Archived Caches, Who's Responsible For Removing?

2.3k · July 6, 2004

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

Uhhhmmmm....wait, lemme think about it....uhhhhhh....

No. :lol:

3k · July 6, 2004

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.

Most geocachers don't use the forums; I suspect a similar minority are members of any organized group, or have any interest in joining a local group.

I think any solution affecting people using this site would need to be implemented from geocaching.com. It is, after all, the site people opened accounts at and list their hides and finds at. I suppose the actual "legwork" could be carried out be volunteers from within local organizations.

3.1k · July 6, 2004

Well according to one cacher geocaching would make Jeremy a serial litterbug.

I say we string him up [ :blink: ]

You don't track down litterbugs for a little box. I've seen piles of garbage in the woods left behind. Letters were left among the garbage. Easy to track who put it there right?

Wrong. Sure we know who left it but since there were no witnesses the owner can claim someone else stole it and left it behind. That was the judges ruling.

Oregon certainly won't be wasting taxpayers money chasing down a tupperware litterer.

July 6, 2004

I for one agree with Mopar on this. There are a lot of good points brought up in these forums, and most of the time the end result is a benefit to all users of GC.com

GC.com cannot be responsible for the removal of the cache. Short of spending an enormous amount of time looking into other 'listing' services, they have no way to determine if it has been listed elsewhere.

If a cache is deemed unviable, then the owner should take the necessary steps to either remove, reactivate, or leave archived, the cache.

Quite simply, it comes down to common courtesy. We don't practice enough of it, as a population anymore, myself included...

Many cachers partake in CITO, which is a grand courtesy we offer to the general public (it benefits everyone). Cache containers, if needing removal, is just CITO in another form....

Courtesy, courtesy, courtesy.... thats all it takes....

38.2k · July 6, 2004

GC.com cannot be responsible for the removal of the cache. Short of spending an enormous amount of time looking into other 'listing' services, they have no way to determine if it has been listed elsewhere.
If a cache is deemed unviable, then the owner should take the necessary steps to either remove, reactivate, or leave archived, the cache.

Quite simply, it comes down to common courtesy. We don't practice enough of it, as a population anymore, myself included...

We talk about other listing services as if they are a real issue. I've yet to find a cache that had the URL of another listing service written on the lid. Like it or not, GC.COM is the face of geocaching. Read a newspaper article about it they mention GC.COM, not Navicache. Watch a news story and they mention GC.COM, not Opencaching.com.

This being the case, GC.COM does have some responsibility in this matter. Of course the owner is the responsible party, but if an abandoned cache is discovered by a park ranger, or a cache is placed illegally, it is this website and the geocaching community at-large that will take the heat, no matter where it is listed.

It would be nice if all cache owners were responsible and made sure their cache was removed at the end of its life, but many are not. If GC.COM is aware of them its appropriate for them to take steps to ensure they're removed.

There is no need for an admin to spend an "enormous amount of time" looking for other places where the cache might be listed. The local geocaching community pretty much knows which owners list their caches elsewhere, as well as which owners are neglectful and which caches are abandoned.

2.8k · July 6, 2004

So if we take the majority of the posts here that seem to indicate something needs to be done to address it, and we figure out a way of doing it that doesn't put the final responsibility on another individual but allows for those interested in "doing the right thing", we probably have a winning solution.

I reviewed the Michigan link on cache rescue and I like the idea. Maybe if it was a national cache rescue listing for archived caches that would indicate if the cache is confirmed missing, has been retrieved or needs to be retrieved, it can add another wrinkle to the hobby.

38.2k · July 6, 2004

I reviewed the Michigan link on cache rescue and I like the idea. Maybe if it was a national cache rescue listing for archived caches that would indicate if the cache is confirmed missing, has been retrieved or needs to be retrieved, it can add another wrinkle to the hobby.

I think that if each regional forum has a pinned "cache rescue" thread, this can help. Some do and I know the northeast forums did until very recently. I am curious as to why it was locked.

