> Since, as Randy states, the issue is that the webmasters do not want
> the responsibility or liability for orphan boxes, the problem is
> already solved by listing them as abandoned.

I think it runs deeper than that. If a landowner has an issue with a
box and they look it up and see it as "abandoned", they will contact
the webmasters anyway. In the landowner's position, who would you flame
without contact info?

Then, how do you respond to "why are you listing an _known abandoned_ box
on my land"?

Perhaps a solution is for someone in the community to volunteer to be
the contact person for abandoned boxes, have their e-mail address there,
to field flames from the landowners, and to remove troublesome boxes,
since the responsible person cannot be contacted.

Any volunteers?

I'm sure Wes could set the volunteer up as the "abandoned box responsible
party" and link their contact info into the system. It really would be
the ideal solution; the simple reality is that since none of the webmasters
are responsible for these boxes in any way, none chose to volunteer for
this position.

It was decided that all clues need a responsible contact person, so the
park people, landowners, etc., can report environmental impact, etc. In
the long run, it will give us a better reputation if we don't frustrate
landowners who have legitimate concerns about the use of their land.
Previously, these reports where erroneously going to webmasters.

> Since we are a "community" and a ".org" isn't it all of our decision
> whether or not these clues should vanish?

Ultimately, the people who pay the bills and put in the time at the website
decide how it is operated, and they are only deciding that the current
text vanish from the website, not that the boxes vanish, and not that the
platonic ideas represented by the text vanish. I like to think there is
tremendous alignment between the webmasters and the community. In this
case, however, where apparently that alignment is a bit skewed, it will
be up to the community to shoulder the burden, either thru coming up with
an ingenious solution, asserting responsibility for dealing with the
landowners and others hunting the boxes, or doing without.

Like I said, I don't want to see these boxes go any more than the next
person; and I personally am not trying to "do anything fishy". What on
earth is the person who said that thinking?

Cheers