Found an abandoned cache - now what?

[+on4bam]

I'm not a big fan of the "privately owned" thing when it comes to clearly abandoned geo-junk. If you can, go back and retrieve the littler.

 

And if it's listed elsewhere you just stole someone's cache.

 

As it is, I have founds on GC that I also logged elsewhere as they were on several sites and they may be archived here but not there. What if it was the other way around? Some caches on opencaching where also listed on GC so what if someone took it upon them to clean up the containers as the listing/site was gone. Not your choice to make.

[+briansnat]

 

If archived containers are "supposed" to be removed and removing them is a good idea then why do we continue to allow them to be logged?

 

I think you just answered your own question. Allowing archived caches to be logged creates an incentive for cachers to go out and find them and remove them. In my experience, most people who have already found a cache don't have much interest in going out to revisit those caches after they're archived to make sure they've been removed. However, there are always new cachers joining the game who never got those archived caches the first time around. By allowing logs on archived caches, new cachers can go out and remove some geo-litter while logging a find at the same time. This is actually exactly how things work in my caching community. We've got a running bookmark list of archived caches that we suspect may not have been removed, and anybody who is interested can look at that list, find caches they never logged and then go out to look for them. If they aren't there, then we confirm they've been removed and they get taken off the list. If they are there, then we log them as found and remove the geolitter, so the trash gets removed, the cache gets taken off the bookmark list and the person who searched for it logs a find. Everybody wins. Why on Earth would anybody find this procedure objectionable? I personally have searched for probably 30-40 archived caches and, of those searches, I've logged 14 finds, and not only have those old caches all been removed, most of them have been repurposed as new hides.

 

(And, just for the record, I always reach out to the original CO first and ask if they want their containers back before I repurpose them and claim them as my own. Most of the time I don't get a response, and when I do, I am always told by the CO that they don't want it back. I have never once had an owner tell me they want their cache back).

Stop making so much sense.

[+justintim1999]

 

If archived containers are "supposed" to be removed and removing them is a good idea then why do we continue to allow them to be logged?

 

I think you just answered your own question. Allowing archived caches to be logged creates an incentive for cachers to go out and find them and remove them. In my experience, most people who have already found a cache don't have much interest in going out to revisit those caches after they're archived to make sure they've been removed. However, there are always new cachers joining the game who never got those archived caches the first time around. By allowing logs on archived caches, new cachers can go out and remove some geo-litter while logging a find at the same time. This is actually exactly how things work in my caching community. We've got a running bookmark list of archived caches that we suspect may not have been removed, and anybody who is interested can look at that list, find caches they never logged and then go out to look for them. If they aren't there, then we confirm they've been removed and they get taken off the list. If they are there, then we log them as found and remove the geolitter, so the trash gets removed, the cache gets taken off the bookmark list and the person who searched for it logs a find. Everybody wins. Why on Earth would anybody find this procedure objectionable? I personally have searched for probably 30-40 archived caches and, of those searches, I've logged 14 finds, and not only have those old caches all been removed, most of them have been repurposed as new hides.

 

(And, just for the record, I always reach out to the original CO first and ask if they want their containers back before I repurpose them and claim them as my own. Most of the time I don't get a response, and when I do, I am always told by the CO that they don't want it back. I have never once had an owner tell me they want their cache back).

 

this is a great idea. It sounds like you do this "on the side". Why can't this be officially incorporated into the game somehow? I doubt that te majority of cachers searching for these archived caches are doing so with the intention of making sure they are removed.

Edited April 19, 2016 by justintim1999

[+justintim1999]

Possible solution -- Allow finds on archived caches, but only if the date on the 'Found It' log is prior to the date of the 'Archived' log. This would allow people who are still catching up on Field Notes to log their find from weeks/months ago. Of course, cachers who found the archived cache could backdate their logs, so not a perfect solution.

 

Just because Groundspeak can't enforce it doesn't mean it's not a rule. I understand that some of these containers are probably listed on another site but if I had to guess I'd say the majority of them were simply abandoned. When you place a cache you agree to do certain things. To me this is one of them.

Consider this. Many caches are archived because the CO is no longer active in the hobby. They haven't logged into the website or logged a find in many months, and sometimes they haven't even verified their email accounts. If these CO's are no longer involved in geocaching and their caches are archived by Reviewers, then do you really think they're going to go out and retrieve the cache they've abandoned? And how do you expect Groundspeak to 'enforce' the retrieval?

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

This is something that you can do now. Create a notification for Archivals within your 20-mile radius and this will give you a 'hit list' for your monthly clean-up day. There are no rules preventing you from moving forward with something that you feel passionate about.

 

You make good points. I think we can all agree that when you leave the game you should clean up after yourself. I also understand Groundspeak's position here. Better not to assume Groundspeak has a certain amount of control over cache placement. They have -0- control over cache maintenance and removal. Seems to me there should be some type of control on the back end.

 

When there were a couple of thousand players out there I'm sure this issue wasn't even on the radar. Now that there are millions it's time to start thinking about it.

[+justintim1999]

I'm not a big fan of the "privately owned" thing when it comes to clearly abandoned geo-junk. If you can, go back and retrieve the littler.

