Jump to content

Inactive Caches


PILTY

Recommended Posts

Are caches removed from the nearest caches list after a certain time of inactivity? If this is not the case then, please can they be removed after a certain amount of time? It seems to me that they are building up and I spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down! If the hiders of these caches care so little about them as to not check on them should they REALLY be there at all?

Link to comment

"Inactivity", only means that noone has tired to seek them out "recently". You can help change that <_<

 

Now, if your perhaps talking about those caches that are disabled(the ones that show up as having a red line across the name, and have red lettering at the top of th cahe page), You can still help clean up the lists. Just email the owners and ask whats going on. If they don't respond, then you can post on the cache page asking the same. If that doesn't work, you should post an archive log. If that doesn't work, you should then email an approver and reference the cache(s) and ask them to look into it. It would also help if you have been there and checked the area over good to make sure there will not be any geo-litter left behind when the listing is archived.

Link to comment
Are caches removed from the nearest caches list after a certain time of inactivity? If this is not the case then, please can they be removed after a certain amount of time? It seems to me that they are building up and I spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down! If the hiders of these caches care so little about them as to not check on them should they REALLY be there at all?

An alternative is to do a pocket query and click on the "that is active" button (just below the container type choices). This will give a list of only active caches.

 

John

Link to comment
Are caches removed from the nearest caches list after a certain time of inactivity? If this is not the case then, please can they be removed after a certain amount of time? It seems to me that they are building up and I spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down! If the hiders of these caches care so little about them as to not check on them should they REALLY be there at all?

 

What do you mean by inactivity? Do you mean it hasn't been found in 6 months? A year? What is the owner supposed to do about that? I own many caches that go 6, 8, 10 months between finds. Please tell me why they should be removed from the search page. That would certainly ensure that they will never be found again.

Link to comment

According to Pilty (as he advised my through PM), what he is talking about are missing and inactive caches that show up on the search.

 

Pilty, if you see these you can use the "cache should be archived" button on the page. That will bring it to the attention of the admins and they will review it and decide whether or not to get rid of it.

 

The website doesn't automatically get rid of these as a matter of course. Someone has to bring them to their attention.

Link to comment

I think that any cache that has been "temporily unavailable" for X amount of time...something reasonable like 1 month (maybe 2 in the extreme) should be archived automatically (well manually by an admin perhaps). Since as this option says, it is only supposed to be temporary and so many caches your see have been temporily unavailable for over 6 months. How long does it take to replace/maintain a cache? and so many times in the cache pages you see notes from the owners saying that they will replace it shortly, but that hardly happens.

 

Now I know someone will give the excuse that perhaps for whatever reason they aren't able to...well, you would find a way if it was really that important to you. So if it is that important, you can also get GC.com to unarchive your cache once oyu got off your lazy but (sorry...lol) and fixed it.

 

And I don't think it is entirely my responsibility to click on the "This cache should be archived" option. I have had friends who have gotten flack from the admins for doing this, stating that they should contact the owner first...duh, what do you think they did?!

 

So in summary:

 

Temporary = 1 month max!

Archived = you can always request your cache being unarchived once maintenance is performed, if it will take that long.

 

Well I think this would be the better way to improve the listings!

Link to comment

A lot of times caches aren't disabled just because there is maintenance that needs to be done. I know of several caches that are temporarily disabled to allow the vegetation time to recover (may only be a couple of months, but that couple of months is critical) OR because the weather makes them definitely untenable (such as being under 3 feet of snow). That doesn't mean that they should be archived...just that the owner doesn't want people going to the cache either to protect the environs temporarily or to save people the trouble of looking for a cache that is obstructed, either by the weather or some other activity.

Link to comment

let's not forget caches where, for instance, a cache might have had water rise to cover it and it got frozen in, or weather prevents the re-fastning of necessary hardware, or a spot needs to re-quiet after a temporary rash of vandal activity, or....

 

there's a lot of things that happen. an active hider will take care of these things when possible.

 

i had one that was plundered and after a safe interval i replaced it. it has still gone unfound for months since its replacement.

