Archived Caches

[+thebudman]

So we have all heard the discussions of how a cache in the woods is not trash, but a puzzle piece in the game of geocaching. However, my question is, when a cache is archived and not retrieved by it's owner, does it then become trash? I found an archived cache today, right where it is was planted. The container had been cracked, the contents were all water logged/moldy and gross. The cache was garbage.

 

As a community we go out of our way to cache in/trash out, but when a geocacher does not return to retrieve an archived cache, they are doing nothing less than throwing a bag of trash out their car window as they drive down the highway of life.

[+Minimike2]

Many caches are archived because the CO has 'moved on.' Either literally or figuratively. These COs are not aware of the archiving, for whatever reason.

[GOF and Bacall]

Your observation is accurate, as far as it goes. These cachers who abandon their caches are in effect littering. However, give us at least some credit. As a group we are having a positive effect. We take out more trash than we add.

[+hydnsek]

I CITO archived caches that have obviously been abandoned (vs. being listed on other sites). Did that a couple weeks ago with a cache and found the owner forgot he'd ever placed it.

[+L0ne.R]

So we have all heard the discussions of how a cache in the woods is not trash, but a puzzle piece in the game of geocaching. However, my question is, when a cache is archived and not retrieved by it's owner, does it then become trash? I found an archived cache today, right where it is was planted. The container had been cracked, the contents were all water logged/moldy and gross. The cache was garbage.

 

As a community we go out of our way to cache in/trash out, but when a geocacher does not return to retrieve an archived cache, they are doing nothing less than throwing a bag of trash out their car window as they drive down the highway of life.

 

Happened to me this month. Found the cache where the clues and description said it was (a little off from where I zero'd out). I had an old PQ file, about 2 weeks old, so I didn't know the cache had been archived. There was a DNF a couple of days before I found it. Immediately the CO archived it, obviously without checking to see if was really gone. I posted a found log. 3 weeks later it was still listed as archived. I went back (a 30 minute drive) and there it was. I CITO'd it and logged a note on the page. So frustrating, but I don't know what can be done about it. COs that abandon caches should be blacklisted but most of these COs also leave the game after getting bored with it. Sometimes I wonder if only those who have proven staying power could publish caches. Have a 6-month waiting period, after one signs up with geocaching.com, before hiding is allowed.

[knowschad]

Last week, I found myself looking at another state's local geocaching organization's website. I forget which state it was, but in any case, they had a program where they posted a list of likely abandoned archived caches, and cachers would volunteer to go pick them up. Some of the volunteers were names that I know from the forums. Perhaps they will see this and pipe up with more information on how it all works.

[knowschad]

COs that abandon caches should be blacklisted but most of these COs also leave the game after getting bored with it. Sometimes I wonder if only those who have proven staying power could publish caches. Have a 6-month waiting period, after one signs up with geocaching.com, before hiding is allowed.

 

That sounds pretty extreme to me, considering the wide number of circumstances that could cause a cache to be abandoned.

 

The one abandoned cache I found was the final for a multi. At one point in the multi's life, the final had gone missing. The cache owner replaced it and resumed the cache. A year or two later, the cacher archived his cache and pulled all known containers. What he didn't pull, because he didn't know about it, was the original final that "went missing" That is what I stumbled on.

[+chrisandjanet]

Michgan has something like that:

 

www.mi-geocaching.org

 

They call it the MiGO Rescue Mission. Tracks archived caches and people confirm they have been removed.

[Chumpo]

So we have all heard the discussions of how a cache in the woods is not trash, but a puzzle piece in the game of geocaching. However, my question is, when a cache is archived and not retrieved by it's owner, does it then become trash? I found an archived cache today, right where it is was planted. The container had been cracked, the contents were all water logged/moldy and gross. The cache was garbage.

 

As a community we go out of our way to cache in/trash out, but when a geocacher does not return to retrieve an archived cache, they are doing nothing less than throwing a bag of trash out their car window as they drive down the highway of life.

 

 

I'm familiar with the cache you are referring to. The owner discovered terracaching way back in '04 and never looked back. It is entirely possible that this cache is listed on that other site now. I'd check, but my wife has strictly forbidden me from joining that other group. She says geocaching takes up enough of my time as it is.

[+Kit Fox]

I know of one long archived cache that is still available for finding. The funny part is that it is still a popular find for the adventurous type cacher. I would hate to have someone remove the cache in the the spirit of CITO. I'm not going to list the cache because I still plan on finding it for a milestone.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Kit Fox

[GOF and Bacall]

So we have all heard the discussions of how a cache in the woods is not trash, but a puzzle piece in the game of geocaching. However, my question is, when a cache is archived and not retrieved by it's owner, does it then become trash? I found an archived cache today, right where it is was planted. The container had been cracked, the contents were all water logged/moldy and gross. The cache was garbage.

