Etoa Nrish

As far as I am concerned, making the finder search through 100 sub containers to find the log is an an additional logging requirement akin to having to take a picture of yourself in a silly hat in order to log the cache. Those types of additional logging requirements are specifically prohibited. Depending on the circumstances, night time, raining, snowing and whether time allows, I may or may not play the cache owners game. In any case, I found the cache, I had it in my hands and I would feel no guilt about claiming a find whether I actually found the log and signed it or not.

I think you answered that already, for most of us. All I can do is mirror your definition; "At it's core, geocaching is hiding caches for other people to find and finding caches that other people have hidden, using a GPS." That wraps it up perfectly, for me. Punch in some coords, go to ground zero, find a cache. It's just that simple. Usually... To address the technical side, the argument changes just a bit. The edges get blurred. When we look at the various activities that are included on the website, defined clearly as geocaching, we see that going to a webcam and capturing your image is geocaching. We also see that eating hotwings is geocaching. Likewise, walking around a sinkhole is geocaching. As is picking litter up in a park. Checking out an historical plaque in the median of a highway is also geocaching. The existence of webcam caches, events, earthcaches, CITOs and virtuals, teaches us that, according to Groundspeak, geocaching is more than hiding/finding caches. But even if we exclude those types of caches, the edges remain just a bit blurred. Imagine this hypothetical scenario; I punch in the coords to one of your caches, and hoof it to ground zero. The cache description tells me I am searching for a Lock & Lock. The hint is a dead giveaway. When I arrive, I find that a bush-hog mower has preceded me, leaving bits of shredded plastic, (including one with the official GC decal), chopped up McToys, half a stash note, and nothing else. I obviously can't sign the log, since it is no longer there, so I photograph my findings, and log it as a find, describing what I saw. (Not something I would do, as, for me, no signature means I don't claim a find, but this is just a hypothetical situation, so we can stretch things a bit) You read my log, determine that I did not sign the log, therefor my find is bogus, in your opinion, and you delete my log. I appeal to Groundspeak, sending them my photo of your destroyed cache. If Groundspeak restored my find, (which I suspect they would, under the circumstances), then they are demonstrating that signing the log is not an absolute requirement for someone who wishes to claim they were geocaching. Now, change the scenario just a bit; I get to ground zero, can't find the cache, check the hint, and at the spot where the cache used to reside I find a note, stating something to the effect of, "The Forest Defenders have stolen your cache! Sucks to be you! Ha Ha Ha!" I log my find, including a picture of the site, and you delete it. If Groundspeak restored my find, they would be demonstrating that not even locating any part of a cache is a prerequisite for someone who wants to claim they are geocaching. I've seen mention of both these examples leading to log restoration, in these forums. Now, obviously, you believe that the examples I cited were not the case with the folks who swept through your Island, logging caches in record breaking time. You believe that they didn't even stop for some caches, choosing instead to just drive by. If they contested the log deletions, and you were able to show proof that the cache was in place, and their name was not on the logs, Groundspeak might very well side with you. I am in no way defending their actions, as I happen to concur with your original definition of the game. I'm just pointing out that, since Groundspeak doesn't require that logs be signed in all instances, and they don't require that caches even be found, in all instances, Groundspeak has set a precedent, dictating that your definition of geocaching, (and mine), may be too narrow. With that in mind, (again stressing that I am not advocating the kind of game those folks were playing), all I suggest is that you don't get so worked up over how others interpret the many varied nuances of this game. Slinging insults, such as "cheater", spewing hyperbole and injecting rhetoric does little to support your cause. You would be much better served by simply playing the game the way you feel it should be played, worrying less about how someone else chooses to play. If you feel a log needs to be deleted, have at it. But do so rationally. Getting mad about it doesn't help. I am glad that you agree with my definition of geocaching but I will freely admit that it is maybe more narrow than some folks are comfortable with. You make the point that the edges get blurred in the case of virtuals, earth caches, CITOs and the like but I would say not that much. It is true that there are no logs, but you have to do other things like answer questions or post a picture to demonstrate that you were actually there. So it is a distinction without a difference. It is still not acceptable to say, I know it is over there somewhere so I am going to log a find. In the case where the brushhog mower ate the cache: after I said some choice words about a CO who places his cache where it can get chewed up, I would reach into my handy-dandy cache rescue kit, pull out a temporary container and new log book (if necessary), gather up what is salvageable from the old cache, put it in the new container then trash the rest. Sign the log, rehide the container (hopefully in a nearby but less vulnerable place), then after logging the find, email the owner describing what was done and suggesting that the cache needs maintenance. In the case of the forest defenders stealing the cache and leaving a note, that is no different than anyone else stealing the cache and not leaving a note. The cache is gone. No cache, no log, no find. None of this, well I saw where it was so I am logging a find. As for your last comment, I am not mad about this. My emotions would be better characterized as somewhere between dismay, disappointment and disgust. You can make the point that I am imposing my standards on other people and I say guilty your honor. It's like the guy who claims to have a degree from Harvard but doesn't. It is no skin off your back if he wants to make that claim. But we all know that it is unethical to do so.

