Some respondents seem to take offence to my statement where none was intended and also assumed I had problems. The main thrust of my proposal was to allow the greatest number of people to join the game by limiting the number of caches any one individual can place - it's not an elite club for a few members to commandeer an area by placing multitudes of caches - be they excellent or not. OK so make it a limit of 50 or another number but at least limit it. More people means more diverse ideas. It doesn't guarantee the quality will rise or diminish but it throws open the game to more people who may wish to place a cache of their own which will naturally fall within an area relatively local to where they live. Cache maintenance will always be a problem for some, and particularly the farther afield they are placed from the CO's home, logic dictates they are potentially more likely to be not up to par the greater the number of caches an individual has to manage. I've seen it myself but it is not within my remit to work with a CO or message them, no matter how friendly the approach, that their caches may be substandard, and quite honestly it would not be welcomed. People can be very sensitive to criticism no matter how well intentioned (take this post for instance). We have all done our bit to help out CO's by replacing damp logs etc, it's just common courtesy and part of the game, but allowing unlimited placement of caches within an area by one individual really does shut out many others who may have wished to do so.