In our case the original owner and I were talking and discussed the 
how's and whys of adopting All Aboard Gone up here.  We just went about 
it backwards.  There was a time when you could send an email to 
someone?? at GC.com and the adoption was done. This is how I adopted Not 
Forget the 'S' some years ago.  Now you have to use an adoption page and 
the original owner should enter the data first that he/she is allowing 
you to adopt the cache.  It starts here now: 
http://www.geocaching.com/adopt/   IF the original owner is out of the 
picture, I don't think there is any way in the world to adopt the cache 
any more.  I have another one up here that I am keeping quite about, I 
have it on my watch list and if there is a note on it I will go over and 
take care of it or answer the person directly.  The original owner is 
out of town now and we just have not got together to start the adoption 
correctly (in the opinion of GC.com)

Sorry to see an old cache bite the dust.  I believe it is one person at 
GC.com that is running the show and I have had many email exchanges with 
him and he is NO help or understanding.

Good luck,  Bob Smith, Team Petite Elite


  On 9/28/07, AZcachemeister <azcachemeister@getnet.com> wrote:
    We could have seen this coming back when Petite Elite attempted to 
adopt All Aboard Gone up in Prescott. I can't remember if the original 
owner was out of contact, but the logic was that the container was 
missing, so the cache could only be un-archived to the original owner, 
and not an adoptee.
    I read something in the forums that hinted that archived caches will 
be taken off the maps soon, so the only way you would be able to 'find' 
them would be by knowing the waypoint ID, or perhaps by looking at 
someones found list.
    Apparently 'cache permanence' is falling by the wayside, so stock up 
on 'Gladware' and just archive the cache and 'hide' a new one when the 
container disintegrates.

    Richard Daines wrote:
      There have been several conversations on the forum about just this 
topic and as predicted, this is the response.  GC seems to lean to 
archiving rather that adoption if the original owner doesn't get 
involved.  There is a similar cache here in Missouri that appears to 
have been quietly adopted but is Disabled none the less.  Unless the 
original owner speaks up, I bet this one will be Disabled too regardless 
of it condition.  I guess I can see the point that a cache needs an 
owner, a point of contact.  Having to apply for a new cache at the 
location
      seems extreme but this is how GC tries to have control.