Abandoned Caches.. what to do?

[+feedle]

So, recently while on a trip, I went geocaching out in Bakersfield. While in Bakersfield, I noticed that all of the geocaches (save, perhaps one) appeared to be abandoned by the people that placed them. One cache in particular ("BRAIN FREEZE BUCKETT") has apparently been cache-pirated a couple of times, and the Geocacher who hid it apparently is no longer active (their profile implies that their E-Mail address is no longer valid).

 

It has been discussed before, and I think that it needs to be strongly considered, that a procedure needs to be established for "adopting" abandoned Geocaches. In Bakersfield, for example, ALL but one of the Geocaches was in some state of disrepair.

 

Here's my proposal:

1. If the E-mail address for the Geocache's host is apparently no longer valid, it can be "adopted" simply by an "adopt this cache" button.

2. If there are a number of different cachers that have marked a cache as "not found", an automatic E-mail should be sent to the hiding cacher. If this E-Mail bounces, see rule 1. If it dosen't, the hider should need to "refresh" the information in the cache logs by posting a note or updating the cache information. This could be on a sliding scale, so that the more active a cacher is (both in hiding and seeking), it will take more "haven't found" logs before it marks the cache as "suspect." If there is no reply or further data after a period of time, the cache should be marked as "archived."

3. A fourth option needs to be added to the log page that says "Found, damaged." At that time, the above procedure is enacted, and if there is no response, the cache can be labelled as "adoptable."

 

In short, abandoned caches suck, not only for the seekers but for the general public as well. Hiding a cache and then leaving it forever is technically "littering" and is probably one of the more irresponsible aspects of our hobby. We need to figure out a way to get these lost children in the hands of people who are willing (and able) to maintain them.

 

-Fedl

[+Jamie Z]

Thank you, Feedle, for bringing this up. I don't know the best way to address this issue, although your ideas are a good start.

 

There are a string of caches in my area placed by the same guy who moved away about a year ago. Only recently, after I'd emailed him half-a-dozen times asking about maintenance and offering to take over ownership and maintain the caches (a request he completely ignored--neither affirmative nor negative) has he done anything about it. His solution? On each cache page he notes that he has moved away and wants somebody to fix up the caches for him.

 

The caches are still in disrepair--at least according to the logs. I attempted to find one of them and it was in a location that has since apparently marked no trespassing. I'm frustrated enough that I don't even care to look for his other caches.

 

Abandoned caches do suck. Something needs to be done. I know I may catch some heat for this, but I think we are near a point where there are enough caches and cache hiders (in most places). It's time we start weeding out the cache placers who aren't interested in maintaining their hides.

 

Let's make cache hiding a priviledge.

 

Jamie

[+Jamie Z]

I've had some more thoughts...

 

As many of you know, I've made it quite public that I have zero hidden caches. I'd like to hide a couple in the future. I think it would be fun. Most of you who have hidden caches probably agree that cache ownership is something you can take pride in.

 

To that end, I've attempted to adopt two local caches. Each was in bad shape and I attempted to contact the owners of each more than once, asking if they'd seen the condition of their cache or planned to fix it up.

 

I noted in my email that I'd be happy to fix it up for them, but I wanted the owner's blessing before doing so.

 

Neither owner responded, so I went ahead and fixed each cache. For each, I replaced the container, logbook, and stashnote. I put a few cachestache items in one, as well. I enjoyed the tasks.

 

I brought the "old" caches home, dried them out, and in one case scanned the logbook and posted it on the cache page. I emailed both owners and explained my maintenance and offered to give the old containers and contents to the owner. Again, neither replied.

 

After all this, I assumed neither owner was active in caching, so I figured I'd try to adopt those caches. I'd be proud to maintain these caches. I emailed each of the owners one last time before I planned to email Jeremy with my stories so that he could decide if I should adopt the caches or not. Well, I never had to email Jeremy, because each owner, after I suggested that I was going to try to adopt the caches "officially," emailed me back with that they intended to keep the cache.

 

To my knowledge, neither owner has done anything since then.

 

I tell this story because I'm trying to make a point. Cache ownership is sort of a ego thing. I know this because I've felt it myself. I actually desired to adopt these caches. Although the owners do not seem to actively maintain the cache, it seems they want to continue as "owners" because there is some pride attached to cache-owning and they don't want to give it up.

