Lonely Cache Game and delinquent owners

[gotta run]

Ok, let me first start this thread by saying that I understand the reason for some the goals of the LCG being to “encourage the reporting or repair of missing or damaged caches and reducing the maintenance load on these caches for their owners.” And it’s a credit to the players in this who take the time and incur the expense to replace cache containers and keep quality caches in play.

However, I see a difference here when this is done for a willing owner, and through communicating and obtaining permission of said owner to do so, versus just doing it without involving the owner.

Sometimes caches are loney because of problems (dnfs or the community is aware there are problems so are not hunting it), and sometimes because the owners are no longer active in gc. Then, the so-called temporary replacement becomes a permanent replacement, and the cycle of owner delinquency regarding maintenance is perpetuated.

I’ve come across instances where these temporary replacements have had subsequent unresolved problems requiring admin intervention, or where a cache that the local cachers would be happy to have fall “off the grid” becuase of owner delinquency (thereby opening up the area for a better cache) was instead continued. Why not have these cases fall into the “cache rescue” category and archive?

On the Left Side of the Road...

[-cheeto-]

I’ve kinda become a deliquent owner recently and most of the time just archive them when they go missing. Having my caches replaced for me to keep them going is a godsend during a busy time in my life. But I know you’re talking about owners that leave the game….

As for those cache owners who left the game with caches out in the wild, without handing them over to someone or archiving. Well, they’re just litterers as far as I’m concerned.

I agree, if the owner is not in the game anymore, the LGC players should be removing these old, broken, moldy wet containers and posting needs archiving and they should get bonus points for this rather than replacing the container for someone who did not have the respect for the game and our environment to either hand it over to a new owner or pull it from the field.

If they are revisiting a lonely they’ve found before with tons of dnf’s and it’s not where they found it and the owner is clearly done with geocaching, they should get a bonus for posting a needs archived with legit information rather than bonus points for putting in a new container and (as the poster states) perpetuating the situation.

So I guess I’m saying I agree… doesn’t happen often! 🙂

-cheeto-

[Team Hemisphere Dancer]

Are we sure these owners are acutally out of the game or just put behind due to life circumstances?

Things can happen in life that put games aside for the real things that matter. I am not defending the folks that put out a cache and neverplay the game again nor do they respond to emails. But there are cases when some established cachers do not have the time to clean maintain due to personal crisis’ in their lives.

Make sure that you know the entire story before jumping to conclusions.

[gotta run]

@Team Hemisphere Dancer wrote:

Are we sure these owners are acutally out of the game or just put behind due to life circumstances?
…
Make sure that you know the entire story before jumping to conclusions.

Well, the particular circumstances that I know, the owner has gotten out of the game, but that is beside the point.

My point is that the LCG game is replacing or repairing caches that, for whatever reason, the owner is not attending to. Some believe that this is a good practice because it keeps those caches in play and helps out owners. I do not believe this is a good practice because it exacerbates the cycle of owner non-maintenance. (Not to mention duplicate caches because of the assumption one is missing and other issues…)

That is the discussion I am trying to raise here.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[labrat_wr]

@gotta run wrote:

However, I see a difference here when this is done for a willing owner, and through communicating and obtaining permission of said owner to do so.

As it aught to be….

where a cache that the local cachers would be happy to have fall “off the grid” becuase of owner delinquency (thereby opening up the area for a better cache) was instead continued. Why not have these cases fall into the “cache rescue” category and archive?

anyone may post an archive request if there is an obvious reason for the cache to be archived (missing, position comprimised, tree cut down, etc.).

I would hope that those replacing containers are considering the impact of replacing the caches. I have come across a few “rogue caches” that are in place but have no one to look after them. Not much you can do about those unless they mysteriously go missing……(not that I would advise that). One in particular, took several emails and months to contact the owner and I subsequently adopted the cache. If the location is worthy of the cache, perhaps it should be replaced. Also, if local cachers would rather it drop from the grid, an email to the replacer pleading your case why it should not be replaced may allow the replacer to reconsider.

JMO I could be wrong…..(Dennis Miller)

Disclaimer : Always answering to a higher power.

[Team Deejay]

I just did a quick review of the “revisits” in the month of September. There have been 34 revisits. Of those, 31 were owned by owners who had either found or placed a cache in the months of August or September (note that 19 of the 31 were for 3 particular owners, none of whom would be remotely considered inactive). Of the remaining 3 caches, all their owners were logged into gc.com during September 08, and one is still a premium member. I don’t think any of the owners would be considered delinquent.

I suspect you are referring to one specific cache. I would suggest that you post NA logs on that cache whenever you feel it needs it, and I can guarantee you action will be taken if it meets the standards.

[Team Hemisphere Dancer]

If the particular cache in questin is the one I think you are talking about I know the owners are not out of the game just taking a break for more important things in life.

I understand your point if in fact you are certain, but always make sure before you remove or try to have a cache archived because you think the owner is out of the game.

[seldom|seen]

I’ll admit that I am guilty of leaning towards replacing a cache if I can verify that it is missing. I try to thoroughly prepare before heading out to Lonely caches by contacting the owners of any caches that sound like they may be MIA to get permission to replace the cache. 95% of the time the owners respond with gratitude and are more then happy to have their cache cleaned up or upgraded.

However, there is that other 5% that doesn’t get back to me in time and I sometimes make the judgment call in the field. This last weekend I found a sad cache that was an open coffee can in an area that had no real interest as a location and had no desire to replace that one as it certainly appeared that the owners did not respond to a number of logs over the course of a year describing the open nature of the cache. Everything was rotten and I knew if I put a replacement out, the same thing might happen (though I would never put a coffee can in the field)

The same weekend, I visited a cache that was something of a unique location and the cache was MIA, as far as I could determine, and put a replacement container in place. The owners responded a day later with a huge thank you and an inquiry about the LCG. In this case I felt really good about being able to perform maintenance for the owner.

This brings up another issue. Cache replacements when the original is still out there. It has happened on several occasions that even with the owner’s description of the hide, a subsequent DNF search of the area and a determination that the cache is missing, that a replacement gets placed and then the original shows up, resulting in two caches in the field. It is certainly not the intention of this cacher to create confusion in the community but I’ll admit that it has happened more than once that I am aware of.

If this situation arises and you happen to visit one of these caches where you find two containers, I’d STRONGLY suggest to any cacher that they pull the weakest of the 2 from the field and combine the logs in the one that is left behind. I have gone back to two of these caches specifically to pull my replacements, but there may be more out there placed by me or other LCG players.

[gotta run]

@Team Hemisphere Dancer wrote:

If the particular cache in questin is the one I think you are talking about I know the owners are not out of the game just taking a break for more important things in life.

I understand your point if in fact you are certain, but always make sure before you remove or try to have a cache archived because you think the owner is out of the game.

No, you don’t actually, but…perhaps this thread should have been framed as:

Should a LCG player just go ahead and replace a cache without involving the owner?

And on that point you have, if unintentionally, made my case for me.

Besides the fact that one should, as a rule, not remove a non-owned cache without going through the proper reviewer/rescue procedure, you stress that you shouldn’t make assumptions. You shouldn’t just grab a cache out of the field. You shouldn’t try to have a cache archived for a non-legitimate reason. All these things have proper channels and procedures.

And what do they all have in common?

They all INVOLVE THE OWNER. “Needs archived,” “needs maintenance,” heck, any log on a cache gets sent to the owner. At that point, the owner is involved, or should be. If they don’t act and there’s a problem (i.e., a missing cache), the reviewer/process takes over.

So, following that same line of thought, why would it be then OK to simply replace an owner’s cache without involving the owner? Because if there is a problem with ownership, you have just perpetuated it.

And also, if you just go ahead and replace a cache that you believe is missing, you are also “acting on the assumption” that the owner would want you to replace his or her cache. What if your assumption was wrong? (i.e., we would NOT want this done for us.)

I have no problem with replacing caches for owners, and we have done so ourselves, when it involves the owners.

On the Left Side of the Road...

[Team Hemisphere Dancer]

@gotta run wrote:

Should a LCG player just go ahead and replace a cache without involving the owner?

NO

I guess I did not know what cache you were talking about and I am happy that I made your point for you. 🙄

[-cheeto-]

Quote:

Cache replacements when the original is still out there.

What’s embarrassing is when the cache owner does this themselves…. doh! I speak from experience…

I had 2 containers at one of mine and it took nearly a year before a cacher acknowledged both containers and removed one as indicated in s|s’s post on the subject (without my consent as the owner)

In this example, it kinda became an experiment. I wanted to see how many cacher’s would find more than one container when hunting a cache. Would they log both?

I had mixed emotions about the cacher removing one of the containers which is sorta what gotta run is referring to with the not assuming what the owner wants. What if an owner really does want 2 containers to be hidden? 🙂

Whether were talking about replacing, removing, etc. you should not assume what the owner wants. With proper communication with the owner, go ahead and replace, remove, revamp, adopt, etc.

-cheeto-

[Lostby7]

I have one cache which went “missing” so I replaced it….six months or so later the original cache was found again….now there are two caches on site. I listed them both on the page with a hint for each…no one has attempted to remove one (not that they would as they are both referenced on the cache page) and no one has logged both of them at once, though I would not delete such a log.

I have only had one cache replaced by a fellow cacher….he let me know in an email after he did it. I was very grateful. I have emailed an owner about replacing one of his missing caches as well BEFORE I did it….but he did not get back to me soon enough while I was still in the area on vacation so I left his container missing and did not set a new container up for him….I lost out on a find and he lost out on a free maintenance check/replacement.

Yes, I think an owner should be contacted first but hey if some one wants to error on the side of caution with one of my caches so be it…I can always go pick up the cache if it is a problem.

[gotta run]

@-cheeto- wrote:

What if an owner really does want 2 containers to be hidden? 🙂

-cheeto-

That would be “lame” 😆

On the Left Side of the Road...

[seldom|seen]

I can see that there are circumstances where one replacement is justified an another is not. Each of the anecdotal cases has a unique set of circumstances and it’s easy to make a case for one cache not needing a replacement and letting the process takes its course to archiving while simultaneously making a case that another one 1/10 of a mile away does.

The guiding principle should be that PERMISSION is granted by the owner to replace the cache. However, this does not preclude replication of cache containers as the previous posts mention. Even cache owners have had that happen from time to time when caches migrate and they replace their own own, only to have the original pop up again, as -cheeto- and lostby7 relate to. It just comes with the territory.

The primary LCG players are trying to adhere to this principle and not replace caches without permission. As I said, I am guilty of not doing so on a few occasions, like a recent replacement on a cache that got washed away and the owners did not respond to it for one reason or another. Last log on the cache was April 27 and it had a number of DNF logs after that during the high-water period.

Now, I know these cachers are active. I know that they are not interested in archiving their caches and I know that they have taken a bit of a break. I know that if the cache remained MIA that an archive request would come out of it. If it was archived, I know that a VERY SIMILAR cache would have gotten placed in that same spot. Knowing all of that, I replaced the MIA cache. Would anyone argue that this was not a good idea?

Henceforth, I will not replace any caches without getting specific PERMISSION from the owners.

[-cheeto-]

That would be “lame”

I don’t claim to be anything on the contrary… this coming from someone with my nickname. 😛

If you think 2 is lame, you really don’t want to know what I was thinking at the time… 😈

-cheeto-

[Author]

Posts