. <snip>

It would be nice to have a way to know if a cache is truly abandoned, but it falls under judgement on a cache by cache basis. One hard and fast guideline can't possibly cover all of the possible scenarios.

Thank you, Bloen

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

9.4k · October 22, 2003

Looks like the FAQ page has been updated:

quote:
What do I do if I find out that a cache has gone missing?

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, always make sure to log the cache as "not found" on the web site so the cache owner knows. If you notice that the logs show an unusual number of "not found" logs, please inform this web site so we can check on the cache page. The cache can be temporarily disabled so the cache owner can check in on it. Sometimes, though rarely, when the cache owner cannot be contacted we can either allow folks to adopt the cache or have the cache removed completely from the site. We rely a lot on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area.

(Emphasis added)

Thanks, Jeremy for responding to this issue.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

1.4k · October 23, 2003

Just to make a point that has probably been made in the course of this three page thread...

The caches we are talking about have been archived because they are missing and/or destroyed. They are NOT sitting out in the wild in great condition with good, dry contents.

They are half eaten by animals, plundered or the like.

If caches are in great shape but the owner is MIA... they don't get /archived/. Noone goes around searching for people who have not been on the site for months but still have caches.

If a cache has been archived, it was for a reason. Either by the owner or by the site because it's been reported missing many times or reported damaged.

In those cases, it's completely non-problematic to check on the area and collect any remnants so they don't become litter.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Assimilating golf balls - one geocache at a time.

Michigan Geocaching Organization Homepage

1.6k · October 23, 2003

That's well and good except for the noises we hear ever so often about automated emails and time-limited caches. If that ever gets implemented and AWOL cacher's caches start getting archived because their listed email is no longer active, then community supported/adopted caches will be targeted for pickup--even if they are still viable.

Plus, after doing a fair amount of reading and research on the history geocaching and those involved, I wouldn't place much stock on something not changing in the future. Just because it's been one way in the past doesn't mean it will be the same way in the future.

CR

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bilder:

Leaving a container in the woods and then not maintaining it is not legal or in good taste.

It's as much as illegal as placing a container there and leaving it in the first place.

quote:
You seem to think that someone will get mad because their cache, which they placed and never maintained, was removed when it was found to be full of water and mildew for weeks.

Yes, someone could. Not all abandoned/archived caches are mildewy and full of water.

quote:
Here is what the site has to say about cache maintenance:

quote:
Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair. Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

They are asked to see that their cache is in good repair. If they do not, then someone else will either maintain it for them or remove it when it finally falls apart or falls prey to plunderers. They will not have any argument against the removal of the cache if it has not been maintained.

That does not say someone else will maintain or remove it. It's telling the cache owner those things and that they should follow those actions along with that they can move or remove the cache if it's violating any of those other things.

quote:
If you really want rules for every possible aspect of the game as well as enforcement proceedures for said rules, then you had best be ready to pony up more than 30 bucks for that membership.

Adding some rules or defining rules more doesn't cost a dime. I didn't say anything about enforcement procedures. My ideas was using the approvers and helpers in a way in which several approvers said they already do. My 30 bucks hasn't paid for any rules, just to get a PQ's, change my title and maybe one or two small things.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by JoGPS:
I have on several occasions removed caches at the request of park officials that were placed without permission and the cache owner would not pick them up after they had contacted from TPTB about they did not want it placed there and it was archived. With that said it has worked great.

In the last six months this has happen only once, a cache placed in a state park while someone was on vacation. NO PERMISSION

Of those original park systems that asked me to do that, TN State Parks , Metro Nashville City Parks, Clarksville City Parks and the Murfreesboro Parks now they all allow caching in there parks.

Folks that’s 218 more parks to put caches in, WOW that works for me.

If there were a cache that was not approved and the cache owner did not respond to the approver about picking it up, and I was asked to fetch it because it was in my regular caching area, You dam skippy I would, but not until I was asked.

If you want to flame me on this fine, but this is proof that it works 218 times………..JOE

JoGPS, I agree if the parks related directly to the site or a person to remove it, then that is fine. The park manages the land and they can do what they like there. Glad it worked out for those 218 parks!

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

Sounds reasonable, but I think what Woodsters is pushing for is that this be officially stated so that even cachers with IQ's in the negative digits will understand that their cache may be removed if it is not maintained.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

That's basically it Sax... Of course it's a common sense thing. Am I gonna say anything about someone removing an obviously abandoned cache that is in dissrepair? Would I remove one? Who knows, but i wouldn't say i did unless I was asked by TPTB or the land manager and then I would pull out a Ronald Reagan and not "recollect" that. But you hit it Sax, let the cachers know ahead that it will be done. spell it out to them in a one line sentence. In the guidelines is great as you already have to check that box that you have read them when placing a cache.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RJFerret:
Oh my gosh, is the moon full? Nope, it's about to be 'new'. Why all the forum insanity today? Sorry, OT.

Back on topic here, the issue is moot.

Legally, what you can do with private property is controlled by statutes. None of us may affect that readily (nor want to). (As much as people seem to want to blame GC.com for all their problems--they truely have no authority, nor want any!)

Now, what problem is this discussion supposed to resolve? (Having read the preceding discontinued thread and this one.)

If a cache is not approved or archived and the owner can't be contacted, removing it risks legal prosecution if the owner is so inclined. That doesn't suggest it shouldn't be moved (morally), but reasonable effort needs to be taken to contact the owner.

