Approvers Archiving Caches

1.6k · September 2, 2004

The subject of caches being archived has come up on ftwaynegeo groups on Yahoo.com.

Some feel that their caches are being archived by approvers even though they are still active or perhaps disabled till it can be repaired/replaced , or such time as construction or some other act of nature has subsided .

Although I understand why the approver is archiving caches that have been disabled for over a month with no sign of it being repaired etc.

I guess my question is should a cache indeed be archived , leaving geo liter scattered about ? Who and or what should be the determining factor in the archiving of a cache.

Thirdly , what can we do as responsible geocacher to assure that we aren't leaving Geo Litter out there.

I can only suggest that perhaps we should all be thinking along the lines of the MIGO group in the state of Michigan , seems they have a site that lists archived caches in there state that allows one to verify that the Geo Litter is in fact gone . Plus its not much but they also give you a "find" or a "did not find " kind of a brownie point., for the verification . Maybe Geocaching.com itself should start something like this .

:lol: Star of Team Tigger International

September 2, 2004

1) If a cache is abandon then how will leaving it active prevent it from becoming geolitter?

2) The guidelines as interpretted and implemented by the volunteers.

3) CITO.

22k · September 2, 2004

I believe GC.com was in the process of working out some agreements with local groups that would include being able to request someone retrieve abandoned caches.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Elf Danach

2.3k · September 2, 2004

Wouldn't it be easier to retrieve an abandoned cache if it showed up as an active cache with a notation for the next finder to trash it out.

22k · September 2, 2004

Wouldn't it be easier to retrieve an abandoned cache if it showed up as an active cache with a notation for the next finder to trash it out.

Easier? eh, maybe. I personally would rather see someone assigned to the task so we know it was done right without un-necessary delay.

1.2k · September 2, 2004

The subject of caches being archived has come up on ftwaynegeo groups on Yahoo.com.
Some feel that their caches are being archived by approvers even though they are still active or perhaps disabled till it can be repaired/replaced , or such time as construction or some other act of nature has subsided .

Although I understand why the approver is archiving caches that have been disabled for over a month with no sign of it being repaired etc.

I guess my question is should a cache indeed be archived , leaving geo liter scattered about ? Who and or what should be the determining factor in the archiving of a cache.

Thirdly , what can we do as responsible geocacher to assure that we aren't leaving Geo Litter out there.

I can only suggest that perhaps we should all be thinking along the lines of the MIGO group in the state of Michigan , seems they have a site that lists archived caches in there state that allows one to verify that the Geo Litter is in fact gone . Plus its not much but they also give you a "find" or a "did not find " kind of a brownie point., for the verification . Maybe Geocaching.com itself should start something like this .

Star of Team Tigger International

My local approver "Hemlock" one had a concept where a list of archived and non-approved caches was compiled..

Cachers could go and retrieve those caches to clean up "geo-litter".

Alas, the list is woefully out of date, and it appears it isn't ever going to be updated. It's too bad, it was fun looking for them.

22k · September 2, 2004

it was fun looking for them.

Hmmm, maybe collecting these caches could have their own icon that would count towards your found numbers. That would be an incentive! :lol:

6.4k · September 2, 2004

My local approver "Hemlock" one had a concept where a list of archived and non-approved caches was compiled..

Cachers could go and retrieve those caches to clean up "geo-litter".

Alas, the list is woefully out of date, and it appears it isn't ever going to be updated. It's too bad, it was fun looking for them.

One of our local reviewers tried to do the same thing and was beaten up over the idea.

The basic "problem" is the caches might not be geolitter, they "might" be one of the 0.00001% of caches listed on a different site. Unless the reviewer knows for certain the cache is not (which is virtually impossible to know, since it might be listed on a personal website, a mailing list, or on a slip of paper in another cache), then they have no place asking for it to be removed.

In other words, some people think we should leave out 10,000 abandoned caches because 1 of them might be listed elsewhere.

2.1k · September 2, 2004

The basic "problem" is the caches might not be geolitter, they "might" be one of the 0.00001% of caches listed on a different site. Unless the reviewer knows for certain the cache is not (which is virtually impossible to know, since it might be listed on a personal website, a mailing list, or on a slip of paper in another cache), then they have no place asking for it to be removed.

