snowfrog

I realize that rating caches in difficulty is subjective, and so is camo creativity. Many times I have found a 2-4, which was overrated IMO, but that didn't matter to me. On another note, I would like to see a rating option by finders at the time of logging in which an average of peer ratings would replace the initial ratings of the hider., on difficulty and terrain. Perhaps it should be discussed in another thread but a "Layered" or three dimensional game I think is an interesting concept. I see a light at the end of the tunnel, and realize if limitations were not placed on the number of higher level caches stacked on top of pre-existing ones were not in place, the muti-dimensional thing would spin out of control. Another layer of difficulty allowed within 528' would yes, be only a minor and temporary solution, where they are needed if any, but let's see....another more challeging cache per location times all the caches near me. You're right, that's not any better? Obviously a higher level hide would have to be identified as being just that, in case it's found by level 1 seekers. You know what, never mind, more caches, more challenging,more attempts at ultra camo, yuck........ how boring is that.

Interesting to me that the reasons the DNR requires closing (geolove), are largely considered invalid in the forums. Not a Greenpeacer but many consider a cache location as a piece of property, and defend the right to stay thar 4ever A little Hatfield and McCoy don't ya think?

Actually, I think adding a new twist to the game such as players hiding new and higher level caches in close proximity of other ones with ultra camouflage to avoid detection by seekers of the other level cache would be very challenging as a hider, and allow some to pursue bragging rights associated with rank instead of just numbers. I like the idea of a 3 dimensional game.

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns. Finally someone who understands my point. Not over saturation by it's literal 528' definition, but rather that a park, trail, or certain area has become stagnant (to me) and needs an infusion of new challenges. Can I submit another option:(Moderator tolerance please,still on topic). Perhaps a way to allow existing "cool caches" or the oldies to be left for newbies by creating a "bending" of the 528' issue. Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say To make it fair for all, warticipation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas. Wouldn't it just be easier to say that Level 1 caches can be found on Sun, Tues and Thurs, Level 2 on Mon, Wed, Friday and Saturday, Level three on days exceeding 32 degrees and level 4's on Feb 29th? And, as always, let us know when there is a over saturation issue. Anyway........., for the sake of discussion and not useless dribble. Yes, you can argue that it adds unneeded complications, but I fail to see what is wrong with creating possibilities for new caches to coexist with some old ones. New caches that will take you back to old places. Now I'm not contradicting myself by suggesting we have more caches because, as has been brought up, over saturation is not necessarily too many, just not enough new ones nearby which causes some to have to drive farther each time out.

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns. Finally someone who understands my point. Not over saturation by it's literal 528' definition, but rather that a park, trail, or certain area has become stagnant (to me) and needs an infusion of new challenges. Can I submit another option:(Moderator tolerance please,still on topic). Perhaps a way to allow existing "cool caches" or the oldies to be left for newbies by creating a "bending" of the 528' issue. Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say participation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas.

I also think this has a beneficial role to play in the environment, as the geotrails that get formed would have a chance to fill in again. One of the best and apparently overlooked viewpoints.

Another "I agree with Briansnat moment." I have many rarely visited caches. Some of my caches only get visited once or twice a year, and the long "found it" logs speak volumes. The way I read this proposal, you effectively "cleaned out" your area, and you want to have all the old "slow" caches archived, so cachers will hide new ones. To me, this is a very selfish idea. Like Brian, I'll archive my caches when I no longer want to maintain my caches, or the area is no longer a desirable location to share with people. Apologies to Kit Fox for changing my mind! No scheme, no conspiracy, and not a victim of over saturation in rural Indiana. Just a discussion...........................

There is no guarantee now that current archived caches are"cleaned up" by owners, or for that matter, new cache placements that are denied publishing such as vacation hides. How many folks go back to the vacation spot just to remove a denied cache placement.The frequency would be determined by a significant drop in visits as compared to say, the first year. Who decides anything now? What cache is published, what is archived, or what post is too disrespectful...........those who are considered worthy. Seriously though, the system could easily be set up to self monitor the 'find frequency percentage". The owner could receive a system generated e-mail warning of closure and needed removal, but in reality if it's a local favorite cache, second visits could manipulate the numbers to keep it open anyway. Only those of little interest would actually get archived, which is good right. The whole idea is not that any person or mod would have the power to retire a cache, but the decision would be made by us, the caching community, by the lack of activity.

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature If they're remote, then they aren't in areas that are over saturated, thus they aren't getting in the way of new caches. And...I wasn't aware that threads get closed when people stop posting to them, they just drop down the list. I stand corrected, however what's the point in them hangin around. Anyhoo, maybe cache density should come in to play. I would be willing to "give up my territory" to new hides, if my finds dried up.

I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), , because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones. Those of us who have been caching for several years have pretty much done most of the nearby caches. Same locations with new hides, from new cachers, and new ideas. Sounds good to me. Businesses rotate their stock to keep it fresh! At the very minimom, a required long in to verify maintenance, to insure (hopefully) that its owner is taking care of it. How many cachers have way too many hides, and their is no possible way to do minimum maintenance. Newbies go hog wild at first and put out dozens, then burn out and abandon them. Before you reply consider the following: In the forums, thread "maintenance", is performed by a moderator with a little nudge to keep it on topic, if not it would no longer be needed. When the thread experiences too little traffic, it is closed. See where I'm going with this?

