Neglectful Cache Owner: Most Polite Approach?

1.2k · October 27, 2004

OK, it goes like this:

Somewhere in the USA a very cool, useful, well-placed, and popular cache really annoys me because it's owner just does not seem to care. Anyone who knows me knows which one I am talking about, but for politeness purposes, I'd rather not name the cache or owner here. The cache is not at all maintained by the owner.

I love this cache. It needed a new logbook, so I provided one when the old one was full. It needed to be cleaned out, so I did that as well. I wanted it to survive.

The cache desperately needs parking coords and a better-written page. I've posted parking coords in my logs on the cache page, since parking is horrid around there. I have received grateful thanks from other cachers in response. Of course, that does not help folks who do not read the logs first.

The cache has long-dead TB's in it that really need to be taken off the cache page. I am not sure what a visiting cacher can do with that one.

Anyhoo, this cache is not in my immediate area, because if it were, I'd adopt it in a nanosecond if I could.

It's a good cache. It deserves a really caring owner. I've emailed the owner and have gotten no response. He still visits the site often, according to his stats. Last cache hunt was July. So technically he is still active, sort of.

What I wanna do is GET this cache a local, caring owner. But I want to do it in the most tactful, classy way possible. Losing the cache would piss off the current semi-active owner, but geez, if you don't take care of a good cache, and it takes other cachers to do so, what the heck?

What is the most tactful, classy way to approach this? Email an admin for that area and let them handle it?

Thanks in advance for any positive advice. :huh:

Edited October 27, 2004 by Sparrowhawk

2.3k · October 27, 2004

Unfortunately, if the owner won't respond to your emails and the locals can't "do it on their own," I would have to recommend pulling the trigger and posting a "should be archived" note. Once it's gone, someone local can do the deed of replacing the cache and maintaining it properly.

At least, that's my take on it...

October 27, 2004

When you have solicited a local person willing to adopt the cache, contact the approver and explain the situation. If the approver gets no response from the owner, adoption should be straightforward.

1.2k · October 27, 2004

Unfortunately, if the owner won't respond to your emails and the locals can't "do it on their own," I would have to recommend pulling the trigger and posting a "should be archived" note. Once it's gone, someone local can do the deed of replacing the cache and maintaining it properly.

That would cause a flood of protests from other fans of the same cache. "Hey, it's still active and gets lots of visits, why be that drastic?!"

1.2k · October 27, 2004

When you have solicited a local person willing to adopt the cache, contact the approver and explain the situation. If the approver gets no response from the owner, adoption should be straightforward.

Good idea. Recruit a new cacher first, then talk to an approver. I could probably find somebody...

2.3k · October 27, 2004

When you have solicited a local person willing to adopt the cache, contact the approver and explain the situation. If the approver gets no response from the owner, adoption should be straightforward.

Good idea. Recruit a new cacher first, then talk to an approver. I could probably find somebody...

Yep, much better than my version...!

2.5k · October 27, 2004

I would say since you already seem to be maintaining the cache that you should just petition for ownership of it.

Do what they said. Write the approver and explain. The approver then has to write the cache owner and if they don't hear back in 30 days, they consider it abandoned and it will be yours.

October 27, 2004

When you have solicited a local person willing to adopt the cache, contact the approver and explain the situation. If the approver gets no response from the owner, adoption should be straightforward.

I agree with TZoid I think this is the best route.

Thorin

1.1k · October 27, 2004

The cache has long-dead TB's in it that really need to be taken off the cache page. I am not sure what a visiting cacher can do with that one.

A visitor cacher can't do anything to make the TB as missing. The cache and TB owners can or you can email the folks at contact@Groundspeak.com. They have been very good at removing TB's from pages that I have let them know have MIA bugs listed.

Zack

1.2k · October 27, 2004

I would say since you already seem to be maintaining the cache that you should just petition for ownership of it.

Do what they said. Write the approver and explain. The approver then has to write the cache owner and if they don't hear back in 30 days, they consider it abandoned and it will be yours.

Unfortunately the cache in question is about 900 miles from me, in a city I fly to about once or twice a year.

