Archived Caches, Who's Responsible For Removing?

[+Mopar]

I posted this in another thread, but the discussion would really be off topic there, so I'm bustin' it out to it's own topic.

We all know not every cache submitted to geocaching.com gets listed. We also all know that sometimes even after a cache has been listed, it still gets archived down the road. There could be many reasons for it. It could turn out the area is private property, or otherwise off-limits to cachers. The cache could be missing, or destroyed. Whatever the reason, the cache owner or administers of the website determined that they no longer want the cache listed on www.geocaching.com.

 

Now what?

 

In several recent threads, the opinion has been that a cache should not be archived until it has somehow been verified that the cache has been physically removed.

My opinion is that as a listing service, GC.com is not responsible for this; the cache owner is. There are other listing sites besides geocaching.com. A cache doesn't even need to be listed on ANY listing site to still be a viable cache.

Just because a cache is archived on this listing service doesn't mean it's not still listed and active on another listing service, or on a mailing list, or on someone's personal website. I can think of a few recent examples that have been in the forums. A certain plaque was archived here on gc.com, but still listed on navicache. A Colorado cacher got mad and archived all (at the time) his caches on geocaching.com, but they are still listed on navicache.

The responsibility of removing a cache that is no longer wanted falls squarely on the cache owner. Any effort by the community and/or site administrators to help with that is just that; help. The only person who should be required to physically remove a cache is the cache owner. TPTB have the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the database. If a cache no longer meets the standards they have set, they can remove the listing. Should they have the responsibility to clean up after the cachers too?

Edited July 6, 2004 by Mopar

[BassoonPilot]

The cache was approved by GC.com prior to its listing on the site. GC.com, and the individual that reviewed and approved the cache, therefore share in the ultimate responsibility for the cache.

[+Team DEMP]

I sort of posted this in the other thread, but since we're discussing it here...

 

Unless there's a danger to someone, illegal (as in the law, not a guideline) or the cacher receives permission from the owner to remove the cache container, I'd leave it. I'd contact the cache owner too.

 

It's the cache owners property and responsibility to maintain that property. It would be no different then if I was aware of some issue with (yeah off the wall but an example none the less) a phone booth that was a problem- would I take the phone booth?

[+Mopar]

The only person who should be required to physically remove a cache is the cache owner.

Oh, I like that. Here's a similarly impractical statement that fits that mindset:

 

Everyone except the cache owner should be prohibited from archiving any cache after it has been approved and listed.

 

Why? GC.com is a just a website. Why should anyone FORCE them to list a cache they no longer want to? If the cache no longer meets the standards they have for listing a cache, why shouldn't they be able to archive it on their site? That soesn't keep a site with different standards from listing it.

[BassoonPilot]

TPTB have the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the database. If a cache no longer meets the standards they have set, they can remove the listing.

 

If that were actually the case, then there would be no "grandfathered" caches. The problematic word in the quoted statement is the word "can" in the second sentence. In order to support the first sentence of the quote, the word must be "will." The word "can" implies that determinations to archive caches are entirely subjective, rather than objective. In other words, some caches that no longer meet site standards might be permitted to remain in the database. That possibility in itself degrades the integrity of the database.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+Team DEMP]

What's the issue with it being subjective?

 

Edit: Well if you look at Locationless... they are grandfathered in and no new ones are allowed. I don't feel leaving them in place is harmful. I don't think removing them will make things any better. Isn't this an example of a subjective grandfathered set of caches?

Edited July 6, 2004 by Team DEMP

[+Mopar]

TPTB have the responsibility to maintain the integrity of the database. If a cache no longer meets the standards they have set, they can remove the listing.

 

If that were actually the case, then there would be no "grandfathered" caches. The problematic word in the quoted statement is the word "can" in the second sentence. In order to support the first sentence of the quote, the word must be "will." The word "can" implies that determinations to archive caches are entirely subjective, rather than objective.

That's not the issue; this isn't geocaching, this is geocaching.com, hosted by Groundspeak, Inc. If you have a problem with the subjectivity of www.geocaching.com, use one of the other listing services to seek out caches.

