Care and Feeding of your Cache

[Guest jeremy]

Now this may sound odd, but I was thinking about the idea of aging caches - Basically like a Tamagotchi, have a cache that is healthy when it is placed. When people don't visit after a while it starts to starve.

 

It's really meant as a visual representation of the cache as it's health (how many visits, etc). Sickly caches could be visited to check whether it is still ok, and removed from the site if they're gone, etc.

 

I suppose I'd add an icon on each page so you can quickly look and see healthy caches. New caches would look like a baby, etc.

 

What would be the timing? 45 days? And of course the cache owner could visit any time on the site and "feed" the cache so folks know it's being cared for.

 

Thoughts?

 

Jeremy

[Guest Team JackQuest]

larger tree then as the health decreases leaves fall or color changes to brown. The human angle would require the progression to final death maybe a little morbid for the younger folk and then again maybe not. Of course I have no idea of the coding involved.

 

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

TEAM JackQuest

Jack & Cyber

www.jackquest.com

Base Camp N 40° 20.268' W 75° 37.969' (WGS84)

[Guest Markwell]

How would you determine what was happening in the wild? A cache may sit undisturbed for months in an ammo can on a rock cliff - and it may still be as healthy as an ox. Another one could be logged three times the day after it's been placed and because of inequity of trading - it might as well have been plundered.

 

Cache health would have to take into consideration the frequency of non-Geocachers, the durability of the container, the equity of the trading visitors, the possibility of calamity-type weather (hurricane, flood, etc.).

 

I think where you're trying to go is to make sure that people check up on their caches placed, which is always a good idea. I just not sure if this is the right way to encourage it.

[Guest hawkbit]

I think anything that helps you learn more about the cache and will maybe prompt people to keep a closer eye on their cache is great. You just keep finding great ways to make this site better

 

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

"You don't quit playing because you get old, you get old because you quit playing"

[Guest hawkbit]

I think anything that helps you learn more about the cache and will maybe prompt people to keep a closer eye on their cache is great. You just keep finding great ways to make this site better

 

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

"You don't quit playing because you get old, you get old because you quit playing"

[Guest jeremy]

Health in this definition is more abstract. Not the health of the area of the cache (or the cache itself).

 

There's several reasons why I want to do this:

 

1. I'm worried about people that create a cache and then walk away from the sport without indicating it is missing. The cache owner only needs to visit the *web site* (not necessarily the cache location) and indicate that yes, they are paying attention.

 

2. I've noticed that older caches that have been found do not get much traffic anymore. I foresee people that see caches that haven't been visited in a while may be more inclined to go visit them.

 

3. Unfortunately I can't follow every cache now if they can't be found. This way the folks who help me watch cache and myself can know quickly to investigate a particular cache.

 

The ultimate goal is to create a list that is fresh. Although you can never guarantee a cache is there the fresher the data the better the game.

 

And why keep a cache out there that has been and may never be visited? It makes more sense to remove it than leave it out there.

 

Jeremy

[Guest k2dave]

I would like to see something along the lines you state but slightly diffrent. A cache should be activly visable on the boards for a period of 1 yr since the last 'find' log. After the 1 yr there should be a 30 day warning period where the cache is still visable but will have a warning stating if no one can find it in this time period it will disappear from the board.

 

Special consideration should be made for very remote caches.

 

An email should be sent to the cache owner stating that the cache is about to expire because of inactivity and urge the owner to check on it and renew the year if it is there.

 

I think a year time would be needed as some are inaccesible during the winter and might not be that popular to begin with.

[Guest Peter Scholtz]

In South Africa it's going to take at least another six months before Geocaching becomes popular. So some of my caches will be a year old when it's found. They are well hidden so there should not be concern that they won't ever be found and become trash.

 

I like the idea of a "cache health" status indicator. Something like the Google Toolbar gives for each site in the search results.

 

Virgin caches shouldn't be penalised (i.e. max health) until at least one visit.

 

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

Peter Scholtz

www.biometrics.co.za

[Guest Markwell]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

2. I've noticed that older caches that have been found do not get much traffic anymore. I foresee people that see caches that haven't been visited in a while may be more inclined to go visit them.

 

 

And why keep a cache out there that has been and may never be visited? It makes more sense to remove it than leave it out there.