7.2k · July 6, 2004

Considering the site lists some 107k active caches and the cache ID count is upwards of 150k, that's a LOT of archived/unapproved caches.

Granted many are bogus or never placed, but that still leaves a huge number of potential trash out there.

Care to guess how many thousands of caches are rotting in the woods?

3.1k · July 6, 2004

So if we take the majority of the posts here that seem to indicate something needs to be done to address it, and we figure out a way of doing it that doesn't put the final responsibility on another individual but allows for those interested in "doing the right thing", we probably have a winning solution.

Remember that the majority of posts here indicate well less than 1% of all active cachers. Most could care less what goes on in the forums.

Let's arrest Jeremy today. After all, he's the reason there is so much litter out there :blink:

2.3k · July 6, 2004

Considering the site lists some 107k active caches and the cache ID count is upwards of 150k, that's a LOT of archived/unapproved caches.

Granted many are bogus or never placed, but that still leaves a huge number of potential trash out there.

Care to guess how many thousands of caches are rotting in the woods?

Since when does tupperware or Ammo cans rot?

2.1k · July 6, 2004

I agree with Mopar. This is a listing service and they (gc.com) do not own the caches. They can make requirements that have to be met to be listed, but once again they are not responsible for them. The cache owners are responsible for the caches. Just as each and every one of us are not responsible for the maintenance of other peoples caches. Mopar mentioned the fact that the cache may be listed elsewhere. If it's removed because it's archived or not allowed on this site, does not mean it's not being used elsewhere.

3k · July 6, 2004

Care to guess how many thousands of caches are rotting in the woods?

Since when does tupperware or Ammo cans rot?

So, CO, all caches in place are contained in Ammo Boxes or Tupperware? I must have missed that guideline ... and so must a whole lot of other people, because I sure do sure do see lots of caches in rusting coffee cans, take-out food containers of every description, GladWare, cheap paperboard or wooden boxes, mailing tubes, etc. ... not to mention those caches in cracked (or chewed) Tupperware and in rusty and/or leaky ammo boxes.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

July 6, 2004

it is this website and the geocaching community at-large that will take the heat, no matter where it is listed.
It would be nice if all cache owners were responsible and made sure their cache was removed at the end of its life, but many are not. If GC.COM is aware of them its appropriate for them to take steps to ensure they're removed.

Mud in the face always sucks, and that is one problem with 'visibility'. Geocaching gets blamed for a lot of things.

If GC.com were to post the archived caches, requests for assistance in verification/removal, hopefully it would be well received. It is impossible to please everyone here, as individuals we have our own wants and desires, but it seems that there is definite interest, even if by a few, to partake in helping out.

Like CITO, once an activity is started, it is bound to take off. Give it an acronym as well, like RACE (Rescue Archived Caches Everyone). I had heard of geocaching, but had heard nothing of CITO until I actually visited this site (now I make sure it is mentioned in any conversation I have about geocaching).

If you build it, they will come :blink:

2.3k · July 6, 2004

Care to guess how many thousands of caches are rotting in the woods?

Since when does tupperware or Ammo cans rot?

So, CO, all caches in place are contained in Ammo Boxes or Tupperware? I must have missed that guideline ... and so must a whole lot of other people, because I sure do sure do see lots of caches in rusting coffee cans, take-out food containers of every description, GladWare, cheap paperboard or wooden boxes, mailing tubes, etc. ... not to mention those caches in cracked (or chewed) Tupperware and in rusty and/or leaky ammo boxes.

Nice comment but it doesn't address my question. I wasn't asking about cardboard containers. A generalized statement was made and I was trying to understand how Plastic, even cracked plastic can rot? and Metal, metal does not rot. Isn't the term rot, while very descriptive, usually used in regards to organic compounds? It jsut seemed to me that it made the situation seem worse than it really was.

Edited July 6, 2004 by CO Admin

July 6, 2004

Well according to one cacher geocaching would make Jeremy a serial litterbug.

