worldtraveler

From the Geocaching FAQ page:

You're welcome. And again, I'm glad your travel bug will be reactivated.Happy caching.

Your topic title reminded me of this anecdote: When Chester Harding was painting Daniel Boone's portrait in 1820 (when Boone was nearly 86 years old), Harding asked Boone if he had ever been lost during his travels. Boone replied, " No, I can't say as ever I was lost, but I was bewildered once for three days." I'm glad it didn't take you three days.

Where are those Travel Bug guidelines? Maybe we could all use a quick refresher on those. Well, there is this link which says: and There's also this pinned forum topicwhich explains travel bugs in great detail. There you can read: This isn't something new. It is a topic that has been discussed in this forum several times going back at least to December of last year. That's why I said I wouldn't have thought a heads up was necessary, given your caching and forum experience.

Thanks a lot. You're welcome. You are a veteran cacher and forum poster. I wouldn't have thought a heads up was necessary. It is your responsibility to know and abide by the guidelines. Paying for a travel bug doesn't exempt you from using it as intended. I'm glad your were able to get your travel bug back in operation, though. It shows the system works.

I'm glad the cache has been approved. I'm also a little disappointed with the apparently well intentioned but misguided "logic" that some have expressed for not approving it. Jeremy and Groundspeak can allow or prohibit just about whatever kinds of caches they want. There is no legal requirement for them to be even-handed, "fair and balanced", etc. They aren't even required to adhere to their own guidelines, and can violate or change them at will. The hijackings and murders committed by the terrorists on 9/11 were acts of evil. The response of the police, firefighters, and citizens at the WTC, the Pentagon, and aboard United 93 were heroic, selfless, and good. Some things really are black and white. Some things really do deserve commendation and commemoration. The world, not just the U.S., changed on 9/11. I'm glad the cache was approved.

A virtual TB is where a tracking number is passed around so people can grab a travel bug they have never seen and log it through caches they or the bug have never been to. An example of one that hasn't been locked down yet may be found here.

The mileage isn't what it seems. The travel bug has logged a lot of "virtual" mileage at the invitation, and with the assistance of, its owner. Many like this have already been "locked down" by Groundspeak.com.

My position is that these locations are not inherently bad spots for geocaches because placing a geocache there can flag them for CITO. Trash heaps:My proposal specifically suggests locating caches no closer than twice the GPS accuracy reading from a trash heap. That will equate to no more than 100 ft. most of the time. If the purpose of the cache is to CITO that area, the cache should still not be hidden in or near the trash heap for reasons already given. BTW, none of the caches I've found in or near trash heaps had any mention of the need for CITO on the cache page, so they evidently were not placed there for that purpose. Homeless encampments: It could be quite dangerous and possibly illegal to attempt to CITO a homeless encampment. The person(s) could have either explicit or implicit permission to be there. I doubt a reviewer would approve a cache if that intent was on the cache page.

My point was that there was a time that caches were placed in these places to get them cleaned up. It appears that some would prefer to close their eyes to these needs. Okay, if I understand your rationale correctly, it is that trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations because they identify places in need of CITO. Did I get it right?

OK, I agree with the statement that we shouldn't use functional birdhouses. However, I can't buy your non-functional birdhouse argument. What I got out of it was advise to not make your non-functional birdhouse appear to be so much like a functional one that it takes close inspection. The idea is to not train folks to closely inspect all birdhouses to see if they really are birdhouse or caches. There is one near here that from a distance you can't tell, but get to about 20' or so you can see the hole is blocked. Thanks, CR. That is exactly what I meant. I think fake birdhouses make great cache locations as long as it can be observed from a reasonable distance that they are fake.

Remember when cachers practiced CITO and tried to make the world better. That was nice. Sometimes, I miss that. Cachers still practice CITO. Sarcasm is an ineffective smokescreen. Please provide rationale for why trash heaps and homeless encampments are appropriate cache locations.

Inappropriate: functional birdhouses Could the birdhouse really be used by a bird, or would it take a very close inspection to determine that it is not functional? If the answer is "yes" to either, don't use it. Rationale: If a bird starts a family in your functional birdhouse, cache seekers could become home wreckers. If cache seekers need to get very close to your non-functional birdhouse to discover the difference, they could inadvertently disturb other legitimate birdhouses before investigating yours. They could also disturb legitimate birdhouses near other caches, based on their experience seeking yours.