I am curious if the local cache owners cared enough to delete the logs. Many of us did. I know I did.

Just to be clear. It's not cheating. Not even on a small scale. Lying? Maybe. Bogus? Probably. Cheating? Sorry. 'Tis not the case. Not really. Here, we have guidelines. Not rules. The difference? Guidelines have flexibility. Rules, not so much. Given a choice, in a game like this one, I'll take guidelines over rules any day. Seriously? You are equating not signing a soggy log in a film can, with a spectator sport with millions of dollars at stake? Really? I think this says more about you than it says about the folks who play the game differently than you. Sorry Brother, but that comparison is so fraught with hyperbole as to defy logic. For some, the game is all about the numbers. While I don't quite understand the mentality that quantity trumps quality, I recognize that those folks are having fun, playing the game they want to play. Deriding others because they don't follow, precisely, your method of play, seems a bit harsh. OK, everyone has a different opinion on this. Then I would ask just one fundamental question. Exactly what is the game? What is geocaching? It started out with a bucket of stuff hidden in the woods and a challange for other people to find it using their GPS. So, at it's core, geocaching is hiding caches for other people to find and finding caches that other people have hidden, using a GPS. That's the game. So people who are going around logging caches they haven't found are not geocaching. They are playing some other game but it is not geocaching. If I don't have the cache in hand and sign the soggy log in the film canister or the obnoxious nano I don't claim a find. So, I am going to go on geocaching. All of those other folks who want to do drive by finds or go for the numbers can go on playing whatever other game they are playing just don't call it geocaching.

I agree with many of the posters here that life is too short to go check every time you suspect that there is a bogus log. But in this case it is not a onesie or twosie, it is cheating on a massive scale. This couple logged 60 (!!!) caches in one day. That is a huge red flag. The local cachers know that is not possible based on driving time alone, much less the time to find the caches, potty breaks, lunch etc. You can say, so what, it is just a game. Yes, but in every game there are rules. What if you discovered that there was massive cheating going on in the NFL, NBA or American League baseball? Would you just blow it off as being just a game? I doubt it. When the Oahu cachers saw the inordinate number of caches logged by this couple, a few people decided to do a spot check and sure enough, most were bogus. To me this is the worst of geocaching. Someone who has forgotten what the game is about and is just going for the numbers. Probably along the way deluding themselves and others into thinking that they are really super cachers.

No, I don't think so. Because if you continue up Waialae Ave you will see a string of survey marks in that series extending down to Kahala Mall, none of which are in the NGS database.

Thanks for the heads-up. I published that cache based on the CO's promise that he visited several times a year and had friends who lived nearby who would also help. I e-mailed him this morning asking him to follow through on his promise, but as he has not logged onto the site in over a year, nor responded to requests for maintenance going back at least two years, I don't hold out much hope. Perhaps a future visitor will take the initiative to trash out what has obviously become trash and post a "should be archived" note to open up a great area to local cache placement. As a cache reviewer I can't ask that be done, as the cache is still considered to be the property of the cache placer. Old timers may remember that many geocaches placed by visitors on the south shore of Maui were archived at the request of someone in local government many years ago for this same reason - lack of maintenance. At the time that included virtual caches leading people down closed roads on NPS administered land. Hopefully we can police our sport so it won't be done for us. ~erik~ Erik and the poster he is responding to make the case against vacation caches far better than I could so I think that I will leave it there.