---

 

I'm confused - older caches don't get much traffic, I'll agree. But why would my indication that I'm paying attention to my own cache prompt more people to visit it? I'm not trying to be argumentative - just trying to understand.

 

And for the last comment about leaving a cache that isn't visited out there - one dream cache I have is an absolutely gorgeous location. It will take a high clearance 4x4 to get to it, but once there, you'll feel you're on top of the world with one of the most pristine and breathtaking landscapes imaginable. The reason I'd place a cache there is the possibility that sometime down the road (who knows how long?) someone else will visit that spot and get the same breathtaking view I did. Isn't that the point of Geocaching? I wouldn't care if it hasn't been visited in 6 months or a year.

[Guest BKDotCom]

Some caches also get better with age.. their contents constantly being recycled... always fresh, always new..

 

How about an average days-between-visits o meter? Combined with a cache-finders "cache ranking" idea that has been discussed.

 

It's possible to have a super dooper cache in the middle of nowhere that's seldom visited but everyone agrees it's worth a visit... to to a stagnate urban cache that's on it's death bed..

[Guest cache_ninja]

some of the coolest caches are in hard to reach spots and dont get visited often. a visual que of some sort saying its "old" or "unhealthy" would only make many people more hesistant about visiting it, and they may really be missing out...on a nice view/spot, etc.

 

there are plenty of "old" caches that get visited still, especially when there is a new influx of people from some press or something. they can read the date when it was placed, so theres really no reason to label it as "old" etc. i dunno.

 

also, older caches tend to have more log entries, so they are potentially more interesting, especially for newbies. it seems like your idea would essentially be discouraging people from visiting older caches, which, IMHO is a bad idea.

 

i think a better way to go would be base things on "not founds"(frowning faces), dont you think? if a cache gets a certain amount of them, the owner is automatically e-mailed, if they don't put a note on the cache page to say whats going on with it within a certain time, its archived. i think thats the way to do it, what do others think of this?

 

c/n

[Guest arffer]

Jeremy,

 

I am very in favor with the 'cache health' idea. Perhaps the easiest visual would be similier to the 'health meter' popular in many PC games. Here are my ideas:

 

1) The cache owner should have access to a 'Full Health' button, whereby they can restore the health meter to 100% and in so doing state 'I have verified that my cache is healthy and waiting to be found'.

 

2) Cache hunters would have two options to log finds: "I found it, and its in good condition" or "I found it but it needs care and feeding".

 

3) If a cache hunter logs a "found it healthy" then the health meter would restore to 100%

 

4) If a cache hunter logs a "found it but it needs care" then the health meter would restore up to, but not past 50%

 

5) Every log of "I didn't find it" would take 10% off the health meter, so 10 misses would result in a dead cache, prompting the owner to get out there, the sooner the better.

 

6) Caches with no activity would drop in health 5% per month. 20 months equals a dead cache, again prompting the owner to check it out.

 

7) Dead caches should still remain visible in the database for 12 months after death.

 

My 2 cents worth! Again, I really like the overall idea.

[Guest AZMark]

The sport at least for most of us is only about 6-7 months old. We try to create interesting ideas all the time, who knows what some of us might do to older caches.

 

In Arizona there can be some prety remote locations. Trying to place caches that may not be found in awhile is a bit of fun as well. Plus many will not search as much in the summer here. Making it tough to see if a cache will remain popular june-august. Many winter visitors would love to get to them,,,,but they may not show up for another 4 months.

 

So maybe???????? Tweek the web site to promote never found caches,,,,make it a bonus to find them after idle for awhile? Just throwing out ideas.

 

At least if they start to get old,,,let the owner find it again and keep it young. If the owner has an active interest in keeping it alive it should not be killed off due to all the varaitions of types of caches,,,weather, location etc.

 

btw...good going on the commercial caches

[Guest T-storm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

1. The cache owner only needs to visit the *web site* (not necessarily the cache location) and indicate that yes, they are paying attention.

 

2. I've noticed that older caches that have been found do not get much traffic anymore. I foresee people that see caches that haven't been visited in a while may be more inclined to go visit them.

---

 

I like the concept of encouraging cache owners to be responsible for maintaining or archiving their caches. Won't make suggestions on how to implement it now (can't think that hard today!), but interested in the topic. One question... if we archive apparently unattended caches, and they happen to still be out there, are we going only halfway and justifying the opinions of those who think we are "GeoTrashers"? Should a cache that is archived because of lack of owner interest or recent logs be searched out and physically pulled or just left? I can see that there are ethical questions on either side of that answer.

