Disappointed

[+Team Namthcof]

We have several in this area where the owner hasn't visited the cache in over a year. People try to find the cache only to find nothing. I think there should be an automatic archive if a cache is neither visited by it's owner nor found in a six month period.

[+fivegallon]

We have several in this area where the owner hasn't visited the cache in over a year.  People try to find the cache only to find nothing.  I think there should be an automatic archive if a cache is neither visited by it's owner nor found in a six month period.

This topic was subjected to much heated debate here and here and i'm sure those that remember will shudder merely at the sight of the OP's name

 

edit: added an additional "here"

Edited June 5, 2004 by fivegallon

[+Stunod]

We have several in this area where the owner hasn't visited the cache in over a year.  People try to find the cache only to find nothing.  I think there should be an automatic archive if a cache is neither visited by it's owner nor found in a six month period.

This topic was subjected to much heated debate here and here and i'm sure those that remember will shudder merely at the sight of the OP's name

 

edit: added an additional "here"

<shudder>

 

To summarize: The "Needs Archived" log type will alert approvers to the fact that there is a problem with the cache. An automatic archive could result in a cache that IS still there becoming "geo-litter".

[+bons]

We have several in this area where the owner hasn't visited the cache in over a year.  People try to find the cache only to find nothing.  I think there should be an automatic archive if a cache is neither visited by it's owner nor found in a six month period.

Assuming that this suggestion is implemented and the cache is archived, what becomes of the cache? Is it left out in the woods as geo-litter or should someone be sent out there to pick it up.

 

If someone is sent out there to pick it up and it's still there, does it still need to be archived?

Edited June 6, 2004 by bons

[+Renegade Knight]

Remote caches can go a year or more between finds. 6 months is winter in some places. Longer in others.

 

If you have a concern email the cache owner. Use the archive this cache button if it's needed. Don't make it a rule that caches are automaticly archived. It really doesn't serve a higher purpose.

[+norbu]

I logged a Needs to be Archived in our area because I know it was removed by the park. the cache page states that it is gone. Yes it is a nice peak, but there is a caching policy in the park now and this non-existent cache is holding a chunk of land that approved caches could be placed within. I figure that I didn't post that Needs to be Archived note for it that long ago, so it is too early to be concerned. I sure hope it is archived soon though.

 

edited to add that I did contact the cache owner originally, but did not hear back. so I posted the note.

Edited June 6, 2004 by norbu

[+welch]

And the answer is *ding ding* NO. (Various automated archive after X time type ideas have been brought up and I still think its going to create chaos and won't fix anything)

 

If you find a problem cache, email someone (like the owner, or the nearest approver, who is just going to email the owner anyways) or post a needs archived log.

[+BlueDeuce]

Edit

Edited June 6, 2004 by Elf Danach

[+Team Namthcof]

Ok- you say to contact the owner - but in 3 cases the owner hasn't even logged on in over a year. I can certainly see not doing anything if the cache is in a very remote area.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Ok- you say to contact the owner - but in 3 cases the owner hasn't even logged on in over a year. I can certainly see not doing anything if the cache is in a very remote area.

 

Did you try to e-mail the owner? Just because he hasn't logged onto the site for a long while does not mean he has changed his e-mail address. It would be worth at least one attempt to contact him through this site.

 

Go to their profile and click on the E-mail this player button.

 

John

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

Hey Team Namthcof, long time no see! We adopted a cache that was in need of repair and the owner was inactive by contacting the GC.com. We put in the request and got approved the same day. Maybe contact one of the local approvers or something. After several DNF's and no contact from the owner, it should be easy to archive it. Then you can go to the Archived Caches Rescue Mission on the MiGO site and log a rescue! Once you verify it is MIA of course.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

We have several in this area where the owner hasn't visited the cache in over a year.  People try to find the cache only to find nothing.  I think there should be an automatic archive if a cache is neither visited by it's owner nor found in a six month period.

The people that argue the hardest against time limits/periodic reverification of caches are probably the people least likely to perform routine maintenance on their caches and those that have never placed a cache.

Edited June 9, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+IV_Warrior]

Ok- you say to contact the owner - but in 3 cases the owner hasn't even logged on in over a year.  I can certainly see not doing anything if the cache is in a very remote area.

 

That's what the "should be archived" log is for. If there's been several DNF's indicating that the cache is probably missing, and the owner isn't active/responding, post the SBA and let the admins handle it.

 

The people that argue the hardest against time limits/periodic reverification of caches are probably the people least likely to perform routine maintenance on their caches and those that have never placed a cache.

 

No, mostly they're people who realize that "automatic archvies" will create more problems than they will solve. So Joe cacher quits the game, but leaves his caches out (a topic for another discussion) then in 6 months when he hasn't logged in, it's archived. Problem is, the cache is still there, only now, nobody sees the cache page, so it's essentially become litter........leave the archive process as it is, just because not everybody uses it, doesn't mean it's broke.