I say we string him up []

You don't track down litterbugs for a little box. I've seen piles of garbage in the woods left behind. Letters were left among the garbage. Easy to track who put it there right?

Wrong. Sure we know who left it but since there were no witnesses the owner can claim someone else stole it and left it behind. That was the judges ruling.

Oregon certainly won't be wasting taxpayers money chasing down a tupperware litterer.

I say you are being obnoxious, but of course you're right, make a jab at someone, it's bound to be the truth! Look at me, I'm an attention whore!

I got a ticket for littering once, I didn't even throw the trash out on the road, it was thrown out of my truck by some passengers. They read the trash inside (you know, kind of like gc.com's name all over a cache box). I got a letter telling me to appear in court. Too bad I was living in Maryland then, and spent some time in jail because SC had revoked my license for not showing up in court. To say it's not going to happen is just stupid. I'm not the only person in America to ever get fined for littering. It's kind of hard to find dampeoples or some handle, but gc.com, and it's 'official' geocache is fair game.

You wanna string me up, go ahead.

3k · July 6, 2004

This is a listing service and they (gc.com) do not own the caches. They can make requirements that have to be met to be listed, but once again they are not responsible for them.

I would just like every person who has repeated that mantra to explain to me why, if geocaching.com has no responsibility for the caches that have been approved by its reviewers, that those same reviewers so often take it upon themselves to archive caches they suspect of having a problem? Is that not clear enough indication that geocaching.com does, in fact, accept at least partial responsibility for the caches?

In the case of caches abandoned by inactive owners, if geocaching.com does not accept at least partial responsibility for the caches it lists, shouldn't the reviewers wait until the geocaching community asks for such caches to be archived?

3k · July 6, 2004

A generalized statement was made and I was trying to understand how Plastic, even cracked plastic can rot? and Metal, metal does not rot. Isn't the term rot, while very descriptive, usually used in regards to organic compounds? It jsut seemed to me that it made the situation seem worse than it really was.

I can't find the words "tupperware" or "ammo box" mentioned in the statement you quoted. But, I know a lot of people who complained about how their AMC Gremlins rotted out. You indicated you knew that, as in the previous example, the person you quoted had made a generalized statement. I would only add that it is not terribly uncommon to find contents of "abandoned/archived but not removed" caches rotting because the container they were in leaked or was broken.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

2.1k · July 6, 2004

I would just like every person who has repeated that mantra to explain to me why, if geocaching.com has no responsibility for the caches that have been approved by its reviewers, that those same reviewers so often take it upon themselves to archive caches they suspect of having a problem? Is that not clear enough indication that geocaching.com does, in fact, accept at least partial responsibility for the caches?

In the case of caches abandoned by inactive owners, if geocaching.com does not accept at least partial responsibility for the caches it lists, shouldn't the reviewers wait until the geocaching community asks for such caches to be archived?

That's a whole different ballgame bassoon...lol

6.4k · July 6, 2004

This is a listing service and they (gc.com) do not own the caches. They can make requirements that have to be met to be listed, but once again they are not responsible for them.

I would just like every person who has repeated that mantra to explain to me why, if geocaching.com has no responsibility for the caches that have been approved by its reviewers, that those same reviewers so often take it upon themselves to archive caches they suspect of having a problem? Is that not clear enough indication that geocaching.com does, in fact, accept at least partial responsibility for the caches?

You're a bit slow today, BP. This was covered way back. GC.com is responsible for maintaining it's database. That means archiving cache listings that do not meet it's standards. Other listing services have different standards, and www.geotrash.com might not care that a cache listed on their site has been full of water and getting moldy for 10 months.

In the case of caches abandoned by inactive owners, if geocaching.com does not accept at least partial responsibility for the caches it lists, shouldn't the reviewers wait until the geocaching community asks for such caches to be archived?

And how can you possibly know for a fact if this is done or not? Are you privy to every email sent to every reviewer? Do you get to look over the shoulder and read every email that goes to contact@?

