MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Replacing missing caches
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Heres_Waldo
Geocacher


Joined: 28 Sep 2011

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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). Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5707

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sparkyfry wrote:
One situation where I think replacing a missing cache can be justified is in the case of challenge caches. If I've gone to the trouble of completing the requirements of a challenge, but the cache is no longer there and/or the CO has gone AWOL, I would be eternally grateful to anybody who replaced the final.


Why not just let the challenge cache run it's course and let someone hide a new challenge with the same requirements?
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
dornole
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Apr 2006

Posts: 464

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WestSideDaddy
Past MnGCA Board


Joined: 06 Apr 2010

Posts: 561

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
casinoman
Geocacher


Joined: 26 Mar 2008

Posts: 383

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dornole wrote:
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.


I now live in a place where there are not alot of caches (Bismarck ND)
I see way too many caches sit as DNF and NA for way to long. Some of the caches are worth a adopt and some are not. Many times I would rather see a new cache hidden than put another container out. I have a aera here that I have started to rotate the caches on a yearly rotate. I take out the old move a little and place a new. Gives the cachers a new cache to find every year. Now none of them have been hard YET. Sofar they have been for the kids they are in a really nice park.

Any way I would agree that if the cache is a old cache and the owner is no longer out and about try to adopt some of the older caches should stay. IMHO
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher


Joined: 10 Jan 2003

Posts: 1146

PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WestSideDaddy wrote:
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.


But this would most certainly result in viable caches being archived simply because their owners hadn't logged in for a while.

As a former reviewer, I can say that whether or not to archive a cache is seldom as clear-cut as you might think. I have taken abuse from people (cache owners and others) for archiving caches as well as for not archiving them. All I could do was judge each case on its own merit and do what I felt was appropriate.

My advice to anyone who feels a cache should be archived for any reason is to simply post a a "Needs Archived" (ack, I hate that phrase) log to bring it to the reviewers' attention and then accept whatever they decide to do about it.
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
KRedEP
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Aug 2007

Posts: 784

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tropicalloon
Geocacher


Joined: 22 Mar 2009

Posts: 132

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rustynails
Geocacher


Joined: 27 Oct 2009

Posts: 791

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Shocked It was just archived.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
team_geomonkey
Geocacher


Joined: 07 Dec 2009

Posts: 168

PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.