 

And if it's listed elsewhere you just stole someone's cache.

 

As it is, I have founds on GC that I also logged elsewhere as they were on several sites and they may be archived here but not there. What if it was the other way around? Some caches on opencaching where also listed on GC so what if someone took it upon them to clean up the containers as the listing/site was gone. Not your choice to make.

 

Archive the cache on Geocaching.com and note that the container is listed on another service and will remain.

[+on4bam]

Archive the cache on Geocaching.com and note that the container is listed on another service and will remain.

 

You are aware that you can't even name any other listing sites here, are you?

 

The fact remains that you don't touch other people's property. Just look at other threads were the disappearance of (non-archived) caches and trackables are discussed.

 

The only time a third party can remove an archived cache is AFTER the CO is contacted and his/her OK is given.

[+justintim1999]

Archive the cache on Geocaching.com and note that the container is listed on another service and will remain.

 

You are aware that you can't even name any other listing sites here, are you?

 

The fact remains that you don't touch other people's property. Just look at other threads were the disappearance of (non-archived) caches and trackables are discussed.

 

The only time a third party can remove an archived cache is AFTER the CO is contacted and his/her OK is given.

 

No I didn't realize that. Then It seems like private cache ownership may be the problem. From a liability aspect having privately owned caches makes it easy to look the other way which isn't addressing the problem.

 

What if the land owner is aware of the abandoned cache. Do they have the rite to remove the cache owner's property?

[Keystone]

When there were a couple of thousand players out there I'm sure this issue wasn't even on the radar. Now that there are millions it's time to start thinking about it.

I've been following threads on this subject since I began as a player in 2002 (there were less than 100,000 of us worldwide then) and especially since becoming a Reviewer in 2003. It is interesting to see how the thinking has evolved over time, yet in many ways, the arguments are still the same.

[+justintim1999]

When there were a couple of thousand players out there I'm sure this issue wasn't even on the radar. Now that there are millions it's time to start thinking about it.

I've been following threads on this subject since I began as a player in 2002 (there were less than 100,000 of us worldwide then) and especially since becoming a Reviewer in 2003. It is interesting to see how the thinking has evolved over time, yet in many ways, the arguments are still the same.

 

I'll argue that Groundspeak should take the lead in developing a system to get these abandoned caches removed.

[knowschad]

I'm not a big fan of the "privately owned" thing when it comes to clearly abandoned geo-junk. If you can, go back and retrieve the littler.

 

And if it's listed elsewhere you just stole someone's cache.

 

As it is, I have founds on GC that I also logged elsewhere as they were on several sites and they may be archived here but not there. What if it was the other way around? Some caches on opencaching where also listed on GC so what if someone took it upon them to clean up the containers as the listing/site was gone. Not your choice to make.

 

EXTREMELY rare. There are few enough that are x-listed, and even fewer that are only on the other sites. Yes, technically, you are correct. But in reality, you are almost certainly removing litter. And if not... well, caches go missing all the time. That's life as a cache owner.

[knowschad]

Archive the cache on Geocaching.com and note that the container is listed on another service and will remain.

 

You are aware that you can't even name any other listing sites here, are you?

 

The fact remains that you don't touch other people's property. Just look at other threads were the disappearance of (non-archived) caches and trackables are discussed.

 

The only time a third party can remove an archived cache is AFTER the CO is contacted and his/her OK is given.

 

You can mention other sites in your cache listing.

 

You are being way too hard & fast about this.

[+narcissa]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

There's really nothing stopping you from doing that; many cachers do. It's just not realistic to expect Groundspeak to santion it, however, since they do not own the caches.

 

If it's already happening why not make it an official part of the game? How about the volunteer archive verification unit? All kidding aside it's something that should be addressed.

 

There are lots of things that already happen that will never be an "official" part of the game.

 

It is highly unlikely, based on their past reaction to this issue, that Groundspeak would take this issue on beyond plaintive requests to the membership. It's just so far beyond the scope of what they actually do, and it completely contradicts their previous stance on the issue.

 

Overall, demands for Groundspeak to be more authoritative and controlling in this kind of fashion don't go very far.

 

There have been various community level initiatives to remove abandoned caches. That seems to work for the most part. Even with really isolated caches, there's usually someone willing to make the trek so they can be the last to log them. If you're willing to risk the occasional harsh words from cache owners who take exception when you steal their caches, this is the approach you should take if you're really concerned about this. I'd recommend holding onto the containers you take in case someone does want them back.

[+justintim1999]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

There's really nothing stopping you from doing that; many cachers do. It's just not realistic to expect Groundspeak to santion it, however, since they do not own the caches.

 

If it's already happening why not make it an official part of the game? How about the volunteer archive verification unit? All kidding aside it's something that should be addressed.

 

There are lots of things that already happen that will never be an "official" part of the game.

 

It is highly unlikely, based on their past reaction to this issue, that Groundspeak would take this issue on beyond plaintive requests to the membership. It's just so far beyond the scope of what they actually do, and it completely contradicts their previous stance on the issue.

 

Overall, demands for Groundspeak to be more authoritative and controlling in this kind of fashion don't go very far.