I don't have time to go to your link but there is another side to the quote above.

If a hider lists a cache on multiple websites then that hider needs to pay attention to what is happening at BOTH sites. If it is "listed on a personal website, a mailing list, or on a slip of paper in another cache" but not on gc.com then it should be moved from its archived location.

It is not the responsibility of gc.com approvers to determine if the container is multiple listed. If the cache hider archives a gc.com cache that is to remain in use in any other game they run the risk of gc.com or local cachers doing a cleanup action. It would not be hard to move the container 30' to 200', or more, away so that it can't be found using a gc.com page.

I totally agree with Hemlock's system. Hemlock has contacted me twice in the past to ask if I had removed our archived containers. If we had not then they would be listed and fair game to the public. I believe you also get to log a find for the archived cache if you retrieve the container.

I believe gc.com should encourage "clean up" of archived caches if not solely for the purpose of showing public property managers that caches will not become litter when archived.

24.7k · September 2, 2004

1) If a cache is abandon then how will leaving it active prevent it from becoming geolitter?...

1) Because you can then adopt it, because it's still active in the community by the fact that it's being found. Archiving creates the litter if other measures have not been taken.

24.7k · September 2, 2004

...If a hider lists a cache on multiple websites then that hider needs to pay attention to what is happening at BOTH sites. If it is "listed on a personal website, a mailing list, or on a slip of paper in another cache" but not on gc.com then it should be moved from its archived location.

It is not the responsibility of gc.com approvers to determine if the container is multiple listed. If the cache hider archives a gc.com cache that is to remain in use in any other game they run the risk of gc.com or local cachers doing a cleanup action. It would not be hard to move the container 30' to 200', or more, away so that it can't be found using a gc.com page....

I believe gc.com should encourage "clean up" of archived caches if not solely for the purpose of showing public property managers that caches will not become litter when archived.

Until GC.com changes it's TOS, It is the responsibltity of this site and it's representatives to make sure it's not listed elsewhere before calling for a caches removal. And because GC.com should be a good member of the geocaching community they also have an obligation to call for removal of geolitter they create by archiving caches.

It's a balance, and a problem that needs solved now before it becomes more complicated.

Having said that, owners who archive their caches on GC.com and list them elsewhere should say as much in their archive note so that the final disposition of the cache is known. The end goal is that we want viable caches to remain viable, and litter to be gone.

1.2k · September 2, 2004

Wouldn't it be easier to retrieve an abandoned cache if it showed up as an active cache with a notation for the next finder to trash it out.

This is the way it is usually done in my area. I think that's excellent.

1.2k · September 2, 2004

it was fun looking for them.

Hmmm, maybe collecting these caches could have their own icon that would count towards your found numbers. That would be an incentive!

No need; the person who retrieves them can still log them as a find.

The cache isn't archived until it is retrieved.

2.1k · September 2, 2004

Until GC.com changes it's TOS, It is the responsibltity of this site and it's representatives to make sure it's not listed elsewhere before calling for a caches removal. And because GC.com should be a good member of the geocaching community they also have an obligation to call for removal of geolitter they create by archiving caches.

It's a balance, and a problem that needs solved now before it becomes more complicated.

I did go to the other topic listed by Mopar and read it all. My opinion is softening a bit but I'm not totally with you on this yet.

Adding to our volunteer approvers workload does not seem appropriate to me. I don't believe they should have to go to other cache listing sites to search for a multiple listing. It might be a good neighborly thing to do but it will slow down our cache approval process as a result.

The examples I have read show that the approvers try multiple times to get a response from the cache hider. When that hider does not respond why should our volunteer have to take any further action?

My guess is that a multiple listing hider would respond to the approver email request so as not to have the container targeted as geolitter. If the multiple lister knowingly does not respond then they are not taking responsibility.

1.2k · September 2, 2004

My local approver "Hemlock" one had a concept where a list of archived and non-approved caches was compiled..

Cachers could go and retrieve those caches to clean up "geo-litter".

Alas, the list is woefully out of date, and it appears it isn't ever going to be updated. It's too bad, it was fun looking for them.

One of our local reviewers tried to do the same thing and was beaten up over the idea.