Don't believe everything you are told. Hawaii hosts millions of visitors a year from all over the world and most of them have a very positive experience. But, the islands have a history of being exploited and plundered by outsiders so local folks may be suspicious of your motives at first. Witness BB Wolf's comments. Although he is from RI and we did not know him from Adams off ox a few years ago, he is now part of the Hawaii Geocaching Ohana (extended family) and we welcome him back whenever he comes. Rather than believing what you have been told about our "hate" for outsiders come see for yourselves. Make contact with some local cachers (Menehune Man is our official Geo ambassador) and we will show you the sights, take you on some great hikes or whatever. Just don't ask us to host a vacation cache.

A joke? OK, but the humor escaped me. We were having a serious discussion so I was expecting serious responses. I guess that was not the case.

While I agree with your stance on vacation caches, I don't think it's appropriate to call someone a "loser" in this forum.Actually, if the cacher in question was telling the truth about her/his vacation cache placement strategy, and not simply joking (and I do hope that he/she was joking....), then the term "loser" is a perfectly valid descriptive term, and further, the descriptive term "idiot" might apply as well. You see, these terms have not been used as random insults, but as simple descriptors of exhibited behaviors, and the poster in question (i.e., the one to whose behaviors the descriptive terms were applied) has already provided ample examples of their incredibly careless and wanton behaviors.Otherwise, I think that people need to be better at identifying obvious sarcasm and not violate the forum guidelines when something is on the bubble. Actually, it migt be a good idea for people not to call others names even if the person wasn't being sarcastic. After all, the post 'claiming' to have hidden the six caches wasn't in violation of the forum guidelines, but the post calling him a loser certainly was. I do apologize to the folks on this forum for violating the forum guidelines. I should have phrased my characterization differently.

And you are proud of this??????

LOL! But can you maintain them??? I don't think that he gives a rip whether he can maintain them or not. This is a prime example of why vacation caches don't work. Look at his record. Of the ten caches he has placed close to home in the last two years only three are still active. The rest are archived or disabled after only a few months in the field. What a loser.

Like you said. How you do it there may not be how it's done somewhere else. It's simpler (and usually better to keep it simple) to use the most general rules than apply 280 variations. That said even in Hawaii family gets sick, work sends you on a trip, folks take sabbaticals, houses break, friends hit rough times, and life happens. That can take all your spare time. Here we have winter. You may not be able to access your cache except for 3 months in the summer. Kick in a move to a new location or a friend or two moving who need your help and three months is can flash by. For the sake of argument consider. You likely have friends and family who (should) all rate as far more important than any one cache. Have you seen them all "in the last few weeks" ? I haven't. Sure life happens. Family gets sick, roof leaks, business trip comes up, but responsible people juggle these kinds of priorities all the time. So you put a note on the cache page that the cache is down for a month while you get your crisis sorted out. Or you ask a caching friend to go out and fix the cache for you. But 6 months, a year, no. If your life is that full then maybe hiding caches is not a good activity for you. And, are you finding caches while this crisis is going on? If so, then it is just that cache maintenance is not a priority for you. If you go on a sabbatical you get someone to mow the lawn (or whatever) while you are gone, so get someone to maintain your caches while you are away. Don't get me started on winter. Cache maintenance is something that should be considered when placing the cache. If you put it where you can't get to it easily when there is snow on the ground then get out the snowshoes bub; it is your job and you got it to do. Maybe you might think me unreasonable but when you place a cache you are obligated to maintain it, not just during the summer time or when it is convenient for you but when the cache needs it.