Link to comment

That's why I think it should be a manual process on the Admins part to use their judgement on wheather or not a cache in this case should be archived.

 

And that is why we have cache logs for the owner to explain the situation and give an indication of when they plan to activate it again.

 

The problem as I see it is that many people say they will replace their cache soon, but 6 months go by and they still haven't.

Link to comment
The problem as I see it is that many people say they will replace their cache soon, but 6 months go by and they still haven't.

I've had one inactive for longer than 6 months and it's still there. I just don't want people going in there with all the logging that has been going on. Once the logging trucks stop rolling down these narrow roads and trees stop falling I'll reactivate it.

Link to comment

No. Problem is that caches sit inactive for a long period of time (3 months, 6 months, etc...way too long), despite what many logs say that they will be replaced soon. 3 or 6 months is definately not temporarily. I think even the admins can attest and I have heard it before that the intention is for it not to remain inactive for that long.

Link to comment

I helped clean up my list a while back. There were several caches that were "Temporarily Unavailable" for several months. I sent emails to the cache owners, waited a while, then posted "should be archived" logs. After a while, I sent an email to 9key who archived some of them.

 

"Temporarily Unvailable" should be used for short periods. Like between a "this cache may be missing/I'll check up on this cache soon" note and when the owner can check on it. If the owner can't check on it within a month, it should be archived.

Link to comment

I have several comments to the many issues that have been brought up.

 

1) Here, in the north, it is very easy for a cache to become unavailable because of weather. If a creek or any water needs to be crossed, the cache may become unapproachable during the winter. If an owner marks that cache as unavailable, s/he is is acting ethically by insuring that no-one puts life or limb at risk for a find.

 

2) In the Pittsburgh area, Questmaster came up with the idea of the Lonliest Cache Challenge, where the three caches within a 50 mile area that have been without a visit for the longest time are placed on the challenge list (I hope I explained this well enough). Then the local geocachers are challenged/dared to go find these caches. The finders get their name on a virtual certificate for finding the cache. This would be an excellent way to drum up interest in 'out of the way' places in your area.

 

3)

It seems to me that they are building up and I spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down!

 

I will take this as a tongue in cheek response, but..... if there are caches out there that have not been found, then go find them! If they are temporarily inactive, then chances are that the owner took the effort to inactivate them for a reason (which is unlikely to be because they did not have time to check on the cache.) The cache owner may believe that the cache is no longer there, but if you cross it, then it is obviously there. Most caches that have not been checked up on are totally deactivated, not temporalily deactivated. Give the owner the benfit of the doubt. Many approvers are active in attempting to remove old caches that were not approved or have become dormant. Keystone Approver, in western PA, lists caches that should be removed and their coordinates in the Northeast Forum. I'm sure your approver does the same.

 

4) If you have a problem with a particular cache, let your local approver know your concerns. If the cache needs to be deactivated and removed, your approver will make sure that happens.

 

-gt

Link to comment

Hey, hey, hey!

 

I didn't mean to start a war! Let's look at a few points though :-

 

1. If I say that I will look at my cache shortly to make sure it is there then, I will be there SOON, not in 3 months. By soon I would have thought that a couple of weeks would be enough time unless of illness etc. If I cannot get there in a couple of weeks I would archive my own cache. Why should other people have to look after MY cache. If I want it to be found then I should make sure that it is there.

 

2. If a cache is there and it will not harm the environment, break laws etc to get to it then get off it and find it. When are people going to read the site where it mentions scuba gear/cliffs etc? Anyone can slog through thorns for several hours if they like but what happened to the challenging ones. So I have to cross a river to get to a cache, big deal! Build a raft, buy a boat or if you can afford it get airlifted in. Let's have some REAL treasure hunts huh? All you need to do is put a warning on the cache page for safety, warnings about difficulty or the legal side of things. I did cave with an iron door in the pitch black the other night. I am an experienced outdoor enthusiast with caving, climbing SCUBA, boating experience. I checked out topo maps first took safety precautions and had a great adventure. I'm not saying let's all start climbing mountains but, PLEASE, let's have some REAL adventure ones.