Why is it so hard to imagine that most people would rather report a problem cache in private email, rather then posting a Needs Archived log on every cache that has a problem? You can't possibly know if most caches that you ASSume are archived arbitrarily have had complaints emailed already.

3k · July 6, 2004

That's a whole different ballgame bassoon...lol

It's all part of the same ballgame, Brian, and it is hardly a laughing matter.

3k · July 6, 2004

You're a bit slow today, BP. This was covered way back. GC.com is responsible for maintaining it's database. That means archiving cache listings that do not meet it's standards.

Which standards would those be? Current standards? The standards in place when the cache was placed? Whatever the regional approver decides at that moment is a standard? As I stated previously, if there were actually "standards," then there would be no "grandfathered" caches.

Edited July 6, 2004 by BassoonPilot

2.1k · July 6, 2004

That's a whole different ballgame bassoon...lol

It's all part of the same ballgame, Brian, and it is hardly a laughing matter.

Well truly, yes it's all of the same ballgame in retrospect. But there are many more issues than just these that are included in that ballgame as well. I think this thread (issue) had to deal with who's responsible for removing "dead" caches that were once on the GC site. The answer is the owner. Saying GC has responsibility in it would be like saying if I hada website where I would list your campground if I approved of it and that I would be responsible for the actions of the campground. Not happening.

July 6, 2004

That's a whole different ballgame bassoon...lol

It's all part of the same ballgame, Brian, and it is hardly a laughing matter.

Well truly, yes it's all of the same ballgame in retrospect. But there are many more issues than just these that are included in that ballgame as well. I think this thread (issue) had to deal with who's responsible for removing "dead" caches that were once on the GC site. The answer is the owner. Saying GC has responsibility in it would be like saying if I hada website where I would list your campground if I approved of it and that I would be responsible for the actions of the campground. Not happening.

The difference would be that you wouldn't list the campground as an official woodsters campground.

Think about it, not knowing the game, if you found something you believed to be trash in the forest, with geocaching.com written all over it, who are you going to hold responsible? The cache owner? Who is that? Where is his contact info? Suppose someone doesn't really have permission to place a cache, but they did anyway, and now the landowner is upset. He might now know team woodsters, but he sure knows geocaching.com, it's listed on the cache. It's official it says.

Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch, maybe not.

2.8k · July 6, 2004

This is a listing service and they (gc.com) do not own the caches. They can make requirements that have to be met to be listed, but once again they are not responsible for them.

I would just like every person who has repeated that mantra to explain to me why, if geocaching.com has no responsibility for the caches that have been approved by its reviewers, that those same reviewers so often take it upon themselves to archive caches they suspect of having a problem? Is that not clear enough indication that geocaching.com does, in fact, accept at least partial responsibility for the caches?

In the case of caches abandoned by inactive owners, if geocaching.com does not accept at least partial responsibility for the caches it lists, shouldn't the reviewers wait until the geocaching community asks for such caches to be archived?

I can't imagine you truly believe that. In fact, if folks were arguing the side you've taken, I'd almost guarantee you'd be arguing the other side - that gc.com doesn't have responsibility for the physical cache.

To me, gc.com is the equivalent of eBay. They don't actually own the goods that are listed and therefore don't own responsibility for issues related to those goods. Isn't gc.com the same thing?

gc.com is responsible for NOTHING MORE then the listings of caches. They are approving LISTINGS, denying LISTINGS and archiving LISTINGS, not the caches themselves.

If we can't all agree on that, then I'm at a loss on how we could come up with a way of trying to solve the actual problem.

David

July 6, 2004

I am sure that Geocaching.com/Groundspeak/Jeremy, has had legal advice on their "exposures" to littering/abandonment/injury liability, etc. and been given the "facts" (which may vary by jurisdiction) on who is responsibile for these things being discussed. I wonder what they have been told? Admin?

7.2k · July 6, 2004

Care to guess how many thousands of caches are rotting in the woods?

Since when does tupperware or Ammo cans rot?