 

As a community we go out of our way to cache in/trash out, but when a geocacher does not return to retrieve an archived cache, they are doing nothing less than throwing a bag of trash out their car window as they drive down the highway of life.

 

Happened to me this month. Found the cache where the clues and description said it was (a little off from where I zero'd out). I had an old PQ file, about 2 weeks old, so I didn't know the cache had been archived. There was a DNF a couple of days before I found it. Immediately the CO archived it, obviously without checking to see if was really gone. I posted a found log. 3 weeks later it was still listed as archived. I went back (a 30 minute drive) and there it was. I CITO'd it and logged a note on the page. So frustrating, but I don't know what can be done about it. COs that abandon caches should be blacklisted but most of these COs also leave the game after getting bored with it. Sometimes I wonder if only those who have proven staying power could publish caches. Have a 6-month waiting period, after one signs up with geocaching.com, before hiding is allowed.

 

Did you check to see if this cache was listed elsewhere? Perhaps you should make an effort to contact the owner before taking what doesn't belong to you.

 

We need to remove abandoned caches but we need to at least put some effort into making sure they are abandoned.

[+bittsen]

Michgan has something like that:

 

www.mi-geocaching.org

 

They call it the MiGO Rescue Mission. Tracks archived caches and people confirm they have been removed.

 

So when someone archives a GC.com geocache because they list it on another site will have their cache muggled?

 

Interesting how some will feel they need to remove a cache just because it isn't listed on GC.com.

 

(assumptions made)

[+Renegade Knight]

... my question is, when a cache is archived and not retrieved by it's owner, does it then become trash? ....

 

Whan an owner abandons the cache it becomes litter. If they haven't abandoned the cache, even if it's archived, moldy, and cracked, it's not.

[knowschad]

Michgan has something like that:

www.mi-geocaching.org

They call it the MiGO Rescue Mission. Tracks archived caches and people confirm they have been removed.

So when someone archives a GC.com geocache because they list it on another site will have their cache muggled?

Interesting how some will feel they need to remove a cache just because it isn't listed on GC.com.

(assumptions made)

 

From that website's Rescue Mission page:

 

 

When a cache is archived on geocaching.com, the approver reads the logs and tries to determine if the container for the cache has been properly removed. If the information is inconclusive as to the fate of the geocache, it will be listed here to ensure that it is on our "radar screen" and eventually a MiGO member will visit the site, verify that it is gone, and it will turn green. Having your cache on this list is not a derogatory comment about anyone's ability to maintain their caches. It is simply a list that is maintained to ensure that no geocaches in Michigan become "geotrash".

 

MiGO members will go out to cache sites and verify that the containers have been removed or they will collect them if still present and recycle them. This ensures that no Geocache in Michigan ever becomes litter.

 

How can I get my cache taken off the list?

 

If you see one of your caches on the list and think it should not be, send a note to rescue.mission@mi-geocaching.org and ask for it to be removed.

 

I think its pretty clear (it is to my satisfaction, at least) that what they are doing there is a good thing, and that they are being as careful as possible to make sure they are doing it right.

[+Renegade Knight]

Michgan has something like that:

 

www.mi-geocaching.org

 

They call it the MiGO Rescue Mission. Tracks archived caches and people confirm they have been removed.

 

So when someone archives a GC.com geocache because they list it on another site will have their cache muggled?

 

Interesting how some will feel they need to remove a cache just because it isn't listed on GC.com.

 

(assumptions made)

 

I inquired about that years ago. Your assumptions were correct at that time. It is (or was), a flaw in the MiGO Rescue Mission concept. Potentially they could have corrected that since then. No doubt there is a risk/reward angle. The risk is low that they will bump into a problem.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+bittsen]

So when someone archives a GC.com geocache because they list it on another site will have their cache muggled?

 

Interesting how some will feel they need to remove a cache just because it isn't listed on GC.com.

 

(assumptions made)

 

I inquired about that years ago. Your assumptions were correct at that time. It is (or was), a flaw in the MiGO Rescue Mission concept. Potentially they could have corrected that since then. No doubt there is a risk/reward angle. The risk is low that they will bump into a problem.

 

I have personally found two caches in the same location (twice actually). One was a GC.com cache and the other wasn't (on one occasion) and on the other, both caches seemed identical so it was impossible to tell which was a GC cache and which was another. I signed both.

 

So, in the latter case, if the GC cache were archived, the group would go to the cache site, remove the cache and have "muggled" a cache for another site.

 

Yes, their intentions are good but the good intentions could have negative effects.

 

I can see a terracache follower using that as an excuse for collecting ammo cans listed on the GC site.

 

Simply listing caches on the radar on another site isn't enough to keep the process from collecting viable caches.

 

"I'm sorry officer but that car had been sitting there for a week with no apparent owner. I was just trying to keep it from littering the street"

[+Renegade Knight]

....Yes, their intentions are good but the good intentions could have negative effects. ...