 

I think it is very telling that neither owner responded to my many emails until I suggested that if they were no longer active in the geocaching community that I would pursue adoption.

 

I think if there were some rules that encouraged people to be responsible about maintaining a cache, three things would happen.

 

Current responsible cache owners would continue to be.

Current not-so-responsible cache owners would be encouraged to maintain their caches.

Lazy prospective cache-placers would be discouraged from placing them. This is no big loss in my mind.

 

Well... I've said enough about this for now. I hope some ideas can be tossed around and something worked out, because it's a shame for so many caches to be in the terrible shape that they're in.

 

On that note, let me give a big thank you of the owners of the many caches I've visited that are in GREAT shape. Keep up the good work.

 

Jamie

[+misguided one]

I agree with feedle & Jamie Z, something needs to be done about abandoned caches. There is one near Seattle that has negative posts on the logs about it being soaked, the log entries went back as far as Nov 3rd. Checked the owners profile, his 1st. find was Aug. 7 and his last find was Sep 22, 2001. Obviously he lost interest. I went ahead and did some maintenance and sent the owner and Jeremy an e-mail, as of today I haven't heard from either one. I'll continue to monitor this cache, but it sure would be helpful if I could officially adopt it. Then I could move it to a little bit better spot, where thereis less of chance for someones kid to fall into a fairly swift moving river.

 

Lost? I'm not lost. At least I don't think I'm lost, well............OK, maybe just a little.

[+feedle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie Z:

I've had some more thoughts...

 

As many of you know, I've made it quite public that I have zero hidden caches. I'd like to hide a couple in the future. I think it would be fun. Most of you who have hidden caches probably agree that cache ownership is something you can take pride in.

 

---

 

Let me echo your appreciation of those who do hide and maintain good caches. I'm fortunate to live in the Phoenix area, where there seems to be a good, active, and most importantly, RESPONSIBLE caching community that makes an effort to hide caches in good places and regularly maintain them.

 

quote:

---

To that end, I've attempted to adopt two local caches.

Well, I never had to email Jeremy, because each owner, after I suggested that I was going to try to adopt the caches "officially," emailed me back with that they intended to keep the cache.

---

 

Your dedication is admirable. However, this is where my ideas take over. If they have not maintained the cache, they should lose it. Simple. People who make a habit of not maintaining caches should lose the priveledge. Period.

 

How you enforce that is certainly a problem: this is where the "Found, Damaged" log entry option comes into play. Once logged as such, the "owner" of the cache should have a certain amount of time to repair the damage: after that time, they lose "ownership" of said cache and it goes up for adoption or should be archived. Even if they reply to the "Your cache is damaged" E-mail, eventually after getting a few of these they'll start to figure out that they need to go fix their cache. Also, obviously, if ten people in s six-month period of time all mark the cache as "damaged" then you need to mark the cache for review..

 

It needs to be an automated process, both for the sanity of the people running Geocaching.com and for fairness.

 

Sure, the process as I see it now is open to certain abuses. But in the case of the cache I mentioned earlier, it would be a done deal now: it could have been adopted by me (I have family/friends in Bakersfield) and you can guarantee that once a month somebody would have gone out there to check on it.

 

quote:

---

I tell this story because I'm trying to make a point. Cache ownership is sort of a ego thing. I know this because I've felt it myself. I actually _desired_ to adopt these caches. Although the owners do not seem to actively maintain the cache, it seems they want to continue as "owners" because there is some pride attached to cache-owning and they don't want to give it up.

 

---

 

It has been mentioned a few times here in the boards that there be some kind of responsibilty test to place a cache. The problem that I have with that is that just because somebody is responsible now dosen't mean they always will be. In my example, the cache was apparently placed by schoolteachers (based on the name of the 'team').

 

This is why there needs to be some kind of automated "culling" process for caches that are repeatedly marked as "Not Found" or "Found Damaged." Even the most responsible person can make a mistake or have things happen in their lives.

 

quote:

---

 

+ Current responsible cache owners would continue to be.

+ Current not-so-responsible cache owners would be encouraged to maintain their caches.

+ Lazy prospective cache-placers would be discouraged from placing them. This is no big loss in my mind.

 

Well... I've said enough about this for now. I hope some ideas can be tossed around and something worked out, because it's a shame for so many caches to be in the terrible shape that they're in.

