GCA Adoptions

Geocaching Australia governance issues
User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

GCA Adoptions

Post by caughtatwork » 27 April 08 7:58 pm

To the Honourable Senators.

As GCA continues to grow, people join up, people move on there may be an ultimate need for an "adoption" process at GCA.

This thread is to discuss the pros and cons of any and all suggestions for cache adoptions.

e.g. Adoption by mutual consent.
The owner puts the cache up for adoption to a named cacher or an "anyone who wants it" type adoption. The adopter agrees that they will take on ownership of the physical cache and listing. The owner is updated to the new owner (so it appears on their lists and not the old owner) and the placed by becomes "by oldcacher adopted by newcacher" to keep the historical aspects of the cache alive. All is solved.

e.g. Adoption by being "missing in action".
Someone identifies that the cache owner is MIA (how?) and the system puts the cache up for adoption. Could be a little less than desirable as now the physical cache has nominally transferred ownership as well as the lisiting. The cacher MIA may or may not appreciate their special plastic ox being given away.

These are two simple examples.

I believe that the direction should be set by the Senate rather than the developers. The developers can do anything. The question is should we and if we should, what do you think we should do.

Thank you for listening and on to the ideas and debate.

User avatar
Papa Bear_Left
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 2573
Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
Location: Kalamunda, WA
Contact:

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 27 April 08 8:56 pm

I can see the situation of a cacher placing a GCA cache and then, due an unexpected case of acute teapotophobia, choosing to re-list the cache elsewhere without archiving it here.

If they didn't log on here again, but were active on GC or terraching or navicache or wherever, they wouldn't be well pleased to have their cache appropriated by someone else, just because they deemed MIA on this site.

I think an abandoned cache listing needs to just stay abandoned. If the cache itself is still there, then it doesn't need archiving or adoption. If it's gone missing or is very badly un-maintained, then it should probably be archived. If it's a great location, a new cache will probably take its place sometime soon after.

If it's just a full logbook or a missing pen or somesuch, then I reckon there's enough nice people in this game to stick a new one in the cache without needing to formally adopt it.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 27 April 08 9:24 pm

A most excellent start to the discussion PBL.

Very good point regarding abandonment. They may indeed have listed the cache elsewhere, so we certainly don't want a cache to transfer ownership just because we don't think they play here anymore.

User avatar
Richary
6500 or more caches found
6500 or more caches found
Posts: 4127
Joined: 04 February 04 10:55 pm
Location: Waitara, Sydney

Post by Richary » 27 April 08 11:14 pm

Good points, though if a cache is moved from GCA to GC then it would be obvious from the logs that them come through if it maintained (because there would be a cache in the identical location). Of course, that doesn't cover other caching sites.

Perhaps if a cache appears to have been abandoned for a long time and is obviously MIA or badly in need of repair, it can be flagged archived. That way it won't mater if it is still listed on another site. And perhaps after 4 needs maintenance type logs the next finder should be encouraged to remove it - if there is anything left to remove.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 11 July 08 7:20 pm

Bump :-)

User avatar
zactyl
Posts: 1171
Joined: 28 July 04 6:40 pm
Location: Mullumbimby, NSW

Post by zactyl » 12 July 08 4:10 am

If a cache is clearly abandoned, I can't see the harm in someone taking responsibility for it, which seems preferable to archiving it and another being listed in its place. If the absent cacher does return and want it back, surely it's not a problem to return ownership to them.

User avatar
Papa Bear_Left
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 2573
Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
Location: Kalamunda, WA
Contact:

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 12 July 08 2:50 pm

zactyl wrote:If a cache is clearly abandoned...

Who gets to decide what's "clearly" or not?
If it's been listed on Terracaching or letterboxing.org or litterunderabush.net because the owner's developed an allergy to websites starting with "geoc", would they appreciate someone else claiming ownership of their plastic box?

Especially if the new owner moves it or archives and removes it, as would be their right, according to the rules of this site (that we don't actually have, of course!)

In the greater scheme of things, all of the current geocaches combined add up to about one inconsiderate lout's trailer-load of rubbish, and we've all seen how many of those heaps there are in any patch of suburban bush. So worrying about leaving a few caches that have been archived on one particular listing site probably isn't important.

vk3jap
Posts: 50
Joined: 25 May 08 3:07 pm
Location: Macedon Ranges,Vic,Au

Post by vk3jap » 17 December 08 8:01 pm

so what was the final outcome of this..? I have a cache local which needs an owner that shows some love. I've already given it a new container, fixed up the log book and restocked it - effectively replaced the whole cache. The owner hasn't logged in for ages and aren't responding to emails - so how do I adopt it.?

not listed on GC or TC or LB either..

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 17 December 08 10:07 pm

There is no final outcome, just hanging around in the back of peoples minds. Which cache are you referring to (PM me if you think it's sensitive).

vk3jap
Posts: 50
Joined: 25 May 08 3:07 pm
Location: Macedon Ranges,Vic,Au

Post by vk3jap » 17 December 08 10:24 pm

Wombat Mill : ga0144 - out at Anderson's Saw Mill in the Wombat state Forrest, no sensitivity there :-)

Guest

Post by Guest » 17 December 08 11:00 pm

So ummm you replaced the whole thing, that's not really adoption, since you aren't adopting anything?

(sorry anything but the database entry, I was speaking literally)
Last edited by Guest on 18 December 08 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 17 December 08 11:03 pm

Ah, yes, I know the cache.
It's a quandry.
If the user is no longer active and the cache is up for repair (which you have done) then it could be adopted.
On the other hand, who says they won't come back to find their cache is someone elses hands.
I don't have a good answer yet. Let me think on it.
Please ask again in a week or so if I forget to get back to you.

vk3jap
Posts: 50
Joined: 25 May 08 3:07 pm
Location: Macedon Ranges,Vic,Au

Post by vk3jap » 18 December 08 1:14 am

perhaps I'm thinking to simply about it all.?

- currently, it's an unloved child, I've offering to take it under my wing.

because
a. I live quit close and can keep the maint up well
b. I think it's fair that I take ownership - adverse posession as some kind of reward for stepping up and seeing that this doesn't slide into the realms of GeoJunk.

- if the true owner does come back on the scene then it goes 100% back to them - no questions asked.

It's just A DB entry, which is actually a plastic box, we can chop and change as suits and if needed, simple right? in the case of what if what if.. we'd go around for every if we tried to have an answer for what if.

Strike the pen and make it be I say.. :-)

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6937
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 18 December 08 6:09 am

Perhaps we can add a 'currently maintained by/in the care of:' field for those caches which are 'fostered' by other caches (ie caches where the original owners have fully vanished but COULD return)??

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 18 December 08 11:03 am

Interesting points.
As said, it's just and entry in the database, so it can easily be changed again. I'll still think if there's a better way, but I will be back.
I'd like to avoid more DB field for "maintained by" if I can avoid it. That's confusing.

Post Reply