 

The intention is good. The side effects are from the implementation. In other threads I've proposed a CRM cache that has up front notification about the CRM in the TOS for the site and the listing disclaimer.

 

Since MiGO doesn't have the ablity to adjust the TOS, I wish they would take a little more responsiblity for their list and work more up front to avoid issues like you have pointed out. My past conversations revealed that they were willing to "assume the risk" rather than ensure they weren't causing a problem to begin with. I have at least one cache that hit the circumstances you suggested. I'm not in their territory though.

[knowschad]

....Yes, their intentions are good but the good intentions could have negative effects. ...

 

The intention is good. The side effects are from the implementation. In other threads I've proposed a CRM cache that has up front notification about the CRM in the TOS for the site and the listing disclaimer.

 

Since MiGO doesn't have the ablity to adjust the TOS, I wish they would take a little more responsiblity for their list and work more up front to avoid issues like you have pointed out. My past conversations revealed that they were willing to "assume the risk" rather than ensure they weren't causing a problem to begin with. I have at least one cache that hit the circumstances you suggested. I'm not in their territory though.

 

 

I notice that on some of the caches, they first post a note stating that the cache has been listed on their site for pickup. At least that would notify the cache owner, if they still are using the email address that their geocaching profile has listed. It would be nice if they 1) *always* posted that note, and 2) *always* left a short period of time before anyone was allowed to go look for the container.

 

 

Still, I suspect that it is extremely rare these days to have someone archive their cache and list it (or leave it) on one of the other services.

[GOF and Bacall]

....Yes, their intentions are good but the good intentions could have negative effects. ...

 

The intention is good. The side effects are from the implementation. In other threads I've proposed a CRM cache that has up front notification about the CRM in the TOS for the site and the listing disclaimer.

 

Since MiGO doesn't have the ablity to adjust the TOS, I wish they would take a little more responsiblity for their list and work more up front to avoid issues like you have pointed out. My past conversations revealed that they were willing to "assume the risk" rather than ensure they weren't causing a problem to begin with. I have at least one cache that hit the circumstances you suggested. I'm not in their territory though.

 

 

I notice that on some of the caches, they first post a note stating that the cache has been listed on their site for pickup. At least that would notify the cache owner, if they still are using the email address that their geocaching profile has listed. It would be nice if they 1) *always* posted that note, and 2) *always* left a short period of time before anyone was allowed to go look for the container.

 

 

Still, I suspect that it is extremely rare these days to have someone archive their cache and list it (or leave it) on one of the other services.

 

Would it be so difficult to actually check those other services?

[+bittsen]

 

I notice that on some of the caches, they first post a note stating that the cache has been listed on their site for pickup. At least that would notify the cache owner, if they still are using the email address that their geocaching profile has listed. It would be nice if they 1) *always* posted that note, and 2) *always* left a short period of time before anyone was allowed to go look for the container.

 

 

Still, I suspect that it is extremely rare these days to have someone archive their cache and list it (or leave it) on one of the other services.

 

If they gather up just one cache from another site then they are stealing. Good intentions aside, it's still theft.

Simply telling a geocaching member that they are going to scoop up a suspected archived cache isn't enough. The CO may not even own the cache they plan on scooping up.

 

Oh well, right? It's not a GC cache so why would it matter, right?

[+Castle Mischief]

 

I notice that on some of the caches, they first post a note stating that the cache has been listed on their site for pickup. At least that would notify the cache owner, if they still are using the email address that their geocaching profile has listed. It would be nice if they 1) *always* posted that note, and 2) *always* left a short period of time before anyone was allowed to go look for the container.

 

 

Still, I suspect that it is extremely rare these days to have someone archive their cache and list it (or leave it) on one of the other services.

 

If they gather up just one cache from another site then they are stealing. Good intentions aside, it's still theft.

Simply telling a geocaching member that they are going to scoop up a suspected archived cache isn't enough. The CO may not even own the cache they plan on scooping up.

 

Oh well, right? It's not a GC cache so why would it matter, right?

 

Perhaps the COs should label their caches that are listed under different listing services as such. Perhaps they already are?

[knowschad]

Would it be so difficult to actually check those other services?

For all I know, maybe they do.

[knowschad]

Oh well, right? It's not a GC cache so why would it matter, right?

I don't believe anybody is saying, or even implying anything like that. I know that I certainly am not.

[+sbell111]

Happened to me this month. Found the cache where the clues and description said it was (a little off from where I zero'd out). I had an old PQ file, about 2 weeks old, so I didn't know the cache had been archived. There was a DNF a couple of days before I found it. Immediately the CO archived it, obviously without checking to see if was really gone. I posted a found log. 3 weeks later it was still listed as archived. I went back (a 30 minute drive) and there it was. I CITO'd it and logged a note on the page. So frustrating, but I don't know what can be done about it. COs that abandon caches should be blacklisted but most of these COs also leave the game after getting bored with it. Sometimes I wonder if only those who have proven staying power could publish caches. Have a 6-month waiting period, after one signs up with geocaching.com, before hiding is allowed.