When it's abandoned. Simple as that. If it's not listed on any site. If the owner doesn't respond to attempts to contact. If a reasonable amount of time (these are not radioactive or biohazards and they are hidden you can give them 6 month or even a year to do something) passes with the owner not picking it up. Pull the cache and you are done. You have both dealt with the cache and given the owner every chance to do the right thing. I'm a big fan of the CRM (Cache Rescue Mission) concept where every cache is accounted for when it's end comes. I'm also a big fan of giving ownwers every chance to do the right thing and allowing them ample time to do so. Recently, after hearing that a particular cache was in bad shape and the owner was not active any more, a group of us hiked in on a rescue mission. The cache was in a large plastic bucket which had deteriorated over the years. So we packed in a new bucket, emptied out the wet, moldy and rusty stuff, added new swag and log book basically rebuilding the cache from the ground up. We did this because it was one of the earliest caches in the state, was in a great location and generally thought worth saving. However, if this was an unmaintained vacation cache in similar condition and the owner was unresponsive, it would have been CITOed out of there without a second thought. If any of the heavy hitters on this board want to fly over to slap on the cuffs for that then come ahead. Giving someone six months or a year to maintain a cache is ridiculous. If they can't do it in a matter of weeks then they are not maintaining the cache. Geocaching.com is a great national umbrella organization but they are not set up to do anything at the local level. That being the case, local organizations and groups of cachers have to fill that role. The standards we apply in Hawaii may not match those that work elsewhere.

I don't see the problem. The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test. A maintenance plan is in place. If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem. OK,sorry. I wasn't clear because I had drifted off topic. Yes, these caches meet all the requirements and follow all of the rules. Big deal. I consider them geotrash right from the getgo. Many of the cachers I know will spend weeks or months planning their caches; scouting locations, developing a puzzle, fabricating a container or researching the cache page. The hope is to provide the finder with a unique, special (dare I use those words) or enjoyable experience or maybe take them to a cool place where they might never have gone. I would consider success to be when you hear a cacher, months after they found it, say; yes I remember that one, that was a great cache. These caches you will have forgotten five minutes after you have signed the log. Hey Etoa Nrish, What you typed is a no-brainer to you, me, and many other people. Maybe people who signed up for geocaching.com on the same date in 2003 think alike. But to some others around here? You really didn't want to go there, did you? Ah yes, rare vintage that year. No, I really don't want to get into a discussion about cache quality. I suppose that there is a segment of the geocaching community that gets their jollys from lifting up lamp post skirts in Walmart parking lots and I should be more tolerant of that. It looks like I created my account 102 people before yours. So I have several hours on you. What a newbie. Just think of every cache, regardless of quality, as a gift. Here, maybe this will help: What can I say. You have an unfair advantage. At W78 the world gets to you sooner than it does me at W157 so you had a headstart. But then I get to stay up later than you do.

True. Even so, you don't have to be the one to place them, and you don't have to be the one to maintain them. Absolutely! I don't and I don"t.

I don't see the problem. The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test. A maintenance plan is in place. If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem. OK,sorry. I wasn't clear because I had drifted off topic. Yes, these caches meet all the requirements and follow all of the rules. Big deal. I consider them geotrash right from the getgo. Many of the cachers I know will spend weeks or months planning their caches; scouting locations, developing a puzzle, fabricating a container or researching the cache page. The hope is to provide the finder with a unique, special (dare I use those words) or enjoyable experience or maybe take them to a cool place where they might never have gone. I would consider success to be when you hear a cacher, months after they found it, say; yes I remember that one, that was a great cache. These caches you will have forgotten five minutes after you have signed the log. Hey Etoa Nrish, What you typed is a no-brainer to you, me, and many other people. Maybe people who signed up for geocaching.com on the same date in 2003 think alike. But to some others around here? You really didn't want to go there, did you? Ah yes, rare vintage that year. No, I really don't want to get into a discussion about cache quality. I suppose that there is a segment of the geocaching community that gets their jollys from lifting up lamp post skirts in Walmart parking lots and I should be more tolerant of that.

