[Az-Geocaching] More on abandoned Caches

[teamcbx2]

We have to agree with the cache owner being responsable for mataining or
having someone in the area watching there caches.  When we were in CA we
came across a cache that had a no find ( only piece found over the cliff)
loged  and the cache owner had not replaced it for over a month.  We changed
out contaniers and salvage what was left of the old cache.  That is just a
geocaching courtesy. I think the owner should put the cache on hold until
they can get there if it will be awhile before they can check on it.    We
had to finally lay to rest our canal cache after being taken 3 times.  Just
our opion.
Team CBx2

-----Original Message-----
From: az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
[mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of Mike
Schwarz
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:56 PM
To: az-geocaching@listserv.azgeocaching.com
Subject: [Az-Geocaching] More on abandoned Caches


I'm not sure how to post messages here other than thru email.  If
anyone knows how to do that via your web browser, please advise.

A few comments on local Caches below, replying to Feedle.

Mike (Malthusian)

>On Wed, 15 May 2002, C. Sullivan wrote:

><rant>

>This is rapidly becoming a personal pet peeve of mine.  I'm currently
>visiting Colorado, and a significant number of the caches in the Denver
>area are in various states of "missing", with no update from the cache
>maintainer.  Worse: there are a few that contain "notes" from the cache
>maintainer that the cache is indeed not there, yet the are not marked
>"unavailable".

Mike:
Sounds like "Ya Skala" near downtown Phoenix.  I just checked the
web page for this one at 9 PM 5/15.  It appears to be "active", but
the owner posted a note on 4/23 that it would be repaired and replaced
soon, and they would post another note when it was actually replaced.
NOTHING has been posted since.  This one should definitely have been
temporarily disabled or archived.  This is the 22nd day that is has
NOT been there, taken away by the owner.

>But the biggest issue is this "unmaintained" cache thing.  There are a
>number of caches out there that have no active maintainer.  On a recent
>trip to Bakersfield, there were no fewer than three caches (2/3 of the
>caches in the area) that apparently have been abandoned by their owner and
>not maintained.  One of the abandoned caches in question was placed by a
>group of schoolteachers!

Mike:
Another example was "Time is Running" by Brent.  I saw a number of
Couldnt-find-it logs in December, but decided to do a little searching
late in the day on Feb 27.  After not finding it, I sent an email to
Brent asking him to confirm it was still there- he stated in his
Cache description that it was close to his house.  Heard no reply.
On Mar 17, I posted a note that the Cache was probably gone, and
this time requested the Cache owner to confirm it was there, via
the post-a-note log.  5 days later, nothing again apparently had
been done, so I sent to a request to geocaching.com admin to check
into it.  They archived the Cache that evening.

>I don't blame the NPS for their policy.  It's one thing to place a cache
>in a location that you can frequently visit: that's not
>"abandoning" it.  But people often times place caches in locations that
>they are visiting, or that they may never get to again.  This is just
>wrong.  The NPS is charged with protecting the integrity of the sites
>they control.. the don't want to have to clean up the mess that our hobby
>can infrequently generate.

>A Geocacher in California I had the pleasure of having coffee with after
>meeting them at a remote cache site said that people should use a "24-hour
>rule" when placing caches.  If you cannot be at the cache site in 24
>hours after somebody posts a "can't find" log OR after recieving notice
>from somebody to remove your cache, you shouldn't place it.  I think it's
>a good rule: if you place a cache someplace in Utah and you're retired (or
>work at home) so there's nothing stopping you from driving up to Utah and
>retriving it on short notice, okay.  If you can't be where you've placed
>the cache the next day, you probably shouldn't place it.  If there's no
>way you could take a day off work to truck up there and get it, it
>probably shouldn't be placed.

Mike:
This I don't agree with.  The Boca Boyz placed the Bat Cave Cache here,
and I wouldn't expect them to make a special trip to Phoenix from Florida
to check on the Cache.  However, if a number of no-finds are reported,
and you live far away from your Cache, you could either email a request
to a few people who HAVE found your Cache, to check to see if its still
there, whenever they get a chance; or, at the very least, temporarily
disable the Cache, stating that you can't conveniently check on it.
I placed the Far Above the Greens Cache near Riverside, CA in December,
and I won't make a special trip out there just to check on it.  But I
WILL monitor it on the web closely, and do either of the above steps
if need be.

Regardless of whether the Cache placer lives near their Cache or not,
the main problem is Caches being abandoned- probably because people
just get real busy with work, other affairs, or lose interest in
Geocaching.  Maybe us "active" people will just have to fill in, and
"clean up" the site of these "orphans".  I may just do that soon with
"Secret Garden" on the ASU campus.  I confirmed that this was gone
on April 30.  Nothing's been done by the Cache owner since.

>Unmaintained Geocaches are just more litter on the side of the road.

>-Fedl


_______________________________________________
Az-Geocaching mailing list
listserv@azgeocaching.com
http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching

Arizona's Geocaching Resource
http://www.azgeocaching.com