 

There have been various community level initiatives to remove abandoned caches. That seems to work for the most part. Even with really isolated caches, there's usually someone willing to make the trek so they can be the last to log them. If you're willing to risk the occasional harsh words from cache owners who take exception when you steal their caches, this is the approach you should take if you're really concerned about this. I'd recommend holding onto the containers you take in case someone does want them back.

 

Thanks. I get the feeling that your explanation may be the only way anything will get done.

 

Is it within the geocaching rules to have the same container listed on another site?

[+narcissa]

Thanks. I get the feeling that your explanation may be the only way anything will get done.

 

Is it within the geocaching rules to have the same container listed on another site?

 

You can't mention another site on your cache page. Where you list your own cache is your business.

[+justintim1999]

Thanks. I get the feeling that your explanation may be the only way anything will get done.

 

Is it within the geocaching rules to have the same container listed on another site?

 

You can't mention another site on your cache page. Where you list your own cache is your business.

 

So you can't confidently remove an archived cache because it may still be active on another site.

 

What about adding a requirement that a cache submitted for publication on geocaching.com can't be listed on any other site? And another that allows the owner of an archived cache a certain amount of time to remove their property themselves. After that it can be removed by anyone.

 

This way if someone like myself wants to start cleaning up some of this stuff I can do it without facing any repercussions.

[+on4bam]

So you can't confidently remove an archived cache because it may still be active on another site.

 

What about adding a requirement that a cache submitted for publication on geocaching.com can't be listed on any other site? And another that allows the owner of an archived cache a certain amount of time to remove their property themselves. After that it can be removed by anyone.

 

This way if someone like myself wants to start cleaning up some of this stuff I can do it without facing any repercussions.

 

Even if there would be a requirement that a cache can't be listed elsewhere, the moment it's archived that requirement has no more value and the cache can happily live on on another site.

BTW, I know of (at least one) one CO who archived all his caches on gc and listed them elsewhere. Following your logic it would be OK to take them all.

[+justintim1999]

So you can't confidently remove an archived cache because it may still be active on another site.

 

What about adding a requirement that a cache submitted for publication on geocaching.com can't be listed on any other site? And another that allows the owner of an archived cache a certain amount of time to remove their property themselves. After that it can be removed by anyone.

 

This way if someone like myself wants to start cleaning up some of this stuff I can do it without facing any repercussions.

 

Even if there would be a requirement that a cache can't be listed elsewhere, the moment it's archived that requirement has no more value and the cache can happily live on on another site.

BTW, I know of (at least one) one CO who archived all his caches on gc and listed them elsewhere. Following your logic it would be OK to take them all.

 

Just trying to come up with a way to remove these containers without stepping on anyone's toes. The example you gave defiantly throws a monkey wrench into things.

[+on4bam]

Just trying to come up with a way to remove these containers without stepping on anyone's toes. The example you gave defiantly throws a monkey wrench into things.

 

Look at it this way, the (abandoned?) cache is not yours to begin with, it's not your responsibility and there's no way to be sure it's not in use elsewhere. Why do you want to remove it?

As for contacting the CO, they won't see MC messages and if they, like me, use a unique address for gc then it will be out of use when they quit GC (I would just dev/null any mails to an unused e-mail address).

[+justintim1999]

Just trying to come up with a way to remove these containers without stepping on anyone's toes. The example you gave defiantly throws a monkey wrench into things.

 

Look at it this way, the (abandoned?) cache is not yours to begin with, it's not your responsibility and there's no way to be sure it's not in use elsewhere. Why do you want to remove it?

As for contacting the CO, they won't see MC messages and if they, like me, use a unique address for gc then it will be out of use when they quit GC (I would just dev/null any mails to an unused e-mail address).

 

At that point I consider them trash and would like to see them disposed of. We have CITO events to promote picking up and disposing of other people's trash yet we ignore our own.

[+narcissa]

Thanks. I get the feeling that your explanation may be the only way anything will get done.

 

Is it within the geocaching rules to have the same container listed on another site?

 

You can't mention another site on your cache page. Where you list your own cache is your business.

 

So you can't confidently remove an archived cache because it may still be active on another site.

 

What about adding a requirement that a cache submitted for publication on geocaching.com can't be listed on any other site? And another that allows the owner of an archived cache a certain amount of time to remove their property themselves. After that it can be removed by anyone.

 

This way if someone like myself wants to start cleaning up some of this stuff I can do it without facing any repercussions.

 

You don't seem to be understanding the key thing here, which is that cache owners are owners. The cache owner owns the container, and, perhaps more importantly, the cache owner owns the relationship with the land owner or land manager who gave permission for the cache to be there.

 

You're very keen on dreaming up all sorts of rules that step all over the cache owners, creating antagonism for no reason. Why is it any of Geocaching.com's business if a cache owner lists a cache on multiple sites? How could they possibly enforce that rule? Is this really a burden that reviewers need to assume? Do you want cachers snitching on people?

 

Cache owners are the lifeblood of the game. I don't understand why you are so intent on infantalizing and antagonizing all cache owners because of your perceptions about geo litter. If you're so concerned about geo litter, go pick it up yourself. On foot, of course, because a car is a way bigger detriment to the environment than an inert sealed container under a rock.