 

3. None of the caches that are disabled on my list are disabled because of environmental or safety reasons. The caches that I am discussing are the ones where the owners are too idle to go check on them! Some don't even have a note from the owner of the site. I mailed several and got 2 replies? If you can't be bothered with your cache then I think that you should remove it!

Link to comment

3. None of the caches that are disabled on my list are disabled because of environmental or safety reasons. The caches that I am discussing are the ones where the owners are too idle to go check on them! Some don't even have a note from the owner of the site. I mailed several and got 2 replies? If you can't be bothered with your cache then I think that you should remove it!

Use the "Cache should be archived" feature.

Link to comment

Maybe if it was programmed into the site that any unavailable caches were automatically archived after 30 days unavailable if the owner hasn't bothered to post a note as to why. Also, 30 days after an owner has put a note on the site, automatically archive it until the owner reactivates it! That way owners that really are looking after their sites will have no problems and the website will not be cluttered by unnecessary listings. Further to this if you deleted listings altogether that the owners didn't bother to reactivate after a certain time limit clutter could be removed from the servers!

Link to comment
Maybe if it was programmed into the site that any unavailable caches were automatically archived after 30 days unavailable if the owner hasn't bothered to post a note as to why.  Also, 30 days after an owner has put a note on the site, automatically archive it until the owner reactivates it!  That way owners that really are looking after their sites will have no problems and the website will not be cluttered by unnecessary listings.  Further to this if you deleted listings altogether that the owners didn't bother to reactivate after a certain time limit clutter could be removed from the servers!

Right, but then who would be removing the clutter from the environment?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I didn't start geocaching to be a friend of the earth. I do, however, remove trash when the opportunity arises! I've heard of leave only footprints and take only photos/memories. I am always eco friendly when I go caching! You seem to have missed the point though. Maybe you would like to read the posts from the beginning to refresh your memory!

Link to comment
I didn't start geocaching to be a friend of the earth.  I do, however, remove trash when the opportunity arises!  I've heard of leave only footprints and take only photos/memories.  I am always eco friendly when I go caching!  You seem to have missed the point though.  Maybe you would like to read the posts from the beginning to refresh your memory!

I did. In case YOU forgot:

Are caches removed from the nearest caches list after a certain time of inactivity? If this is not the case then, please can they be removed after a certain amount of time? It seems to me that they are building up and I spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down! If the hiders of these caches care so little about them as to not check on them should they REALLY be there at all?

Leaving it there reminds ALL of us that there may be remains of a cache still out there.

It reminds us to nag the cache owner about fixing or replacing their cache.

It allows us to see the cache in searches, to remind us it's there, and allow us to see the cache page and possibly collect or repair the cache for the owner.

 

If you automatically archive the cache, then the listing is gone from the website.

It doesn't come up in searchs.

Unless you remember the name of the cache, and the name of someone who found it, it would be very hard to even find the cache page and the coords if you DID happen to remember there is a cache sitting there in pieces.

 

What makes you think an inactive owner is going to go remove the cache after it's archived? You don't have to be a "friend of the earth" to know that if we just kept archiving caches and leaving the remains out in the woods as trash the game of geocaching would soon be banned virtually everywhere.

 

So, please, tell me what point *I* missed?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Mopar. This posting was prompted by my trying to find out why a cache that the OWNER said was missing 10 months ago is still there on the listings. They are obviously not bothered about it or they would have dealt with it!

Except that you didn't SAY you were talking about one specific cache. You're initial post appears to be covering ALL disabled caches, not just one. Again, your first post:

Are caches removed from the nearest caches list after a certain time of inactivity? If this is not the case then, please can they be removed after a certain amount of time? It seems to me that they are building up and I spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down! If the hiders of these caches care so little about them as to not check on them should they REALLY be there at all?

Please, tell me how just ONE disabled cache is causing you to "spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down! "????

If there is a cache that you know for certain has been missing for 10 months, then do like you were advised by Briansnat to do a week ago; Post a Should Be Archived log on the cache to let the admins know about it. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work.