The basic "problem" is the caches might not be geolitter, they "might" be one of the 0.00001% of caches listed on a different site. Unless the reviewer knows for certain the cache is not (which is virtually impossible to know, since it might be listed on a personal website, a mailing list, or on a slip of paper in another cache), then they have no place asking for it to be removed.

In other words, some people think we should leave out 10,000 abandoned caches because 1 of them might be listed elsewhere.

When someone llists a cache on GC.com, that person takes on a responsibility. The fact that he lists it elsewhere does not give him privileges here. If a cache owner himself archives a cache but leaves the physical cache in place and listed elsewhere (on the assumption that other sites don't mind listing neglected caches), that's just fine.

But if someone neglects a cache AND fails to archive it, GC.com should not be expected to initiate archival without first trashing it out. This should be no great problem: a reviewer posts a note asking the next finder to remove the trash, the next finder does so (and it counts as a Find to boot), and only then the cache is archived.

Works fine that way over here.

24.7k · September 2, 2004

Until GC.com changes it's TOS, It is the responsibltity of this site and it's representatives to make sure it's not listed elsewhere before calling for a caches removal. And because GC.com should be a good member of the geocaching community they also have an obligation to call for removal of geolitter they create by archiving caches.

It's a balance, and a problem that needs solved now before it becomes more complicated.

I did go to the other topic listed by Mopar and read it all. My opinion is softening a bit but I'm not totally with you on this yet.

Adding to our volunteer approvers workload does not seem appropriate to me. I don't believe they should have to go to other cache listing sites to search for a multiple listing. It might be a good neighborly thing to do but it will slow down our cache approval process as a result.

The examples I have read show that the approvers try multiple times to get a response from the cache hider. When that hider does not respond why should our volunteer have to take any further action?

My guess is that a multiple listing hider would respond to the approver email request so as not to have the container targeted as geolitter. If the multiple lister knowingly does not respond then they are not taking responsibility.

It's not about why should anyone do anything in particular. It's what they should do and what the right thing to do is.

The right thing is no geo litter. We agree on that.

The right thing is that the site makes a reasonable effort to contact the owner about their cache. We agree on that.

The right ting is to remove geo-litter, or adopte it to someone who will take care of it. We agree on that.

Where we don't agree is who is responsible for what. I am responsible for maintaining my cache. So long as I am doing that, the cache isn't litter. It doesn't matter how many sites I list it on, archive it on, or if it's only for the exclusive use of the local boy scount troop. If it's active, it's not trash or litter.

However where we don't agree is the process of making the official call of geo-litter. In my book it's not geo-litter until the resonable attempt to contact the owner has been made, and the other sites have been checked for the cache. It doesn't matter if this site does it, or if this site works with a local group to do the job or what. Just so that it's done.

If you want to go with just the effort to contact, then change the TOS to read "if there are questions on the cache and you don't answer within 4 weeks (or whatever is reasonable) we may dispose of your cache or adopt it to another cacher. That removes the question of what is reasonable since you as an owner agreed to it when you placed the cache.

Taking a viable cache is stealing. Removing litter is a public service. It's about making sure you are removing litter.

2.3k · September 2, 2004

If you want to go with just the effort to contact, then change the TOS to read "if there are questions on the cache and you don't answer within 4 weeks (or whatever is reasonable) we may dispose of your cache or adopt it to another cacher. That removes the question of what is reasonable since you as an owner agreed to it when you placed the cache.

Taking a viable cache is stealing. Removing litter is a public service. It's about making sure you are removing litter.

Which also brings up the problem of what occurs when that person finally gets back and says he wants his/her cache back. Maybe they were on vacation or out of touch. Its not unheard of for someone to go on vacation for >1 month...

Trying to do the right thing and "getting carried away with it" can be a fine line to toe!

Besides, if everyone took responsibilty for their own, this would not be a problem.

2.3k · September 2, 2004

Some feel that their caches are being archived by approvers even though they are still active or perhaps disabled till it can be repaired/replaced , or such time as construction or some other act of nature has subsided .

uh, can't the cache owner just fix it, and email the reviewer?

1.6k · September 2, 2004

Thats the problem , some people do not take care of there own caches , and others simply dissapear from geocaching all together , but there caches remain . That is also a problem in this area as well .

1.6k · September 2, 2004

Some feel that their caches are being archived by approvers even though they are still active or perhaps disabled till it can be repaired/replaced , or such time as construction or some other act of nature has subsided .

uh, can't the cache owner just fix it, and email the reviewer?

The users if they are responsible can just fix it , but how long is it to be left out there ?

disabled , without an explanition as to why ?

And why shouldnt archived caches be available to be adopted by others if there is someone willing to adopt them ? Wouldn't this also save geo internet litter (as in GC numbers webspace etc )? :lol:

22k · September 2, 2004

it was fun looking for them.

Hmmm, maybe collecting these caches could have their own icon that would count towards your found numbers. That would be an incentive!

No need; the person who retrieves them can still log them as a find.

The cache isn't archived until it is retrieved.

Party pooper! I figured it could be like a merit badge. How many recoveries someone made.

Oh well, just a thought, cache on.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Elf Danach

38.2k · September 2, 2004

Thats the problem , some people do not take care of there own caches , and others simply dissapear from geocaching all together , but there caches remain . That is also a problem in this area as well .

We have a number of caches in this area owned by people who've obviously lost interest in the sport. The caches have had reported problems, sometimes for months on end and the owners have't logged onto this site in months and sometimes years. The community does what it can to maintain them. A replacement logbook here, a new container there, but too often the very same caches are soon in bad shape again. How long should a cache be a "ward of the geocaching community" before its time to say enough? Are we supposed to maintain these things in perpetuity?

I know I've had thoughts of going after a few of these caches, posting a "looks like its missing" log and stuffing the thing in my pack. Haven't done it yet though.

This being said, It's wrong for reviewers to archive them unless they know they are gone, or going to be removed. Even if its geo-trash, as long as it's listed here there is a chance it will be fixed up, or eventually removed or reported stolen. Once that archive button is hit, it's probably gonna stay there until it rots. I don't think the fact that there is a very remote chance that it might be listed somewhere else should keep the admins from sending out a "retreival party". Lets face it. Geocaching.com is the defacto face of the sport. When land managers have a complaint you can bet they don't contact Navicache. It's Jeremy who takes the heat and because GC.COM encouraged the placement of the cache and listed it, GC.COM does have some responsibilty to look after them.

And if the original owner does suddenly re-appear and complain, I'd be happy to buy him a brand new Gladware container and I'll even throw in some wet,moldy paper and some rusty key rings.

21.9k · September 2, 2004

I am presently monitoring about two dozen caches that appear to be abandoned. On an ongoing basis, geo-litter in my review territory has a way of disappearing. It is like magic. I never pick it up myself, but still, it goes away. I would speculate about how that might happen, but then I might suffer the predictable attacks from those who say I am running roughshod over "owners' rights" and not being respectful of other listing services, some of which I'm not even allowed to access, and others of which I cannot search without creating an account.

Some of those two dozen problem caches have been on the list for quite some time, because the magic just hasn't happened, and the cache remnants are clearly still in place, so I haven't archived the cache -- thereby avoiding the attacks from those who say I am "creating geo-litter." Yet, the complaints continue to roll in. "Why is my search page cluttered up with these disabled caches and this broken multicache and this abandoned vacation cache?" Brian, what e-mail address shall I use to forward these complaints to you for disposition?

38.2k · September 2, 2004

...so I haven't archived the cache -- thereby avoiding the attacks from those who say I am "creating geo-litter." Yet, the complaints continue to roll in. "Why is my search page cluttered up with these disabled caches and this broken multicache and this abandoned vacation cache?"

Better you get complaints geocachers who have to look at a cache displayed with a line through it, than from a land manager who wants to know why litter is being left behind on "his" land. A geocache is still a geocache as long as it's listed somewhere and people are visiting it, no matter what condition its in. The moment it is de listed and people stop visiting, it becomes litter.

We have enough trouble with people who feel that active geocaches are litter. We don't want to be seen as contributing to the real thing.

Which also brings up the problem of what occurs when that person finally gets back and says he wants his/her cache back. Maybe they were on vacation or out of touch. Its not unheard of for someone to go on vacation for >1 month...