October 29, 2004

can you at least name the city?

1.2k · October 29, 2004

Somewhere waaaaay south of Oregon.

By the way, I have already written to a trusted, good-reputation cacher in that area with a creative idea for maintaining the cache, looking for his feedback. If it thinks it's cool, then we can proceed.

The idea: he and I can share a geocaching login created just for that cache. I maintain the page, and he physically visits it maybe twice a year. We will see what he says and what Groundspeak says about any subsequent cache adoption proposal from there. He'd technically own it, I'd just be kinda helping. A lot. :mad:

Edited October 29, 2004 by Sparrowhawk

24.7k · October 29, 2004

What's broken about it? You solved the one real problem with the cache saving the owner the need.

What they are guilty of is not having a cache page up to your standards or maintaining the cache up to your standards.

Now if you can sell GC.com on your standards as a minimal standard, the owner will live up to them, or not. Until then it's like looking at your neighbors lawn in need of some mowing and TLC. Yes it's ugly to you, but it's their lawn.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

1.2k · October 29, 2004

What's broken about it? You solved the one real problem with the cache saving the owner the need.

What they are guilty of is not having a cache page up to your standards or maintaining the cache up to your standards.

Now if you can sell GC.com on your standards as a minimal standard, the owner will live up to them, or not. Until then it's like looking at your neighbors lawn in need of some mowing and TLC. Yes it's ugly to you, but it's their lawn.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

I plan on seeing if the more-experienced cacher sees anything in the idea, and if Groundspeak thinks I am cool or full of it, and graciously take the best course from there.

Frankly, looking at 2+ years of cachers screaming for cache-page-posted parking coords in the logs (just one of the issues) means it just ain't my standards, when you get right down to to it. It isn't just being neglectful of the cache, it's also not really caring much about fellow cachers either trying to deal with the thing.

Edited October 29, 2004 by Sparrowhawk

6.4k · October 29, 2004

I'm with RK on this one.

There is no requirement for the hider to have parking coords.

On some caches, I add them, on others, finding the right parking is part of the challenge. You are under no obligation to seek any cache. If you only like doing ones where the hider tells you where to park, what trail to take, and what rock to look under for the cache, that's fine. Personally, I think that those caches are more letterbox then geocache, but that's my opinion.

As far I can see, (and it's pretty easy to figure out what cache is being discussed) the only real "problem" with the cache currently is the cache description isn't up to your standards. It has a set of coords. That's all it needs to have. I doubt very much the site is going to pull ownership of a cache from an active user because they won't dress up the page to your liking.

As far as the missing TB's go: the option for a cache owner to mark a TB missing is fairly new. Most cache owners still don't seem to know they have the power to remove the TB from the page. They assume the TB owner still has to do it. The fact that a cache owner hasn't marked a TB missing doesn't seem a good enough reason to take the cache away from him.

Edited October 29, 2004 by Mopar

October 29, 2004

RK, let me ask you this, because I've been soul searching this for a while.

There are seven caches placed by the same person. This person has not logged into GC.com in a year and their account has never been validated. They found a dozen or so caches and then stopped. Emails to the account sent through GC.com as well as emails sent to the address on one of the cache pages bounce.

I have found all of these caches within the last 6 months. Every one of them needs either a new log book or are damp inside. Several are downright disgusting. One is certainly not placed according to the standards that we now set for ourselves. I sent email to my local approver for guidance but they have not replied in 5 days. The local group has discussed it in our own forums and we seem to have reached a consensus that we ought to at least maintain them, in absentia.

I'm planning to do a "rescue mission" to clean them out and add new log books before the winter weather sets in. Most of them are nice easy finds and in a good and popular place. I would prefer that one or two of them be archived because they are bound to get someone in trouble some day and the areas would be better suited to have well-thought-out caches placed by an active cacher.

But that's just my opinion. Technically, there's probably nothing wrong with them other than they need to be maintained.

6.4k · October 29, 2004

RK, let me ask you this, because I've been soul searching this for a while.