So, CO, all caches in place are contained in Ammo Boxes or Tupperware? I must have missed that guideline ... and so must a whole lot of other people, because I sure do sure do see lots of caches in rusting coffee cans, take-out food containers of every description, GladWare, cheap paperboard or wooden boxes, mailing tubes, etc. ... not to mention those caches in cracked (or chewed) Tupperware and in rusty and/or leaky ammo boxes.

Nice comment but it doesn't address my question.

I'm not sure you query deserves an answer. That's the reason I ignored it. Tupperware or ammo cans does not a cache make.

Besides, I figured most would see that I was using it as not as "decay" but more as "to languish," "be left unattended," or what have you.

But since you brought it up, I've seen plenty of caches in plastic that were in the first stages of decay; soggy messes with mold growing in it and insect infestation. Yeah, I'd say "rot."

Maybe, I'm getting tired of the crap, again, but why does there always have to be such nastiness or confrontation?

~sheesh~ I was only making a statement about the potential of a large number of archived cache still in the wild. Gimme a break.

July 7, 2004

This is a listing service and they (gc.com) do not own the caches. They can make requirements that have to be met to be listed, but once again they are not responsible for them.

I would just like every person who has repeated that mantra to explain to me why, if geocaching.com has no responsibility for the caches that have been approved by its reviewers, that those same reviewers so often take it upon themselves to archive caches they suspect of having a problem? Is that not clear enough indication that geocaching.com does, in fact, accept at least partial responsibility for the caches?

In the case of caches abandoned by inactive owners, if geocaching.com does not accept at least partial responsibility for the caches it lists, shouldn't the reviewers wait until the geocaching community asks for such caches to be archived?

I can't imagine you truly believe that. In fact, if folks were arguing the side you've taken, I'd almost guarantee you'd be arguing the other side - that gc.com doesn't have responsibility for the physical cache.

Welcome Team DEMP!

You have seen the light brother!

You have seen the truth!

Congratulations.

I like that 95 percent editing rate for his post. It would appear he throws them out there without thinking and has to fix them almost everytime.

Ah yes, back to the woodwork for me. My work here is done.

3k · July 7, 2004

In fact, if folks were arguing the side you've taken, I'd almost guarantee you'd be arguing the other side - that gc.com doesn't have responsibility for the physical cache.

"In fact?"

I take the position that I believe to be the correct position. Asinine comments like yours are not going to alter my position, and they do nothing to further whatever position it is that you may hold.

Hey, if you think geo-litter, and Admin. created geo-litter in particular, are good things, then fine. I won't bother to pick any of it up anymore. I'll drop a note to the property owner/controlling agency, instead. I'll do the same with all those illegal cache placements that somehow sneak through in this region.

Gotta go now, I think my first letter will be to a certain water commission that has several caches illegally (even by Criminal's standards!) placed on their property ...

Edited July 7, 2004 by BassoonPilot

2.8k · July 7, 2004

BP: You completely missed the point. My comment as it relates specifically to you is I can't truly believe your argument here is because you believe what you're saying is correct. I think you're discussion here is just going against what others are posting, for no other reason then to take the opposite side.

From my posts, it would be impossible to gather, as you wrote, that I think geo-litter is fine. Every post I've made here has stated nothing other then the contrary.

Like eBay, GC.com is a listing service and has no direct responsibility for the items listed on their site. If we can agree to that concept, then I think we can work toward trying to work out a way, using GC.com as a listing service, to address the issue.

As for your threats to contact agencies regarding specific caches, other then to get forum members angry at you (see initial paragraph above), I'm not sure what purpose there is in doing that. In fact, it would be, for me, the most malicious behavior I've personally seen from another cacher, and I think goes against other posts you've made in past threads about properly notifying cache owners, etc.

David

6.4k · July 7, 2004

In the case of caches abandoned by inactive owners, if geocaching.com does not accept at least partial responsibility for the caches it lists, shouldn't the reviewers wait until the geocaching community asks for such caches to be archived?