Link to comment

I posted a "needs to be archived" on the cache that I think we are talking about.

 

It seemed like the right thing to do. :smile:

 

In some areas (SW Ohio, for instance) the approver has taken a very active role in identifying and dealing with caches that should be archived.

 

However, if you have a cache that's bothering you, Jeremy is expecting you to flag it with the "needs to be archived."

 

I agree that an automated cleaning would just sweep too many problems under the rug.

 

And there aren't really that many troublesome caches, are there?

Link to comment

If a cache is not there and the owner KNOWS that it is not there then THEY should have it removed. I am not a secretary and it is not my place to have to ask for others caches to be removed. I search for available caches to download waypoints and I don't see why I should have to checkmark all the unavailable ones to get a "clean" set of caches. Sometimes I am in a new area and look for caches without having information on the individual caches with me. This "spur of the moment" caching is great fun and more of a challenge without clues but, is made much more inconvenient when I have to search through caches that are missing and the owners don't seem interested in them anymore!

Link to comment
I search for available caches to download waypoints and I don't see why I should have to checkmark all the unavailable ones to get a "clean" set of caches.

Since you are a premium member, you can use the pocket queries and with one click exclude the inactive caches.

 

And with the changes to PQs in the last month or so, you can get the result of these via e-mail fairly quickly.

 

(Forgive me if you've explained above why this isn't a good option)

 

Does that help?

Link to comment

Yes beejay and esskay and thank you for your help. It doesn't solve the problem entirely for the way that I cache but, I am getting to grips with the PQ search engine. I still beleive though that caches that are not there and, that nobody seems to care about should be archived. If they are found by the owner or replaced, they can soon be reactivated! Thanks again for your help.

Link to comment

I think that Pilty makes a lot of valid points, so lets not all attack him for being new and trying to come up with some good ideas. I think that automatic archival after a month (or whatever period is decided upon by the admins) is an idea that should be looked at. Afterall if the owner doesn't fix it in a month's time, what makes you think he will fix it in 2 months, or 3 months or 6 months. So more than likely whether it's archived after a month or 6 months of inactivity, odds are if pieces of it are still out there, they will remain out there as geotrash. Not too often does someone else other than the owner actually go out and clean up someone else's mess when it is temporarily unavailable (I've only seen it down on active caches where the owner is missing). If the owner really cared about their cache I think a month's time is more than adaquate and it is easy enough then for them to get their cache unarchived. Or perhaps do the automatic archival of a cache if it has been temporarily unavailable for 1 month (we'll just pick that time period for any further examples) and no log has been posted within the last month. So that saves the owner a way out in that if for whatever rare reason they can not maintain the cache within a 1 month period, then just post a note on their page which then continues to give them another month of time, each time they do that. Some of the benefits of this would be that it would save the users a lot of time in not having to always do the "this cache should be archived" log and also save the admins a big amount of time by not having to weed through all of these "this cache should be archived" logs.

 

And I don't think that suggesting to someone that they should use the "this cache should be archived" log option on temporily disabled caches is something that should be pushed...by that reasoning, someone can go to every temporarily disabled cache that has been in that state for mroe than a month and post such a log entry, which I am sure they would get a lot of flack for from cache owners, other users and probably most definately the admins. I have seen admin notes that seem to make the user feel bad for doing this. Also I am sure that most of us don't like to use the "this cache should be archived" option that often...I know I sure don't, but on the other hand it is frustrating to see so many caches that are temporrily unavailable for longer than necessary. As Pilty stated, when a user says they will fix the cache "soon", they should mean SOON, and not 6 months later, which at that point they just don't bother anymore anyways. As to whether or not a cache becomes potential geotrash, I think that is a totally different topic.

 

Also, if I were a new user and saw say 5% of the caches were temporily unavailable, which I think is a high amount, but accurate, I would have to wonder about the integrity of the sport. But in my case I am not a new user and know how things currently work. And I am thankful that one of our local admins is doing an excellent job and using good judegment of archiving temporily unavailable caches that have been in that state for a reasonable amoutn of time and also contacting some of these cache owners where he feels necessary.