 

On older caches, funny it should come up now, because I had just finished visiting the list of caches around my zip code and noticing at least a couple that haven't been found since April. No proliferation of "not found" logs, just no "found it!" logs. My initial reaction was, "Hmmm... maybe those would be good ones to put on my list "to be done soon." Second thought was to wonder if they were still there, but settled more on the side of interest in hunting them. So maybe Jeremy would find folks interested just because it hadn't been done in a while. I look for that sort of thing but had just not noticed these before, so maybe an icon would have drawn my attention sooner.

 

I'll stop now, as I seem to be babbling. Chalk it up to a stay-at-home-mom who spends most of her time with a 2-year-old!

 

T-storm

[Guest T-storm]

Oh, forgot to say that I think that the period of inactivity/non-response would need to be rather long to prove an actual problem. There are lots of reasons a cache might not be hunted frequently... here for instance, there's summer heat, thick underbrush from mid-spring to mid-fall, geographical spread. But then I suppose this is why you'd want to encourage owners to check up on the cache occasionally and maybe even post a simple note to their logs.

 

T-storm

[Guest jeremy]

Being a first person shooter fan, I really like the health-o-meter idea.

 

As for caches that haven't been found in a while, maybe it would be cool to have "bounties" on them to encourage folks to track them down.

 

And I agree that having caches automatically archived is not a good idea. I'd rather make them "retrieval missions" for folk to go on to retrieve and dispose of the caches. They are then welcome to acquire them and replace the cache if they like as their own.

 

I have had foster cache owners in the past who took ownership of a cache that had been relinquished by the placer. Making them adoptable is a neat idea.

 

Jeremy

[Guest Hard Slate]

I think Arffer is on the right track!

[Guest k2dave]

When a cache gets stale a email should be sent to the owner. If there is no response (or 'i'm not going back there to check my cache') The cache should go into a cache orphanage where a seeker could adopt the cache if he so choses. He would gain control of the cache discription page and the old owner would relinquish it.

[Guest cache_ninja]

i doubt jeremy would want to/should have to deal with all that e-mail...why not just make the cache owner post a note in the log section of their cache? im sure there is a way to monitor this more easily...

 

also, dont forget winter/snow. in some areas, caches will not be able to be found from oct-march, 4-6 months. their health-o-meter would go down?

 

someone mentioned above, the "rating" idea, which is really subjective, and i think, unnecessary. this whole thing sounds like it might be unnecessarily complex.

 

orphanage idea seemed like a good one, but after how long? a year? maybe each cache owner should just e-mailed automatically a year after each cache is placed, requiring them to log on the cache page its condition etc. this can be done by default, even though some may have been logged recently etc.

 

what about caches where a there are numerous not-founds logs, and the owner never replies. are we going to send people out looking for a cache thats no longer there?

 

i dunno. there are some things i dont like about the abve ideas..obviously something needs to be done about the overall issue..

 

[This message has been edited by cache_ninja (edited 03 August 2001).]

[Guest mudbug65]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

1. I'm worried about people that create a cache and then walk away from the sport....

 

....And why keep a cache out there that has (not) been and may never be visited? It makes more sense to remove it than leave it out there.

 

Jeremy

---

 

I'm totally against the idea of removing a cache from the database simply because it hasn't been visited in a while or the owner has forgotten or is unable to keep track of it.

 

There's a cave near my home that has had a "cache" located deep inside it for at least 25 years. (A wide mouth jar with a log book and a few pencils) The trail leading to it is long, extremely rugged and only someone in very good physical condition w/ intimate knowledge of the area is able to locate it. I first visited it with a group of friends back in 1983. We each wrote a little note & signed our names before sealing it back up. In the fall of 1999 I returned with 2 new visitors and in the SIXTEEN YEARS that had passed there had only been one other group to visit. It was really special reading what we'd written so many years before especially in light of the fact that of our original group, two were deceased, including the man who had guided us there.

 

In my opinion, geocaches aren't tamagotchis, they are little time capsules & the log book contained within is it's most precious treasure. The best future I can imagine for geocaching is for someone to download the coordinates for some old, long abandoned cache and seek it out so they can share the memories frozen in ink that it contains.

