Group: Super Administrators
Joined: Dec. 2001
||Posted: Nov. 22 2003,7:24 am
|Quote (Volvo Man @ Nov. 22 2003,2:15 am)|
|WOW, the attitude to cache maintenance here is so diametrically opposed to GC.com. |
You bring up a few valid points.
While we we do have a different approach to "abandoned" caches than GC.com, we do both have the same goal and that is to prevent needless geo-litter. So I don't think "diametrically opposed" would be the best term.
The attitude I got from some of their members when I was trying to get the rules changed to allow a vacation/business trip micro in a spot where there are no caches for 10 miles, was that "if the hider can't maintain it twice weekly, then #### it I'm not going to"
This is more an "approval" process difference than determination of abandoned cache, but they do (after the fact) seem to become related subjects. I think the first difference is in the definition of "what is an abandoned cache?" The question needs to be asked, is this cache abandoned or orphaned? And yes, there is a difference. If a park employee, hiker, geocacher or who ever contacts us stating that they found this cache box full of trinkets and mold and mildew, it hasn't been logged in months they have been unable to contact the owner then this would probably be an abandoned cache. On the other hand, if we are contacted and told 'xxx cache appears to be abandoned because the owner does not respond to my emails and has not checked it every 14.5 days as stated in the International Geocaching Society Charter', but checking we find the cache listing contains current logs stating things like "great cache, found it", then this may at best be an orphaned cache. In either case attempts at contacting the owner would be made by us and if unsuccessful, a determination would then have to be made on the caches status. This is why I stated earlier that kind of like approvals, each report of a suspected abandoned cache would have to be considered individually.
Whereas, Quinn's post advocates the "Community Spirit" that is needed to change a micro log once in a while.
You are also correct in that we operate more on a "Community Spirit" principal rather than that of an "Overseer". This attitude is probably a major player in the differences you see in how abandoned caches (and other things) may be handled. To continue on this would be off-topic though so I will leave it at that.
Also, as I pointed out there, I don't advocate GeoLitter, but if a micro cache goes missing, If it wasn't in the third hollow up from the roots or whatever, Its gone, most likely nobody's going to find it. Fair enough it would be nice if it got replaced, but it can be archived until then, no sense in dragging the cache owner out just to look for a film container that isn't there.
Here we may differ a little in that if it "goes missing" then YES the cache owner (should they wish to retain ownership) should be the one to go out and replace it, but the trick is first determining IS it really gone. This would be off-topic here and any more on this would be best in a seperate thread about pirated/lost caches.
Someone also posted that seemingly abandoned caches should be removed by the approvers over there (physically). I pointed out that that isn't up to them as it may be listed elsewhere where the cachers may be willing to maintain it.
If a cache has in fact been determined to be 'truly' abandoned, and the person that reported it is not in a position for a return trip to retrieve it, then I see no problem with their approver going out to do so. After all, if we are against geo-litter then we need to act on it when possible.
You also bring up another good point here in that if a cache owner lists their cache with more than one service, then they need to maintain those accounts/listings. If they do not, then they may one day find some undesirable results.