I think that three weeks might have been rushing the point.

 

Look at it this way:

 

I go to a land manager and ask if I can hide a box of trinkets on his land. He gives me permission.

At some later date, I archive the cache on GC.com.

How does that archival change the fact that I own the box and it has permission to be where it is? By who's authority do you remove my properly authorized property?

 

Oh well, right? It's not a GC cache so why would it matter, right?

I don't believe anybody is saying, or even implying anything like that. I know that I certainly am not.

MiGo's CRM policy certainly appears to say that.

[+wimseyguy]

I wouldn't confuse the actions of a local organization with what is sanctioned by geocaching.com.

And IIRC that particular state organization has developed some very good relationships with the local land managers.

Editing to add that you just might not have received that permission had it not been for the efforts of that local group.

Edited October 19, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+L0ne.R]

Happened to me this month. Found the cache where the clues and description said it was (a little off from where I zero'd out). I had an old PQ file, about 2 weeks old, so I didn't know the cache had been archived. There was a DNF a couple of days before I found it. Immediately the CO archived it, obviously without checking to see if was really gone. I posted a found log. 3 weeks later it was still listed as archived. I went back (a 30 minute drive) and there it was. I CITO'd it and logged a note on the page. So frustrating, but I don't know what can be done about it. COs that abandon caches should be blacklisted but most of these COs also leave the game after getting bored with it. Sometimes I wonder if only those who have proven staying power could publish caches. Have a 6-month waiting period, after one signs up with geocaching.com, before hiding is allowed.

I think that three weeks might have been rushing the point.

 

 

I thought that when a cache is archived that a CO is supposed to retrieve the box or ensure that the box is missing/gone before archiving the cache.

[GOF and Bacall]

Happened to me this month. Found the cache where the clues and description said it was (a little off from where I zero'd out). I had an old PQ file, about 2 weeks old, so I didn't know the cache had been archived. There was a DNF a couple of days before I found it. Immediately the CO archived it, obviously without checking to see if was really gone. I posted a found log. 3 weeks later it was still listed as archived. I went back (a 30 minute drive) and there it was. I CITO'd it and logged a note on the page. So frustrating, but I don't know what can be done about it. COs that abandon caches should be blacklisted but most of these COs also leave the game after getting bored with it. Sometimes I wonder if only those who have proven staying power could publish caches. Have a 6-month waiting period, after one signs up with geocaching.com, before hiding is allowed.

I think that three weeks might have been rushing the point.

 

 

I thought that when a cache is archived that a CO is supposed to retrieve the box or ensure that the box is missing/gone before archiving the cache.

 

If the CO removes the cache before archiving the listing and you go out there looking for it you aren't gonna be happy. If he archives the cache listing first he can go pick up the cache at his leisure. So what if it takes a month? This is why you should make every effort to contact the cache owner before taking the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Yes, their intentions are good but the good intentions could have negative effects. ...

 

The intention is good. The side effects are from the implementation. In other threads I've proposed a CRM cache that has up front notification about the CRM in the TOS for the site and the listing disclaimer.

 

Since MiGO doesn't have the ablity to adjust the TOS, I wish they would take a little more responsiblity for their list and work more up front to avoid issues like you have pointed out. My past conversations revealed that they were willing to "assume the risk" rather than ensure they weren't causing a problem to begin with. I have at least one cache that hit the circumstances you suggested. I'm not in their territory though.

 

 

I notice that on some of the caches, they first post a note stating that the cache has been listed on their site for pickup. At least that would notify the cache owner, if they still are using the email address that their geocaching profile has listed. It would be nice if they 1) *always* posted that note, and 2) *always* left a short period of time before anyone was allowed to go look for the container.

 

 

Still, I suspect that it is extremely rare these days to have someone archive their cache and list it (or leave it) on one of the other services.

 

I have, and likely will continue to do so as the occasion demands. What would really be nice is if they didn't list caches like mine to begin with so that I have to be pro-active about preventing my cache from being wrongfully taken . Giving notice is nice in that at least they signal their intent so I can head off their plundering of my cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I thought that when a cache is archived that a CO is supposed to retrieve the box or ensure that the box is missing/gone before archiving the cache.

 

If they archive the cache on all sites and the cache is the kind that can be removed (I'm still looking for a way to convince a contractor to build one into a proejct) then, yes they should remove it or at least try to determin it's gone. I've even gone so far as to email the last finder to when I archived a cache and couldn't find it to see if it had moved (it had).

 

That said I've got at least one I need to go pick up. It's been a long time.