I would oppose archiving caches based on frequency of visits for various reasons: 1. The cache might be a high terrain or complexity level and wouldn't expect too many visits from the general geocaching public. 2. The cache might be archived but who is to say the cacher who placed it would agree to go clean up his cache after it had been involuntarily archived. 3. Who decides the otherwise arbitrary time or frequency in which a cache is to be archived? Just my opinion. I stated in the original post that simple number of logged visits would not be the preferred method because some are remote in nature? There is no guarantee now that current archived caches are"cleaned up" by owners, or for that matter, new cache placements that are denied publishing such as vacation hides. How many folks go back to the vacation spot just to remove a denied cache placement.The frequency would be determined by a significant drop in visits as compared to say, the first year. Who decides anything now? What cache is published, what is archived, or what post is too disrespectful...........those who are considered worthy. Seriously though, the system could easily be set up to self monitor the 'find frequency percentage". The owner could receive a system generated e-mail warning of closure and needed removal, but in reality if it's a local favorite cache, second visits could manipulate the numbers to keep it open anyway. Only those of little interest would actually get archived, which is good right. The whole idea is not that any person or mod would have the power to retire a cache, but the decision would be made by us, the caching community by the lack of activity.

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. While some would argue that some are "way too cool" or in "an awesome spot", I wouldn't suggest after a certain time, but rather after the logged finds drop below a minimum degree of frequency (as compared to the frequency at the initial time of placement), because many are remote in nature. In other words, if it's being visited enough it stays active, if not it's retired. The benefit would be a healthy turnover of new caches, instead of having to travel farther and farther away from home to find new ones. Those of us who have been caching for several years have pretty much done most of the nearby caches. Same locations with new hides, from new cachers, and new ideas. Sounds good to me.

Not me, but then I tend to lurk mostly and resist the urge (unsucessfully here) to post, thereby limiting the opportunities to get electronically scolded. While I understand that we have among us, young cachers, I think there is probably nothing read in the forums that they aren't exposed to at school or on the net as a whole. IMHO, while respecting the moderators willingness to volunteer their time to scrutinize postings, I think that simply entering the forums should come with a certain degree of expectation. That many will, or will not agree, with your opinion, and in varying degrees of intellect. Some possessing less than they think. All forums are the same, some like to bully, some have a sense of humor, or some post so that they have a public forum and captive audience in which to convey their self perceived superior IQ. It's amazing how ticked off people can get in forums, a virtual global sandbox. DOES THIS MAKE YOU ANGRY? I was yelling at you, you know! Sort of like my wife getting excited about winning a boatload of imaginary money playing poker online. Our next big purchase is going to be an imaginary HD TV.

Unless you're talking about the " Doomsday Clock "! Now that's a different matter. In that case I think it's more like 5 till.

What about fake no-finds.This cracks me up Liar's Cache

I don't have a problem with your old name but I really get sick of people pushing their cat confusion on me. If I want to engage in cat confusion, I will, but that's my choice. I don't like those holier than meow people either! Just messing with you Bro, should leave it alone cuz it's you. Churchcamp or cat confusion, you're still CCDave.

Well now, let's see if I have it right. Nobody visits grandma in the nursing home the last years of her life, but now dozens visit her grave every year and that's disrespectful. She would be shoving sandwiches and coffee at you, and talking your arm off if she could. Mine anyway, love ya granny!

I grew up in the hills of Kentucky in a place called " Butcher Hollow ". We were poor, had dirt floors, and an outhouse far from the house. Often, on the way to answer the call, I would lose my footing and fall because I had no staff. I spent much of my youth broken and healing. I also had to walk 5 miles to school no matter what the weather and would, from time to time, show up dirty because of my many falls. Once there, I was picked on by all the other kids who had staffs because I didn't fit in. I would frequently feel the poke of the staff of the playground bullies and I would turn to defend myself with my imaginary staff and suffered at their staff points and had many staph infections while growing up. They were always careful to poke me where if would look self inflicted, so it did me no good to seek help. Now as an adult I still find myself being laughed at by my caching brother-in-law " Churchcampdave " because of my many falls. Can you help me?

Interesting point, years ago as a deer hunter I found several very small and overgrown family plots in the woods which were no doubt lost to time and record. If you know of a cemetery on public property that obviously has no custodian, perhaps a new cache listing could bring folks there and even recruit a volunteer. cemetery mapping

Do the voters have to be registered cachers? If not, I'm going back to all those people I've bought girl scout cookies and school candy from, to send in a vote!

I'll vote for snowfrog if they vote for me! You got a deal brother!

With the popularity of cemeteries as cache locations, I often thought it would be nice to try to establish a new form of cache etiquette while there. Similar to CITO but simply reset a flower arrangement that may have been knocked down by weather, or perhaps pull weeds from around a headstone before you exit. Just one mind you, and here's your chance to name it, and the pick the acronym!

OK, I can't vote for myself. You can though, yeah you, you know you want to!

I think the root problem is the increase in micros, level of difficulty and the attempts at ultra-camouflage. I'm guilty myself, but because many of us have been at this for a few years and have become a little bored with the same old containers, we have slowly shifted to hides that encourage disassembly. Whether rock walls, fake bolts in shelters, birdnests, or electrical boxes, the only way for a finder to determine if it is a cache container is to turn, pry, dig through, remove, unstack, or pull it out. Not good!