I don't see the problem. The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test. A maintenance plan is in place. If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem. OK,sorry. I wasn't clear because I had drifted off topic. Yes, these caches meet all the requirements and follow all of the rules. Big deal. I consider them geotrash right from the getgo. Many of the cachers I know will spend weeks or months planning their caches; scouting locations, developing a puzzle, fabricating a container or researching the cache page. The hope is to provide the finder with a unique, special (dare I use those words) or enjoyable experience or maybe take them to a cool place where they might never have gone. I would consider success to be when you hear a cacher, months after they found it, say; yes I remember that one, that was a great cache. These caches you will have forgotten five minutes after you have signed the log. In that case, I agree. You did drift from the topic because your belief that all caches should be awesome really isn't about vacation caches. It's about your personal caching desires. Not totally. The subjects of vacation caches and cache quality are somewhat related. Because they are frequently placed with limited knowledge of the location and not much time for thought or planning, vacation caches are often not very memorable except to those who placed them.

I don't see the problem. The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test. A maintenance plan is in place. If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem. OK,sorry. I wasn't clear because I had drifted off topic. Yes, these caches meet all the requirements and follow all of the rules. Big deal. I consider them geotrash right from the getgo. Many of the cachers I know will spend weeks or months planning their caches; scouting locations, developing a puzzle, fabricating a container or researching the cache page. The hope is to provide the finder with a unique, special (dare I use those words) or enjoyable experience or maybe take them to a cool place where they might never have gone. I would consider success to be when you hear a cacher, months after they found it, say; yes I remember that one, that was a great cache. These caches you will have forgotten five minutes after you have signed the log.

Like MM says come on over and visit. Contact local cachers here, make some friends, go on some hikes and if you really GOTTA place a cache maybe we can help you.

Sometimes vacation caches do last. The two that I adopted have lasted 5 and 7 years respectively. But only because of diligent and on-going maintenance. Both have gone MIA twice but I keep them going because they are in great places and are popular with visitors. Others deserve a quick death. One of the latest on Oahu lasted slightly less than two weeks before it got muggled and was archived.

See, this is a prime example of where we get into trouble. So they are going to move to Hawaii in 6 to 9 months (fingers crossed) and build in Volcano. Sounds kind of iffy to me. Has anyone heard of the credit meltdown. Highly likely that they will be unable to get the building loan and can't make the move for some time.... We get into trouble when we start assuming the worst is what will always happen. It could play out exactly like you laid out. It could play out exactly like the future owner plans. At best you have cause for a contengency plan. Not find trouble becaues you were looking. It is not that I am looking for trouble. What bothers me is the apparent willingness of Groundspeak and some reviewers to uncritically accept whatever people say. This "don't ask don't tell" attitude just invites abuse. I would just like to see some judgement used to evaluate statements made. Now, if these people had said; we have a house under construction in Volcano and expect to move to Hawaii on or about April 30, 2009, that is a little more believable. They could still be lying through their teeth but at least the statement has some substance to it. I am not expecting anything extraordinary. Just some common sense evaluation of the veracity of statements made. We all do this every day when talking to people. BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". Bison tubes dropped in a park... Wonderful! You would think that they might have had better things to do on their honeymoon.

See, this is a prime example of where we get into trouble. So they are going to move to Hawaii in 6 to 9 months (fingers crossed) and build in Volcano. Sounds kind of iffy to me. Has anyone heard of the credit meltdown. Highly likely that they will be unable to get the building loan and can't make the move for some time. So who is going to maintain the cache? Their first choice of a temporary maintainer, who who would have satisfied the requirement on paper, doesn't "get" geocaching and was reluctant from the start. A highly probable scenario is that there will be another orphaned cache that escondido100 or another Big Island cacher will have to clean up. So... I say again, no vacation caches. Failing that, local maintainers must be active cachers who agree up front to take responsibility. No Aunt Ednas. Oops sorry, too old fashioned. No Aunt Tiffanys. Yeah, I keep getting those emails from the nice bank officials in Nigeria who are in a sweat to transfer $3,000,000 to my account if I will only send them my personal information. They get deleted along with the ones from mainland cachers wanting me to maintain their film canister under a pile of rocks in a parking lot cache.