I can't imagine you truly believe that. In fact, if folks were arguing the side you've taken, I'd almost guarantee you'd be arguing the other side - that gc.com doesn't have responsibility for the physical cache.

David, I do believe you're right.

I have no problem with the administrators archiving a cache until its true status is determined. (Again, because the process is reversible.) (link)

Yes, definitely. I suggest Jeremy should consider putting an "expiration date" on any cache ... one possibility is a cache would automatically be archived at the end of 30 days if:

1. The cache had received no find logs, or

2. The cache owner had not clicked a button/checkbox (not unlike the current "temporarily disable/enable this cache" feature) verifying the cache's continued viability. (link)

Just two of MANY posts that are the polar opposite of his current argument.

7.2k · July 7, 2004

Back to the original topic: GC.com's role in cleaning up after cachers.

I'll again state my opinion, only a little more succinctly:

GC.com didn't place the cache so they shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up the cache. However, they did encourage and facilitate the placement of the cache so they should be responsible for encouraging and facilitating the cleanup of the cache.

3.1k · July 7, 2004

I say you are being obnoxious, but of course you're right, make a jab at someone, it's bound to be the truth! Look at me, I'm an attention whore!

I'm being obnoxious.???

I think the thread is obnoxious myself,but that's me.

It's a silly thought, that GC.com is going to be held financially responsible and have to pay littering fines because of caches.

Just silly.

38.2k · July 7, 2004

I'll again state my opinion, only a little more succinctly:
GC.com didn't place the cache so they shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up the cache. However, they did encourage and facilitate the placement of the cache so they should be responsible for encouraging and facilitating the cleanup of the cache.

Bingo! I totally agree. As I said earlier, they do have a role in this.

2.1k · July 7, 2004

Hey, if you think geo-litter, and Admin. created geo-litter in particular, are good things, then fine.

I didn't read that someone stated that. The question in general is who is repsonsible for caches that are archived from the listing of the site? The owners are and not GC.com. Plain and simple. As someone else stated, yes there probably be some "advocation" as not to leave geolitter about. Isn't that a stance they have with the CITO projects?

21.9k · July 7, 2004

I reviewed the Michigan link on cache rescue and I like the idea. Maybe if it was a national cache rescue listing for archived caches that would indicate if the cache is confirmed missing, has been retrieved or needs to be retrieved, it can add another wrinkle to the hobby.

I think that if each regional forum has a pinned "cache rescue" thread, this can help. Some do and I know the northeast forums did until very recently. I am curious as to why it was locked.

I closed the topic in the Northeast forum because it was no longer serving the stated purpose for the topic; that is, for the volunteer reviewers to bring abandoned caches to the attention of the community so that those caches could be removed or adopted. I quit using the thread for that purpose after receiving criticism for interfering with the rights of the cache owner. Thereafter, the topic transformed into a place for people to ask about various individual cache adoption issues. Such matters are best handled via e-mail.

July 7, 2004

I for one agree with Mopar on this. There are a lot of good points brought up in these forums, and most of the time the end result is a benefit to all users of GC.com
GC.com cannot be responsible for the removal of the cache. Short of spending an enormous amount of time looking into other 'listing' services, they have no way to determine if it has been listed elsewhere.

If a cache is deemed unviable, then the owner should take the necessary steps to either remove, reactivate, or leave archived, the cache.

Quite simply, it comes down to common courtesy. We don't practice enough of it, as a population anymore, myself included...

Many cachers partake in CITO, which is a grand courtesy we offer to the general public (it benefits everyone). Cache containers, if needing removal, is just CITO in another form....

Courtesy, courtesy, courtesy.... thats all it takes....

I agree with that 100%!

July 8, 2004

Hey, if you think geo-litter, and Admin. created geo-litter in particular, are good things, then fine. I won't bother to pick any of it up anymore. I'll drop a note to the property owner/controlling agency, instead. I'll do the same with all those illegal cache placements that somehow sneak through in this region.

Ah, threats. Always a good way to redirect a discussion...