 

---

 

The problem with this is that in many cases these "irresponsible" cache-placers have come up with good places to put them. BRAIN FREEZE BUCKETT, for example, is in an interesting spot and was somewhat of a challenge to figure out how to get there. The other urban cache in Bakersfield, while poorly placed on private property, is not without its merits. If there was some arbitrary "standard" for these cache-placers to have met, these might not have been placed at all... leaving the number of caches in the urban areas of Bakersfield at zero (there are two caches in the outskirts of Bakersfield to my understanding).

 

It's doubly frustrating when the caches are good ones, and a little bit of proper maintenance is all that is required to bring it up to code. It's even more maddening when you personally have the resources to properly maintain the caches and would have no problem taking them on as stepchildren.

 

-Fedl

 

[This message was edited by feedle on March 24, 2002 at 09:19 PM.]

[+Renegade Knight]

I've thought about this also, but nowhere nearly as in depth as you guys! There should be a method of adopting a cache, plus a method of putting one up for adoption. If I'm on a vist and I plant a cache I would probably want to adopt it out to a local who is interested. Still in some places there are not many caches so it's tempting to get the ball rolling even if you can't maintain it like you would like. Mabye some of your ideas will get implemented.

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

This is very topical to me, personally. Recently, we travelled up the coast of Oregon just to Geocache. It was a blast. We had the print-outs of 33 geocaches when we started. We didn't take the route we had originally planned, so half of that number got culled after the first day from our list.

 

Here is the issue: So many of the caches along the coast are CRAP! Some are water-logged, some are MIA, some had had their contents plundered and replaced with trash or unmentionable stuff. Reading the logs, it appears that most of these have been problematic for months, yet nothing has been done. Well, almost nothing...

 

One cache in Coos Bay was adopted by a gentleman who really appreciated the placement of it and was shocked by the condition he'd found it in, so he took it home, cleaned it up and added new goodies. What a guy! All to keep the sport going.

 

But to play devil's advocate for a moment... What if I place twenty caches in this area and then my company moves to Bermuda and if I want to keep my job I've gotta move to Bermuda. I can no longer maintain my caches, right? My choices are 1)to find someone locally who will adopt them, 2)remove and archive them, reducing the overall geocaching enjoyment of the folks in my area and visitors or 3)Hey, I'm going to Bermuda! Geocaches are the last thing on my mind. I've gotta pack, sell my house, find a new school for the kids... you get the idea.

 

A truly responsible person thinks of everything, and they would most likely do numbers one or two. But we aren't all perfect.

 

If there are repeated logs claiming damage to the cache and the owner doesn't take action (that doesn't include an email saying, "Yeah, I'll do it.") within six months, go out, get the box and use it to place a cache of your own. Contact Jeremy or whomever handles these things and ask/beg that the cache be archived. Then recycle the container, contents and area, but name it something different and make it your own.

 

Six months is a decent time to prove someone just ain't comin' back to fix it, IMHO.

 

Did I ramble too much? Must be the caffiene...

----------

Lori aka: RedwoodRed

KF6VFI

"I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations."

GeoGadgets Team Website

Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite

 

[+mrcpu]

I think a lot of this could be helped if a simple "transfer ownership" feature existed. Then when you were moving you could contact people in the cache logs and if they wanted you could transfer ownership to them without Jeremy having to do the work.

 

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrcpu:

I think a lot of this could be helped if a simple "transfer ownership" feature existed. Then when you were moving you could contact people in the cache logs and if they wanted you could transfer ownership to them without Jeremy having to do the work.

---

 

Rob, A good idea that could make it easier for responsible cache owners to transfer ownership if they could no longer maintain their caches. The problem, however, is not with responsible owners. The problem is with owners who simply disappear, or offer repeated promises to fix-up a cache but do not. Those owners would not be likely to volunteer to transfer ownership to someone who would do those things. (At least in my experience iterated in my post above.) I'm not advocating forced owner-transfership, I'm advocating that something be done on the front end to filter out some of the folks who are unlikely to continue to maintain their caches.

 

quote:

---

What if I place twenty caches in this area and then my company moves to Bermuda...(snip)...My choices are...(snip)...2)remove and archive them, reducing the overall geocaching enjoyment of the folks in my area and visitors...