There are seven caches placed by the same person. This person has not logged into GC.com in a year and their account has never been validated. They found a dozen or so caches and then stopped. Emails to the account sent through GC.com as well as emails sent to the address on one of the cache pages bounce.

I have found all of these caches within the last 6 months. Every one of them needs either a new log book or are damp inside. Several are downright disgusting. One is certainly not placed according to the standards that we now set for ourselves. I sent email to my local approver for guidance but they have not replied in 5 days. The local group has discussed it in our own forums and we seem to have reached a consensus that we ought to at least maintain them, in absentia.

I'm planning to do a "rescue mission" to clean them out and add new log books before the winter weather sets in. Most of them are nice easy finds and in a good and popular place. I would prefer that one or two of them be archived because they are bound to get someone in trouble some day and the areas would be better suited to have well-thought-out caches placed by an active cacher.

But that's just my opinion. Technically, there's probably nothing wrong with them other than they need to be maintained.

I think this is a totally different situation then a cache where the only real problem is the active cache owner won't add parking coords to the description.

TresOkies's 7 caches should probably be logged with an SBA note, and include an offer to trash out or adopt the caches. There is another problem other then the caches arent being maintained in this case (and I still argue not adding parking coords is not the same as not maintaining a cache). The cache owner can't be contacted if there is a legitimate problem (a complaint about cache page design is not a legit problem IMNHO).

Edited October 29, 2004 by Mopar

October 29, 2004

It needed a new logbook...

It needed to be cleaned out...

The cache desperately needs parking coords and a better-written page.

The cache has long-dead TB's in it...

I've emailed the owner and have gotten no response.

I've edited your post a little to highlight some points I'd like to address. Of the five issues described, I'd say that only one of them (the email issue) would throw up a red flag for me. Here's why I say this:

While I agree that maintenance is all about things like keeping the log book fresh and keeping the contents updated, there's nothing to FORCE an owner to do these things. Regarding information included (or not included, as the case may be) on the cache page, that's totally up to the owner, IMHO. Regarding the dead TBs, the burden keeping up with them should lie on the TB owner, not the cache owner.

The email issue, however, is a serious problem and would warrant some action.

Again, all this is my opinion.

6.4k · October 29, 2004

I've edited your post a little to highlight some points I'd like to address. Of the five issues described, I'd say that only one of them (the email issue) would throw up a red flag for me. Here's why I say this:

While I agree that maintenance is all about things like keeping the log book fresh and keeping the contents updated, there's nothing to FORCE an owner to do these things. Regarding information included (or not included, as the case may be) on the cache page, that's totally up to the owner, IMHO. Regarding the dead TBs, the burden keeping up with them should lie on the TB owner, not the cache owner.

The email issue, however, is a serious problem and would warrant some action.

Again, all this is my opinion.

I think there is a bit more then the OP states in the forum.

Here's a quote from a note the OP made on the cache page:

For the record, I have emailed the cache owner about changing the page, including posting the parking coords on the page. I got no response whatsoever other than one general acknowedgement, then dead silence. All we need are some of these pics added to the page itself, and parking coords too! Have some consideration for other cachers, please, dear J-Man! Maybe others can try to email him too and it may make a difference.

Sounds to me the cache owner DID respond once, and probably got tired of repeated emails badgering him to add parking coords and pictures to the cache page. Judging by the tone of the notes posted to the cache page, I'd probably put the guy on ignore too.

1.2k · October 29, 2004

In my opinion, IF it takes a complete outsider to clean up a cache, donate a new logbook, post parking coords, do something about dead bugs on the page, wait over a year and several emails to a cache owner saying "can you please do necessary maintenance as a consideration to other cachers?" with no response... :mad:

12 months ago, I decided to give it at least 12 months before doing anything. At this point, I am just exploring the idea, because I don't like the idea of being an 'evil cache taker-over' person (that's why I waited a year). But then again, sheesh, I've been doing more maintenance on the thing than the owner himself, who does not respond. The tipping point was a couple of recent emails saying "You are a better maintainer than the cache owner" and "I wish you owned this cache." Aw geez... maybe I SHOULD do something in that direction...