 

Just some things to think about and keep an open mind about and not shoot down someone's ideas just because they are new. I for one like the idea presented by Pilty and think we can come to a reasonable solution with some thought and discussion.

Link to comment
Afterall if the owner doesn't fix it in a month's time, what makes you think he will fix it in 2 months, or 3 months or 6 months. So more than likely whether it's archived after a month or 6 months of inactivity, odds are if pieces of it are still out there, they will remain out there as geotrash.

Just because a cache is disabled doesn't mean that it is destroyed or missing.

 

Off of the top of my head there are these reasons:

 

1. Winter in the Northern US, Canada, Northern Europe (etc) typically means several months of snow. Caches are often disabled during this time.

 

2. Hunting Season. Some people (not me, I leave mine active) deactivate their caches during hunting season.

 

3. Flooding. I live in the MS Delta (the part of the state, not the actual delta going into the gulf) - there are large areas that are covered by several feet of water during portions of the winter and spring annually.

 

----

 

Back to the original comment - if you're concerned about the item and the owner is obviously no longer active in geocaching - either adopt the cache or retrieve it. Otherwise - use the Archive button. I do have to agree that this just hides the problem.

 

Nobody said you, or anybody else, has to pick up after each other - but if you're going to be so vocal about it - perhaps you should? Several MS cachers and myself take care of MS geocaches that become abandoned. When necessary (and if the location warrants it) we adopt, otherwise we pull maintainence when we're in the area.

 

Check out Http://www.mi-geocaching.org MiGO has a cache 'Rescue Mission' where caches that are verified as abandoned or geolitter are retrieved. Instead of suggesting that GC.com do something that they are not capable of doing (for real, Groundspeak is a small company based in Washington State.. how are they gonna retrieve these caches?? They're a listing service, not enviromental cleanup) the citizen-geocachers of Michigan did something about it.

 

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

I seem to have got the wrong idea about geocaching! I thought that it was supposed to have some challenge and be about the hunt/search. If people don't want to go look for a cache because of snow, rain, thorns, water or any other "natural" phenomena then they had better not come caching with me. We go out in snow, rain, pitch darkness and anything else that has been thrown at us so far. If people want to wander around paths on a sunny afternoon then I wish them well. That however, is not what this topic is about! I do not want to adopt someone elses cache. I don't want to clean up after lazy cachers, layabouts or the just plain scruffy. All of the geocachers that I have met have been responsible people who take care of their own, and "other peoples" mess. If you want to save the world then may I suggest greenpeace or friends of the earth. Myself, I would rather have fun responsibly and with thought to others and the planet. When I get the opportunity I shall clean up trash. This post is here for the people who wish to discuss removing listings that are not there and the owners are not willing to replace. Trashing out etc. has plenty of airtime as it is.

Link to comment
This post is here for the people who wish to discuss removing listings that are not there and the owners are not willing to replace.

As it has been stated earlier, if the cache is not there and has been left as temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, feel free to make a Needs Archived log to prod the approvers into investigating if it should be removed from the site.

Link to comment

If you continue to read this post you will find that we are also discussing automatic archiving so that people do not have to ask for caches to be archived. Have you ever asked for one to be archived? I did today and I felt like I was betraying the owner of the cache. This particular user said that they knew the cache was missing and that they would replace it soon. That was 10 months ago!

Link to comment

If you continue to read the post you will see that there are MANY agruments against automatic archiving. If the cache is still there and it gets archived, it becomes litter that no one will pick up.

 

If you don't want to press the "needs archived" button, just send an email to your local approver. They will do the dirty work for you.

Link to comment

We are talking about caches here that ARE missing, the OWNER KNOWS that they are missing, they are not there and they should be removed. Do you understand what I mean. I realise that being from Britain I don't always get understood because of the differences in our languages. If you need further help then please respond! I'm sure that some of the other posters can help if I cannot get my point across.

Link to comment

If the cache is not there and the owner is keeping it disabled for "too long", let the local approver know. They can try to contact the owner to get them to either replace it or have the listing archived.