[+Renegade Knight]

I wouldn't confuse the actions of a local organization with what is sanctioned by geocaching.com.

And IIRC that particular state organization has developed some very good relationships with the local land managers.

Editing to add that you just might not have received that permission had it not been for the efforts of that local group.

This is true, and well worth pointing out.

[+bittsen]

After reading a couple of replies, I have come up with another thought.

 

Geocaching.com (and the others) are just listing sites. They don't own the caches. They don't ploice the caches. They have no rights at all on the caches. ZERO rights.

 

If a cache has permission, expressed or implied, it doesn't matter where it is listed or if its even listed at all. The organization that is picking up archived caches, though well intended, isn't doing anything that is legal when it comes to property rights. If a CO owns the cache when it's listed, the CO owns the cache even when it's not listed. If a cache can exist, then listing it isn't part of the rule that says it can exist. Just because the organization believes it should be removed, doesn't give it the right to remove them. If that were the case, then we would have groups setting up thinking it's OK to remove all micros. Oh wait, I think there are a few that think it's OK to remove ALL caches.

 

It's a sticky slope as to what is right and wrong...

 

(Just playing devils advocate)

[GOF and Bacall]

After reading a couple of replies, I have come up with another thought.

 

Geocaching.com (and the others) are just listing sites. They don't own the caches. They don't ploice the caches. They have no rights at all on the caches. ZERO rights.

 

If a cache has permission, expressed or implied, it doesn't matter where it is listed or if its even listed at all. The organization that is picking up archived caches, though well intended, isn't doing anything that is legal when it comes to property rights. If a CO owns the cache when it's listed, the CO owns the cache even when it's not listed. If a cache can exist, then listing it isn't part of the rule that says it can exist. Just because the organization believes it should be removed, doesn't give it the right to remove them. If that were the case, then we would have groups setting up thinking it's OK to remove all micros. Oh wait, I think there are a few that think it's OK to remove ALL caches.

 

It's a sticky slope as to what is right and wrong...

 

(Just playing devils advocate)

 

Yup, it is a prickly question. They are just listing services and that is why there are no more forced adoptions.

 

Caches are abandoned all the time. Cachers drop out, move, die, whatever. It's a fact of life in the caching world. It isn't right to leave them out there. That is when they stop being a cache and start being litter. The question is where is that line?

 

I have no problem with "cache recovery" as long as every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the owner is in fact gone from the sport and the cache isn't listed elsewhere.

[+bittsen]

Yup, it is a prickly question. They are just listing services and that is why there are no more forced adoptions.

 

Caches are abandoned all the time. Cachers drop out, move, die, whatever. It's a fact of life in the caching world. It isn't right to leave them out there. That is when they stop being a cache and start being litter. The question is where is that line?

 

I have no problem with "cache recovery" as long as every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the owner is in fact gone from the sport and the cache isn't listed elsewhere.

 

So it HAS to be listed on a recognized site and not just a handful of buddies who are playing their private game? You know, the caches got muggled a lot while on a listing service so they archive them and keep their own game a little more private.

So along comes some group that claims they looked to see if it was listed. Even contacted the CO with the Email address "last on file" and determined that the well stocked ammo can was no longer allowed and needed to be "cleaned up".

 

Yeah, their process is flawless.

 

(someone has to take the opposing side)

[GOF and Bacall]

Yup, it is a prickly question. They are just listing services and that is why there are no more forced adoptions.

 

Caches are abandoned all the time. Cachers drop out, move, die, whatever. It's a fact of life in the caching world. It isn't right to leave them out there. That is when they stop being a cache and start being litter. The question is where is that line?

 

I have no problem with "cache recovery" as long as every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the owner is in fact gone from the sport and the cache isn't listed elsewhere.

 

So it HAS to be listed on a recognized site and not just a handful of buddies who are playing their private game? You know, the caches got muggled a lot while on a listing service so they archive them and keep their own game a little more private.

So along comes some group that claims they looked to see if it was listed. Even contacted the CO with the Email address "last on file" and determined that the well stocked ammo can was no longer allowed and needed to be "cleaned up".

 

Yeah, their process is flawless.

 

(someone has to take the opposing side)

 

Hmm. I think you are reaching here, but for the sake of discussion I'll go along. In your scenario it is more likely that your small group of friends will have had enough problems that they would not leave hides in places that have been listed online. Instead they would hide new caches for each other. If they are responsible they will pick up their toys after the members of the group have all found them. If not they are littering.

 

We have a situation where our toys are left out in the world at large. If we can't find a way to clean up after ourselves how can we expect land managers to continue to allow us to play in their yards? I think we need to find a middle ground here instead of choosing sides.

 

And I never said their process was flawless. Are there any stats on MiGOs success? Or even their lack there of? Have they had any problems with cache owners whose caches they have pulled? How about feedback from land managers?