This is the way it's currently done. (I'm again wondering where the problem is?)

The suggestion to add a button to allow a cache owner to grant right of removal to the site is not an option. First, it involved time/work for a trivial issue. Second, it legally involved the site, something their attorneys would NEVER agree to given the liability exposure. Third, it wouldn't be legally enforceable anyway, making it meaningless. Fourth, were a cache removed according to that proposed system, an owner might still be upset, so it hasn't benefitted anyone.

If the goal of this is to police cache owners--that's not our job, the volunteer approvers' job nor GC.com's job.

Call me ignorant, but I'm missing where the problem in the current process is? (Contact owner, if no response or unavailable after extended time, publicly ask for volunteers to take care of it.) (Were it listed on another system or the owner cared about it, they'd speak up to stop the action.)

I'm baffled at the need to fabricate issues...

Enjoy (even if it's hard),

Randy

It's not the fact of putting a button, but just adding a line to the guidelines. Let the hiders know that the cache can be removed from the area. It makes no difference if it's a regular jo cacher or asked by the approvers, which they already do anyway. Jeremy stated that they will post a statement on the caches where land managers asked that they be picked up. Does that legally bind them? The idea is for GC to promote a positive role in it's working with land managers and agencies. What is one of the main reasons land managers don't allow caches? Becuase of litter and the harm it will do. They already promote CITO. Why not take it a little farther that a land manager doesn't have to ask or request it. Why not have it where when a cache is archived that the note goes on it that the newxt person to remove it. Then when it is removed, place a note that it was. At least someone won't get angry, well they probably will anyway, but if they do, Jeremy can say "sorry", "tough nuts" or whatever words he wants.

I have no problem with them being removed at all. I really don't. I think that something should be added though to let cachers know the recourse. Again there could be many scenarios where an overzealous cacher removes a cache that shouldn't be. Just because it's not listed on here anymore, doesn't mean it's being used for something else or elsewhere. Of course everyone immediately thinks of a park ranger and a piece of tupperware in the woods rotting. But there are places that caches are placed where there are no rangers and no one knows the cache is there, besides the cachers. At least that is how I percieve it sometimes. A don't ask permission and remove it only when it becomes a problem type of thing.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
After spending the better part of an hour reading this thread, this is what I got out of it. Woodsters suggests that a note be placed on the cache submission page that lets a potential hider know that should an apparent condition of abandonment be associated with the cache, it may be removed by someone other than the hider.

Or more plainly, "If other people think your cache is abandoned, you agree to let them remove it."

There are some problems associated with this idea. If it were implemented, an irresponsible cacher could quit the sport without worrying about retrieving their caches, thinking that someone else will remove the caches for them.

Caches that are not abandoned would be removed by people who just didn't like them, citing abandonment as the reason.

The environmental extremeists will claim that _all_ caches are abandoned and use this as an excuse to begin systematically removing every cache they come across.

It would be nice to have a way to know if a cache is truly abandoned, but it falls under judgement on a cache by cache basis. One hard and fast guideline can't possibly cover all of the possible scenarios.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

No it's just not for abandonment of such caches as you stated. People can do that anytime with someon they don't like. I believe I did initialyy state about adding the statement to the cache hide page. Rather it should be in the guideline as an approver noted that there is a checkbox on the form that you agree that you read the guidelines. My suggestion was not to give free will to the cachers to start removing caches. As you stated, it would be a problem, more so than what it may already be. My suggestion was that upon archival of a cache and after a period of time of contacting the cache owner with no repsonse that the approver can state that the next person can remove the cache or heck make a list like MIGO has on their CRM. That way people then can go and remove them, and claim a find on it if they already haven't for their trouble. More or less like Sax said, it's to let those, I won't put it as he did, but they will know ahead of time that if the TPTB determine your cache is no longer functioning hten it will be suggested to be removed. It's already being done. I just suggested adding the sentence to the guidelines for it.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

2.1k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Looks like the http://www.geocaching.com/faq/ page has been updated:

quote:
What do I do if I find out that a cache has gone missing?

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, always make sure to log the cache as "not found" on the web site so the cache owner knows. If you notice that the logs show an unusual number of "not found" logs, please inform this web site so we can check on the cache page. The cache can be temporarily disabled so the cache owner can check in on it. _Sometimes, though rarely, when the cache owner cannot be contacted we can either allow folks to adopt the cache or have the cache removed completely from the site._ We rely a lot on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area.

(Emphasis added)

Thanks, Jeremy for responding to this issue.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Yes..thank you Jeremy. I'm done.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

1.2k · October 23, 2003

Someone markwell me if Im wrong, but I think Woodsters just beat umc's record for consecutive posts

Lapaglia

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

2.1k · October 23, 2003

lol lap...I was answering them as I was reading them...If I could I would delete them except the last one...

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

9.4k · October 23, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
lol lap...I was answering them as I was reading them...If I could I would delete them except the last one...

What have you done to my beautiful thread?

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.1k · October 23, 2003

hehe ...sorry sax...you can close it if you want....

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

9.4k · October 23, 2003

This issue has been resolved, just look for my post above Woodsters' book.

No, look higher...higher...there it is!

I think I'll let it move down on its own. I don't like closing threads.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

Who should remove unapproved/archived caches?

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

Join the conversation