It's also scary-close near to federally secure kind of place... would be nice to add some certain helpful info which could keep cachers from getting in trouble. We've had enough police trouble with a cache near just a bleepin' ice cream shop recently, not even close to being a securely-protected target, so this would be much worse. Be nice to add some preventive medicine... nothing has happened yet, but ya never know. Best to take care of things upfront.

Just my thought du jour... still awaiting wisdom by email from my experienced cacher friend who knows the situation. I intend to back off graciously if it seems that "reason against" weighs greater than "reason for" in the long run. No reason to be a turkey, even if thanksgiving is coming up.

Edited October 29, 2004 by Sparrowhawk

6.4k · October 29, 2004

In my opinion, IF it takes a complete outsider to clean up a cache, donate a new logbook, post parking coords, do something about dead bugs on the page, wait over a year and several emails to a cache owner saying "can you please do necessary maintenance as a consideration to other cachers?" with no response...

Looks like you DID get one response, no?

It's great that you helped maintain the cache, most of us do it all the time. However, looking at the cache page (and there are lots of logs, so I might have missed it) I don't see anyone mentioning the logbook was full and needed to be replaced, or the cache needing any sort of maintaining. I also see someone mention there are other places to park to access the cache, and depending on where you are coming from, those places may be better then your parking.

So, unless I'm missing something, you are complaining that the cache owner didn't maintain a cache that according to the logs was in fine shape, and the hider won't use your one of many parking coords on the cache page. The owner has logged into the site within the last few days, and is actively finding caches. You said you've been waiting over a year for him to clean out the dead TBs. A year ago he COULDN'T do it, even if he wanted. The owner has only had the option a few months, and it's not exactly been well publicized. Personally, I think it's the TB owner's responsibility to maintain their TB, just like the cache owner maintains their cache.

So, how is the cache owner being neglectful again?

Edited October 29, 2004 by Mopar

1.2k · October 29, 2004

I just found out the address of a good approver who would know the local situation too. :mad:

I should save myself a bunch of effort and get his official word whether the idea is cool or not cool from THE official source!

Sheesh... wish I thunk that one up a long time ago. Woulda saved myself a bunch of effort and tying and wondering and effort on the issue to start with. The official word would probably be just to back off, with which I would happily comply. Or maybe there's a third angle I am not seeing. Who knows?

Stay tuned...!

24.7k · October 29, 2004

Parking coordinates are non issue. Dead TB's may be an annoyance but the owner didn't put them there and they certainly have no bearing on the viability of the cache. The logbook being full, that's a fair issue, but you fixed it.

It's certainly every cachers right to log "post parking coordinates logs" and to even post their own parking coordinates, however it's the owners right to leave the cache as they designed it.

The offical source is the owner. GC.com's world is what they will list. If the owner is active nobody has any business adopting out the cache against their will. The TOS don't yet have a paragraph saying "if you don't respond within X days to an official email we will adopt your cache out" Whether or not that paragraph should exist is another topic.

I can honestly say that if this happened to one of my caches and it was adopted out, I'd go pull my cache. My cache being listed by someone else? What's up with that? That's where you are going with this since the cache owner is active. Just not responding to you.

24.7k · October 29, 2004

RK, let me ask you this, because I've been soul searching this for a while....

Where the owner is missing, a reasonable effort to reach them has been made, and someone takes the time (nobody seems to do this) to double check they are not on NV.com etc. I have no issue with adopting or rescuing caches.

I'd love for it to be spelled out in the TOS for a listing site what happens if you are MIA and your email is dead or won't respond. That way you know going in what the protocol is.

I don't want geo litter out there, and I do belive that every cache archived should have it's status finalized either with a rescue mission, confirming it's listed on another site etc.

As for when to invoke the above process that's a harder call. Some say "when there is a problem". There are two other threads where having an active cache owner would be a dadgum good thing, so right now I'm leaning towards we need to look at whether or not the owner should be active (meaning reachable). for a cache listing to be active. Again that's another topic.