[+bittsen]

Hmm. I think you are reaching here, but for the sake of discussion I'll go along. In your scenario it is more likely that your small group of friends will have had enough problems that they would not leave hides in places that have been listed online. Instead they would hide new caches for each other. If they are responsible they will pick up their toys after the members of the group have all found them. If not they are littering.

 

We have a situation where our toys are left out in the world at large. If we can't find a way to clean up after ourselves how can we expect land managers to continue to allow us to play in their yards? I think we need to find a middle ground here instead of choosing sides.

 

And I never said their process was flawless. Are there any stats on MiGOs success? Or even their lack there of? Have they had any problems with cache owners whose caches they have pulled? How about feedback from land managers?

 

Reaching? Me?

 

Now now now... I saw, just recently, on Law and Order SVU that there were small sects of geocachers that weren't listing on GC.com. Maybe they started on GC but just archived their listings, left their caches in play for their small sect. They might have done that because GC doesn't allow train tunnel caches.

 

You have to admit, though not likely, it is certainly possible.

[GOF and Bacall]

I'd say the possibility is more remote than a Kit Fox cache.

 

If we are talking about those so called cachers on L&O I say we stuff them in a cito bag and forget about their abandoned caches.

[Clan Riffster]

I know of one cache, Garrett's Cache, that is a camo duct tape covered ziplock baggie. It was hidden in July 2005, and was leaky by August 2005. It's had 5 NM's since then, and the cache was still a waterlogged baggie full of soggy stuff when I submitted an SBA in November of 2008. As far as I know, it's still out there. I considered picking it up, but I was afraid that it might also be listed on ILeftABunchOfMoldyTrashInTheWoodsAs A Cache .com, and that cleaning it up might result in bittsen calling me a thief.

[+bittsen]

I know of one cache, Garrett's Cache, that is a camo duct tape covered ziplock baggie. It was hidden in July 2005, and was leaky by August 2005. It's had 5 NM's since then, and the cache was still a waterlogged baggie full of soggy stuff when I submitted an SBA in November of 2008. As far as I know, it's still out there. I considered picking it up, but I was afraid that it might also be listed on ILeftABunchOfMoldyTrashInTheWoodsAs A Cache .com, and that cleaning it up might result in bittsen calling me a thief.

 

Did you contact the cache owner and ask him if its still in play? I bet you didn't. In that case, you might be stealing.... or not.

 

Don't think I don't see your point. I do see it. I'm just playing Devils advocate, remember?

[+Kit Fox]

I'd say the possibility is more remote than a Kit Fox cache.

 

If we are talking about those so called cachers on L&O I say we stuff them in a cito bag and forget about their abandoned caches.

 

I own two that are archived, and presumably still in place. The area was closed and marked No Trespassing for a nearby housing tract. 3 years later, and the area is still marked No Trespassing, but the housing tract went defunct. Until the sign restricting access is removed, I will not recover the caches.

[GOF and Bacall]

I'd say the possibility is more remote than a Kit Fox cache.

 

If we are talking about those so called cachers on L&O I say we stuff them in a cito bag and forget about their abandoned caches.

 

I own two that are archived, and presumably still in place. The area was closed and marked No Trespassing for a nearby housing tract. 3 years later, and the area is still marked No Trespassing, but the housing tract went defunct. Until the sign restricting access is removed, I will not recover the caches.

 

Or you could try to contact the property owner and ask for permission to retrieve them. Just saying.

[+bittsen]

I'd say the possibility is more remote than a Kit Fox cache.

 

If we are talking about those so called cachers on L&O I say we stuff them in a cito bag and forget about their abandoned caches.

 

I own two that are archived, and presumably still in place. The area was closed and marked No Trespassing for a nearby housing tract. 3 years later, and the area is still marked No Trespassing, but the housing tract went defunct. Until the sign restricting access is removed, I will not recover the caches.

 

Or you could try to contact the property owner and ask for permission to retrieve them. Just saying.

That was my point all along....

And if no response....?? Assume it's OK? Or assume it's not OK?

 

Your answer could have major implications...

[Clan Riffster]

Did you contact the cache owner and ask him if its still in play?

Nope. The only contact method I have available to me is the e-mail address utilized in the cache owner's profile.

