MnGCA

[Heres_Waldo]

It all depends on the situation. If the cache is missing and the CO is long inactive, I typically 1) send a message asking to adopt and explaining the adoption process (including the link). If I don't hear back, I 2) place an archive note. It's the owners responsibility to maintain it, and it pains me to see someone hogging up real-estate when someone else could place something there.

There are exceptions though. For example if the cache is on a WMA. I still send the adoption request, but I'd then replace the cache since it is grandfathered in. Same for challenge caches or other grandfathered types where they could not be re-hid.

I too have been frustrated with the adoption process. I agree in that I wish there were a way around the COs if need be. I sent a request to someone who was inactive for a while who had about 10 or so out and most missing. They were delighted to let me adopt! However, I could not get them to start the process, even after several emails of reminders and spelling it out for them and explaining that it will only take 5 minutes of copying and pasting...

I also asked to adopt a WMA cache from a similar CO who had not been on for years. Never heard back, but noticed the CO logged on to geocaching.com for the first time in forever and archived the cache (rather than going through the adoption process).

[Pear Head]

[dornole]

Yep, in general archiving seems like the way to go. New hides.

I wonder if cache density affects how people feel about it. Back in the 2003 when I started caching I think I would have been more protective. Now in the Twin Cities the cache density is so high and there are so many hiders that spots which open up don't stay empty for long. I wonder if in places where there still aren't a lot of caches, people feel differently. But even then, I think if you are willing to put in all that effort to contact COs, adopt etc then why not just let it archive and place a new one. Exceptions if it's historic or a favor to a friend.

[WestSideDaddy]

I'm just not sure what I think about the whole replacement thing. Having been the beneficiary of it I appreciate it to a certain extent (Some one replaces the log container which was missing from Pushmi-Pullmi).

But on the other hand, there was a puzzle final that had been DNFs for several months. I tried contacting the CO several times. I contacted several past finders to confirm the container type and location and was going to mark in NA. Then out of the blue a cacher logs it found. I checked the log and it was effectively "Lots of DNFs, container must be missing, so I replaced it".

Just leaves me with a weird feeling. I could have done the same thing and saved myself all the time.

Seems like there should be a difference between repairing a cache (container is broken, log is full, needs a zip lock) and just replacing it.

It almost seems like (to me at least) there should be an automatic flag on the caches that if the owner hasn't logged into the site in over some period (6 months, 9month 12 months, something) that it is automatically flagged for NA. And unless they log in, or maybe if it is still an actively found cache, it would get archived. As a programmer I would think that sort of stuff would be easy to do. But I suppose that isn't a new idea and clearly hasn't been accepted.

[casinoman]

[Moe the Sleaze]

[KRedEP]

We visited California a few weeks ago (still not finished with the logs!) and searched for quite awhile for a cache that apparently wasn't there. There had been numerous DNF's and multiple Needs Maintenance logs Since we didn't check logs until we had been looking for awhile it was annoying to have spent so much time there. Being from out of state we were conscious that the archiving culture there might be different from what we are used to, but when I got back I posted a NA and it was promptly disabled by the reviewer. I just don't feel people should continue to look for a cache that isn't there.

As far as doing maintenance on someone else's cache. I appreciate cachers fixing things that are broken, or adding a baggie or new log to replace a wet log. But if the cache is gone, I feel that's the owner's responsibility. Someone coming along doesn't know where it was hidden, or what type of container. And personally, I don't trust my finding skills enough to determine that a cache is gone to replace it. I feel the owner should check on it.

[Tropicalloon]

Earlier today I was about to look for a puzzle university cache when I noticed this recent log from a cacher with a little over 100 finds: "This one was missing but I replaced it at the same exact coordinates." There is a string of DNF's back to December before the recent log. I opted not to go for it, as I feel w/o conferring with previous finders, it may have been placed at the coords, but probably not exactly the same as the CO had placed it. I realize caches sometimes wander as finders put them back in place, caches fall onto the ground from their hidey holes, etc. But, in this case, I prefer to find the real hide!

[Rustynails]

A while back I searched for this tribute cache http://coord.info/GC2J1DF and found someone had used a McDonalds cup for a temporary container. It was just archived.

[team_geomonkey]

Just this past weekend, found one that used to be an ammo can. Now it's a cardboard sunchips box under a bridge. I thought it was trash at first. Nope.. a soggy, falling apart geocache.