I sincerely doubt that a reviewer would archive a cache that had a problem for a month, or even two. By the time they get the attention of an approver, they've had problems for 6 months or more. Even then, they've been known to post notes on the pages asking that the owner attend to the cache and wait a few more months. As I said in my earlier post, if the owner does suddenly re-appear and complain, I'd be happy to buy him a brand new Gladware container and I'll even throw in some wet, moldy paper and some rusty key rings.

Edited September 2, 2004 by briansnat

1.2k · September 2, 2004

...so I haven't archived the cache -- thereby avoiding the attacks from those who say I am "creating geo-litter." Yet, the complaints continue to roll in. "Why is my search page cluttered up with these disabled caches and this broken multicache and this abandoned vacation cache?"

Better you get complaints geocachers who have to look at a cache displayed with a line through it, than from a land manager who wants to know why litter is being left behind on "his" land. A geocache is still a geocache as long as it's listed somewhere and people are visiting it, no matter what condition its in. The moment it is de listed and people stop visiting, it becomes litter.

We have enough trouble with people who feel that active geocaches are litter. We don't want to be seen as contributing to the real thing.

I'd like to add: people complaining about disabled geocaches usually do so only when no explanation for the disablement is given on the place, or when this disablement seems to be indefinite.

22k · September 2, 2004

Sorry I need more time to further clarify my position.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Elf Danach

September 2, 2004

The Michigan Geocaching Organization (MIGO) has been in charge of rescuing abandoned caches in the state of Michigan.

MIGO Cache Rescue Mission

It has been highly succesful and has had no contreversy. They give warnings on the cache pages themselves that their cache is going to be rescued by a MIGO member and gives contact information if the cache owner doesn't need the cache rescued. This has been very helpful in eliminating geolitter and makes us look good to the land managers!

edit: added that MIGO is only in charge of Michigan.

Edited September 2, 2004 by Radman Version 3.0

1.6k · September 2, 2004

I think the major issue my lovely Star is raising is how long should a cache be listed as disabled, before a reviewer 'could' judge it as 'dead'. I understand that caches get disabled due to circumstances beyond the control of cachers, and those caches usually have a note explaining the problem. The other end of the line are the caches disabled for maintanence/replacement that sit for months waiting for still active owners who've placed new caches to show up. If a cache is abandoned due to the owner no longer being active (say over 6 months with no activity) either adopt it out if anyone wishes to keep it active, or mark it for removal. If you list a cache on multiple sites and no longer wish to be affiliated with a particular site, you have a responcibility to delist the cache on that site.

Wulf

1.6k · September 3, 2004

*found on another thread*

The guide lines state:

"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."

Wulf

2.3k · September 3, 2004

Yeah, so that's good right?

1.6k · September 3, 2004

Well, if that is an official guideline, then it doesn't really matter if it's 'good' or not. If the community as a majority voices opposition to it, then TPTB would have an obligation to adjust the guidelines to reflect the consensus.

Wulf

1.6k · September 3, 2004

One of the Caches in question if anyone should care to have a look at it is this one , it is also the one that started a nasty thread of discussion on the ftwaynegeo group on yahoo.com.

Perfectly Perplexing Puzzles

The Owner of this Cache states it is disable due to a family of skunks living nearby , and wishes to disable it for a couple of months till the family has moved.

Yet under the "rules" it should be archived .

I do not know who is right and whom is wrong .

There are other instances of caches being disabled then archived by an approver under the rules . One in particular that the owner disabled and was archived then responded by saying "We have been to busy" and "we have not forgotten our caches " and yet they have had time to place a new cache.

On another hand , we also are aware of caches placed by another cacher that has decided to give up caching or just plain disaapear , yet his caches are still active .

This can all be very confusing at times , but I do however think we need to give approvers a break . How do they know if and when a cache will be repaired , replaced or even taken out . They are just volenteers , and they are trying to do the best job they can.

2.4k · September 3, 2004

The guide lines state:
"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."

I think the guideline should be changed to read:

""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 diasbled for an extended period of time, we may transfer the listing, or seek the removal of the cache/remains thereof and archive the listing."

21.9k · September 3, 2004

One of the Caches in question if anyone should care to have a look at it is this one , it is also the one that started a nasty thread of discussion on the ftwaynegeo group on yahoo.com.

