When cache placers go AWOL

[Richary]

My gut feeling now is that if a cache has been archived or long term disabled, and it is perfectly obvious the owner has no interest anymore, that it is probably OK to remove the "trash". From that I mean the owner hasn't logged in for months or longer, and hasn't found or hidden anything for ages.

That would be after attempting to contact the owner and receiving the go ahead to clean it up, or having no reply after say 2 weeks. Then contacting the owner and saying I have your cache, what do you want me to do with it? Sadly those who leave the game don't seem to respond to emails about it once they lose interest.

Probably controversial, but preferable to leaving abandoned plastic lunchboxes in the bush, that may or may not contain TBs.

[Yurt]

If we get to it I will remove it. Will contact the owner but I'm sure they won't care. It's been derided as a crap container anyway.

What's fun is when a cache goes 'missing' and is replaced but the old one turns up later so people are logging finds on either without knowing the other is there.

This one was some fun in Perth last week. All sorted now.
Swan Lake

[Devar]

Haha, that Swan Lake cache has eluded so many geocachers. It is so so so simple yet people have so much trouble finding it, no wonder two containers showed up after someone thought it was missing!

[Yurt]

While it is disabled it is probably still there. You would probably be doing the community a service by contacting the owner and offering to remove it so it can be archived. If you don't get a response remove it anyway and log as such.

I was thinking of doing that, a pity it's such a long walk in with no other unfound caches there for us. I was going to replace the container if it hadn't been disabled as that's apparently in poor condition.
I assume you can't log a disabled cache.

As richary responded, you CAN log a disabled or archived cache. The cache in question (choice water view GCTQ72 in case you were wondering) has been logged quite a few times since the owner returned online and disabled it. I think they meant to archive it probably. Anyway it's still there and we may go and get it just to clean it up. The cachers who've logged have made no comment about it being disabled and have even dropped TBs into it!

As for the other cacher, three are now archived, one is disabled pending archiving and the last two are "Needs maintenance".
Funnily enough the owner who was long gone (not having logged on in a year) reappeared to do a cache in Jan and another in April but of course hasn't responded to the calls for maintenance.

Oh well it's a free country they tell me.

[Happy Chappies]

A bit of a related question (which I didn't want to start a whole new thread on):

There's a cache near home (GC1263J) which i'll probably be aiming to knock off in the next week or two. It's in pretty poor shape apparently. Wet, broken, possibly even missing it's lid (based on the find logs), but it's still being found. Now the cache placer is clearly inactive, and hasn't responded to calls for maintenance (the owner hasn't even been online in 3 years). And it already has a 'needs archived' on it, placed in February this year.

Now, assuming that should mean the beginning of its death sentence, I'm wondering: Should I replace the container when I find it and keep it going for all to enjoy, even without a 'proper' owner? Or should I just find it, leave it be, and let it die?

[Trigg-A-Nomics]

Should I replace the container when I find it and keep it going for all to enjoy, even without a 'proper' owner? Or should I just find it, leave it be, and let it die?

Tough call.
Normally I'd replace the container but the cache may be on private land given the description of "Vacant block" & a quick google. The cache owner hasn't been active since May 03, 2007 so letting the "Needs Archived" take it's course may be the best bet.

[Echo]

We remember this one...
It's probably one that is best left to die a natural death, there are much better places for a hide than where this one is placed. It's a real nothing hide in a vacant block against a fence with a lump of tree stump over a smashed lid.
The only reason you would visit it is for the find, you probably wouldn't feel the need to return.

[Happy Chappies]

Thanks for that - And good to have your view Echo... I was probably going to see if it was 'worthy' of keeping (ie. notable, interesting, tricky) - But given those comments I might just leave it be....

[caughtatwork]

Piece of rubbish.
Remove it, log it, SBA it.

[TeamGeoPlesk]

Piece of rubbish.
Remove it, log it, SBA it.

Dito, i think i know the one you are talking about, i did it many years ago, and then it was in a little bit of a bad way. Its still listed and the owner has not been on since 2007, and three needs maintenance logs. I think that justifies a SBA log.