[+justintim1999]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

This thread is exactly what's wrong with the human species. Why don't you waste your efforts doing something real like feeding the homeless or volunteering at a shelter for children?

 

Already volunteer for one of those. Don't consider it a waste of my efforts either. Only so much of me to go around ya know.

[+justintim1999]

Thanks. I get the feeling that your explanation may be the only way anything will get done.

 

Is it within the geocaching rules to have the same container listed on another site?

 

You can't mention another site on your cache page. Where you list your own cache is your business.

 

So you can't confidently remove an archived cache because it may still be active on another site.

 

What about adding a requirement that a cache submitted for publication on geocaching.com can't be listed on any other site? And another that allows the owner of an archived cache a certain amount of time to remove their property themselves. After that it can be removed by anyone.

 

This way if someone like myself wants to start cleaning up some of this stuff I can do it without facing any repercussions.

 

You don't seem to be understanding the key thing here, which is that cache owners are owners. The cache owner owns the container, and, perhaps more importantly, the cache owner owns the relationship with the land owner or land manager who gave permission for the cache to be there.

 

You're very keen on dreaming up all sorts of rules that step all over the cache owners, creating antagonism for no reason. Why is it any of Geocaching.com's business if a cache owner lists a cache on multiple sites? How could they possibly enforce that rule? Is this really a burden that reviewers need to assume? Do you want cachers snitching on people?

 

Cache owners are the lifeblood of the game. I don't understand why you are so intent on infantalizing and antagonizing all cache owners because of your perceptions about geo litter. If you're so concerned about geo litter, go pick it up yourself. On foot, of course, because a car is a way bigger detriment to the environment than an inert sealed container under a rock.

 

When you put it that way I guess it not a real problem at all. For all I know most cache owners retrieve their caches after they've been archived.

 

If every cache owner did what they were suppose to do we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[+fuzziebear3]

 

If archived containers are "supposed" to be removed and removing them is a good idea then why do we continue to allow them to be logged?

 

I think you just answered your own question. Allowing archived caches to be logged creates an incentive for cachers to go out and find them and remove them. In my experience, most people who have already found a cache don't have much interest in going out to revisit those caches after they're archived to make sure they've been removed. However, there are always new cachers joining the game who never got those archived caches the first time around. By allowing logs on archived caches, new cachers can go out and remove some geo-litter while logging a find at the same time. This is actually exactly how things work in my caching community. We've got a running bookmark list of archived caches that we suspect may not have been removed, and anybody who is interested can look at that list, find caches they never logged and then go out to look for them. If they aren't there, then we confirm they've been removed and they get taken off the list. If they are there, then we log them as found and remove the geolitter, so the trash gets removed, the cache gets taken off the bookmark list and the person who searched for it logs a find. Everybody wins. Why on Earth would anybody find this procedure objectionable? I personally have searched for probably 30-40 archived caches and, of those searches, I've logged 14 finds, and not only have those old caches all been removed, most of them have been repurposed as new hides.

 

(And, just for the record, I always reach out to the original CO first and ask if they want their containers back before I repurpose them and claim them as my own. Most of the time I don't get a response, and when I do, I am always told by the CO that they don't want it back. I have never once had an owner tell me they want their cache back).

 

That is a great idea! More areas could adopt that model!

[+narcissa]

Thanks. I get the feeling that your explanation may be the only way anything will get done.

 

Is it within the geocaching rules to have the same container listed on another site?

 

You can't mention another site on your cache page. Where you list your own cache is your business.

 

So you can't confidently remove an archived cache because it may still be active on another site.

 

What about adding a requirement that a cache submitted for publication on geocaching.com can't be listed on any other site? And another that allows the owner of an archived cache a certain amount of time to remove their property themselves. After that it can be removed by anyone.

 

This way if someone like myself wants to start cleaning up some of this stuff I can do it without facing any repercussions.

 

You don't seem to be understanding the key thing here, which is that cache owners are owners. The cache owner owns the container, and, perhaps more importantly, the cache owner owns the relationship with the land owner or land manager who gave permission for the cache to be there.

 

You're very keen on dreaming up all sorts of rules that step all over the cache owners, creating antagonism for no reason. Why is it any of Geocaching.com's business if a cache owner lists a cache on multiple sites? How could they possibly enforce that rule? Is this really a burden that reviewers need to assume? Do you want cachers snitching on people?

 

Cache owners are the lifeblood of the game. I don't understand why you are so intent on infantalizing and antagonizing all cache owners because of your perceptions about geo litter. If you're so concerned about geo litter, go pick it up yourself. On foot, of course, because a car is a way bigger detriment to the environment than an inert sealed container under a rock.

 

When you put it that way I guess it not a real problem at all. For all I know most cache owners retrieve their caches after they've been archived.

 

If every cache owner did what they were suppose to do we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

That's true of most discussions on here.

 

The best thing you can do to enforce the standards that are important to you is by setting the example through your own actions. And there's no harm in reaching out to a cache owner who appears to have left the game. Hey, noticed you might need help retrieving those containers, I was planning to be out that way on the weekend, mind if I pick them up? Do you want them back or is it cool if I recycle them into new caches?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So you can't confidently remove an archived cache because it may still be active on another site.