The debate in this thread though is really about an active owner who doesn't have the same view on maintaining or what should go on the cache page as Sparrowhawk.

October 29, 2004

I think its really nice that Sparrowhawk took the time to clean out the cache which I visited within the last month. I also really enjoyed the labels you made for the travel bugs mission. I, completely unfamiliar with the area, was able to find the cache and a place to park and that was part of the fun - there is no way that parking coords should be posted - it degrades the quality of the search. Someone should just use their common sense. In regards to the area it is in - yes it is "federally protected" (to a certain degree - but its still public property where the cache is hidden!) and when i went for the cache there was a police car who was parked nearby but the cache was hidden in a spot that I was able to duck in without being seen. The police car never moved and seemed unconcerend about what we were doing. There were also a number of walkers and joggers in that area. There was no problem. Also, when I visited the cahe - it was in great shape - far better than a lot of caches I've seen - maybe that's thanks to you and again, that's certainly a nice effort. But I have to agree with the other cachers who feel you in some way trying to make this cache conform to your personal standards. If this person is on gc - I'm sure they are aware of whats going on - perhaps they are just very nonsocial - I dunno. But regardless - that person came up with the cache location and the only way they should lose ownership is because the cache itself falls apart - that hasn't happened. Yes - you have helped that. But frankly, I think you are a bit too obsessed about this cache - why don't you take the idea and place it in Oregon or another state? I would also take the recommendation to contact Groundspeak about the dead tbs - I know thats fustrating - and that should solve that part of the problem. We have to remember that this is supposed to be fun - and yes we all do invest time and effort into finding caches and we expect them to be of a certain stadard - but we must also appreciate the individuality of each hide. Let it go.

1.4k · October 29, 2004

You should really post a link to the cache here. I just finished reading your notes on the page. I'll be polite and just say you might be a little out of line here.

October 29, 2004

Cache is fine, web page is fine. No reason to take either away from the owner.

1.2k · October 29, 2004

Mopar has crossed the line by posting this discussion on the page of the cache itself. That is EXTREMELY inflammatory and not classy. I shall close this thread to turn off any flameage that would ensue. I sure as heck would not do that to you, dear Mopar.

1.2k · October 31, 2004

Thread opened again for this post because something very interesting just happened! My suspicion that there just MIGHT be some Great Cosmic Reason for everything just got stronger. Kinda like the TV show Joan of Arcadia, somehow.

Wanting to go off and take over someone else's cache is not normally something I am all that interested in... I got some nice caches of my own to fawn over. I was WONDERING in the back of my head WTF was with my wanting to be all picky about this cache. Kinda like the same kind of wierd of wondering why would one suddenly really want to eat nothing but a certain food for several weeks in a row. It's not normally my M.O.

Now the need is gone... there's something more important happening here...

... because now it turns out that the cache owner has been through some HORRIBLE life disasters recently! Details are in the cache logs. :rolleyes: :anicute:

It's really bad stuff, folks. And NO ONE should suffer like THAT alone. Ever. The more caring people around, the better.

Someone once told me if you are compelled to do something you don't quite understand, and THEN you find something honestly good that can come out of it, then you've found the True Reason for having the strange compulsion - whether you believe in some greater diety or not. I never know WHAT to believe (that's for the theologians to debate) but this situation is turning out to be wierdly spooky in a warm-fuzzy kind of way. .

This whole thread uncovered a cacher in need. Ok, now I understand what the Greater Purpose would have been all about!

This is a wonderful online community. We are geocachers who CARE about each other. I would encourage others to PLEASE send J-Man, the cache owner, messages of emotional support. It's the least we can do. I have sent a compassionate letter already.

Oh yeah, and Mopar, no hurt feelings... sometimes there's no way we on Earth can see what the greater deal is from a greater-universe point of view. If J-Man needed some extra positiveness, then however a cosmic positiveness HAS to happen, it's gonna happen.

(Grand Central Station was the cache, by the way)

Take good care of yourself, J-Man. We're here for you.

Neglectful Cache Owner: Most Polite Approach?

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