Presumably, this is the same address where all the logs for this cache are sent, including the following:

 

The Aug '05 log saying it was wet and had a hole in the baggie

The Oct '05 log that said it was wet

The Nov 16 '05 log that said it was holey, wet and moldy

The Nov 26 '05 log that said it was wet

The Nov 27 '06 log that said it was soaked

The Feb '06 log that said it was soaked

The Mar '06 log that said it was damp

The Apr '06 log that said it was damp

The Jun 17 '06 log that said the baggie was full of water

The Jun 30 '06 log that said it was moist

The Jul '06 log that said it was moist

The Oct '06 note by me advising the baggie won't seal and the cache is full of carpenter ants

The Feb 12 '07 log that said it was wet

The Feb 13 '07 log that said it was very wet and had a hole

The Feb 24 '07 log that said it was wet

The three Aug 04 '07 log that mentioned ants

The Nov '07 log that mentioned it's soaked

The Nov '07 NM log

The Dec '07 NM log

The two Dec 16 '07 logs that said it was wet

The Dec 26 '07 log that said cache & contents need replacing

The Dec 26 '07 log that asked for some cache TLC

The Dec 30 '07 log that said it was wet

The two Jan 05 '08 logs that said it was wet

The Jan 10 '08 log that said it was wet

The Feb 16 '08 log that said it was damp

The Feb 22 '08 log that said it was wet

The Feb 24 '08 NM log

The Feb 26 '08 log that said it was wet

The Mar 05 '08 log that said it needed help

The Mar 07 '08 NM log

The two Mar 08 '08 logs asking for maintenance

The Mar 22 '08 log that said it needed help

The May 02 '08 log asking for maintenance

The May 25 '08 NM log (that oddly enough only mentions downed trees...)

The Oct '08 log asking for maintenance

My Nov '08 note saying the cache was just as trachy as when I found it before

My Nov '08 SBA log.

 

All of these e-mail notifications were presumably ignored by the cache owner, which led me to speculate that they may not be very receptive to a personal e-mail. I assumed, (perhaps incorrectly), that my e-mail would get as much attention as the others, and as such, didn't bother. Personally, I don't think they care about this cache. However, it's possible that they have moved on to another listing service. Heck, it's even possible that they left it in the woods for their non-geocaching buddies to find.

 

I did check Terracaching and Navicaching, seeing that it was not listed there.

 

I couldn't check ILeftABunchOfMoldyTrashInTheWoodsAsACache .com, as I don't have an account there.

 

On a side note, I was rather surprised, given the trachy condition, that there were quite a few logs mentioning what a "unique" container it was. At least one log even mentioned they would be copying the idea for a hide of their own Hopefully, this potential hide will be listed at ILeftABunchOfMoldyTrashInTheWoodsAsACache .com as opposed to this site.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[GOF and Bacall]

I'd say the possibility is more remote than a Kit Fox cache.

 

If we are talking about those so called cachers on L&O I say we stuff them in a cito bag and forget about their abandoned caches.

 

I own two that are archived, and presumably still in place. The area was closed and marked No Trespassing for a nearby housing tract. 3 years later, and the area is still marked No Trespassing, but the housing tract went defunct. Until the sign restricting access is removed, I will not recover the caches.

 

Or you could try to contact the property owner and ask for permission to retrieve them. Just saying.

That was my point all along....

And if no response....?? Assume it's OK? Or assume it's not OK?

 

Your answer could have major implications...

I think you are confusing things a bit. Kit Fox's caches are placed on what appears to be private property. My suggestion was that Kit Fox could contact the owner of the land to get permission to retrieve the caches he already owns.

 

The abandoned caches have been left in public. Presumably with the permission of the manager of the land they are on. The question is when do the caches become trash in need of cito. Sort of like leaving a pop bottle on a picnic table. At what point does it become trash that can be picked up by the next passerby? As soon as the owner puts it down on a public table? As soon as he walks away from the table? When he leaves the park? What if he was only going for chips to go with the pop? At some point someone needs to pick up that bottle and others like it. If not the park is gonna be full of empty bottles. How long before the Land Manager bans pop bottles from the park?

[knowschad]

Yup, it is a prickly question. They are just listing services and that is why there are no more forced adoptions.

 

Caches are abandoned all the time. Cachers drop out, move, die, whatever. It's a fact of life in the caching world. It isn't right to leave them out there. That is when they stop being a cache and start being litter. The question is where is that line?

 

I have no problem with "cache recovery" as long as every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the owner is in fact gone from the sport and the cache isn't listed elsewhere.

 

So it HAS to be listed on a recognized site and not just a handful of buddies who are playing their private game? You know, the caches got muggled a lot while on a listing service so they archive them and keep their own game a little more private.

So along comes some group that claims they looked to see if it was listed. Even contacted the CO with the Email address "last on file" and determined that the well stocked ammo can was no longer allowed and needed to be "cleaned up".

 

Yeah, their process is flawless.

 

(someone has to take the opposing side)

 

Wasn't it just a day or two ago that you were saying that you could understand why someone might "muggle" a cache just for having "soft" coordinates? Today you are against people picking up archived caches that for all practical purposes have been abandoned, just on the off chance that they may have left it there for their buddies to find. I'm very confused, although I'm sure you will assure us that your stands are completely logical.

[+bittsen]

Wasn't it just a day or two ago that you were saying that you could understand why someone might "muggle" a cache just for having "soft" coordinates? Today you are against people picking up archived caches that for all practical purposes have been abandoned, just on the off chance that they may have left it there for their buddies to find. I'm very confused, although I'm sure you will assure us that your stands are completely logical.