Edited June 10, 2004 by IV_Warrior

[dampeoples]

No, mostly they're people who realize that "automatic archvies" will create more problems than they will solve. So Joe cacher quits the game, but leaves his caches out (a topic for another discussion) then in 6 months when he hasn't logged in, it's archived. Problem is, the cache is still there, only now, nobody sees the cache page, so it's essentially become litter........leave the archive process as it is, just because not everybody uses it, doesn't mean it's broke.

So why doesn't Groundspeak send someone go out and retrieve the litter, or place it up for adoption?

[+bons]

So why doesn't Groundspeak send someone go out and retrieve the litter, or place it up for adoption?

They often do. I have adopted one and know people who went out to retrieve others.

 

The trick is that the cache should not be archived until after all that stuff is taken care of. That's why the current process of logging a SBA and having the approvers do thing manually works so much better than the system just de-listing stuff and us entering "out of sight, out of mind" mode and forgetting about it.

 

The system works. You just have to understand it.

[+res2100]

There are sollutions out there to the problem if people are willing to brainstorm and give a new process a chance. I don't think geolitter is an issue, since any archived cache (or temporarily unavailable cache) can go into a public queue (ie, cache can be flagged) by region, and people who previously found it can go check on it and confirm if it is still there or not or in need of maintenance, or removal, or then up for adoption. If anything, the current system has it's flaws and would be more prone to leaving geolittler behind. I have found a handful of caches that have been archived but the cache or it's remains are still there. I see it done with several regional geocaching groups, and it seems to work rather well.

Edited June 10, 2004 by res2100

[Find Now, Log Later?]

So Joe cacher quits the game, but leaves his caches out (a topic for another discussion)

 

That is the normal MO. Many abandoned caches remain in place for years. There are caches in my region that were placed in late 2000 or early 2001 that still await their first maintenance visit from their "owners." There is also the problem of active "prolific" (in some cases, a more accurate word would be "indiscriminate") cache hiders that archive one or more of their caches but never bother to physically remove them.

 

As discussed in the previous threads, an owner would retain his right to "renew" the cache for additional term(s) as long as simple requirements of owner reverification and periodic maintenance were met. If an automatically generated e-mail "bounced," or if the owner failed to comply with the renewal process within a certain period of time, a "TBA" note could easily be attached to the cache(s) either automatically or by the regional approver requesting that the next visitor removes the cache. After the cache had been removed, the page could be permanently archived.

 

nobody sees the cache page, so it's essentially become litter........leave the archive process as it is, just because not everybody uses it, doesn't mean it's broke.

 

Not true ... anyone who ever posted any type of log to the page can still see the page, as can anyone who views their profiles, as can anyone who views the cache "owner's" profile. The current system is worse than broken ... it fails to address a known issue. Ignoring an "institutional problem" and hoping individuals (whether they be individual geocachers or individual regional cache reviewers, or regional clubs or groups) take matters into their own hands is not an acceptable solution. A solution needs to be a fundamental part of the policy.

 

One solution is outlined above, and has been discussed previously in other threads. It's a major disappointment that TPTB take every opportunity to market geocaching as a sport of environmentally aware and concerned people yet choose to turn a blind eye on a very real, and constantly growing, problem.

Edited June 10, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Two Geeks and a GPS]

So why doesn't Groundspeak send someone go out and retrieve the litter, or place it up for adoption?

 

We are members of Michigan Geocaching Orginization (MiGO). On the MiGO site, there is an "Archived Cache Rescue Mission." All archived caches in Michigan are listed and members can go and identify that the cache is truly gone, so as not to become litter, or I would guess have the opertunity to adopt it, if it remains intact.

[+bons]

hoping individuals (whether they be individual geocachers or individual regional cache reviewers, or regional clubs or groups) take matters into their own hands is not an acceptable solution. A solution needs to be a fundamental part of the policy.

A solution is a fundamental part of the policy. People can log a SBA and the process begins. As far as needing individuals to do something, individuals are needed regardless. The individals are required to take the place of the absent cacher and verify the removal of the cache.

 

The only time Groundspeak would need a completely automated system is when they decide they no longer care about geolitter, but as long as geolitter is a concern the SBA method works perfectly well.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

A solution is a fundamental part of the policy. People can log a SBA and the process begins. As far as needing individuals to do something, individuals are needed regardless. The individals are required to take the place of the absent cacher and verify the removal of the cache.

 

The only time Groundspeak would need a completely automated system is when they decide they no longer care about geolitter, but as long as geolitter is a concern the SBA method works perfectly well.

Too informal. I've seen plenty of caches where an SBA log had been posted and a reviewer had either posted a note to the page or contacted the owner. Sometimes the cache owner pledged to take immediate action ... and then did nothing. Other times, there was no response from the owner, so the situation remained static.

 

Several months later, the reviewer would post a follow up note. "Lather, Rinse and repeat." Eventually, the reviewer or owner would tire of that little game and one of them archives the page. But at no point did either party take "corrective" action ... any action taken to ascertain the actual condition at the cache site was taken by third parties of their own volition.