---

 

Red, I really think this is the best option. Given a choice, I would prefer to have fewer caches that are better maintained then to have a lot of caches, many of which aren't.

 

I've given this some thought when deciding if/when I should place a cache. I wondered what I would do if I move in the near future (not an unlikely event) and I've decided that if I placed a cache (or two) and then moved, I would physically remove the caches and archive them. I don't want to leave my junk lying around if I'm no longer able to check on it.

 

Jamie

[+feedle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedwoodRed, Steak N Eggs and Family:

 

But to play devil's advocate for a moment... What if I place twenty caches in this area and then my company moves to Bermuda and if I want to keep my job I've gotta move to Bermuda. I can no longer maintain my caches, right? My choices are 1)to find someone locally who will adopt them, 2)remove and archive them, reducing the overall geocaching enjoyment of the folks in my area and visitors or 3)Hey, I'm going to Bermuda! Geocaches are the last thing on my mind. I've gotta pack, sell my house, find a new school for the kids... you get the idea.

---

 

Personally, I think that this may only represent a small number of the abandoned caches. More likely, the abandoned ones are the result of people who are way to enthusiastic about Geocaching, and place one in an area that they personally cannot maintain.

 

For example: one of the caches in Bakersfield, The Meeting of the Fences, was placed by someone who admitted in their description that they were only in town for one day. Now, perhaps the person has friends/family in town and intended to have one of these people go and check up on it regularly.. I don't know. But, this particular cache was poorly placed (it's on a vacant lot sandwiched in between a UPS depot and a cable company yard.. not the kind of people who typically like people poking around) and is probably abandoned. The funniest part of all is that there was an excellent place to put the cache ~~400 feet due east that would have been on public property (a river trail maintained by the City).

 

In my scenario, when I found the cache sans logbook I would have marked it "Found, Damaged." If the owner didn't respond in 30 days, I could adopt it and move it to the public location. As it is, I'm planning on placing a new cache in the area that I think is appropriate.. but what happens to this cache? It would probably behoove us, as members of this hobby, to remove it from private property before it causes a problem.

 

quote:

---

A truly responsible person thinks of everything, and they would most likely do numbers one or two. But we aren't all perfect.

 

If there are repeated logs claiming damage to the cache and the owner doesn't take action (that doesn't include an email saying, "Yeah, I'll do it.") within six months, go out, get the box and use it to place a cache of your own. Contact Jeremy or whomever handles these things and ask/beg that the cache be archived. Then recycle the container, contents and area, but name it something different and make it your own.

---

 

The problem with the "contact Jeremy" approach is eventually it will become a full time job for Jeremy (and whoever else gets involved). This is why it needs to be an automated process:

 

quote:

---

Six months is a decent time to prove someone just ain't comin' back to fix it, IMHO.

---

 

If you can't get to the cache's location in 30 days, you shouldn't be the person listed as the maintainer. Six months? Many caches in urban areas don't even last six months. The FAQ suggests that you go out there on a regular basis and check on the status of your cache. Once you are notified of a problem, it is your responsibility to put on your shoes and go check your cache. Yes, people have a life: hence the 30-day part. If you can't arrange to get to the cache site on short notice, how can you possibly maintain it? How can you remove it if you are contacted by a property owner / park official asking you to remove it?

 

This kind if irresponsibility may also be the source of grief from park officials to the hobby at large. We need people "owning" caches that are responsive and responsible, not people who get an ego trip from owning a cache 2,500 miles from their hometown where they know noone and cannot properly maintain it.

 

-Fedl

[+martinp13]

quote:

---

Originally posted by feedle:

 

If they have not maintained the cache, they should lose it. Simple. People who make a habit of not maintaining caches should lose the priveledge. Period.

---

Can we get this applied to parenting too?

 

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

[+martinp13]

quote:

---

Originally posted by feedle:

 

If they have not maintained the cache, they should lose it. Simple. People who make a habit of not maintaining caches should lose the priveledge. Period.

---

Can we get this applied to parenting too?

 

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by feedle:

 

The problem with the "contact Jeremy" approach is eventually it will become a full time job for Jeremy (and whoever else gets involved). This is why it needs to be an automated process:

 

---

 

Feedle,

 

We've discussed the automatic archive before, and I think Markwell says it best in

this thread. Also, this thread briefly touches on the subject. There needs to be some human intervention.

 

I think rather than trying to solve the problem after it has occurred (i.e. archiving or owner transfership of an abandoned cache) there should be some sort of process to reduce the number of caches that are abandoned in the first place.

 

Just to throw out a couple of ideas:

Require a small number of finds before you're granted hiding privileges, or

Require certain length of time as a registered user before you're granted hiding privileges, or

Strongly worded statement outlining maintenence expectations that must be agreed to before listing a cache

Of course, there should be exceptions to something like that, but those should be addressed manually on an individual basis.

 

This would make the process of hiding a cache not as easy as it is now, thus filtering out some of the not-so-interested cache hiders. The remaining caches would have a higher rate of maintenence.

 

Jamie

[+feedle]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie Z:

 

Feedle,

 

We've discussed the automatic archive before, and I think Markwell says it best in

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001811.html thread. Also, http://forums.Groundspeak.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000768.html thread briefly touches on the subject. There needs to be some human intervention.

 

---

 

In the case mentioned by Markwell, it seems that my suggested procedure was not followed. I'm not suggesting that a cache immediately be archived or handed out. I'm saying that they should be sent a "please check your cache and log some sort of note entry in your cache's log" E-Mail, and if there is no response to that E-Mail in 30 days it should be archived or declared abandoned.

 

Facts:

1. If you don't respond to E-mails from Geocaching.com regarding your cache, your cache is technically abandoned.

2. If you don't periodically go out and verify the status of your cache, your cache is literally abandoned and should be turned over to someone who can take care of it.

3. If people are repeatedly not finding your cache and logging that they can't, you probably at best need to check if your cache is still where you placed it and your coordinates are valid. If this is true, then you probably should be bumping up the difficulty a half-star, or perhaps providing additional clues.

 

quote:

---

I think rather than trying to solve the problem after it has occurred (i.e. archiving or owner transfership of an abandoned cache) there should be some sort of process to reduce the number of caches that are abandoned in the first place.

 

Just to throw out a couple of ideas:

 

+ Require a small number of finds before you're granted hiding privileges, or

+ Require certain length of time as a registered user before you're granted hiding privileges, or

+ Strongly worded statement outlining maintenence expectations that must be agreed to before listing a cache

---

 

My problem with the first two is that often times these caches are good ones, other than the maintenance issue. If we place artificial barriers to entry, this may cause it's own unique problems. I've only been caching for close to two weeks myself: but this is after watching the hobby from afar for quite a long time before I had enough cache (err.. CASH) to buy a servicable GPS reciever.

 

Does that mean because I've only been around two weeks that I'm probably going to be an irresponsible cacher? Heck no. Conversely, some of the abandoned caches I've run across recently were placed by people that probably would have passed the "responsibility test" because they had a number of finds before they hid one.

 

Unfortunately, it's an imperfect system either way. I believe that automatic "culling" is the answer.. if for no other reason that if you ignore E-Mails regarding your caches for 30 days, you are, by default, an irresponsible cacher. End of story.

 

quote:

---

Of course, there should be exceptions to something like that, but those should be addressed manually on an individual basis.

 

This would make the process of hiding a cache not as easy as it is now, thus filtering out some of the not-so-interested cache hiders. The remaining caches would have a higher rate of maintenence.

---

 

The only problem with manual processes is they require hand-crafting. At the moment, our hobby is small enough that it probably dosen't represent a lot of work. But, what if it dosen't remain small?

 

Automating the process will have the result of allowing fewer people to maintain an ever growing database, meaning that Geocaching as a website will be able to provide more services for less money.. and increase the likelyhood that it will continue as a growing concern. Volunteers may help out, but based upon the very thread you quote it appears that approach has problems too. An automated process will spell out IN WRITING what is expected of you, and if you don't follow through, you lose. The rules are simple, and everybody plays by them. You WILL recieve E-mails in the future asking about your cache from Geocaching.com. You are expected to reply to them in a timely fashion. If you don't, your cache will be delisted.

 

Why is this so bad? Do reasonably responsible people have a problem checking their E-mail once every 15 days or so?

 

-Fedl

[+Logscaler and Red]

Just to dump my nickels worth about “Abandoned” caches.