But if you think you can best serve a sport you seem to enjoy by approaching land managers over these issues before the owners of the caches or the administrators of geocaching.com, go for it.

Regardless, the responsibility for any geo-litter does not rest on those who decline to approve caches placed in violation of the guidelines of the site, but rather solely with those who hide such geocaches then decline to recover them.

Even in the case of approved caches that are now archived, the owner agreed to the guidelines at the time of submission. They note "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. " Seems to me that includes picking up the container or its remains at the end of its life.

2.8k · July 8, 2004

Ok... so what do folks think we should do to try and address the issue?

I think a viable solution is for caches which are archived to be listed via a separate link.

For each cache, the cache owner can log it as missing or retrieved. That would close out the archive process.

After 30 days of it being archived and not closed by the cache owner, another cacher that had previously logged the cache can, after visiting the cache site, log the cache as missing or retrieved which would close out the archive process.

After 30 days without a cacher that previously logged a find closing it out, it would be available to anyone to retrieve the cache and log it or log it as missing. The only real unknown is an cacher that never logged a find on the cache marking it as missing.

Any thoughts?

7.2k · July 8, 2004

The only real unknown is an cacher that never logged a find on the cache marking it as missing.

The age old problem of proving a negative.

Of course, a non-previous finder might have a better chance of finding a cache that was moved than one that had found it in a different spot. The previous finder, who found it before someone moved it to a "better" spot, might look at the old spot and say, "yep, it's gone" when it's not.

The only way you can be reasonably sure is the retrieval of the cache that is positively identifed. (Good reason to put the cache title and your contact information in the cache!)

3k · July 8, 2004

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.

I disagree. Cache reviewers do as much homework as they can from where they are when approving a cache, but only the cache owner/placer knows exactly where the cache is. It is totally the responsibility of the cache owner/placer to remove it. A cache reviewer should not be responsible for its removal at all. Mopar's question is its own answer. I think you're leaving out the "listed on another site" factor.

r

7.2k · July 8, 2004

It is totally the responsibility of the cache owner/placer to remove it. A cache reviewer should not be responsible for its removal at all. Mopar's question is its own answer. I think you're leaving out the "listed on another site" factor.

TAP-TAP-TAP

Is this thing on?

I know you were responding to another poster, but...

First; GC.com , the TPTB, and all of the volunteers have taken it upon themselves the responsibility of ensuring all caches listed here are safe, legal, and ethical. They are part of a community that encourages the placement of caches. But from what I gather from your position is if the cache is not viable, or no longer viable, then the community just turns their collective backs to the cache pretend it doesn't exist? "It's not our problem!"

A cache reviewer is part of the community and as such has taken upon themselves part of the responsibility of ensuring this hobby is healthy--including picking up after ourvelves.

I know I haven't forgotten the "listed on another site" factor. Those most prominent in this hobby--including the reviewers, no especially the reviewers--are in the absolute best position to determine the final disposition of a non-viable cache. If the cache is not approved, then they can include in the note posted/emailed to the owner stating why asking the owner to post a note saying what they did with the cache be it picked it up, listed privately, or whatever. That would go a long way in solving the problem of not knowing what happened to the cache.

One last comment: it seems as though many here are arguing an all or nothing position. It's not. We all share in the responsibility of keeping this hobby healthy, only some are in a better position to get things done.

3.1k · July 8, 2004

I have an archived cache on GC.com that is active on Navicache. I had an out of town cache get plundered. I went down a few months later and replaced it and asked for it to be unarchived. It was. Then a few days later an admin (nameless) archived it because it was considered a vacation cache. I wasn't happy about the decision but I left it there and put it on Navicache.

I don't want anyone plundering my caches, not even GC.com.

3k · July 8, 2004

Cache reviewers do as much homework as they can from where they are when approving a cache, but only the cache owner/placer knows exactly where the cache is.

And how can you possibly know for a fact if this is done or not? ... You can't possibly know ...