 

What about adding a requirement that a cache submitted for publication on geocaching.com can't be listed on any other site? And another that allows the owner of an archived cache a certain amount of time to remove their property themselves. After that it can be removed by anyone.

 

This way if someone like myself wants to start cleaning up some of this stuff I can do it without facing any repercussions.

 

Even if there would be a requirement that a cache can't be listed elsewhere, the moment it's archived that requirement has no more value and the cache can happily live on on another site.

BTW, I know of (at least one) one CO who archived all his caches on gc and listed them elsewhere. Following your logic it would be OK to take them all.

 

Just trying to come up with a way to remove these containers without stepping on anyone's toes. The example you gave defiantly throws a monkey wrench into things.

 

Without naming one of those other sites I know that for one of them, the cache submission process will actually ask if the cache is listed on another site and even provides a field to enter the GC code if it's listed on the GS site. The site *recommends* that caches which are listed on other sites not be submitted but doesn't do anything to enforce it.

 

 

[Ridler & Cmokica]

But what happens if the owner who didn't remove the archived geocache, decides to delete your found it log(s)?

 

Is this a hypothetical question? It's hard for me to imagine a cache owner who didn't remove the archived listing's container, yet would rouse themselves enough to delete a "found it" log.

 

If you found the cache container, signed the log book, then there is no legitimate reason for the online "found it" log to be deleted.

 

It happened to us, not so long ago: We were caching with some friends and one of them had the coordinates of two caches we didn't had on our device. As we are not premium members, at first we thought we missed them because they are PMO caches. When logging at home we found out they were actually archived a couple of months ago.

 

We found both of them, the caches were in great condition so we signed the logbooks as on any usual find. Soon after logging, the online log has been deleted with an explanation from the CO that he deleted it because we "logged an archived cache".

 

If it is, then you can appeal to Groundspeak to reinstate the find.

 

We did. The outcome came as a surprise:

 

This is a grey area, but we ultimately side with the cache owner. If they had no issues with you signing the log, then that is fine. But they may not want to encourage others to find this cache, and thus are choosing to delete the finds. I suggest chalking this up to one of those, "oh well - we had a nice day together..." experiences.

 

Considering the mentioned experience, I'm still wondering if it's OK to log an archived cache after it has been archived or is it considered a "bad form" of geocaching?

 

I wish GS would give more clear stances on this and some other "gray areas"...

[+narcissa]

Considering the mentioned experience, I'm still wondering if it's OK to log an archived cache after it has been archived or is it considered a "bad form" of geocaching?

 

I wish GS would give more clear stances on this and some other "gray areas"...

 

Or just use your best judgment on a case-by-case basis instead of expecting every possible scenario to be addressed by top-down rules.

[Ridler & Cmokica]

Considering the mentioned experience, I'm still wondering if it's OK to log an archived cache after it has been archived or is it considered a "bad form" of geocaching?

 

I wish GS would give more clear stances on this and some other "gray areas"...

 

Or just use your best judgment on a case-by-case basis instead of expecting every possible scenario to be addressed by top-down rules.

 

If you find out about an archived cache, how can you tell to go after it or not?

 

Or how can you tell to go after "this (archived) one" but not after "the other (archived) one"?

[+narcissa]

Considering the mentioned experience, I'm still wondering if it's OK to log an archived cache after it has been archived or is it considered a "bad form" of geocaching?

 

I wish GS would give more clear stances on this and some other "gray areas"...

 

Or just use your best judgment on a case-by-case basis instead of expecting every possible scenario to be addressed by top-down rules.

 

If you find out about an archived cache, how can you tell to go after it or not?

 

Or how can you tell to go after "this (archived) one" but not after "the other (archived) one"?

 

This is where "use your best judgment" and "case-by-case basis" are really the key things.

 

I don't think anybody reasonable will give you a hard time for actually finding a cache and logging it, whether it's archived or not. Finding archived caches seems to be fair game, at least around here. If the cache owner doesn't like it, the cache owner can remove the cache so it can't be found anymore.

[+J Grouchy]

Just yesterday I was going for an FTF on a new cache. I got to GZ and almost immediately found a magnetic key hide. When I opened it, the log sheet had several signatures dating from 2014 and ending August 2014. I figured this had to be an archived cache. I kept looking and found the new cache and got my FTF. When I got back to the computer, I did a quick search based on the names and dates and figured out which cache it was...so I went ahead and logged the find. It was apparently archived following a number of DNFs and the CO being unresponsive/absent. Not sure why previous cachers had trouble finding it since it was fairly easy to spot...but I guess they were fairly new.

 

Anyway, the cache was there, so I saw no problem with counting the find. I took that older container away to keep the CURRENT listing legit on number of finds and reduce confusion over which one "counts" as a find on the new cache. I started wondering, though, whether people would think me taking it away was improper.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

But what happens if the owner who didn't remove the archived geocache, decides to delete your found it log(s)?

 

Is this a hypothetical question? It's hard for me to imagine a cache owner who didn't remove the archived listing's container, yet would rouse themselves enough to delete a "found it" log.

 

If you found the cache container, signed the log book, then there is no legitimate reason for the online "found it" log to be deleted.

 

It happened to us, not so long ago: We were caching with some friends and one of them had the coordinates of two caches we didn't had on our device. As we are not premium members, at first we thought we missed them because they are PMO caches. When logging at home we found out they were actually archived a couple of months ago.

 

We found both of them, the caches were in great condition so we signed the logbooks as on any usual find. Soon after logging, the online log has been deleted with an explanation from the CO that he deleted it because we "logged an archived cache".

 

If it is, then you can appeal to Groundspeak to reinstate the find.

 

We did. The outcome came as a surprise:

 

This is a grey area, but we ultimately side with the cache owner. If they had no issues with you signing the log, then that is fine. But they may not want to encourage others to find this cache, and thus are choosing to delete the finds. I suggest chalking this up to one of those, "oh well - we had a nice day together..." experiences.

 

Considering the mentioned experience, I'm still wondering if it's OK to log an archived cache after it has been archived or is it considered a "bad form" of geocaching?

 

I wish GS would give more clear stances on this and some other "gray areas"...

 

I once logged a find on an archived cache but rather than on a cache that was archived a couple months earlier, it had been archived 2 days earlier.

 

In my case, the CO allowed the found it log. Finding and logging a cache 2 days after it had been archived would seem to me to fall into a grey area and unless there were some unusual circumstances about *why* it was archived I would imagine that most CO's would allow a found it log a few days after archival. However, I don't really think that finding a cache two months after it has been archived is still in that grey area.

 

First of all, those caches should have retrieved by the cache owner when they archived them. I suppose it's possible that the CO actually did retrieve their container but people were still finding a throwdown though. It's kind of odd that the CO hasn't cleaned up the old container (even if it was a throwdown) two months after it was archived but is deleting found it logs.

 

In some cases, the reason a cache is archived is such that it's really not a good idea to continue allowing Found It logs (especially if they're not backdated). The land manager may have explicitly asked that cache be removed. Reading the Found It/Didn't Find It thread shows a fairly common scenario. A cache goes missing, sometimes with just a piece of the container or a string or tape used to hide it remains. Someone, who feels entitled to log a find just because they found something that was part of a cache, logs it as found. It often doesn't end there though. Quite often you'll seen more found it logs by people that justify to themselves that it's okay because previous "finders" posted Found It logs just for finding a piece of string. When a CO allows found it logs, well after a cache has been archived it sends a message to some that it's still okay to search for and log finds on the cache and having geocachers continue to search in a place after a land manager has explicitly asked people not to go only gives Geocaching a black eye.

 

 

 

[Ridler & Cmokica]

First of all, those caches should have retrieved by the cache owner when they archived them. I suppose it's possible that the CO actually did retrieve their container but people were still finding a throwdown though. It's kind of odd that the CO hasn't cleaned up the old container (even if it was a throwdown) two months after it was archived but is deleting found it logs.

 

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

[+narcissa]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

[+justintim1999]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon.

 

So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve?

[+narcissa]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon.

 

So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve?

 

If it is on your land, go ahead and remove it.

 

If it isn't on your land, it isn't your business. If the cache owner explicitly wants to leave it there, then it's between the cache owner and the land manager who gave him/her permission to put the cache there in the first place.

 

Its status on a geocache listing site is not relevant.

[+justintim1999]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon.

 

So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve?

 

If it is on your land, go ahead and remove it.

 

If it isn't on your land, it isn't your business. If the cache owner explicitly wants to leave it there, then it's between the cache owner and the land manager who gave him/her permission to put the cache there in the first place.

 

Its status on a geocache listing site is not relevant.

 

I'd like to think that every situation like this was the norm. This mutual understanding between the cache and land owner is great but... I bet that the majority of caches that are involuntary archived are not retrieved and some of the ones that are archived by the cache owners are also left to rot.

[+narcissa]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon.

 

So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve?

 

If it is on your land, go ahead and remove it.

 

If it isn't on your land, it isn't your business. If the cache owner explicitly wants to leave it there, then it's between the cache owner and the land manager who gave him/her permission to put the cache there in the first place.

 

Its status on a geocache listing site is not relevant.

 

I'd like to think that every situation like this was the norm. This mutual understanding between the cache and land owner is great but... I bet that the majority of caches that are involuntary archived are not retrieved and some of the ones that are archived by the cache owners are also left to rot.

 

If the cache owner has explicitly asked you to leave the cache alone, leave it alone. You've done your part. You've made the effort. You don't know what the owner has in mind and it isn't any of your business if the geocache isn't on your land.

[Ridler & Cmokica]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

I might have used the wrong expression here (I'm not a native in english). I suggested the owner that he removes the caches in order to avoid other people from logging it again as it was very clear he was aggravated because of our "finds". I never wanted to remove the containers myself.

[knowschad]

Just trying to come up with a way to remove these containers without stepping on anyone's toes. The example you gave defiantly throws a monkey wrench into things.

 

Look at it this way, the (abandoned?) cache is not yours to begin with, it's not your responsibility and there's no way to be sure it's not in use elsewhere. Why do you want to remove it?

As for contacting the CO, they won't see MC messages and if they, like me, use a unique address for gc then it will be out of use when they quit GC (I would just dev/null any mails to an unused e-mail address).

 

At that point I consider them trash and would like to see them disposed of. We have CITO events to promote picking up and disposing of other people's trash yet we ignore our own.

 

I am strongly on your side. On4bam and others here that assert that it is not your property to remove are correct from a very strict sense, but the odds that the cache was archived here and listed on another site is so unusual as to be almost non-existent, at least here in the U.S. That might be different in some parts of Europe, and maybe even the UK. I personally would make an attempt to notify the cache owner, but would not lose any sleep over having removed an apparently abandoned game piece.

 

In my area, even if it IS listed on another site, the odds of it ever being logged from one of those sites are quite remote.

[knowschad]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

I disagree. Get rid of the garbage. It is no different from a plastic water bottle dropped on the ground.

[knowschad]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon.

 

So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve?

 

Don't listen to only one opinion. If the container was an ammo can, I would surely make every effort to notify the cache owner and to try to get their property back to them. But a peanut butter jar or pill bottle or key hide? Gone.

[knowschad]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

Really? I guess if it was just recently archived then maybe the cache owner plans on collecting it up some time soon.

 

So if the cache owner refuses to remove it than what? Leave it there? What purpose dose that serve?

 

If it is on your land, go ahead and remove it.

 

If it isn't on your land, it isn't your business. If the cache owner explicitly wants to leave it there, then it's between the cache owner and the land manager who gave him/her permission to put the cache there in the first place.

 

Its status on a geocache listing site is not relevant.

If it is on public land, it is all of our business. The land manager would certainly agree. They don't want junk left lying around in their park, and letting them discover it (or for that matter, even just seeing the opinion represented by your posts) could get caching banned.

[+narcissa]

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

So the cache owner has clearly indicated that he doesn't want you to get involved. Move on.

 

I might have used the wrong expression here (I'm not a native in english). I suggested the owner that he removes the caches in order to avoid other people from logging it again as it was very clear he was aggravated because of our "finds". I never wanted to remove the containers myself.

 

Oh, I see.

 

I still think it's okay to *ask* if the owner would like help removing them.

[+niraD]

Its status on a geocache listing site is not relevant.

If it is on public land, it is all of our business. The land manager would certainly agree. They don't want junk left lying around in their park, and letting them discover it (or for that matter, even just seeing the opinion represented by your posts) could get caching banned.

Around here, there are parks and open spaces with geocaching policies that REQUIRE that caches be listed on the geocaching.com site. The policies allow caches to be listed on other sites as well, but they must be listed on the geocaching.com site to comply with the policies (and thus, to have permission to be placed in the park or open space).

 

So a cache archived on the geocaching.com site no longer has permission to be placed there.

[+justintim1999]

Its status on a geocache listing site is not relevant.

If it is on public land, it is all of our business. The land manager would certainly agree. They don't want junk left lying around in their park, and letting them discover it (or for that matter, even just seeing the opinion represented by your posts) could get caching banned.

Around here, there are parks and open spaces with geocaching policies that REQUIRE that caches be listed on the geocaching.com site. The policies allow caches to be listed on other sites as well, but they must be listed on the geocaching.com site to comply with the policies (and thus, to have permission to be placed in the park or open space).

 

So a cache archived on the geocaching.com site no longer has permission to be placed there.

 

I think the reason for that is because Geocaching.com has specific rules and guidelines when it comes to placing caches. It's this oversight that gives land owners/managers some reassurance that someone is overseeing the process. Seems like we should have the same oversight on the back end to ensure we leave the property as we found it.

[+narcissa]

So a cache archived on the geocaching.com site no longer has permission to be placed there.

 

I don't see what the fuss is about then. If, in your best judgment, the container should be removed for a reason like that, just remove it and post a note on the cache page. This doesn't need to be as complicated as this thread is making it.

 

My point isn't that individual cachers shouldn't care about abandoned caches, it's that it isn't reasonable to expect Groundspeak to redesign their entire approach to the game over it. All of these extreme, punitive solutions are so out of proportion to the problem and each one is its own can of worms.

[+AustinMN]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

That, of course, would be theft.

Geocaching.com is not the only cache listing service out there, and the cache itself belongs not to you, not to Groundspeak, not to anyone but the CO.

[+hzoi]

But what happens if the owner who didn't remove the archived geocache, decides to delete your found it log(s)?

 

Is this a hypothetical question? It's hard for me to imagine a cache owner who didn't remove the archived listing's container, yet would rouse themselves enough to delete a "found it" log.

 

If you found the cache container, signed the log book, then there is no legitimate reason for the online "found it" log to be deleted.

 

It happened to us, not so long ago: We were caching with some friends and one of them had the coordinates of two caches we didn't had on our device. As we are not premium members, at first we thought we missed them because they are PMO caches. When logging at home we found out they were actually archived a couple of months ago.

 

We found both of them, the caches were in great condition so we signed the logbooks as on any usual find. Soon after logging, the online log has been deleted with an explanation from the CO that he deleted it because we "logged an archived cache".

 

If it is, then you can appeal to Groundspeak to reinstate the find.

 

We did. The outcome came as a surprise:

 

This is a grey area, but we ultimately side with the cache owner. If they had no issues with you signing the log, then that is fine. But they may not want to encourage others to find this cache, and thus are choosing to delete the finds. I suggest chalking this up to one of those, "oh well - we had a nice day together..." experiences.

 

Considering the mentioned experience, I'm still wondering if it's OK to log an archived cache after it has been archived or is it considered a "bad form" of geocaching?

 

I wish GS would give more clear stances on this and some other "gray areas"...

 

First of all, those caches should have retrieved by the cache owner when they archived them. I suppose it's possible that the CO actually did retrieve their container but people were still finding a throwdown though. It's kind of odd that the CO hasn't cleaned up the old container (even if it was a throwdown) two months after it was archived but is deleting found it logs.

 

They were original containers, with the logbooks dating back to when they were placed.

 

After the log deletion, I suggested the owner to remove the containers, to avoid any other similar situations. He refused, because "he likes them where they are"...

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

I disagree with Groundspeak appeals thinking this is a "grey area." It's not. The cache was archived but the container is still there, and the cache owner refuses to go clean it up because he is lazy -- I mean, "likes it there." Yet doesn't want anyone to log finds.

 

It's unfortunate that Groundspeak doesn't have an appeals process for the appeals process, because I think this one was clearly erroneous.

 

Perhaps a lackey will come along to chime in and explain the reasoning here. Until then... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[+narcissa]

Your harping on what I perceive as the least important point of the argument. Transferring previously archived caches to a new account is nice. Enforcing the removal of abandoned geocaches and not allowing them to become litter is what this is all about.

 

The "geo litter" issue has been going on for years. Every solution for "enforcement" so far results in a sequence of far-reaching consequences for other aspects of the game.

 

Back when challenges were first popularized, there were challenges based on retrieving this kind of "geo litter." They were conceived with good intentions.

 

It did not take very long for Groundspeak to stop approving these caches on the basis that geocaches are owned by the cache owner, and encouraging others to remove caches without the cache owner's approval was overstepping.

 

You want to implement a punitive and unforgiving geo litter policy that has very serious consequences for the way the game is played, but you're not willing to consider all of the consequences.

 

If it has to come down to the game or the environment than there is no choice. I don't think it necessarily has to but it may take a little hard work, ingenuity and yes money to come up with a solution. Doing nothing because it may impact the game or our wallets isn't an excuse to do nothing.

 

Why do we have enforced rules on hiding a cache? Why don't we simply rely on people to do the right thing themselves like we do when the cache has run it's course? Is it because one can be enforced easily and the other can't.

 

I'm not insinuating that abandoned geocaches would even register among the total amount of trash currently out there, but it's contributing to the problem. As the game continues to grow we need to start looking at ways to deal with these things before they become issues.

 

So you want Geocaching.com to shift from being a cache listing service, and become some kind of entity that assumes actual ownership of caches and takes punitive measures to enforce the removal of caches that are no longer part of their active listings. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect Groundspeak to make such a radical change, and I highly doubt that cachers would actually be receptive to such a change and the logical consequences of it.

 

Without having boots on the ground I'm not sure they could. They assume the responsibility of regulating cache placements. Seem like more should be done to clean up after the party.

 

Give me a 20 mile radius around where I live and I'd be happy to volunteer one day a month to go out and verify archived caches were removed or remove them myself.

 

That, of course, would be theft.

Geocaching.com is not the only cache listing service out there, and the cache itself belongs not to you, not to Groundspeak, not to anyone but the CO.

 

+1

 

I don't really see why this is so difficult to understand. Groundspeak has done a great job over the years of setting standards for the geocache listings they choose to publish. Those standards benefit everyone who plays the game (whether they realize it or not), but there is a limit to what they can reasonably take on.

 

I think it's tricky for newer caches to understand that, in a game where technology meets tromping through the woods, it's just not possible to govern everything with rules and algorithms, and that sometimes it's up to an individual cacher to make decisions based on the specific circumstances at hand.

 

It also seems to be difficult for some cachers to understand that there are very few instances where Groundspeak ever does anything that is really punitive toward cachers and cache owners. I know there have been some very specific instances of people being banned from using Geocaching.com, but it's very uncommon. They have their flaws, but they generally try to be collaborative, instructive, and constructive when dealing with geocachers.

[knowschad]

So a cache archived on the geocaching.com site no longer has permission to be placed there.

 

I don't see what the fuss is about then. If, in your best judgment, the container should be removed for a reason like that, just remove it and post a note on the cache page. This doesn't need to be as complicated as this thread is making it.

 

My point isn't that individual cachers shouldn't care about abandoned caches, it's that it isn't reasonable to expect Groundspeak to redesign their entire approach to the game over it. All of these extreme, punitive solutions are so out of proportion to the problem and each one is its own can of worms.

I think that Groundspeak is completely capable of discarding suggestions that they deem unworkable, but I'm sure they thank you for your assistance.