 

You are correct that a cache should not be left disabled too long. It keeps new caches from being placed in the area. However, an automatic system would create more problems than it would solve.

Link to comment
2.  If a cache is there and it will not harm the environment, break laws etc to get to it then get off it and find it.  When are people going to read the site where it mentions scuba gear/cliffs etc?  Anyone can slog through thorns for several hours if they like but what happened to the challenging ones.  So I have to cross a river to get to a cache, big deal!  Build a raft, buy a boat or if you can afford it get airlifted in.  Let's have some REAL treasure hunts huh?  All you need to do is put a warning on the cache page for safety, warnings about difficulty or the legal side of things.  I did cave with an iron door in the pitch black the other night.  I am an experienced outdoor enthusiast with caving, climbing SCUBA, boating experience.  I checked out topo maps first took safety precautions and had a great adventure.  I'm not saying let's all start climbing mountains but, PLEASE, let's have some REAL adventure ones.

If you want some REAL adventure you may wish to try this ONE!! :smile::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

 

John

Link to comment
We are talking about caches here that ARE missing, the OWNER KNOWS that they are missing, they are not there and they should be removed.  Do you understand what I mean.  I realise that being from Britain I don't always get understood because of the differences in our languages.  If you need further help then please respond!  I'm sure that some of the other posters can help if I cannot get my point across.

But how do you automate that from the ones that are disabled because the logbook is wet, the ones where they are disabled because of hunting season, the ones disabled because they are under 5ft of snow, the ones disabled because there is only 6 inches of snow but they don't want it plundered by muggles following the footprints, the ones disabled because they MIGHT be missing, but the owner is away for a few weeks, or has limited free time because of work or family, etc, etc, etc.???

If you can code a way for the website to know a cache is disabled because it's missing, instead of hundreds of other reasons, I'm sure the admins would be happy to have it.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

If a cache listing is archived and the cache is still in place, it becomes litter. An automated system cannot know if the cache is actually still there. I can't imagine a system that could do this...can you suggest a method that is better than the current system?

Link to comment
How do you think that it would cause problems?

Here are some examples from personal experience as a cache reviewer, who looks at the temporarily disabled caches in his approval territory very regularly, leaves notes on cache pages, and archives caches that have been disabled too long. I have dealt with more than 100 disabled caches.

 

From actual experience, an automatic archival feature would result in archiving caches in the following instances:

 

1. Cache has been pulled for the winter because the hiding spot is not accessible.

2. Cache is disabled because its owner is serving our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

3. Cache is disabled and the owner wasn't able to replace it promptly due to serious illness.

4. Cache is disabled because the owner is attempting to obtain a permit from the land manager for a cache placed prior to the land manager's permit process, which often takes well over a month to complete.

5. Cache is disabled because of the deer hunting seasons, which basically last from October to January in PA once you string together archery, standard rifle, muzzleloader/black powder and all the other special seasons.

6. Cache is disabled due to the presence of a cache thief in the area, and the owner is waiting for that scourge to blow over.

 

Often we do not learn of these special facts until a note is left on the cache page. There is no substitute for human judgment when deciding whether to archive a cache. Each situation is unique. Having gained some experience, I would not archive any of the caches in the real life examples listed above. In other cases I will do my best to confirm that the owner is MIA or unresponsive before archiving the caches. It's the owner's cache and this is just a listing service. A proper balance should be struck between a clean listing database, avoiding geo-litter and respecting owners' rights. It takes judgment to achieve that balance, not a robot with a 30 day detonator fuse.

Link to comment
We are talking about caches here that ARE missing, the OWNER KNOWS that they are missing, they are not there and they should be removed.

 

Do you understand what I mean.

If the cache owner knows the cache is NOT there and they are NOT doing anything - hit the d@mn "Cache should be archived" log option.

 

It's not complicated at all and this was already suggested - this is how this website runs.

 

I know exactly what you mean - but at one point it seems you're upset that the cache is disabled and showing up on your "nearest cache" page list:

 

It seems to me that they are building up and I spend almost as much time trekking through them as I do finding the caches that I want to track down!

 

Then when the archive feature is suggested you seem to change the subject:

 

 

2. If a cache is there and it will not harm the environment, break laws etc to get to it then get off it and find it. When are people going to read the site where it mentions scuba gear/cliffs etc? Anyone can slog through thorns for several hours if they like but what happened to the challenging ones. So I have to cross a river to get to a cache, big deal! Build a raft, buy a boat or if you can afford it get airlifted in. Let's have some REAL treasure hunts huh? All you need to do is put a warning on the cache page for safety, warnings about difficulty or the legal side of things. I did cave with an iron door in the pitch black the other night. I am an experienced outdoor enthusiast with caving, climbing SCUBA, boating experience. I checked out topo maps first took safety precautions and had a great adventure. I'm not saying let's all start climbing mountains but, PLEASE, let's have some REAL adventure ones.

 

Which brought up the whole arguement about why you don't want the disabled caches that need maintainence or removal to be archived just because the owner is inactive. If the cache is gone from the page - nobody will ever think about it or retrieve it and that's geolitter.

 

(As a side note - when it comes to the 'build a raft, buy a boat, etc' - whatever. I don't have the time or money.)

 

You then rant and rant about how you're not a geocacher to be an environmentalist (yet earlier you were concerned) and revert back to the most recent reply - which is basically "The cache is gone, the owner hasn't fixed it even though he knows it's gone, and it's cluttering my 'nearest caches' page".

 

Use the archive button. It's not that complicated.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
I seem to have got the wrong idea about geocaching! I thought that it was supposed to have some challenge and be about the hunt/search. If people don't want to go look for a cache because of snow, rain, thorns, water or any other "natural" phenomena then they had better not come caching with me. We go out in snow, rain, pitch darkness and anything else that has been thrown at us so far. If people want to wander around paths on a sunny afternoon then I wish them well.

 

That however, is not what this topic is about! I do not want to adopt someone elses cache. I don't want to clean up after lazy cachers, layabouts or the just plain scruffy. All of the geocachers that I have met have been responsible people who take care of their own, and "other peoples" mess. If you want to save the world then may I suggest greenpeace or friends of the earth. Myself, I would rather have fun responsibly and with thought to others and the planet. When I get the opportunity I shall clean up trash. This post is here for the people who wish to discuss removing listings that are not there and the owners are not willing to replace. Trashing out etc. has plenty of airtime as it is.

Two things to reply to (The first part of your post, then the 2nd part - I split it).

 

1. You are at the least misinformed about the demographics of geocaching. Geocachers range in age from under 5 (yes, with their parents) to over 80. There are teenagers who cache on their own, "handicapped" people, elderly, and families with small children.

 

Geocaching can be very challenging without miles of hiking, climbing, swimming, wading or requiring special equipment. I know some micros that stump most people several times before they find them. Not all caching is about being out in the woods (although I prefer that most of the time) and even the geocaches that are - are not all 5/5 difficulty/terrain. If you do some research you will find that caches 4/4 and higher typically get LOTS less traffic than the majority of caches - which tend to be 1/1-2.5/2.5 in difficulty.

 

I think you should seriously consider that your methods or reasons are not the only reasons out there.

 

On a related tangent - some geocachers hide caches that they are unable to get to even in the span of a few months. You have no idea what financial, family, health, or other emergency that person may be going through. I honestly doubt most geocachers hide caches with the intent of abandoning them - but there are things that are more important. Often the cache is forgotten due to "real life" issues. Again - use the archive button if it's obvious the cache isn't being maintained or contact the regional approver.

 

2. I think we've established what this thread is about, even though you yourself brought up the bit about geo-trash and the environment. You mentioned it in your post that people should get out and find those 'trashed' and 'illegal' caches yet complain when people suggest you participate in that as well.

 

This thread could have been a lot shorter if you'd just hit 'Cache needs to be archived'. It is standard procedure here.

 

There are plenty of reasons automation is a bad idea. If you read the other posts, for example - those by Mopar and Keystone Approver - you will see some of them.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...