Should this cache be forcibly archived?

[+Rye_and_Leigh]

Hi! There's a cache in my area that the owner seems to have abandoned. The last successful find was 11/4/2001 and the last four searchers (myself included) have been unable to find it, though once I used the clue it was obviously hidden in a 4'x8' area. I posted a owner checkup request and two of us have since posted archive requests. There has been no response from the owner. What should be done at this point?

 

Here is the cache.

 

Thanks for reading!

[iryshe]

The cache has been archived.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

[+Rye_and_Leigh]

Thank you, Jeremy! I didn't realize it was quite that simple to get it archived. I was under the impression that I needed to generate consensus first (or something). Wasn't sure how long it had to be abandoned or what "proof" was needed to suggest that it was really gone.

 

[This message was edited by Rye_and_Leigh on June 25, 2002 at 06:46 AM.]

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Things are much easier to get archived by absent cache owners now. I looked at that cache owners profile and they had just one hide with only two finds. So they are probably long gone. Every once in awhile we'll find an abandoned cache. It's a little frustrating but part of the hobby.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+sbell111]

I voted 'something else' because there wasn't a choice for 'This cache should be archived faster than a speeding locomotive.'

 

Thanks Jeremy and thanks Rye_and_Leigh for working to get these 'long gone' caches archived.

[+paul_stratton]

Actually, I voted "Other". I think that all caches that have not been logged on the geocaching.com website within a "reasonable" period of time should be automatically archived. The "reasonable" time period should be defined by the website administrators.

 

For example, I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and a recent search shows there are currently 305 caches (of all types) within a 100-mile circle of my home coordinates.

 

I like the variety of choices but even an enthusiast can only hunt for so many.

 

Out of my initial curiousity about geocaching, I created a simple 1/1 cache in a park near my neighborhood (GC4DBF). After the first month there has not been a single log. I've checked on the cache every few days and have found it vandalized only once. I started the cache with what I thought to be above-average items. Currently, there are only some very cheap toys and a few "Kilroy Was Here" type tokens. I wonder, if I restocked the cache and announced that if was updated that it might start getting more visits?

 

Has any studies been done on things like this?

 

Granted, I haven't been able to search for many caches and the ones that I have found are of the easy-to-find variety. Here lately my free time has been rare and I have many demands on my time.

 

What I'm slowing getting to is that it seems that many geocachers seem to have whole lot of initial interest in geocaching, then as time goes by, they seem to focus on more of the complex caches or the interest wanes significantly.

 

Thus, I vote for automatic archiving...

 

Paul Stratton

 

Been There, Done Cached! Got the T-Shirt and the Hat

[+sbell111]

Paul, I respectfully disagree with automatic archiving.

 

You're right that a 1/1 in a local park may not be of interest to a 'hard core' cacher. It will be of interest to three types of cachers:

 

1) newbies

2) cachers with small children

3) cachers who are visiting your area.

 

My advice is to continue to maintain your cache as you have done. I would probably spruce it up from time to time. It is unlikely that this will result in more cachers searching for it, but it will help enhance the caching adventure for the nubes.

 

Of course, it's your cache. If you want, you can archive it and place it somewhere more challenging.

[skydiver]

I also have to disagree with auto archiving just because a cache hasn't had a visitor in some set time period.

That rule would totally discourage anyone from placing the really hard to get to caches. I think a lot of people (not necessarily all, or even most) here agree, that there need to be more hard caches, not fewer.

I'm currently working on a 5/4 cache, and don't expect it to get many visitors. To have it get forcibly archived after all this work, just because it failed to get a visitor after some arbitrary amount of time, would be highly discouraging.

 

---------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends NOT geocache.

---------------------------------------

[+Markwell]

We've hashed through the auto-archiving debate before. I'll chime in on the fact that I'd be extremely warry of any process that automatically does something to the data without some human intervention.

 

That's why Jeremy implemented the "This Cache Should Be Archived" feature in the manner that he did. Rather than leaving it up to the finder to archive someone else's cache, the post sends an e-mail to the sysadmin. Jeremy (or his designated representative) contacts the cache owner and lets them know what's going on. Then if there's no response or the cache has indeed been shown to be completely missing, it's archived.