Perfectly Perplexing Puzzles

The Owner of this Cache states it is disable due to a family of skunks living nearby , and wishes to disable it for a couple of months till the family has moved.

Yet under the "rules" it should be archived .

I do not know who is right and whom is wrong .

There are other instances of caches being disabled then archived by an approver under the rules . One in particular that the owner disabled and was archived then responded by saying "We have been to busy" and "we have not forgotten our caches " and yet they have had time to place a new cache.

On another hand , we also are aware of caches placed by another cacher that has decided to give up caching or just plain disaapear , yet his caches are still active .

This can all be very confusing at times , but I do however think we need to give approvers a break . How do they know if and when a cache will be repaired , replaced or even taken out . They are just volenteers , and they are trying to do the best job they can.

As for "Perfectly Perplexing Puzzles," the archival and unarchival of that particular cache has been discussed in these forums previously. I am thinking I'm glad I'm not a member of your Yahoo! group as the discussion there would likely raise my blood pressure, if for no other reason than surprise over the fact that the issue is still being discussed, as it's now a month later and the cache is unarchived but remains disabled. In any event, missing from the current cache page is the archive note left by a reviewer who was looking at the 10% of all Indiana caches that had been disabled. The last note from the owner said that a stage was missing. The cache was archived on July 27th with a note inviting the owner to contact the reviewer: "when you are ready just email be back and I will unarchive it". The reviewer *did* hear from the owner, and the cache was unarchived *the same day* with a note (also deleted) that says "its cool." The cache owner's July 27th note, visible on the cache page complete with an explanation of skunk habitat concerns, was not there at the time the reviewer made the judgment to archive the cache.

As for the caches whose owners have disappeared, yet their caches remain active: so long as there are no problems reported with the cache, what's the harm in finding a cache that remains viable? If there is a problem with the cache, like a wet logbook or cracked container that the now-missing owner is not attending to, then the proper course of action is to report this through a "should be archived" note, an e-mail to your friendly volunteer cache reviewer, a post to your local geocaching forum, etc. If the cache is not disabled, it is hard to know there might be a problem with it. The reviewers do not have the time to perform cache page checks on active caches.

EDIT: to provide exact quotes from the deleted reviewer logs.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Keystone Approver

1.6k · September 3, 2004

Thus bringing me back to the other concern with archived caches ...

GeoLiter and how to control it.

Star of Team Tigger International

21.9k · September 3, 2004

Thus bringing me back to the other concern with archived caches ...
GeoLiter and how to control it.

Star of Team Tigger International

If you are a cache owner, you go out and pick up your cache when it's archived.

If the owner is MIA, and you are another geocacher in the area, you check for geo-litter and do your part to help out.

If you are a state or local geocaching group, and you're concerned about the geo-litter issue, you develop a program to address it in your area.

If the owner is MIA, and there's no evidence that someone has checked for geo-litter, and you are a volunteer reviewer who knows when geo-litter might be created, you watch for the magic to happen as I described earlier.

If you are Geocaching.com, you are a listing site, not a cache nanny.

I don't think I've left anyone out of that summary, except perhaps for other listing sites, but I'm not aware of any other listing sites where any concerted effort is made to address geo-litter in a manner at all comparable to the efforts made for caches listed here.

24.7k · September 3, 2004

The Michigan Geocaching Organization (MIGO) has been in charge of rescuing abandoned caches in the state of Michigan.

MIGO Cache Rescue Mission...

They don't check other cache sites either.

Given that most caches are listed on GC.com and few on other sites MiGO pretty much said there is no reason to do so.

However on Navicache one heck of a lot of caches are cross listed. So lets just hope that when Navicache starts with such a program they do the courtesy of checking GC.com for caches before they arrange for removal.

6.4k · September 3, 2004

The Michigan Geocaching Organization (MIGO) has been in charge of rescuing abandoned caches in the state of Michigan.

MIGO Cache Rescue Mission...

They don't check other cache sites either.

Given that most caches are listed on GC.com and few on other sites MiGO pretty much said there is no reason to do so.