 

What would we do without you crossing topics and the history lessons and all?

 

Yes, I said that, and I said this as well.

One was an emotional based comment based on someones intentional misdirection and another was a logical reply (playing devils advocate) based on other persons assumptions.

 

I don't see how the opinions are connected, nor do I think the issues are remotely similar. Can you enlighten me or are you just in here posting to make it look like I am flip-flopping?

[knowschad]

Wasn't it just a day or two ago that you were saying that you could understand why someone might "muggle" a cache just for having "soft" coordinates? Today you are against people picking up archived caches that for all practical purposes have been abandoned, just on the off chance that they may have left it there for their buddies to find. I'm very confused, although I'm sure you will assure us that your stands are completely logical.

 

What would we do without you crossing topics and the history lessons and all?

 

Yes, I said that, and I said this as well.

One was an emotional based comment based on someones intentional misdirection and another was a logical reply (playing devils advocate) based on other persons assumptions.

 

I don't see how the opinions are connected, nor do I think the issues are remotely similar. Can you enlighten me or are you just in here posting to make it look like I am flip-flopping?

 

In one case, you seem to support removing a cache, and in the other case, you are calling it theft. I'm sorry about pointing out the obvious contradictions, but it is not me that is making them.

[+bittsen]

In one case, you seem to support removing a cache, and in the other case, you are calling it theft. I'm sorry about pointing out the obvious contradictions, but it is not me that is making them.

 

Lots of wasted gas driving to that conclusion.

 

In the first instance it would still be theft, and I wouldn't care. In the second instance, it might be theft and I still wouldn't care.

 

I can't get much more consistant than that.

 

Edited October 20, 2009 by bittsen

[+Knight2000]

Geocaching.com (and the others) are just listing sites. They don't own the caches. They don't ploice the caches. They have no rights at all on the caches. ZERO rights.

The cache places have abandoned the cache so I'd say they have zero rights. Even if it was active they have as much a right as anyone else.

 

I broached this same subject on our local forums. I was peeved that a local cacher had been abandoning archived caches. I stumbled upon a log 10 months after a cache was archived. I picked it up and disposed of it after 11 months. (I emailed the owner telling them that I have the container. After not hearing from them I tossed it.)

 

I was scolded by some saying that it wasn't my place. I emailed the owner after they deleted my log saying that I picked it up. I told them that what they do affects all geocachers and this could negatively affect us in regard to land managers.

 

A month or so later they archived all their caches claiming it was because of "some bad emails". They had stopped caching despite being very active at one time.

 

The truth is that if they aren't willing to maintain them they should be archived.

 

I have some locally who will argue with anything I say because of a disagreement we had months ago. Still though- it seems pretty obvious to me. The sad thing is that this happens all of the time.

[+bittsen]

The cache places have abandoned the cache so I'd say they have zero rights. Even if it was active they have as much a right as anyone else.

 

I broached this same subject on our local forums. I was peeved that a local cacher had been abandoning archived caches. I stumbled upon a log 10 months after a cache was archived. I picked it up and disposed of it after 11 months. (I emailed the owner telling them that I have the container. After not hearing from them I tossed it.)

 

I was scolded by some saying that it wasn't my place. I emailed the owner after they deleted my log saying that I picked it up. I told them that what they do affects all geocachers and this could negatively affect us in regard to land managers.

 

A month or so later they archived all their caches claiming it was because of "some bad emails". They had stopped caching despite being very active at one time.

 

The truth is that if they aren't willing to maintain them they should be archived.

 

I have some locally who will argue with anything I say because of a disagreement we had months ago. Still though- it seems pretty obvious to me. The sad thing is that this happens all of the time.

 

So you are saying a guy quit caching because you sent some emails?

 

On a separate note, I think all police should at least carry a badge

 

 

[knowschad]

In one case, you seem to support removing a cache, and in the other case, you are calling it theft. I'm sorry about pointing out the obvious contradictions, but it is not me that is making them.

 

Lots of wasted gas driving to that conclusion.

 

In the first instance it would still be theft, and I wouldn't care. In the second instance, it might be theft and I still wouldn't care.

 

I can't get much more consistant than that.

 

 

So, you don't care in either case? I agree... you can't get any more consistant than that. However, if that is true, then please help to keep the noise level down for those of us that do care about trash being left behind in the woods.

 

I'm guessing maybe one in five hundred caches that are archived here are still active caches on one of the other listing sites. Geotrash is a much bigger problem than geo-listing site migration. If MiGo has a plan for removing them, more power to them. Yes, I hope that they do everything they can to minimize problems, but to call what they are doing "theft" is laughable, at best. They are trying their best to remove junk from the woods.

Edited October 20, 2009 by knowschad