The topic is; if a cache listing is archived on www.geocaching.com, who is responsible for the cache? I say the owner is responsible for cleaning up his mess. Just because GC.com chooses to no longer list a cache on their website, they don't somehow assume the ownership or responsibility for that cache.

[+briansnat]

My opinion is that as a listing service, GC.com is not responsible for this; the cache owner is. There are other listing sites besides geocaching.com. A cache doesn't even need to be listed on ANY listing site to still be a viable cache.

 

True to a point, but realistically speaking, GC.COM is the defacto face of geocaching. Therefore they do have some responsibiliy with regards to making sure that caches don't turn into geolitter. Of course the primary responsibility is with the cache owner, but we all know that there are many irresponsible cache owners out there and a large number who have left the sport and abandoned their caches.

 

When these are identified, GC.COM should do what they can to ensure that the abandoned cache is removed. Some admins already do this via "cache rescue" threads in their regional forums.

[+Team DEMP]

I agree with Mopar but a point came up in another thread. What if the cache owner is MIA (as we have one here in Northern NJ at this time). Assuming the cache is fine, then there's no need to remove it. If it goes missing, there's nothing to remove. But, if the cache is still there but needs maintenance, and it's not a simple "replace the log book" maintenance, should a cacher remove the remains of the cache since there's no way to get the owners permission?

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Should gc.com be responsible for maintaining the cache too?

 

They have a responsibility to approve, list and then operate the website. They can't be geopolice here. Any of us can move our caches to navicache or just leave them laying in the woods. When we hide something we are responsible for it.

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, I've thought about this very issue at some length.

 

My thinking is if a certain site, or the owner, no longer wants to have a particular cache listed on that site, the cache can be tagged as "archived"--just like it is now.

 

However, a final note would be appreciated by all concerned as to the disposition of the physical cache: "listed on another site," "listed privately," "physically removed," or what have you. This way you would know what happened to the cache.

 

Caches that don't have a "disposition log" could become fair game to "archived cache hunters"--something we've actually taken up as it adds a bit of a challenge. Adding such a log would be trivial to all active cache owners because you can still see your own archived caches. You don't want your archived caches hunted? Make that log.

 

The problem with this is I doubt very seriously that TPTB et al would allow a "listed on another site" to exist. This would advertise the other site and past experiences have shown that TPTB are loathe to publicly admit other sites exist. Now that they've pretty much long hit critical mass, this adversion may be lessened so the geocaching community can be just that, a community--regardless of where you hang out.

 

So there you have it, with the present thinking being that the cache belongs only to the placer of the cache, only the owner can physically remove a cache. Of course, this does not take into account the guardian of the lands on which the cache is hosted--that's pretty much a given a land owner/manager can remove a cache at will. Only when a cacher has abandoned a cache--different issue--can the community at large remove a cache. Then they have the responsibility to make sure the listing is archived on all sites.

 

Of course, the present thinking could be altered to include the idea that once placed the cache belongs to the community, which it really does anyway, and many related problems could go away.

[BassoonPilot]

It's the cache owners property and responsibility to maintain that property. It would be no different then if I was aware of some issue with (yeah off the wall but an example none the less) a phone booth that was a problem- would I take the phone booth?

No, but if you are applying geocaching standards to the phone booth, you should repair the problem yourself.

 

Actually, your scenario makes a nice analogy to geocaching: You arrive at a Verizon phone booth. The phone works, but has a problem. Verizon has been alerted to the problem, but is very busy because of the number of phone booths they own and won't be able to address the problem for quite a while. As the next user of the phone booth, should you be expected to fix the problem?

[BassoonPilot]

That's not the issue; this isn't geocaching, this is geocaching.com, hosted by Groundspeak, Inc. If you have a problem with the subjectivity of www.geocaching.com, use one of the other listing services to seek out caches.

HaHaHa. That's the usual "solution" around here ..."shut up and go away."

[CoyoteRed]

HaHaHa. That's the usual "solution" around here ..."shut up and go away."

Unfortunate, but true.

[BassoonPilot]

I say the owner is responsible for cleaning up his mess. Just because GC.com chooses to no longer list a cache on their website, they don't somehow assume the ownership or responsibility for that cache.

 

And I say by having an approval procedure, the website, and the individual reviewers, do share in the responsibility for every cache that is listed.

 

I would further suggest that when a website admin. decides a cache must be archived, that admin. assumes the responsibility to ensure that the cache has been removed prior to archival. To use your words, if the website enables "the mess" to be created, it shares in the responsibility of "cleaning it up."

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+Team DEMP]

It's the cache owners property and responsibility to maintain that property. It would be no different then if I was aware of some issue with (yeah off the wall but an example none the less) a phone booth that was a problem- would I take the phone booth?

No, but if you are applying geocaching standards to the phone booth, you should repair the problem yourself.

 

Actually, your scenario makes a nice analogy to geocaching: You arrive at a Verizon phone booth. The phone works, but has a problem. Verizon has been alerted to the problem, but is very busy because of the number of phone booths they own and won't be able to address the problem for quite a while. As the next user of the phone booth, should you be expected to fix the problem?

If I could fix it by say removing a jammed coin, then I would try. On a cache, if I could dry the contents, add them to a ziploc, etc, then I would.

 

I'd also put a sign up on the phone that it was out of order if it indeed was so no one else would lose money on it. I'd post a note or a Needs to be Archived log on the gc.com site.

 

So far things seem to be ok with the analogy. I'm not sure how I could remove the phone though if the phone company refused to repair it. It's their property. Same with the cache, though certainly easier to remove.

[+mtn-man]

The problem with this is I doubt very seriously that TPTB et al would allow a "listed on another site" to exist.  This would advertise the other site and past experiences have shown that TPTB are loathe to publicly admit other sites exist.  Now that they've pretty much long hit critical mass, this adversion may be lessened so the geocaching community can be just that, a community--regardless of where you hang out.

In the past, maybe, but that is no longer a true statement. The word Navicache was asterisked out in the past, but it is no longer. You can mention Navitrashe in your logs if you like as well. If someone wants to post an archive log saying that their cache is listed on another site that log is not removed. I have examples of that. I know of one where the link to the cache page on Navitrashe is still within the final archive log from the cache owner.

[+Team DEMP]

And I say by having an approval procedure, the website, and the individual reviewers, do share in the responsibility for every cache that is listed.

 

I would further suggest that when a website admin. decides a cache must be archived, that admin. assumes the responsibility to assure that the cache has been removed prior to archival. To use your words, if the website enables "the mess" to be created, it shares in the responsibility of "cleaning it up."

I don't think that's reasonable. I'd want the cache archived as soon as possible to alert others there is an issue with it.

 

If there's a volunteer to repair or remove the cache, that's great. I know I've replaced a container on a freshly archived cache I wanted to attempt and then it was unarchived.

 

I think the issue here is when the owner is MIA. Otherwise, I think the process in place works. If not, maybe an example of where it doesn't work would help.

[+briansnat]

The problem with this is I doubt very seriously that TPTB et al would allow a "listed on another site" to exist. This would advertise the other site and past experiences have shown that TPTB are loathe to publicly admit other sites exist.

 

Not true. I've cross listed caches on Navicache since I became aware of its existence and mentioned that fact in the forums many times.

[+Mopar]

I say the owner is responsible for cleaning up his mess. Just because GC.com chooses to no longer list a cache on their website, they don't somehow assume the ownership or responsibility for that cache.

 

And I say by having an approval procedure, the website, and the individual reviewers, do share in the responsibility for every cache that is listed.

 

I would further suggest that when a website admin. decides a cache must be archived, that admin. assumes the responsibility to assure that the cache has been removed prior to archival. To use your words, if the website enables "the mess" to be created, it shares in the responsibility of "cleaning it up."

Why?

You have to take your car to insection every few years. DMV "reviews" your car and "approves" it if it meets their criteria. If it doesn't you can't drive that car in your state in it's present condition. Different states have different criteria. Some states have no moter vehicle inspection at all. A month after you get your sticker, your muffler falls off and you brake light burns out. If you get stopped at a DMV checkpoint, they will "archive" your inspection on the spot.

