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.
(text/plain)