[Guest navdog]

I posted a new thread earlier ("Putting our best foot forward") that had the idea of bounties. I'll insert those thoughts here.....

 

- A system to track old and unused caches that the owner has no interest in maintaining. How many newcomers are going to get caught up in the excitement of this new sport only to walk away after a few months and do nothing to maintain their caches. If a cache has no activity then the owner would be emailed and asked it they have any further interest in the cache, and if no reply, Jeremy could send out volunteer ? Geocache Bounty Hunters? to remove the cache and receive a small type of bounty for their efforts from a fund created with donations.

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

 

Sorry I didnt see that Jeremy basically said the same thing in his second post above.

It is good to see others are concerned about this also.The number of new players and caches seems to be growing rapidly and the idea of abandoned caches is going to be a growing concern.

 

[This message has been edited by navdog (edited 03 August 2001).]

[Guest EraSeek]

"Why keep a cache out there that hasn't been or may never be visited?" ....

 

Because things like this may happen:

 

Wow what a find. My brother is getting married the 28th in Seattle and 8 of us decended upon Burrow's Island for an overnight, having kayaked over from Fidalgo Is Sat am. My brother and i Paddled to Allen Is and returned to tour the old Lighthouse and grounds with the full group. We found our way (carefully) around the cliff and started throwing rocks into the ocean and trying to hit each other's rocks (you know how men behave on a bachelor party, however we weren't drinking. While looking for rocks to throw, the groom was looking for a stick when he found the cache. None of us knew what it was and some thought it was a bomb left over from the War. However sanity came from one who had heard about geochaching before. We opened the cache and explored the find. We took the light sticks to help us over the rocks that night. We replaced then with some remanents of teh party for a small celebration for the next finder. After returning to Bellingham, what should I read in the Herald, but an article about geocaching and a quote from the hider about the very cahce we found. (No one else had found this cache). The irony of all this is too much to ignore, so I am buying my brother a GPS as a wedding present and we're both getting into this. Thanks for the fun

[Guest Havasu Desert Rat]

e, especially regarding terrain. I have chased a couple of caches just because they sounded physically difficult and I have placed a couple for the same reason. However, I know I'm in a minority.

 

My point after all this is that these types of caches will not see many visitors, and may not be visited for months and months at a time, especially in the Arizona summer. I'd hate to see them removed just because they get visited so seldom. To me, these are special caches and a true prize.

[Guest FJ.de.Bruin]

Not so long ago, I created a cache (my first cache) while I was on a trip to French Guyana. When I placed it I was aware that it would be tracked down only on very rare occassions.

 

In fact, I included a current Dutch banknote into the stash. Thisnote will expire by next year as we switch to the euro banknotes. I thought, and still think, it is pretty cool to have this nicely framed 'tientje' in a cache after few years time, when it is found again.

 

The location is more than 7000km away from where I live and I can't possibly go there to report on its status.

 

I would hate to see my cache get an indication that it has gone 'stale' or 'sickly' or whatever. I put too much effort into it to for that.

 

Frank

[Guest Campeon1981]

Jeremy, I agree we cannot just leave caches out there without some sort of supervision over them.

 

I like the "adopt-a-cache" idea, and I even like the ultimately last resort of "volunteer geocacher bounties" in the immediate area going and retrieving the cache. I dont think any monetary funds are necessary as a reward. I think the contents of the cache should be kept by the retreiver to do with as he or she pleases. These can be used to make new caches, which would alleviate some of the geocachers expense in creating them and also bring more new hunts to the site. Since the three weeks I've started checking on my zip code for new caches, there havent been any. Come on south FL

 

I also agree to the idea stated earlier as to not having a human icon for the health of the cache, but rather a tree (as mentioned earlier) or some sort of other visual tool. The health-meter sounds good, but seems like a lot of upkeep to maintain. I personally would just like to see, very plainly, that the geocacher who placed the cache is checking the website or cache itself periodically when i visit the cache's webpage. Some sort of weblog entry, you know?

 

Thanks for listening!

[Guest Campeon1981]

Jeremy, I agree we cannot just leave caches out there without some sort of supervision over them.