 

I have one cache that is in hibernation (inactive). One of the stations on this multicache is undergoing some tuckpoint construction, so the numbers that a cacher needs are unreadable. It has been inactive since probably March. The construction is almost finished and I'll be ready to reactivate the cache. With your guidelines, this probably would have been archived by the system. No thanks.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+parkrrrr]

What Markwell said. Perfectly Perplexing Puzzles is approaching the 1-month mark with not a single find and only, apparently, two people looking for it. But it shouldn't be archived, because we're still keeping a very close eye on it.

 

[+Web-ling]

My Texas Wild! Safari cache has only been found once since February. Living in a target-rich area (259 caches within 50 miles), many people have avoided hunting this cache, probably because it takes several hours to do, and involves going into the Fort Worth Zoo. (The cache itself is OUTSIDE the zoo). My A Pair of Quintuplets (Traditional) cache, companion of my 'locationless' cache, hasn't been found since April 10, mainly because it's out in the styx and surrounded by ferocious thorns. Both caches still exist, and are in great shape. Nobody's bothering to hunt them, however, which is not a good reason to archive them. Texas Wild! Safari gets visitors from time to time, and A Pair of Quintuplets (Traditional) will probably get more visits once the vegetation dies down this fall.

 

[+Rye_and_Leigh]

quote:

---

Actually, I voted "Other". I think that all caches that have not been logged on the geocaching.com website within a "reasonable" period of time should be automatically archived. The "reasonable" time period should be defined by the website administrators.

---

 

I have to disagree with you, Paul. Automatic archiving would get rid of a large number of caches in western Montana, where we live. Many reasons exist for some caches around here not getting visitors for long periods of time, including something called "winter", when many caches are covered with up to ten feet of snow for months. Roads leading with 50 miles of some caches are also buried all winter (and spring in some places). Heck, I've got a good spot I want to place a cache, but there's *still* too much snow to get there now. If I get it there it will only be realistic to get to it about 4-5 months out of the years. If an auto-archive were even set to six months, it would be too short a time for this cache.

 

Can't we, as the GeoCaching community, work together to take care of our local areas and get things archived when they need to be removed due to plundering, neglect, etc.? I think we can.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

quote:

---

Actually, I voted "Other". I think that all caches that have not been logged on the geocaching.com website within a "reasonable" period of time should be automatically archived.

---

Enough with the zillions of rules kids. I have some easy 1/1 caches and a couple that require quite an effort to get to. The ones I've hidden up high on long hikes seldom get hit, but they are still very good caches.

 

OH and I could care less about what's in a cache, that doesn't affect if I try for it or not. What matters the most to me is "am I going to be able to find the road in".

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+briansnat]

I'd be hesitant to archive any cache without the owners consent. Its one thing when there are a bunch of "not founds" after a number of "founds" and the owner doesn't respond. But I've seen several "archive this cache" requests out there for caches that are obviously difficult to find.

 

People must be certain that a cache is missing before they ask to archive it. If it's archived and it still is there, it immediately becomes nothing more than litter.

[+Rusty & Libby]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I'd be hesitant to archive any cache without the owners consent. Its one thing when there are a bunch of "not founds" after a number of "founds" and the owner doesn't respond. But I've seen several "archive this cache" requests out there for caches that are obviously difficult to find.

 

People must be certain that a cache is missing before they ask to archive it. If it's archived and it still is there, it immediately becomes nothing more than litter.

---

 

I've noticed that too. I saw one recently on a cache I knew to be difficult and I placed my own note next to the archive request. Jeremy then made the cache "unavailable" until the cache owner could check it out or for two weeks. I think that was a very fair way to handle it. It's a 2hr drive and 6 mile round trip hike or I would just go check it myself.

 

I also agree with you comment that it becomes litter and I think we need to be conscious of that.

 

Rusty...

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

[+fizzymagic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

People must be certain that a cache is missing before they ask to archive it. If it's archived and it still is there, it immediately becomes nothing more than litter.

---

 

I disagree. I posted a "should be archived" note today on a cache that I think is inappropriate. This cache is located in a fairly densely wooded area, and there is no clue about how to find it. No cache description, nothing. People who have found it say the only way to do so is to tear through all the vegetation in the area until you find it by brute force.

 

That's not what geocaching is about. If a cache is placed in such a way that people searching for it are likely to do damage, then a note indicating that the cache should be removed seems entirely appropriate.

[+Rebel]

Where it be?

 

-----------

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." - Mark Twain

[+Allen_L]

This one?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=17266