Inappropriate place: trash heap Is there a trash heap, pile of refuse, garbage, discarded construction material, etc. within twice the GPS accuracy radius of where you intend to hide the cache? If so, find another suitable spot farther away. Rationale: You may not have hidden your cache in the trash heap, but we don't know that when we're searching for it; and multiplied cachers searching for it there will only scatter the trash further. Also, given the choice, does anyone really prefer looking for a cache in or around a trash heap? edit - additional rationale: Biohazards such as discarded hypodermic syringes, concealed lumber with protuding nails. Also, a non-cacher may decide to clean up the mess and inadvertently remove your cache, too.

Okay, how about this as an idea for keeping the discussion civil and on-topic: Those who think this topic could/should lead to better cache-placing in general can list specific kinds of locations they think are inappropriate but not already addressed in the guidelines, along with their rationale for listing. Those who disagree with specific kinds of locations being included on the list should give their rationale for why they think that specific kind of location is a good one and should be permitted. The TPTB will then have the benefit of our vast store of calm, cool, rational opinions if/when they consider making any changes.

<Self-moderation:> "...but it is a valid topic for 'a LOT more civil' discussion or even heated debate in this forum.

I've never searched for a cache that I later considered to be underrated. A significant percentage of caches I've searched for within the U.S. are overrated when compared to the objective criteria listed in Clayjar's rating system. It seems to be less of a problem outside the U.S., from my somewhat limited but widely scattered experience. I attribute the practice of overrating to weak willpower. Many cache hiders apparently can't resist the temptation to participate in "one-upsmanship".

Did you read the OP? He had taken a break from geocaching and was shocked by the changes he perceived had taken place in the interim. And his perception is shared by quite a number of others who have weighed in on the topic. I don't see how "taking a break from geocaching" will alter either the perception or the reality of the problem. No argument that this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but it is a valid topic for discussion or even heated debate in this forum.

Welcome back, El D. I also agree with your OP, and the fact that the topic resurfaces and is hotly debated periodically (5/03, 12/04, 1/05 are a few examples) is evidence that it is important to many. In May, 2003 the topic was "lame caches", and I listed common characteristics of caches I considered lame at that time: Three more years of geocaching has only reinforced my opinion. One thing that has changed during that time is the proportion of "bad" to "good" caches, if my experience is typical. Cheap, shoddy, ill-placed caches seem to be becoming the norm rather than the exception.

I was planning one until the rules were changed. The requirement to have a local contact for remotely placed caches brought my plans to a screaching halt. Back then, many countries didn't have a single geocacher or cache, so coming up with a local contact for maintenance between my visits was not possible. I also found evidence at a cache in Bangkok that another geocacher was working on the same concept. He had stamped coordinates on a brass tag and epoxied it to a concrete curb. The coords were for a location thousands of miles away. He also had to abandon his plan before it was completed.

Hmmm... looks like he's tweaked the wording yet again. The log deletion threat has indeed been dropped, but the 2-bug minimum is a requirement, not a request, at this time. From the cache page: If the cache owner wants two travel bugs to remain in the cache at all times, he should buy two of his own and make that their mission. This cache is still a prison, not a hotel.

Over 76,000 miles...if you are counting personal TBs that travel with the owner. 510,447 mi Worldtraveler HOly cow! And you only have 4 hundred sumtin geocaches! Yeah, I get really lousy cache mileage. I'm just glad I don't have to buy (most of) the gas!

No need to trade. <snip> 421,527 Current Available Miles 97,147 2006 Elite Qualifying Miles 26 2006 Elite Qualifying Segments 2,928,027 Total Mileage Since Enrollment

The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem... I enjoy helping travel bugs along on their missions, and I frequently document their travels with photos. I wouldn't shell out 85 bucks just to help a travel bug, but I suppose I could use a bug's mission as an excuse for spending money I might have difficulty justifying otherwise. But that's just me.

I meet maybe one cacher per year on the trails, so it's not likely to break me. ... or a migrant worker who likes a change of scenery now and then, perhaps?