Archived Caches, Who's Responsible For Removing?

[+Team Shredded Bark]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

 

I feel that the participants in this thread are actually discussing

two completely separate issues, and that most if not all of the

disagreement expressed is a result of confusing the two different

issues as if they were one.

 

Issue 1: Is GC.com responsible (legally, morally, or

otherwise) for physically removing caches marked "archived" that have

not been dealt with by the cache owner? ("dealt with" defined as the

cache remains removed if appropriate, cache relocated, confirmed

missing, or listed elsewhere, and the owner has posted a note as to

the physical cache's unltimate disposition.)

 

I think the answer is probably "no." As mentioned earlier in the

thread, it is a listing service, and they are not likely to be

legally liable for the physical caches, which they don't own.

 

Issue B: Is it A Good Idea for GC.com to remove, or at

least assist and encourage removal, of archived caches?

 

I think the answer to Issue B is "yes" because it is good for

geocaching as a whole in terms of public and land-manager perception.

It doesn't matter that the relative geotrash percentage versus the

total of all litter is negligible. People, and particularly land

managers, who find what appears to be abandoned litter in their park

with "geocaching.com" written on it are going to think poorly of both

the Web site and geocaching as a whole.

 

This perception problem is likely to ultimately result in fewer

places being available for geocaching.

 

Currently, there are informal programs on a regional basis to

"rescue" archived caches in this manner. Ideally, the owner or a

rescuer should post a note to the archived cache confirming its

removal or final physical status. But as noted earlier, many cache

seekers are not members of regional organizations, or even read the

gc.com fora.

 

Please note that I am referring only to abandoned caches whose owners

have not retrieved them after some time and contact attempts. I think

"listed on N-caching.com" is a perfectly appropriate final status.

 

So, in closing, I think it could be useful if GC.com provided some

sort of direct interface or status to reflect this, perhaps "archived

and retrieved" or something to that effect, just to make it easier.

Sure, give people props via stats for "rescued" caches (something

that is done informally on MiGO's site now). This would make it

easier for cache seekers to become aware of the geotrash issue, and

encourage them to do something about it.

 

John

Team Shredded Bark

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: PGP 8.0.2 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

 

iQA/AwUBQO2SSEcrpacku1SeEQJLCgCcCx1/E/XmUDNAJ/iCR+AsiZVDxSUAnio4

KwdxMCx7y91BhQ2b0AlA8YrN

=JFIo

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[CoyoteRed]

*** Alert:    Signature did not verify. Message has been altered.

 

It's notoriously difficult to use PGP in web based fora.

[Bluehook]

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 ...

Ooooo, scary.

 

Of course, if you “drop a note to the property owner and/or controlling agency,” you had better have the backbone to at least sign your name and supply your address with your whine.

 

If you send it anonymously, it generally isn’t taken seriously by anyone and no action will be taken. And writing the address on the envelope by hand in your own very familiar handwriting, doesn’t help much to keep your efforts clandestine anyway.

 

It’s just a waste of a stamp, or in your case, two stamps.

 

Asinine indeed. Nice try sad man.