 

I like the "adopt-a-cache" idea, and I even like the ultimately last resort of "volunteer geocacher bounties" in the immediate area going and retrieving the cache. I dont think any monetary funds are necessary as a reward. I think the contents of the cache should be kept by the retreiver to do with as he or she pleases. These can be used to make new caches, which would alleviate some of the geocachers expense in creating them and also bring more new hunts to the site. Since the three weeks I've started checking on my zip code for new caches, there havent been any. Come on south FL

 

I also agree to the idea stated earlier as to not having a human icon for the health of the cache, but rather a tree (as mentioned earlier) or some sort of other visual tool. The health-meter sounds good, but seems like a lot of upkeep to maintain. I personally would just like to see, very plainly, that the geocacher who placed the cache is checking the website or cache itself periodically when i visit the cache's webpage. Some sort of weblog entry, you know?

 

Thanks for listening!

[Guest MNMartian]

What bothers me most is not the fact of older caches not being found often as long as they're still there, but the ones that are getting hits and logged as found and then later get multiple "unfound" hits with no response from the "owner".

Isn't the "owner" getting the messages that their cache can't be found or maybe they don't care?

There's one cache in particular several hours drive from where I live that I'd like to seek, but I get disheartened by the fact that it's not been found for quite some time.

Maybe the owner could be contacted via email/smailmail as to the fact their cache is lost and it cannot be located. Since I have not yet placed a cache(I've only been caching for about a week, but plan to stash some soon)I don't know how a new cache is logged, but don't you give your name/address so you can be reached?

Maybe a caring seeker could just place a new cache so it'll once again be found and log it as such? If the older one is rediscovered maybe they could be combined?

[Guest Havasu Desert Rat]

Personally, I'd rather see the 'health' of a cache based upon a growing list of 'not found' entries which have not been responded to by the cache owner, rather than some arbitrary time factor.

 

If nobody can find it and the owner can't/won't respond, then it's time to do something. I like the bounty idea.

 

I feel that basing the health of a cache on a time factor is going to make folks less likely to place remote/difficult caches.

[Guest jeremy]

I thought I covered this argument. It's not the point that folks are physically having to check caches all the time, but the fact that they can return to the geocaching site and click a button to say, "hey, this is my cache page and I'm just checking in to say I'm being responsible."

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Jeremy

[Guest Robereno]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremy:

click a button to say, "hey, this is my cache page and I'm just checking in to say I'm being responsible."

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Jeremy

---

 

I think it?s a good idea. Not only do you have the responsibility to monitor your caches in the outside world but on the website as well. I?ve seen a couple of caches where I suspect the owner has moved on to other interests and no longer even checks to see if people are visiting.

[Guest mudbug65]

hey want 'cause it's THEIR database.

 

BUT

 

The only person authorized to dispose of a cache is the person who placed it or the land owner. Any other removal is THEFT.

[Guest adventuretom]

I love the health-o-meter idea. Anything that makes the cache owner responsible for restoring their cache to health is the way to go in my book. I'm tired of seeing logs where person after person says "the cache is wet" and the owner never bothers to fix it. If you leave a dead cache, it becomes trash and that's bad for geocaching.

[Guest arffer]

mudbug65,

 

Deep breath, chill friend. Your concern regarding geocaching.com's right to place a bounty on dead caches, if such a policy ever comes into existance, can be handled through the terms of use we all agree to when we register to use geocaching.com. All that needs to be added is that anyone registering a cache with geocaching.com agrees to allow their cache to be 'removed' and/or adopted if its health status ever reaches 'dead', however 'dead' may end up being defined.

 

You may bring up the point regarding the 4000+ caches that have already been registered. Grounded Inc. has already made provision for this:

quote:

---

Grounded Inc. reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which this website is offered.

---

 

If the terms of use were amended in this fashion, it would place even more of an incentive on cache owners to be good cache citizens regarding the care and feeding of their cache.

 

Anyone that does not agree to such amended terms would be free to archive their cache on geocaching.com and list it on one of the other sites you mentioned. The simple point is, if you are going to list a cache on geocaching.com, then you MUST accept the responsibility for it. If you no longer want to care for it, then archive it and go retrieve it. If you don't, then one of us will do it for you through either a bounty or preferably adoption.

 

One last comment: While not being in the legal profession, I strongly doubt that a case of 'theft' could be made against anyone that takes a container that's been left out in the wilderness (or wherever). I believe Finders Keepers would come into play.

 

Please, lets not accuse our beloved Jeremy of the types of intentions you seem to be implying. Thanks for listening.

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 04 August 2001).]

[Guest jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudbug65:

Lemme get this straight. Is Geocaching.com claiming OWNERSHIP of a cache simply because it's listed on their web-site?

---

 

Heh hehh oh heheheheh ah hehehe he. Heh. Mmmm.

 

First off, you sound like a troller. Spreading misinformation around makes you sould pretty uninformed or intentionally spreading conspiracy theories. The last thing I'm doing is stating that I own caches. That's rediculous. That's the absolute last thing I want to do.

 

My intent is to keep the list maintained. For some reason you're reading every other line and coming to the conclusion that I'm offering some sort of cache reward for retrieving caches. I'm not. What I'm saying is that in the case where a cache owner abandons their cache I don't want to have some tupperware container out there that doesn't have an owner. It's bad for geocaching.

 

If you don't believe that than I suppose this game isn't you. There's plenty of other pasttimes that you can be irresponsible in.

 

Jeremy

 

 

[This message has been edited by jeremy (edited 04 August 2001).]

[Guest Havasu Desert Rat]

quote:

---

I thought I covered this argument. It's not the point that folks are physically having to check caches all the time, but the fact that they can return to the geocaching site and click a button to say, "hey, this is my cache page and I'm just checking in to say I'm being responsible."

What's wrong with that?

---

 

You're right Jeremy, you did cover it, and I didn't read carefully enough. Sorry. And you are also right in that there is nothing wrong with that. Now that I understand for sure what you're saying, I'm with you. BTW, I'm also addicted to first person shooters and like the health meter idea.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Havasu Desert Rat (edited 04 August 2001).]

[Guest Havasu Desert Rat]

quote:

---

I thought I covered this argument. It's not the point that folks are physically having to check caches all the time, but the fact that they can return to the geocaching site and click a button to say, "hey, this is my cache page and I'm just checking in to say I'm being responsible."

What's wrong with that?

---

 

You're right Jeremy, you did cover it, and I didn't read carefully enough. Sorry. And you are also right in that there is nothing wrong with that. Now that I understand for sure what you're saying, I'm with you. BTW, I'm also addicted to first person shooters and like the health meter idea.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Havasu Desert Rat (edited 04 August 2001).]

[Guest mudbug65]

ee is big and wide, it's planter has died....

But when the planter dies, should the tree be cut down too?

 

[This message has been edited by mudbug65 (edited 04 August 2001).]

[Guest jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudbug65:

I was just trying to help insure that when someone places a cache, it will REMAIN there for future generations regardless of the "owners" apparent ability or choice to keep track of it.

---

 

Ok. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. I do personally feel that if the owner decides not to maintain it that we should either have someone else adopt it or remove it from the site.

 

We get enough of a bad rep for people considering caches as trash. To have caches without cache owners it seems to me that we're supporting that idea.

 

Someone must claim ownership and responsibility of each and every cache.

 

Jeremy

[Guest leskowitz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arffer:

2) Cache hunters would have two options to log finds: "I found it, and its in good condition" or "I found it but it needs care and feeding".

 

---

 

I like this idea. It leaves it up to the creator to go back and fix it, otherwise others who visit it are warned. I think that knocking a cache just because it has no activity is not right. It maybe in perfect condition but hard to get.

[Guest bearboy]

Not a bad idea.I am just concerned about the winter months in my area.Snow could slow activity.

[Guest keithpilot]

What about suspending the Health-o-meter "timer" for the winter months? A date range could be agreed upon, and in the Spring, the "clock" would start ticking again...

 

Keith

[Guest Havasu Desert Rat]

In Arizona and other parts of the Southwest, the meter would have to be suspended in the summer instead. I don't think that's gonna work.

[Guest Steveonne]

Sometimes I think people make ideas into reality while they're still ideas. Jeremy, you do the right thing. You place an idea on the forum and wait for all the responses to come in. That way you can get a feel for what the outspoken few think about the idea. You get great input that improves your idea better than you could have done alone. Now when you implement the idea into reality it ends up being the best it could be. I think its a good idea because I'm willing to be responsible with all the caches I've placed. Seven, so far.

 

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

It's what we think we know already that often prevents us from learning

[Guest Campeon1981]

Glad we're coming to an understanding now. And you're right Jeremy, every cache does need an owner. Its part of the CYA factor. (Cover Your Assets) And all of those who mentioned that the cache should not be removed due to age, you're right too. As long as someone is there to be its "caretaker" and logs entries on the site saying that its A-OK, it'll be fine.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by keithpilot:

What about suspending the Health-o-meter "timer" for the winter months? A date range could be agreed upon, and in the Spring, the "clock" would start ticking again...

 

Keith

---

 

Florida winters last all of 3 weeks. Winter is a term I use loosely though, more like a cool breeze.

[Guest Campeon1981]

Glad we're coming to an understanding now. And you're right Jeremy, every cache does need an owner. Its part of the CYA factor. (Cover Your Assets) And all of those who mentioned that the cache should not be removed due to age, you're right too. As long as someone is there to be its "caretaker" and logs entries on the site saying that its A-OK, it'll be fine.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by keithpilot:

What about suspending the Health-o-meter "timer" for the winter months? A date range could be agreed upon, and in the Spring, the "clock" would start ticking again...

 

Keith

---

 

Florida winters last all of 3 weeks. Winter is a term I use loosely though, more like a cool breeze.

[Guest jeremy]

Having a refresh button and an email warning to the cache owner that the cache "needs food badly" would allow folks with caches in hard to reach areas the ability to click and restore their cache to full health.

 

Again, the owner does not need to physically visit the cache. Just show that they're being responsible. Some situations like changing email addresses may cause folks not to get their announcements as well, which is a bad thing.

 

Jeremy

[Guest navdog]

When I had mentioned earlier about a bounty for an old or unclaimed cache, I was not really thinking in a monetary reward but something along the lines of recognition on the website here showing how many "bounties" a person has helped remove or the number of caches adopted. We all need encouragement to show good stewardship of our activity. Maybe some type of patches or "Bounty" / "adopted" t-shirts for those who have taken time away from their normal pursuit of hunting and placing caches.

 

The concept that caches will never be removed can have a negative image on what we are doing. In another year or two there may very well be 20,000 caches out there? That concept may weigh heavilly in the view of a public agency and their decisions. The policies we promote are going to have a big impact on how they and the general public percieve us.

 

[This message has been edited by navdog (edited 05 August 2001).]

[Guest Peter Scholtz]

There's some good ideas above.

 

I think the best combination would be:

 

- Health status icon (0-100%).

- New cache has 100% health.

- Cache logs will add/subtract health.

- Email cache owner after a year of inactivity to confirm health.

- Confirm health button.

- 0% health will cause an email to cache owner. Auto archive 100 days after this email. Display warning on cache details page during this 100 days.

- Adopt an abandoned/archived cache.

 

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

Peter Scholtz

www.biometrics.co.za

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Scholtz (edited 05 August 2001).]

[Guest jeremy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Scholtz:

There's some good ideas above.

 

I think the best combination would be:

 

---

 

My additions -

 

- Health status icon (0-100%).

- New cache has 100% health.

- Cache logs will either subtract health or bring health to max (if found). Found but in poor condition will lower the health. If someone repairs the cache next time (aware that the cache needs repairs), it will be restored back to 100%

- Email cache owner after 45 days of inactivity.

- Cache owner can login and visit the web page to restore it to full health with a click of a mouse. If a threshold of "Cannot find" passes 5 with no finds, the cache cannot reach 100%. Possibly 95% - After 45 days of no response from the cache owner, the cache goes "public"

- 0% health will cause an email to cache owner. After 45 days, cache becomes "public" - folks are given the choice to adopt the cache. If no one adopts after another 45 days, the cache goes into retrieval mode. Cache will remain in retrieval mode until it has been found and removed.

- Display warning on cache details page during the 90 days the cache is "public".

 

In all cases, worst case scenario a cache will be managed, retrieved or archived within 135 days for total inactivity (did I get my math right?). I think around 1/3 of the year is enough time for someone with an internet connection to manage their caches.

 

Jeremy

[Guest EyezOfTheWorld]

Hi,

 

An email after 45 days of inactivity? All the cache owner would have to do is log on and click and all is good? I'm wondering - if the cache goes unvisited for, say, like 6 months, there's no problem with that, right?