Are they somehow responsible for fixing your car because you didn't properly maintain it? Nope. If you don't repair it, sell it, or remove it from the road, it's your problem, not DMV's. Same thing with caches.

[+Harrald]

About a year ago I was contacted by one of the GC.com admins. They had received a phone call from a park that wanted a GC.com listed cache to be removed from the park. The owner was emailed numerous times and when he was finally contacted it turned out he was out of the country. I was asked (since I had found this cache) to go and retrieve it. I picked up the cache and everything was fine. I’m sure there are cachers in almost all areas that could help out in this way.

 

This of course is if the cache owner is MIA from this site for an extended length of time. Cachers that are still active should be responsible for the caches they place. Caches that are cross listed should be discussed on a case by case basis.

[+briansnat]

How's this sound? GC.COM hires me as Cache Inspector for about $100,000 a year. They pay my expenses to fly around the world to seek out and remove these abandoned caches. Of course each one counts as a personal find.

 

I like this idea.

Edited July 6, 2004 by briansnat

[BassoonPilot]

So far things seem to be ok with the analogy. I'm not sure how I could remove the phone though if the phone company refused to repair it. It's their property. Same with the cache, though certainly easier to remove.

Well, the spot on which the phone booth is placed belongs to "the town," and "the town" approved the placement of the phone booth there as long as certain conditions were met ... you pass by the phone booth a few weeks later, and observe that the phone is now dead, because Verizon went "belly-up." "The conditions" the town placed on the phone booth are no longer being met, but the phone booth remains in place, a derelict.

 

Who has the right, and should assume the ultimate responsibility, to arrange for the removal of the phone booth?

[BassoonPilot]

You have to take your car to insection every few years. DMV "reviews" your car and "approves" it if it meets their criteria. If it doesn't you can't drive that car in your state in it's present condition.

That is a false statement.

 

Why?

 

Why not? I'll answer that for you ... because it is easier and more convenient to wield power than responsibility.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[CoyoteRed]

In the past, maybe, but that is no longer a true statement.

Well, that's good to know. How would they feel it's a standard practice--other than the part of the losing cache listing.

 

If that is comes to be, then there's not much stopping this from going forward on an unofficial level. Just need to get the word out, a task in itself!

 

Later, this could be implemented into the software of the site. The owner could click a button indicating the cache is removed. If not, the "archived" cache is listed as a "rescue" until such time as someone CITOs it.

 

While I don't agree that GC.com has the responsibility to have the cache removed, I do they think they could facilitate removal for those who do wish to take that responsibility upon themselves. Some groups are able to get lists of archived caches. I'd like for our association to get a list of South Carolina's archived caches as well.

[+TEAM 360]

My opinion is that as a listing service, GC.com is not responsible for this; the cache owner is. There are other listing sites besides geocaching.com. A cache doesn't even need to be listed on ANY listing site to still be a viable cache.

Just because a cache is archived on this listing service doesn't mean it's not still listed and active on another listing service, or on a mailing list, or on someone's personal website.

I completely agree with this! Wait, did I just say I "agree" with Mopar? Did the planets line up or something? The Earths gravity field invert? Nuclear winter?

 

None of the above. What happened was "common sense"...

 

Good point: the cache I placed in New Mexico, at the Continental Divide, will be listed elsewhere, after getting it turned down here. I would be shocked to find that anyone else took it upon themselves to remove (in this case, "steal") that cache!

 

I would have listed the cache I placed in the Portland Airport on NC.com, but after thinking about it and using some of that "common sense", I made arrangements to get it removed. Then I was a bit surprised to read about an admin saying they had taken steps to remove it already.

 

Mopar is right, no one should remove the cache, unless it is OBVIOUSLY abandoned AND in a terrible state of disrepair, and only AFTER a reasonable effort has been made to contact the owner.

 

Just my 2 pesos...

[BassoonPilot]

I don't think that's reasonable. I'd want the cache archived as soon as possible to alert others there is an issue with it.

You want the cache "archived as soon as possible," or temporarily disabled until the actual status can be determined? I agree with the latter, not with the former.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+Mopar]

So far things seem to be ok with the analogy. I'm not sure how I could remove the phone though if the phone company refused to repair it. It's their property. Same with the cache, though certainly easier to remove.

Well, the spot on which the phone booth is placed belongs to "the town," and "the town" approved the placement of the phone booth there as long as certain conditions were met ... you pass by the phone booth a few weeks later, and observe that the phone is now dead, because Verizon went "belly-up." "The conditions" the town placed on the phone booth are no longer being met, but the phone booth remains in place, a derelict.

 

Who has the right, and should assume the ultimate responsibility, to arrange for the removal of the phone booth?

If you are saying GC.com is the town in your analogy, it doesn't work. GC.com doesn't own the location. To stick with the phone booth analogy:

Happytown Park decides they need a pay phone in the parking lot. When they install the phone, they contract with Verizon to provide the phone service, but they himself provides the actual pay phone.

 

Situation A:

They are unhappy with Verizion as a service provider, and switch to AT&T. Should Verizon run out and pick up the pay phone (that is owned by Happytown Park)?

 

Situation B:

Verizion is unhappy with Happytown park. The pay phone they provided is poorly maintained. The booth is covered in obscenities, and the phone itself doesn't work. Since the phone booth mentions it uses Verizon's service, they are concerned about the image it projects about their service, even though they don't own the phone. Happytown Park refuses to address their concerns, so eventually they turn off phone service to the pay phone. Should Verizon run out and pick up the pay phone (that is still owned by Happytown Park)?

[CoyoteRed]

Not true. I've cross listed caches on Navicache since I became aware of its existence and mentioned that fact in the forums many times.

Selective memory.

 

As many recall Navicache was at one time a trigger word that got your post qued to approval.

 

Add to that the previous version of the "Edit your profile page" had a statement about not advertising other sites other than your own home page.

 

Yes, things have changed, but how much is the question.

[BassoonPilot]

Good point: the cache I placed in New Mexico, at the Continental Divide, will be listed elsewhere, after getting it turned down here. I would be shocked to find that anyone else took it upon themselves to remove (in this case, "steal") that cache!

But if the listing failed to receive approval here, the listing is invisible to everyone except yourself and the admins. So who would remove it by mistake?

[+Mopar]

You have to take your car to insection every few years. DMV "reviews" your car and "approves" it if it meets their criteria. If it doesn't you can't drive that car in your state in it's present condition.

That is a false statement.

OK, I'll rephrase it:

If DMV doesn't "approve" your car, they don't give it a valid sticker. You can still drive the car, just not legally on the streets of that state.

You can still place a cache that GC.com doesn't approve of, you just can't get it listed here.

[BassoonPilot]

If you are saying GC.com is the town in your analogy, it doesn't work.

GC.com "owns" the listing. The listing is where people find out about the cache, and is therefore "the ground" on which the cache page was placed.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

My cache is my property, not GC.coms. They can decide if they want to list it or not, I decide where it belongs.

[BassoonPilot]

You can still place a cache that GC.com doesn't approve of, you just can't get it listed here.

As even recent history clearly indicates, that is also a false statement.

 

OK, I'll rephrase it: If DMV doesn't "approve" your car, they don't give it a valid sticker. You can still drive the car, just not legally on the streets of that state.

 

Even rephrased, the statement is false. One can legally drive the car on the streets for a specified period of time. And in some cases, a failure to win approval may lead to an exemption from the approval process.

 

Since the phone booth mentions it uses Verizon's service, they are concerned about the image it projects about their service, even though they don't own the phone.

 

I would ask who plastered the stickers all over the phone/phone booth "mentioning" the service provider. I would suggest that because they are promoting their service, it would be in the best interests of the service provider to ensure that the phone is properly maintained.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[dampeoples]

Doesn't matter where the bickering or who's wrong/who's right leads us. Geocaching.com has their name all over the cache, kind of the face of Geocaching.

If it ever became a problem, fingers would point to them, not he cache owner, especially if the cache has been archived. Something needs to be put into writing, before the littering fine happens, and it will.

[+TEAM 360]

Good point: the cache I placed in New Mexico, at the Continental Divide, will be listed elsewhere, after getting it turned down here. I would be shocked to find that anyone else took it upon themselves to remove (in this case, "steal") that cache!

But if the listing failed to receive approval here, the listing is invisible to everyone except yourself and the admins. So who would remove it by mistake?

What's to stop an admin from picking up the phone and making arrangements to remove it, if they have the coords?

[+briansnat]

Not true.  I've cross listed caches on Navicache since I became aware of its existence and mentioned that fact in the forums many times.

Selective memory.

 

As many recall Navicache was at one time a trigger word that got your post qued to approval.

 

Add to that the previous version of the "Edit your profile page" had a statement about not advertising other sites other than your own home page.

 

Yes, things have changed, but how much is the question.

I've always been able to cross list caches. Yes, the word Navicache did trigger queing of posts at one time, but it hasn't been that way for some time. Those are two different issues.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Doesn't matter where the bickering or who's wrong/who's right leads us. Geocaching.com has their name all over the cache, kind of the face of Geocaching.

If it ever became a problem, fingers would point to them, not he cache owner, especially if the cache has been archived. Something needs to be put into writing, before the littering fine happens, and it will.

Do you think GC owns my ammo box? Has the right to do with it as they want? I think not.

 

They aren't paying any littering finds. Think real world. What happens when something is discovered. A couple of years ago a cache was discovered near me in a wilderness area. Forestry contacted the owner of the cache and had them pick it up at the ranger station. The cacher was warned about littering and promised to never do such a horrible thing again, in wilderness areas.

 

You actually think they'll chase down Jeremy for a littering fine?

 

If so I'm sending him the parking ticket I got while chasing down a cache.

[+Mopar]

Doesn't matter where the bickering or who's wrong/who's right leads us. Geocaching.com has their name all over the cache, kind of the face of Geocaching.

If it ever became a problem, fingers would point to them, not he cache owner, especially if the cache has been archived. Something needs to be put into writing, before the littering fine happens, and it will.

Something is in writing.

This is something every cache hider agrees to as a condition of listing a cache on geocaching.com:

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.).  You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem.  This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing. 

 

As a matter of fact, for the last year or so, you can't even submit a cache listing unless you first check off that you read and understood that (along with the rest of the hiding guidelines).

[BassoonPilot]

What's to stop an admin from picking up the phone and making arrangements to remove it, if they have the coords?

Indeed; I stand corrected.

[+TEAM 360]

If so I'm sending him the parking ticket I got while chasing down a cache.

LMAO!

 

I gotta clean the iced tea off my screen....

[+Mopar]

Not true.  I've cross listed caches on Navicache since I became aware of its existence and mentioned that fact in the forums many times.

Selective memory.

 

As many recall Navicache was at one time a trigger word that got your post qued to approval.

 

Add to that the previous version of the "Edit your profile page" had a statement about not advertising other sites other than your own home page.

 

Yes, things have changed, but how much is the question.

I've always been able to cross list caches. Yes, the word Navicache did trigger queing of posts at one time, but it hasn't been that way for some time. Those are two different issues.

If I remember right, the only reason "navicache" was added as a trigger word in the forums was to stop someone who kept spamming the forums with something like "gc come sucks! Go to navicache.com" over and over. The easiest way to stop them at the time was just use that as a trigger word. It was more a spam problem then a navicache problem. I find it interesting that it appears like other websites have recent rules against posting about this site.

[dampeoples]

Doesn't matter where the bickering or who's wrong/who's right leads us. Geocaching.com has their name all over the cache, kind of the face of Geocaching.

If it ever became a problem, fingers would point to them, not he cache owner, especially if the cache has been archived. Something needs to be put into writing, before the littering fine happens, and it will.

Do you think GC owns my ammo box? Has the right to do with it as they want? I think not.

 

They aren't paying any littering finds. Think real world. What happens when something is discovered. A couple of years ago a cache was discovered near me in a wilderness area. Forestry contacted the owner of the cache and had them pick it up at the ranger station. The cacher was warned about littering and promised to never do such a horrible thing again, in wilderness areas.

 

You actually think they'll chase down Jeremy for a littering fine?

 

If so I'm sending him the parking ticket I got while chasing down a cache.

That was one event, wait until someone put one where they shouldn't, and it's discovered, especially if it's in one of those places like the park system in Florida. Most people put a handle in a cache, not their real name and address.

It's not hard to chase down Jeremy for a littering fine, if he's the man behind the curtain

[dampeoples]

Doesn't matter where the bickering or who's wrong/who's right leads us. Geocaching.com has their name all over the cache, kind of the face of Geocaching.

If it ever became a problem, fingers would point to them, not he cache owner, especially if the cache has been archived. Something needs to be put into writing, before the littering fine happens, and it will.

Something is in writing.

This is something every cache hider agrees to as a condition of listing a cache on geocaching.com:

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.).  You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem.  This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing. 

 

As a matter of fact, for the last year or so, you can't even submit a cache listing unless you first check off that you read and understood that (along with the rest of the hiding guidelines).

That's just saying that they will archive the listing, not leaving the responsibility of the cache owner to go pick it up and dispose of it.

I'm not hating on GC or anyone. If someone can sue McDonalds for hot coffee, they can slap a littering fine on GC.com, my suggestion is to merely re-word the agreement to clearly define what's supposed to happen when it gets archived.

[CoyoteRed]

Regardless of what "was", it's "is" is what counts now. Let's move on.

 

GC.com doesn't own the cache. The cache is there for the community to enjoy. Let the community take care of it's own if the owner fails to clean up after themselves. Gc.com should, though is not required to, help--it's good policy.

[+Team DEMP]

GC.com doesn't own the cache. The cache is there for the community to enjoy. Let the community take care of it's own if the owner fails to clean up after themselves. Gc.com should, though is not required to, help--it's good policy.

If anything, *we* should put something into place that maybe the gc.com site can support. I think that would be a better solution.

[CoyoteRed]

GC.com doesn't own the cache.  The cache is there for the community to enjoy.  Let the community take care of it's own if the owner fails to clean up after themselves.  Gc.com should, though is not required to, help--it's good policy.

If anything, *we* should put something into place that maybe the gc.com site can support. I think that would be a better solution.

Agreed.

 

I've been thinking about that very thing.

[dampeoples]

Perhaps all the leaders of the various geocaching clubs could meet on IRC, or on AOL IM or something, and hash out a doable plan, then each one could impliment it into their own groups.

I know that doesn't encompass everyone, but it would be a start.

[+Renegade Knight]

There are three sources of authority in geocaching.

 

1) The land owner.

2) The listing site via their TOS

3) The cache owner.

 

The two that can remove a cache without causing too much controversy are the land owner and the cache owner. The listing site has a bunch of issues to cover among them that they are not the only game in town.

 

For geocaching to be viable in the long run we will need to be self regulating and among other things that means removal of geo-litter. The will mean more active involvement by the listing site and the local organizations. Local organizations will have to borrow their authority as they really have none without worknig out arrangments with one or all the other three.

 

MiGO removes archived caches and confirmes that missing ones are in fact missing. The idea is sound, though the process needs some polish.

Edited July 6, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+Team GPSaxophone]

My opinion is that as a listing service, GC.com is not responsible for this; the cache owner is. There are other listing sites besides geocaching.com. A cache doesn't even need to be listed on ANY listing site to still be a viable cache.

Just because a cache is archived on this listing service doesn't mean it's not still listed and active on another listing service, or on a mailing list, or on someone's personal website.

I completely agree with this! Wait, did I just say I "agree" with Mopar? Did the planets line up or something? The Earths gravity field invert? Nuclear winter?

 

None of the above. What happened was "common sense"...

 

Good point: the cache I placed in New Mexico, at the Continental Divide, will be listed elsewhere, after getting it turned down here. I would be shocked to find that anyone else took it upon themselves to remove (in this case, "steal") that cache!

You mean I wasn't supposed to go get it?