However on Navicache one heck of a lot of caches are cross listed. So lets just hope that when Navicache starts with such a program they do the courtesy of checking GC.com for caches before they arrange for removal.

Ha! that still wouldn't be much of a problem. I'll just quote my own post from that thread I mentioned back at the beginning of this thread:

Sure there is a chance that these caches are listed elsewhere, just like there is a chance if I walk out and see my car missing it's not stolen, but being replaced by a brand new yellow Jeep. There is a chance, but it's not bloody likely.

Instead of worrying about the other listing sites, maybe they need to worry about us. GC.com lists 1206 caches within 50 miles of me, navicache lists 22. Every one of those 22 is also listed here, or I maybe I should say was listed here. Almost 20% of the caches on navicache I checked were owner archived on GC.com. I'm not talking "I'm taking my caches and leaving" archives, I'm talking owner verified caches were missing and they were not replacing them. I'm not talking one cache wonders, I'm talking responsible, decent guys like Stayfloopy, Alan2, and Kernbob. Maybe the "other" sites need to step up clean up their messes by checking out GC.com and removing dead listings. Sending people out looking for caches that are not there is irresponsible and could cause damage to the environment.

EDIT: Since I'm naming names; WTF is the deal with Buxley's? I never asked them to list my geocaches when they were approved, why the heck do I have to track him down and and email him to have him manually remove them from his site when I archive them? If he's gonna list it without my permission, the least he could do is remove it again when it's archived.

2.3k · September 3, 2004

If you are a cache owner, you go out and pick up your cache when it's archived.

I agree for the most part with your post. But, shouldn't the above be 'when YOU archive your cache'? That seems to be a sticky point, if THIS site archives it, why would I want to remove it? There may be reasons I would still want it out there. Most of those have already been mentioned.

24.7k · September 3, 2004

Mopar, we have allready had the issue here, but we have more Navicaches than you do.

This is how I'd solve the problem. It would involve a change in the TOS for listing a cache.

Every cache has a final disposition. Pulled by the owner, listed on another site, or abandoned and it becomes a CRM (Cache Rescue Mission) cache or adopted.

CRM caches are confirmed missing or pulled and the finders get a count on their CRM totals. With the change in the TOS I'd have the owner state that they are pulling it or listing it on another site. If they don't do either, don't respond, etc. per the TOS it's moved to a CRM cache.

You would also need to detail the process for determining the cache is abandoned.

Missing is checking other sites. My insistance on that is entirely because this type of thing is not spelled out in the TOS. The TOS should be very liberal in favor of the cache owher but result in 100% of all caches having a final disposition that doesn't result in geo litter. Yes the owner can lie, but every system has it's limitations.

Edited September 3, 2004 by Renegade Knight

September 3, 2004

1) If a cache is abandon then how will leaving it active prevent it from becoming geolitter?...

1) Because you can then adopt it, because it's still active in the community by the fact that it's being found. Archiving creates the litter if other measures have not been taken.

OK I wasn't clear. I was interpretting "abandon" as in the owner has moved on, the cache has needed maintenance for a while, and no one has bothered to step in and/or adopt it.

Thorin

1.6k · September 3, 2004

This is how I'd solve the problem. It would involve a change in the TOS for listing a cache.

Every cache has a final disposition. Pulled by the owner, listed on another site, or abandoned and it becomes a CRM (Cache Rescue Mission) cache or adopted.

CRM caches are confirmed missing or pulled and the finders get a count on their CRM totals. With the change in the TOS I'd have the owner state that they are pulling it or listing it on another site. If they don't do either, don't respond, etc. per the TOS it's moved to a CRM cache.

I really like the Idea here , hopefully someone is listening and Geocaching.com will one day make room for it . CRM's fantastic idea . I am pretty sure we can thank MiGo for it as well .

Star of Team Tigger International

2.3k · September 3, 2004

If you are Geocaching.com, you are a listing site, not a cache nanny.

I like the "cache-nanny" concept. where can I get one? Seriously, we've doctored a lot of caches, totally replaced others, and adopted some. Up until recently in this area (just slightly south of the area being discussed) we have had a number of caches( owned by absent geocachers), that are either gone or in bad need of repair... and they have just sat there... It isn't until recently that the clean up has begun. I think it's a good thing, although maybe the time-span could be altered to two months... Amazingly, we had one cache down here that the owners disabled, pulled the container, then did nothing for TEN months, would not allow the site to be adopted. Then, the cache was archived in the cleanup, and lo and behold the owners (from out of state) came back and resurrected it and also hid a new cache..Hmmm.....

1.6k · September 3, 2004

High Five to you Lead Dog , I know of at least one cache that you have adopted !

It involves a toad and a wild ride ! There is at least one that is only 5 miles from me that we are presently making an attempt to adopt or at least help repair ourselves . Its in Lagrange County , near Star's house .

Oh and please rub Patrick's belly for me . I just love his stories :rolleyes:

Star

1.2k · September 3, 2004

I wonder how many good caches are out there that have been archived by the owner because they quit geocaching, but they never bothered to retrieve the cache? Probably many. There's no follow up proof by anyone that a cache is in fact gone when it is archived by the owner.

2.3k · September 3, 2004

Oh and please rub Patrick's belly for me . I just love his stories

Star

I wonder if the approvers look at caches that are not disabled, but have had major problems for many months? I rubbed Patrick's belly, but he just grumpy-growled me. He's in a blue funk because he saw his cousin "Weezer" in a new Pepsi Edge commercial, and he's all grumbling about "no talent ankle biter" and stuff like that, he's jealous--It seems like every other TV commercial has a Jack Russell bouncing around in it these days, and he wants in on the action, and blames me for not taking him to Hollywood or New York.

21.9k · September 3, 2004

I wonder if the approvers look at caches that are not disabled, but have had major problems for many months?

Let me quote from my post a little ways up:

If there is a problem with the cache, like a wet logbook or cracked container that the now-missing owner is not attending to, then the proper course of action is to report this through a "should be archived" note, an e-mail to your friendly volunteer cache reviewer, a post to your local geocaching forum, etc. If the cache is not disabled, it is hard to know there might be a problem with it. The reviewers do not have the time to perform cache page checks on active caches.

At this time, I have responsibility for maintenance issues arising from 4,800 geocaches. Other volunteers are responsible for more, and others for fewer, but for every one of us, the number is large. We do not actively monitor them. Even using a tool like Watcher or GSAK or Cachemate is impractical, because of the number of pocket queries involved.

On the other hand, when a problem is brought to our attention we are happy to assist.

2.1k · September 3, 2004

As for the caches whose owners have disappeared, yet their caches remain active: so long as there are no problems reported with the cache, what's the harm in finding a cache that remains viable?

If there is a problem with the cache, like a wet logbook or cracked container that the now-missing owner is not attending to...

I highly agree!

We have a remote cache in our day range area that was placed by a one-hide, no-find cacher almost three years ago. That cache owner went inactive almost immediately and never responded to any calls for help. Visiting cachers have maintained this cache throughout its history. There is no harm being done by its not having an owner.

24.7k · September 3, 2004

I wonder how many good caches are out there that have been archived by the owner because they quit geocaching, but they never bothered to retrieve the cache? Probably many. There's no follow up proof by anyone that a cache is in fact gone when it is archived by the owner.

We have just bumped into that in Pocatello. A prolific cache placer quit GC.com. They moved a bunch of caches to Navicache, but not all of them. All were archived on GC.com. At least one was not retrieved.

Later a new cacher placed a new cache near the one cache we now know was never retrieved. Subsiquent finders who were also new didn't know the history of the spot and they found the old cache, logged it, reported on the soggy log book. The owner of the new cache would check on his cache and the log was dry...

Finally someone pulled the old cache. I have no idea if they emailed the owner or not. They were just trying to end the confusion.

2.1k · September 3, 2004

At this time, I have responsibility for maintenance issues arising from 4,800 geocaches. Other volunteers are responsible for more, and others for fewer, but for every one of us, the number is large.

That is what concerns me and is why I suggest that approvers should not be expected to check other listing sites before requesting removal of the container.

If a cache owner does not respond to an email from an approver then they are at the mercy of the caching community.

I agree that the time line for a response could be extended beyond 30 days in the highly uncommon event that someone vacations for a month without checking their email during that time. Two or three months would not hurt anybody.

Approvers Archiving Caches

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