2.8k · July 8, 2004

I think in my scenarios above, since we need to address a cache listed on another site, for the site owner another option should be it's listed on another site, and it will close the archive process.

For those cache owners that are no longer active on gc.com, then they should take it upon themselves to archive the cache on the gc.com site, assuming they might remain active with listing their caches on another geocaching site.

3.1k · July 8, 2004

I think this is a non issue to begin with and that we don't need more rules and guidelines.

7.2k · July 8, 2004

I think this is a non issue to begin with and that we don't need more rules and guidelines.

Possibly tens of thousands of archived/unapproved caches which we don't know if they are still out there is a "non-issue?"

It's only a "non-issue" because you don't see it. I guess any litter you don't see is a "non-issue," right?

Plus, it's not about rules or even guidelines in the sense those have been discussed before.

3.1k · July 8, 2004

It's only a "non-issue" because you don't see it. I guess any litter you don't see is a "non-issue," right?

If it's well hidden coyote none of us see it. If it's not well hidden it's gone.

Let's pretend 10's of thousands of caches are out there with no means to remove them. What percentage of litter is that in the world? What percentage is it compared to how much litter has been hauled out through CITO.

This issue reminds me of something Ted Danson the actor said. He was speaking in front of members of the Green party and he declared that if we don't stop polluting the oceans at the rate we are polluting them today all ocean life will be dead in less than 5 years. He had facts to back up his statements.

He said that over 10 years ago.

You guys can act as hysterical as you want. I don't see the problem here. If you want to patrol the woods picking up caches that don't belong to you then go ahead. Plunder away.

2.8k · July 8, 2004

I don't think anyone is acting hysterically. I think we're, for the most part, discussing the issue and how we might, as a community, work to start addressing it.

Not addressing it, though an option, would be the last thing I imagine anyone interested in the hobby would want. Not addressing it won't make caches out in the wild go away. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a one time decision to solve the issue, but it would be useful to start looking at it.

24.7k · July 8, 2004

The cacheing community trades caches into McJunk as if by magic.

I trust the community to do about the same for geo litter. The last thing this community needs is for over zealous cache vigulanties to be out there picking up what they deem as geo-litter per their own internal rules. Nor should the rules (beyond local landowner imposed rules) vary from town to town, state to state or organization to organization.

I'd rather see all caches retrieved (or confirmed gone) when their useful life is done. Thus the listing site should step up to the plate and post very clear rules on what it takes for the removal of a cache. IE owner can't be contacted, it's not listed on another site etc. If all those steps are completed then move the cache to a the CRM page and let people get Cache Rescue Mission points for the removal.

8.1k · July 8, 2004

It's only a "non-issue" because you don't see it. I guess any litter you don't see is a "non-issue," right?

If it's well hidden coyote none of us see it. If it's not well hidden it's gone.

Let's pretend 10's of thousands of caches are out there with no means to remove them. What percentage of litter is that in the world? What percentage is it compared to how much litter has been hauled out through CITO.

This issue reminds me of something Ted Danson the actor said. He was speaking in front of members of the Green party and he declared that if we don't stop polluting the oceans at the rate we are polluting them today all ocean life will be dead in less than 5 years. He had facts to back up his statements.

He said that over 10 years ago.

You guys can act as hysterical as you want. I don't see the problem here. If you want to patrol the woods picking up caches that don't belong to you then go ahead. Plunder away.

Onto some musings...

GC.com promotes itself as a listing service, but that intrinsically sets up a situation where it shares the responsibility for caches, active and archived. There can be no set policy as to how archived caches should be cleared up, since each archiving happens under its own set of parameters and situation.

I cleared up an archived cache the owner had abandoned. Others do the same. But maybe the admins should be given measures with which to effectively moniter what is being archived and the general status of each archiving: still in the field, cleared up, available but unlisted etc.

I for one, would welcome the 'mine' cache page to be separated into active and archived! I hate having to figure out where to click to update cache pages.

Archived Caches, Who's Responsible For Removing?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment