Old Caches

January 1, 2004

I am wondering what people's opinions are about unpopular or old caches... I have a cache out in the pinelands of south jersey that has not been visited in 45 days. I wouldn't actually mind having this cache archived...

So what do you all think about some regulation that would take a look at caches that have not been visited in quite some time. And maybe recommend those caches for archival. I would not be opposed to that regulation.

Would You?

2.6k · January 1, 2004

45 days? Peanuts. One of my caches is unvisited for 147 days, and even that ain't much. Apparently we live quite far apart from each other and the cache density, and probably the whole geocaching culture is pretty different in my neck of woods. My point is, if the administration implements a kind of regulation you suggest, where would you draw the line of 'quite some time'? 1 month? 2 months? A year? More?

I say let the caches be there unless they're reported being on private property or otherwise inappropriate place. I'd love to be a first visitor of a cache, 18 months after the previous finder. Of course you can always fetch your seldom visited caches away from the woods and archive them, why not let them lie there? Some day some avid cacher will eventually go for it.

3.5k · January 1, 2004

I have a cache that went well over 45 days without a visit and I started considering archiving it then suddenly it took off again. It really seems to depend on the time of year and the level of activity in the area. I doubt a regulation could take into account all the factors around a particular cache. More than likely you just need to pay attention to the activity in other caches and what you think people respond well to.

Some of the best caches out there will have the fewest visits. They're challenging enough that most cachers don't just run out and grab them, but those who eventually do them really love the experience.

Bret

January 1, 2004

I would think that it is up to the cache owner to decide if he or she should archive there cache! I have some caches that are puzzle caches or that are planted in very out of the way places so it is common for them not to be found in 45 or more days, and now that Winter is here, it could be longer! I check on my caches too so I always try to leave a maintance log to show that the cache is still there! Maybe the owner needs to rethink that particular cache and make it more inticing to bring the cachers there?

I have my very first cache that is a year old and it hasn't been hit in 45 days and it is in a very popular park. I am not worried because as soon as it seems that no one is going for this cache, 10 or 12 new cachers will appear and find and log it! <_<

Darkmoon

3k · January 1, 2004

I am wondering what people's opinions are about unpopular or old caches... I have a cache out in the pinelands of south jersey that has not been visited in 45 days. I wouldn't actually mind having this cache archived...

So what do you all think about some regulation that would take a look at caches that have not been visited in quite some time. And maybe recommend those caches for archival. I would not be opposed to that regulation.

Would You?

Happy New Year. You can remove and archive your own cache at any time you choose to. It is really not at all uncommon for a cache to go unvisited for a few months at a time, to be followed by a flurry of visits. Assuming the cache remains in good condition, leave it there until you decide it has "run its course."

In several threads in the past, I have voiced the opinion that caches should be approved and listed on this site for a specific length of time. (There was much discussion on what "specific" meant: 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, etc.) At the end of that period, the cacher would have the "right of renewal" for a similar period, after having verified to the listing service that:

A. The cache owner remains active.

B. The cache owner retains an active interest in the cache.

C. The cache owner has made a recent maintenance visit to the cache.

I lean towards the approval being for a shorter period of time, like 3 months, because such a procedure would be relatively harmless (a series of check boxes on the cache page, for example) and would obligate the owner to make regular maintenance visits. It would also allow abandoned caches to be identified and addressed in a much more timely manner.

In the past, the concept has proven to be wildly unpopular. I presume that's because few cache owners really have any intention of maintaining their caches on a regular basis, if at all, after placement.

Edited January 1, 2004 by BassoonPilot

20.7k · January 1, 2004

I'm not a big fan of the renewable cache idea because many caches would be archived prior to the owner completing the form. This would result in many requests for caches to be unarchived. It would also cause confusion when placing a new cache because it could be too close to a cache that was temporarily archived. It could also drive up the amount of geolitter.

3.1k · January 1, 2004

Enough with new rules. My easy 1-1 caches get visited weekly but that doesn't make them my best caches. I have other caches that only get hit once or twice a year. They just aren't easy to get to.

Leave em lay

3k · January 1, 2004

In reverse order:

It could also drive up the amount of geolitter.

No. If a cache has already been abandoned in place, it is already "geolitter" and needs to be removed, one way or another.

It would also cause confusion when placing a new cache because it could be too close to a cache that was temporarily archived.

No. I envision the cache would be "temporarily disabled" until its fate had been determined. If the abandoned cache ultimately needed to be removed and then archived, that would free up the area for someone else to place a cache.

I'm not a big fan of the renewable cache idea because many caches would be archived prior to the owner completing the form. This would result in many requests for caches to be unarchived.

I don't think so. I envision an automatically generated "reminder" notice could be e-mailed to the cache owner at least two weeks prior to the cache's renewal date. Should that date have passed without action by the cache owner, the cache would be temporarily disabled automatically, and a notification sent to both the cache owner and the regional approver. 30 days after this second notification, if the owner had failed to take positive action (or contact the designated approver with any extenuating circumstance), the cache would be designated for removal and permanent archival.

The argument has been made in the past regarding caches that are unreachable due to seasonal conditions or other factors outside of a cache owner's control. Such conditions would obviously qualify as "extenuating circumstances," and the cache would remain temporarily disabled for the duration of the condition, not to exceed 6 months (or whatever the limit on the "temporarily disabled" feature might be.)

Edited January 1, 2004 by BassoonPilot

2.3k · January 1, 2004

I would say leave it up to the cache owner...

Why invite more institutional control on something that really doens't need it!!

Plus with institutional control, you now need someone to actually take time to reveiw all the data (paid position or volunteer) and if they take action, who is going to enforce it and how...

Seems to me it adds many different additional layers of complexity which are not needed.

24.7k · January 1, 2004

I have one that gets visited about every 6 months. All who visit love the cache and the location.

The cache isn't broken. No need to archive it.

20.7k · January 1, 2004

In reverse order:

(Bunch of stuff that we disagree on)

We'll just have to disagree on these points.

This actually reminds me of one of the 'too many topics' topics.

Since GC.com is just a listing site, what give's an admin the right to have a cache physically removed? This is especially true in your scenario where no action has been taken in just a few weeks. Heck, I've been away for weeks at a time. It would be easy for my caches to be archived and removed if this suggestion were implemented.

Edited January 1, 2004 by sbell111

January 1, 2004

There are a couple of caches I found back in September, and no one's logged them since. They were perfectly fine when I left them - no reason to archive. Even with such a rule, 45 days would be ~way~ too short of a time. Many caches are in very remote locations, some are under snow for months at a time, and some are just mysteriously under-visited.

Best Wishes,

Bob

20.7k · January 1, 2004

Interestingly, six of my active caches haven't been found in over 45 days. Five are known to be fine. The sixth had a DNF the other day and I must check on it today. These caches certainly aren't MIA, nor am I.

This rule just would make more work for admins and responsible cachers. In my opinion, it would also result in more geolitter, not less.

2.7k · January 1, 2004

Even the most avid and active cachers (owners) have other things to do. i.e. making a living, travel, feeding the family, mowing the lawn....

No maintenance is required when a cache is visited regularly and there are no reported problems.

Why make a rule for periodic maintenance visits and form-filing on EVERY cache when the vast majority of caches are doing well?

"And what have you got against my little idea of marching UP and DOWN the square?" - Monty Python, from The Meaning of Life

Some people just ENJOY creating unnecessary work for others (these are usually called "managers" or "supervisors" or some such term).

It is a tribute to the sport that the vast majority of listed caches are REALLY there. This in spite of the "horrendous irresponsibility" of cache owners that never check on their caches.

I would guess that the number of listings would diminish greatly if this rule were enacted.

The old caches would still be there, since the owners that failed to fill out the form (for whatever reason) would be unlikely to go retrieve their caches.

The only outcome would be fewer caches to hunt and many lying about that couldn't be hunted because they are no longer listed.

So, if you are a cache owner and think your cache has outlived its usefulness, pull it. If you are just tired of receiving the alerts when people find it, pull it. If you cannot afford a new ammo box for a place that you just found that is just SCREAMING "put a cache here", pull your old one.

It's all up to you, the owner. Please leave my decisions up to me. Thank You.

(edit for formatting)

Edited January 1, 2004 by ChurchCampDave

38.2k · January 1, 2004

A lot of my caches go 6 months, or more between finds. I'm not gonna archive them, because they are some of my best ones. It's just that they take a little effort to get to (and I mean a little), so they are ignored by all but the hardcore locals, who have all found them already...so there they sit.

I put them there for a reason...they are in an interesting area and involve a nice hike. That reason is still there, so I see no need to remove the caches and I'd be pretty pissed if I was forced to archive them because of some arbitrary rule.

Edited January 1, 2004 by briansnat

January 1, 2004

I have found a cache in my area that has been archived. I am unable to get ahold of the owners to tell them it is still alive and well. When they went to check on it after a couple of DNF's were logged they couldn't find it themselves.

My question, how do i get this cache un-archived as I would like to adopt it and take it as my own, it is a VERY good hide.

2.3k · January 1, 2004

I have found a cache in my area that has been archived. I am unable to get ahold of the owners to tell them it is still alive and well. When they went to check on it after a couple of DNF's were logged they couldn't find it themselves.

My question, how do i get this cache un-archived as I would like to adopt it and take it as my own, it is a VERY good hide.

Well you already did the first step - contact the cache owner...

If he agrees to let you adopt the cache then contact one of the approvers to make the change...

What will work the fastest would be to just put your own cache there... if the old one is archived then it shouldn't be a problem. I would still contact the owner and wait a reasonable amount of time for a response before placing my own cache there.

January 1, 2004

I am wondering what people's opinions are about unpopular or old caches... I have a cache out in the pinelands of south jersey that has not been visited in 45 days. I wouldn't actually mind having this cache archived...

A month and a half is nothing. Try a YEAR and a half.

Personally, I like looking for caches that haven't been visited in a while. I find it creates a bit of uncertainty not knowing if the cache is there or not. Consequently, when I do find it there is more of a sense of accomplishment.

Would You?

Would I be opposed to a regulation that limited the time a cache is valid?

VEHEMENTLY!

Edited January 1, 2004 by SE7EN

3k · January 1, 2004

A lot of my caches go 6 months, or more between finds. I'm not gonna archive them, because they are some of my best ones. It's just that they take a little effort to get to (and I mean a little), so they are ignored by all but the hardcore locals, who have all found them already...so there they sit.

I put them there for a reason...they are in an interesting area and involve a nice hike. That reason is still there, so I see no need to remove the caches and I'd be pretty pissed if I was forced to archive them because of some arbitrary rule.

Yes, it's absolutely true. BrianSnat, and people like BrianSnat, have placed a good number of truly high-quality caches in excellent locations that are, to me, the epitome of what geocaching can be.

That's why I am always baffled when people like that take exception to proposals like the one I summarized above. These same geocachers have shown a ability to comprehend and comply with the many rules for placing caches; why do they appear to be incapable of comprehending that their cache would never be subject to archival by some "arbitrary rule" if they simply complied with a simple, periodic renewal process?

There is no doubt in my mind the sticking point is cache maintenance. The fact of the matter is very, very few cache owners ever pay even a single maintenance visit to their caches, and they have absolutely no intention of ever so doing.

20.7k · January 1, 2004

I don't understand why people would wish to make additional rules regarding this issue. This particular proposal attempts to resolve some percieved problem, but actually doesn't touch on the true issue.

Many caches go many months without anyone searching for them. Why force create a rule dealing with all caches when you are really only concerned with those that are missing. Any rule really should be keyed towrds those caches that were attempted but unfound a certain number of times.

The proposed requirement also doesn't take into accout those caches that are being informally adopted by area cachers. The owner of the first cache I found (and one of my all time faves) is somewhat inactive. He hasn't logged into the site in six months. I don't know if he monitors the cache or not. What I do know is that a number of local cachers (myself included) look in on it occasionally to make sure its OK. The cache is fine and always will be, even if the owner never checks on it again. Under the proprosed rule, caches like this might have to be adopted or archived. Neither is necessary.

Please be aware, I have no reason to believe that the owner of the referenced cache is not maintaining it. I only know that he hasn't got on GC.com recently. I haven't emailed him and frankly don't see that it would be required.

January 2, 2004

Out in the desert many caches are not visited for over 150 days. These 150+ days just happen to be the summer when nobody in thier right mind would want to go on a 10k hike in 120+ temps just to do the "Ragged Top Triple Crown" or any other group of caches for that matter. They'd be dead in a matter of minutes. That rule really wouldn't work, because of environmental condition, lack of cachers in an area ect.

January 2, 2004

one of my caches goes by without visitors for over a month and just when i'm thinking i need to go check it out someone logs a find. i say just leave it and see what happens. if you build it they will come. lol. :unsure:

January 2, 2004

45 days isnt much at all just leave it

1.6k · January 2, 2004

We have a cache (GCFA2B) that went over 7 months before the FIRST find! It's out in the desert, actually unsafe in the summer, not recommended. Now, it is very poipular, and we also just visited, for the hike, not because it needed maintenance.

No new rules needed.

January 2, 2004

We have a cache (GCFA2B) that went over 7 months before the FIRST find! It's out in the desert, actually unsafe in the summer, not recommended. Now, it is very poipular, and we also just visited, for the hike, not because it needed maintenance.

No new rules needed.

Now that would be odd creating a cache and not one person searchign for it till 7 months later. Unless you made it right before summer started so no one wanted to until winter like you mentioned.

2.7k · January 2, 2004

Let them lie. Lots of my Caches are far off the beaten path and don't get visited that often. Then on top of that we have some bad winter weather out here in CO and the hills are just shut down for about 6 months anyways.

3.9k · January 2, 2004

45 days? Check this out. one of mine that hasn't been visited in 172 days. And that was the one and only visitor. You need a 4 wheel drive to get to it so that's the reason. But I don't think I need to archive it. Eventually someone with a 4x4 will make the trip. Actually now that I'm looking the cache page I should make the trip myself and change it to an ammo box and put some better swag in there.

Edited January 2, 2004 by JMBella

January 2, 2004

New rules? Are you serious? I think that comes from the "numbers count" perspective. Guess what. They don't.

My Popes Ferry III cache went close to 7 months without a find. I did maintenance, of course. But a new rule forcing hiders to do maintenance? No, no, no.

There are several rules I'd like to see eliminated, but as an SC member of the GGA I'll keep my big trap shut. Maybe.

The .10 mile rule on the stages of a multi is absurd, imho. A devious hider could eliminate multiple (could? how about does?) acres of land from use by other hiders.

January 2, 2004

45 days is a very short time, check this.

January 3, 2004

Hey... I was trying to get some conversation going about this subject and apparently lots of people have something to say about it... thanks for the responses. I will leave my cache alone...

January 3, 2004

and PS... about you guys that think I really want to see more rules created... I am a Libertarian and a big fan of less government... which also means that I am a fan of letting people self govern their own lives... I only started this thread to get people talking. I agree that a person can archive their own cache if they want to and I agree with that.

Happy New Year everyone!

January 3, 2004

It could also drive up the amount of geolitter.

I hate litter. But one mans trash is another mans treasure! My son searched for and found some old ink bottles that used cork stoppers near where we lived next to some land that used to have on old mill town school that has been gone for over 50 years. These old blue glass bottles are a treasure for him but 50 years ago they were trash and litter. I personally thik it would be a real treasure to find a cache that was 10 or 20 yrs old someday.

5.3k · January 3, 2004

I am wondering what people's opinions are about unpopular or old caches... I have a cache out in the pinelands of south jersey that has not been visited in 45 days. I wouldn't actually mind having this cache archived...

So what do you all think about some regulation that would take a look at caches that have not been visited in quite some time. And maybe recommend those caches for archival. I would not be opposed to that regulation.

Would You?

45 days is not very long, some of my caches can go for months without getting a hit. It depends on where the cache is. My urban caches get hit more often, they are easy to get to. I have one that take about 1.5 hours up a hill that does not get hit very often, it seems the vetran cachers are more likely to seek out the hard ones (They already found the easy one ). I have a travel bug that is in a cache that gets found maybe four times a year, it is a multi leg cache the requires a 14 mile hike, I would like to see a rule against this length of a cache.

38.2k · January 4, 2004

That's why I am always baffled when people like that take exception to proposals like the one I summarized above. These same geocachers have shown a ability to comprehend and comply with the many rules for placing caches; why do they appear to be incapable of comprehending that their cache would never be subject to archival by some "arbitrary rule" if they simply complied with a simple, periodic renewal process?

Actually, I have no problem with the idea of "renewal" and I've supported it in the past.

My only concern is ensuring that any non renewed caches are physically removed before being archived.

9.4k · January 4, 2004

45 days is a very short time, check this.

If I ever get to Finland, that one will be on my list! :huh:

Old Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation