--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
> I understand the dilemna, but I'm also concerned about boxes that
may still
> be active that could be lost simply because someone isn't following
the list
> and hasn't taken the effort to claim boxes yet. The boxes are still
> scattered enough out here that it is a real loss to lose any active
boxes.
>
> Will you let us claim other's boxes? Please say yes!
>

I am putting in my vote for allowing active boxers to take ownership
for some of the orphaned boxes. As you say, some of them are truly
lost and this seems a good way to flush them out, but many are still
in place and are popular hunts for people in those areas. It would
be a shame for the clues to those boxes to just fall off into
netherland, expecially since the boxes will still be in place. I
know there are orphaned boxes in West/Northern Michigan that are very
near to some of my boxes. I kind of keep an eye on them already just
because I know that the placer is either far away or no longer
active, and would be happy to take over responsibility for them going
forward.

Perhaps we could add a blurb to these clues when they are transferred
to a new owner, indicating what has been done and why. This way if
the original planters do find their way back, they won't be perplexed
as to why their box is listed as someone else's, and can contact that
person via e-mail if desired.

SpringChick

Why erase them all when so many of them are perfectly good clues to
existing boxes? It would, in effect, make many active letterboxes into
abandoned junk in the woods overnight. Funhog

In a message dated 7/10/2003 7:06:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
funhog@pacifier.com writes:


> Why erase them all when so many of them are perfectly good clues to
> existing boxes? It would, in effect, make many active letterboxes into
> abandoned junk in the woods overnight. Funhog
>
>

I don't think he wants to "erase" them, just transfer them over to new owners
instead of being orphaned.

Music Woman


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Exactly! I can't fathom a reason to remove them and erase some of our early history or more recent boxes from those who don't follow this list for one reason or another.
What is the real impetus behind this?


funhog1 wrote:
Why erase them all when so many of them are perfectly good clues to
existing boxes? It would, in effect, make many active letterboxes into
abandoned junk in the woods overnight. Funhog


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am certainly willing to "adopt" boxes. If they can be labeled as
orphans on the clue list (so I don't have to peruse through thousands
of clues looking for them) or if I can search for "Orphaned"'s boxes,
I'll claim those I can maintain.

Deal?
~ Aili

> Exactly! I can't fathom a reason to remove them and erase some of our
> early history or more recent boxes from those who don't follow this list
> for one reason or another. What is the real impetus behind this?

Some people are incorrectly assuming that the webmasters have placed these
boxes, and/or are responsible for maintaining them, or making sure they
are not missing, etc. Right or wrong, and IMHO this is a silly assumption
for people to make, his is what some people are assuming. The webmasters
do not want to be in that position. If a social trail develops to these
boxes, or they become litter, it will be the webmasters, not the placer,
that the land manager will incorrectly send the irate mail to. If anyone
in the community would rather be in this position, feel free to make the
appropriate arrangements.

To some extent, it is a classic case of the few ruining it for the
many -- to be blunt, it s***s, but c'est la vie. (as an example, people
are placing boxes on private land, not asking permission, and the webmasters
are hearing it from the land owner. We don't know where these orphans are
and who placed them in some cases, as just an example -- we'd prefer the
account holders bear the brunt of this -- if they ignore their e-mail, its
still on them).

This is a volunteer organization, and everyone in the community is expected
to contribute. The webmasters do not wish to shoulder the burden of these
boxes, people throwing text onto the community and leaving, and wish every
box on the website to be under the e-mail address of an individual account
holder. Note that there are alternatives to playing the game of letterboxing
that do not involve the LbNA web site. If a person cannot be bothered to
maintain their box, it speaks volumes for their inability to maintain that
its placement is not causing environmental impact.

For my part, I'd love these boxes to stay listed -- I'm one who believes
in the 5 year hunt and the crustyness of text -- but the realities are
insisting that each box be created and maintained by an individual
account holder. The text still remains crusty in the google cache, the
list archives, personal web sites, and elsewhere.

Finally, there is precedent for this. If you list a box in the Dartmoor
catalog, you are expected to renew this listing every two years (and don't
quote me on the details, I'm working from memory), or have the box
delisted from the catalog. The motivations in Dartmoor are similar to
the motivations here, and there is very little difference.

I realise this may be an unpopular decision for some. All I ask is that
discussion of it remain civil.

Cheers
(speaking only for myself)

And some people aren't assuming anything of the kind. I opened this can of worms last night, and wish to reiterate:

I live near the Fox Run Park box. I would be willing to take on it's maintenance. It is in a city-owned park, and would be able to remove it if requested to do so by the city of Colorado Springs.

That's it. No ulterior motives. Just hoping to keep one of 3(!) boxes in Colorado Springs in the field. We don't have a lot here. Please do consider letting us keep it.

However, if you decide that this is unacceptable: I guess the alternative is for me to go replace it with one of my own and repost the clues.

I understand that Dartmoor is the US model, however, how many boxes did they have in the area at last count? More than 3, right? To lose 1/3 of their boxes might make more of an impact. Dartmoor is a guideline, yes? I wasn't aware that we had such "rules" in place. Actually, doesn't letterboxing.org say specifically that there aren't any rules? Just to respect the land, yes?

Looking forward to more worms, ahem, discussion,

Julie in CO, who is admittedly so new that my family doesn't have a trailname yet.


> ------------Original Message-------------
> From: Randy Hall
>
> Some people are incorrectly assuming that the webmasters have placed these
> boxes, and/or are responsible for maintaining them, or making sure they
> are not missing, etc. Right or wrong, and IMHO this is a silly assumption
> for people to make, his is what some people are assuming. The webmasters
> do not want to be in that position. If a social trail develops to these
> boxes, or they become litter, it will be the webmasters, not the placer,
> that the land manager will incorrectly send the irate mail to. If anyone
> in the community would rather be in this position, feel free to make the
> appropriate arrangements.
>
> To some extent, it is a classic case of the few ruining it for the
> many -- to be blunt, it s***s, but c'est la vie. (as an example, people
> are placing boxes on private land, not asking permission, and the webmasters
> are hearing it from the land owner. We don't know where these orphans are
> and who placed them in some cases, as just an example -- we'd prefer the
> account holders bear the brunt of this -- if they ignore their e-mail, its
> still on them).
>
The webmasters do not wish to shoulder the burden of these
> boxes, people throwing text onto the community and leaving, and wish every
> box on the website to be under the e-mail address of an individual account
> holder. Note that there are alternatives to playing the game of letterboxing
> that do not involve the LbNA web site. If a person cannot be bothered to
> maintain their box, it speaks volumes for their inability to maintain that
> its placement is not causing environmental impact.
>

>
> Finally, there is precedent for this. If you list a box in the Dartmoor
> catalog, you are expected to renew this listing every two years (and don't
> quote me on the details, I'm working from memory), or have the box
> delisted from the catalog. The motivations in Dartmoor are similar to
> the motivations here, and there is very little difference.
>
> I realise this may be an unpopular decision for some. All I ask is that
> discussion of it remain civil.
>
> Cheers
> (speaking only for myself)

I'd be happy to "adopt" any orphaned boxes near me if need be. (Not sure if there are any.) I haven't planted any yet myself!

Peppermint Patti

----- Original Message -----
From: cadenza74@earthlink.net
To: letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:54 AM
Subject: [LbNA] erasing orphaned boxes


I understand the dilemna, but I'm also concerned about boxes that may still
be active that could be lost simply because someone isn't following the list
and hasn't taken the effort to claim boxes yet. The boxes are still
scattered enough out here that it is a real loss to lose any active boxes.

Will you let us claim other's boxes? Please say yes!

Also, there are some boxes that I can't tell if they count as orphaned or
not. If they were entered with a hyperlink, the page doesn't ever list who
did them, but goes straight to the page. I have wished many times that the
page that lists boxes in a region also listed who planted them, now that I
am having to go through each individual box to see if it is orphaned or not,
I really wish this feature were there.

I guess I'm concerned that some historic boxes may be lost. For instance,
the first box planted in UT (and one of the earliest I found) is one by Der
Mad Stamper. I have tried contacting the address often and never had a
reply. I heard some chatter indicating that his boxes would be lost if we
erased orphaned boxes (I haven't been here long enough to know if there is
something I should know about him, I hope I'm not treading on sensitive
ground. I have just wondered what happened since he sounds like one of the
pioneers of letterboxing). Anyway, if boxes were transferred as hyperlinks
like his were, but never claimed, will they be erased too?

I've gone through the boxes in my surrounding states and sent emails to all
of the ones that had contact info embedded in the clue, but haven't claimed
them personally (you'd be surprised how many were like this). I hope that
others will do the same. There may be some that will wake up and claim
their boxes if we do.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]