 

As an example, I recently took it upon myself to remove a cache that had been archived by a reviewer several months earlier. It is a reasonable question to ask who or what was responsible for the creation of that "geolitter." Because the procedure currently in place is so loose and informal, I must conclude the procedure itself is at fault and requires modification.

Edited June 10, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+bons]

Too informal.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

 

The process is "too informal" so you would prefer to replace it with an automated process that doesn't involve people.

 

While I can agree that in your area the process might need improvement, I'm not seeing an improvement in your suggestion, only a change that makes my local situation worse and doesn't seem to solve your local situation.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

The process is "too informal" so you would prefer to replace it with an automated process that doesn't involve people.

 

While I can agree that in your area the process might need improvement, I'm not seeing an improvement in your suggestion, only a change that makes my local situation worse and doesn't seem to solve your local situation.

No. A semi-automatic procedure that requires input from one side (cache owners) and receives supervision from the other (the administrative team.) Yes, the initial "renewal/reverification" e-mail could easily be sent automatically. So could the renewal/reverification responses that fulfilled all the requirements. Bounced e-mails, failures to respond in a timely manner, etc. could likewise be automatically forwarded to a member of the administrative team. None of these suggestions are new; all of this has been voiced several times before in earlier discussions about this subject. I'm sure enough flags, bells, and whistles could be added to satisfy people.

 

I'll not sure how a procedure applied unilaterally and consistently would necessarily "make things worse" for any segment of the geocaching community. If an area isn't yet suffering from a high number of neglected or abandoned caches, it will at some point. I think it would be best to develop and implement a workable procedure while the problem is manageable.

 

But who knows ... perhaps Jeremy will sell out to one of the large corporate sponsors one day, and their solution to the problem will be to require a $100 deposit for each cache placed. ("Buy our product NOW and place three caches for FREE!!"[$10 non-refundable administrative fee.] Annual renewal fee is $10 per cache owned.) Who needs "subscribing members?"

Edited June 10, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+IV_Warrior]

As an example, I recently took it upon myself to remove a cache that had been archived by a reviewer several months earlier. It is a reasonable question to ask who or what was responsible for the creation of that "geolitter." Because the procedure currently in place is so loose and informal, I must conclude the procedure itself is at fault and requires modification.

And how would an automatic archival help in that situation? Hint: it wouldn't.

[+Cow Spots]

Why this subject, of all subjects, has been so fiercely debated lately is beyond me.

 

I see it like this:

 

If there's a cache in your area that you suspect may be being ignored...

 

1) check to see if there's a succession of DNF's or not.

2) check to see if the cache is in an extremely remote area or not.

 

If after the above tests you think the cache may not be there...

 

3) contact the owner of the cache, either through the website or directly.

4) Wait patiently, and give them time to log in

5) If after a reasonable amount of time, or if your emails bounce back as undeliverable...

 

6) Check to see the last time the person accessed GC.com

 

If they haven't been on the site in a while

 

7) Post a Should be Archived note. This tells the cache owner, the local approvers, and some of the admins that the cache should be looked at.

 

At this point, it's in the admins hands. I do feel we have some responsibility as cachers to take care of caches in our area that may have been abandoned, for whatever reason, by letting the admins know. That's what a "Should be Archived" button is for. As for geolitter... if the cache ain't there... no problem. If the cache is there, I'm sure the local approver or admin would coordinate with local cachers to adopt it or remove it.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

And how would an automatic archival help in that situation?  Hint: it wouldn't.

I guess you're right ... the only truly workable solution would be for an anonymous cacher to simply take it upon him/herself to remove the abandoned cache. Eventually, enough unfortunate people would have unsuccessfully sought the cache that perhaps one or two of them even logged a DNF (a rare enough occurrence; don't hold your breath) or SBA. Then the procedure currently in place would operate in its normal, smooth and efficient manner.

Edited June 11, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+briansnat]

I guess you're right ... the only truly workable solution would be for an anonymous cacher to simply take it upon him/herself to remove the abandoned cache.

 

Or have a category of find called "cache rescue". You can log a "cache rescue" only if an approver asks that an archived cache be removed. The cache rescue will count as a find, so there will probably be no shortage of people willing to go out and grab the cache and add a smiley...even if they found the cache before.

 

Might have to require a photo with the rescuer with the cache and logbook to get credit, because you don't want someone saying "yeah, I rescued the cache" just to get a smiley, when in fact they did no such thing. Not that I'd think anybody would cheat .

Edited June 11, 2004 by briansnat

[Find Now, Log Later?]

The cache rescue will count as a find, so there will probably be no shortage of people willing to go out and grab the cache and add a smiley...even if they found the cache before.

Bingo ... I think you have found the solution, especially if there is some way to add yet another "smiley" by turning it into something that passes for an "event."

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

in some places geocaches don't visit caches for years and some require special gear such as scuba that cannot be accesed often

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

The cache rescue will count as a find, so there will probably be no shortage of people willing to go out and grab the cache and add a smiley...even if they found the cache before.

Bingo ... I think you have found the solution, especially if there is some way to add yet another "smiley" by turning it into something that passes for an "event."

great idea brian snat