 

I have noticed a person dropping caches from Oklahoma to somewhere West as they follow the Lewis and Clark Route. How does that person expect to maintain those caches? Hope that someone else will drop everything and go do repairs for him? The one he has on the Lochsa River in Idaho will be about 75 - 100 mile from anybody in Idaho or Montana who is now in Geocaching. In my opinion, these type of caches should not even be approved. To me, these are pre-made "abandoned" caches. No thought or plans to coming back to look over their caches.

 

As for signing a disclaimer that you promise to maintain caches, If these people are not

going to hold themselves responsible now, how would making them sign off onto anything improve things? What will this type of person do if they have screwed up numbers for the hide?

What will this type of person do to maintain their cache if notified that their caches needs a new container, logbook, etcetc, or removed?

Nothing.

Unless it was to put out a plea for someone to go fix it for them.

 

I have caches scattered for over 400 miles. BUT, I also work near or travel past those

caches somewhere around once a month, Or I have had people volunteer to fix problems

for me. I have not asked to have help and I made a note to the cache page that I would be

to the cache ASAP.

Just a small rant. Thanks for your time.

[pipedreamer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The GeoGadgets Team:

Recently, we travelled up the coast of Oregon...So many of the caches along the coast are CRAP! Some are water-logged, some are MIA, some had had their contents plundered and replaced with trash or unmentionable stuff.

---

 

Okay I've found broken McToys, empty beer cans, cigarette butts, religious tracts and other obvious junk, but what kind of "unmentionables" were found? In my upbringing, unmentionables usually meant women's underwear...

 

Gotta admit I'm curious

 

[This message was edited by pipedreamer on May 14, 2002 at 08:33 PM.]

[+briansnat]

There certainly should be a way to "adopt" a cache or transfer ownership. Whether by the request of a cache owner who moves away, or a cache that has been abandoned by the owner. By abandoned, I mean a cache that has obvious problems that the owner fails to respond to.

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

There certainly should be a way to "adopt" a cache or transfer ownership. Whether by the request of a cache owner who moves away, or a cache that has been abandoned by the owner. By abandoned, I mean a cache that has obvious problems that the owner fails to respond to.

---

 

There is a way. I have done it. There was a very unkept cache near me that I really liked and wanted to see remain. I e-mailed the owners three different times and did not get a response. After the third time, I e-mailed Jeremy for advice. He promptly transferred ownership to me. I fixed everything up and its been going well since. Interestingly, the actual owners stopped by just before I replaced the cache with a new one and they actually replaced the cache container first. However, after only two days, it was still soaking wet inside. I ended up using my container anyways and again tried to contact them and still haven't got a response. If they contact me and are serious about maintaining their cache, I would gladly give them back ownership.

 

You can follow the story in the logs HERE

 

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

There certainly should be a way to "adopt" a cache or transfer ownership. Whether by the request of a cache owner who moves away, or a cache that has been abandoned by the owner. By abandoned, I mean a cache that has obvious problems that the owner fails to respond to.

---

 

There is a way. I have done it. There was a very unkept cache near me that I really liked and wanted to see remain. I e-mailed the owners three different times and did not get a response. After the third time, I e-mailed Jeremy for advice. He promptly transferred ownership to me. I fixed everything up and its been going well since. Interestingly, the actual owners stopped by just before I replaced the cache with a new one and they actually replaced the cache container first. However, after only two days, it was still soaking wet inside. I ended up using my container anyways and again tried to contact them and still haven't got a response. If they contact me and are serious about maintaining their cache, I would gladly give them back ownership.

 

You can follow the story in the logs HERE

 

Smoochnme

 

"Only when the last tree is cut,

and the last stream is polluted,

and the last fish is caught,

will we realize that you can't eat the money"

[vagabond]

After reading these comments about abandoned caches I checked the top 100 cachers and found this

 

107 caches placed

81 caches placed

69 caches placed

68 caches placed

56 caches placed

 

And I'm sure that there are people out there that have hidden more then these.

Now what I would like to know is how often does each individual check on their caches or do they just check them when they get complaints.

I only have 2 caches placed, but I try and check them when ever I'm in the area and I take items out that I don't think should be in there and restock as needed.

I think when you hit a certain number of caches hidden you should not be allowed to place anymore unless you archive older ones, or let someone else adopt them.

 

Any comments??????????????????????