The same as I have from the beginning... I feel the guidelines should be amended to prominently show the need for any vacation cache that the owner can not maintain, has to have a resident cacher as maintainer prior to the physical placement of said cache. Which of course comes before subitting a cache for approval. This would avoid most of the problems with placement, acceptable containers, maintenance, etc. Too many cachers leave a cache, go home, then find out their cache can not be approved. Those become geo-litter unless adopted, maintenance duties volunteered for, or removed by resident cachers. Sometimes they say (maybe truthfully) that "Aunt Edna" will maintain the cache. But why should a non-cacher be allowed the responsibilty of maintaining a cache? They're not even a part of the game. Just doesn't make sense. If a travelling cacher can not contact a local cacher or two, to find out if a particular placement won't be a problem, then they're not taking their responsiblity as 'owner' seriously. Which, as pointed out in previous posts by others, can put geocaching in that area in peril. I've seen the "Aunt Edna" thing mentioned several times on cache pages, and I agree, it sounds quite ridiculous, and may even be a lie in some cases. But I can also see where defining the maintainer as a "cacher" would never work. What, 1 find? 10 finds, but none in the last 2 years? Someone with 5,000 finds who regularly gets their caches archived for lack of maintenance while out finding 50 caches a week? Don't laugh, I've seen examples similar this one many times. I do happen to agree Hawaii is a "special place" in the case of vacation caches. C'mon now, I think the Hawaii reviewer might get a few more vacation cache submissions than Keystone gets Deer Hunter vacation submissions in Meadville. I also remember a native of an Island nation (or territory) off the coast of Africa who started a similar thread a year or two ago. They claimed, as one of only a handful of known cachers on the island, to receive several out of the blue email requests per year to maintain dropped vacation caches. I can't remember the name of the Island or find the thread, but this really happened. Really it did. I'd consider this Island a "special place" too. Not that I think Hawaii and this Island necessitate the need for a re-write of the guidelines or anything. But there really aren't that many "special places" either. I am also a Hawaii geocacher and as you can see the subject of vacation caches is a hot topic here for many reasons detailed above. I just wanted to comment on the "Aunt Edna" maintenance issue. I adopted two vacation caches which were supposed to be maintained by "Aunt Edna" but ended up being orphaned and the stories may be instructive. First cache was dropped by a cacher from Colorado and was going to be maintained by a Continental Airlines pilot who flew to Hawaii regularly. Then this pilot was reassigned and the cache was orphaned. Second cache was going to be maintained by the cacher's sister, a non-geocacher. Well... the sister got married, started to have a family so cache maintenance had no place in her life. Lesson learned; maintenance by non cachers does not work long term. So what do you suggest you ask? As other Hawaii cachers have, I have seen so many ill conceived and abandoned vacation caches that I feel that they should not be allowed, period. I also understand that this may not be a position that Groundspeak can support. So, I would support them as long as there is a local maintainer. But no Aunt Ednas. Active cachers only, who live within the local area. It should also be required that these maintenance arrangements be made prior to the cache being submitted for approval with the maintainer's name included on the cache page. By doing things this way, local cachers could, to some degree, control the number and placement of vacation caches by agreeing or not agreeing to maintenance arrangements. If we (local cachers) agree to maintain vacation caches then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the problem.

It is interesting to note how many people on the east coast and other points in the contigious 48 feel qualified to comment on land issues in Hawaii. The fact is, as Erik rightly points out, that except for small portions, Barber's Point NAS is no longer US government property. The military closed the base and transfered the P3 squadrons to Kaneohe NAS and other places. The land was transfered to the State of Hawaii and is now called Kalaeloa Field. The gates are open, the guard shacks are deserted and crumbling. The public has free access to much of the area. Yes, there are US Government Property signs all over the place as there are many other signs, buildings and other artifacts of military occupation. They are there primarily because the military moved out and left them there. The State of Hawaii has not determined a new use for the land and has left everything as is. As Erik also notes, you folks are getting sucked in to what is essentially a personality clash between edchen and the cache owner. He has found no support in the local forum, calling those who disagree with him emotional and ignorant. So he is taking his discussion to a national stage where he hopes that others who may not have complete information will agree with him. No one disagrees with the position that caches should not be placed on US Government property. But that is not the issue here. Kalaeloa is NOT US Government property. End of story.