Highpointer

Here is another example of a "travel bug hotel" that I really hope the owner will remove, or move it to a better location and deactivate its "travel bug hotel" status: Signal Glass Hill TB Hotel It is less than 100 meters from the highway and is too likely to be muggled. Here is the log of the most recent geocacher to find this cache, who found it laying uncovered on the ground. I really wish that the administrators who approve geocaches to not approve any new "travel bug hotels" unless specific rules are in place to ensure that such caches have at least a reasonable level of security. Caches like this one and the short-lived Travel Bug Transit Center - missing less than three weeks after being placed in a clump of grass at the end of a road in an industrial area of Phoenix just south of Sky Harbor International Airport, with the loss of approximately six travel bugs - should never have been approved as "travel bug hotels". Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

In my opinion, there are some caches that I wouldn't put travel bugs in, because such caches appear to be too exposed and there is a high probability that the cache could become lost, stolen, or ransacked while the travel bug is in it. Placing travel bugs in poor-quality caches or exposed caches is a major reason why travel bugs become lost. Examples of caches that have a high risk of becoming lost, stolen, or ransacked are caches right next to roads or popular trails, particularly if they are not well covered, or caches under vegetation in urban parks or greenbelts - caches like these are frequently removed by landscapers or other workers. Therefore, if you find a cache that has a been placed in a location where the risk of the cache being "muggled" is high, then please don't put any travel bugs in it if you can find better-quality caches. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

I have an idea for that should reduce the number of travel bugs that become lost at an event. Hold an event at a location that has wireless Internet access and encourage geocachers who have wireless-enabled laptop computers to bring them to the event. The event organizers should bring or more computers with wireless access for those geocachers who don't have wireless-enabled portable computers. This would enable attendees who bring travel bugs to log them into the event when they arrive, and people who pick up travel bugs could log their finds before they leave. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

A serious geocacher should pick up and move every travel bug that they see. If you ignore a travel bug that you see in a cache, then that increases the risk of the travel bug becoming lost. Many travel bugs become lost when they are picked up and not logged by inconsiderate, non-logging geocachers, or become lost when the cache itself is stolen or ransacked or becomes lost due to natural or man-made reasons. If the mission is really important to the travel bug owner, then the owner should attach a tag with the mission statement on it. Otherwise, the travel bug could go anywhere. I really feel if I am not doing anything wrong if I pick up a travel bug and move it to another quality cache, even if that cache is in the opposite direction of its presumed mission. One of the presumed features of travel bugs should be the random, unpredictable nature of its movements. It doesn't have to get to is intended destination by the shortest or fastest route - part of the fun of travel bugs is seeing all the different locations that it could visit and the route that it takes as it wanders around the world. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

In my opinion, I don't recommend leaving travel bugs in a cache with this description, because such a cache has a high risk of being found accidentally by a non-geocacher and becoming lost. When a cache becomes lost with travel bugs inside, then all of those travel bugs become lost as well. Particularly with this cache, it is likely to be removed by highway maintenance workers or the roadside cleanup crew. Even it the container itself it lockable, the lock doesn't do much good if a non-geocacher could easily find the cache, pick it up and carry it away. Therefore, I don't think this is a very good cache because it is not likely to last very long. We need to discourage the placement of caches that have a high risk of being muggled. Caches should be well-hidden in good locations so that when I seek to find one, I should be confident that the cache is in place. It is annoying to waste a lot of time trying to find a cache and not finding it, only to learn when I get home that no matter how long I spent looking, there was no way I would find the cache because the cache had been removed. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

That would not prevent it from being emptied. Any cache has the potential to be lost, stolen, or ransacked. However, good cache placement and security features can reduce the risk. If a cache is intended as a drop-off location for travel bugs, it should be lockable with a combination lock posted on the cache description. Thus, a person who finds the cache without the cache description would be unable to open the container. Such a cache should also be "Members Only" to restrict the cache to serious geocachers who are not likely to plunder it.

Here is another reason why I don't like "travel bug hotels", and a major reason why the administrators who approve caches should not approve any new "travel bug hotels" unless specific rules are in place to ensure the safety and security of such caches. Here is such a cache near Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix that apparently got muggled only three weeks after it was made : Travel Bug Transit Center It was a tube hidden in a clump of high grass surrounding a telephone pole, at the end of a cul-de-sac in an industrial area on the south side of the airport. This was a very exposed cache, and I knew that it would not last long. Any geocacher with some experience should know that this is not a good place for a cache, especially a cache to leave multiple travel bugs. It appears that approximately eight travel bugs were lost. I visited this cache, and I my opinion it was a cache that should never have been approved. It was made by an inexperienced geocacher who had an account for less than a month. I wrote to him privately to express my concerns (after I got his permission to do so), but he failed to fix the cache before it was too late. Is there anyone out there who agrees with me that "travel bug hotels" should be banned, or at least be approved only with specific restrictions in place, such as being in a secure location (i.e. on private property with permission) or being lockable and securely attached to a fixed object in such a way that it cannot be easily removed? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

You are not being greedy by taking as many travel bugs as you can, as long as you can move them to other caches within a reasonable amount of time. Travel bugs are not regular trade items, so when you pick up a travel bug, eventually you will drop it in another cache. This is sort of like a person who earns a lot of money, but who eventually gives all of his money away. Would you consider a person like that to be greedy? Some people criticize me for taking too many travel bugs. However, since I move all other travel bugs I pick up to other caches, then why don't I earn any credit when I move the travel bugs? Sometimes I may have more than 10 travel bugs in my inventory, especially when I am intending to go on a trip. There have been other times when my inventory is empty. I know everyone has their own opinions about geocaching, but one of mine is that I don't like to leave a cache with more than one travel bug in it. The reason for this is that if the cache becomes lost, stolen, or ransacked, then only one travel bug is lost. For example, just before Memorial Day weekend this year, I had 16 travel bugs in my possession. However, during that weekend, I traveled from my home in Tempe to the Flagstaff area in northern Arizona, and I deposited each of those 16 travel bugs to 16 different caches, either in the Flagstaff area or en route to Flagstaff. Here is one of my log entries from that weekend. In my opinion, 16 travel bugs distributed to 16 different caches makes these travel bugs accessible to a wider number of geocachers, rather than placing these 16 travel bugs in only one or two caches (and spreads out the risk of travel bug losses). Another of my opinions about travel bugs is that if a geocacher sees a travel bug in a cache, then that geocacher should, in most cases, pick up this travel bug. Geocachers shouldn't pass up travel bugs. They are fun to pick up and move, and travel bugs should have a random nature about them. If you aren't moving in the exact direction that a travel bug is intended to go, then pick it up and move it anyway. Eventually, it will get to its destination as long as the travel bug stays active. It should not be the intention of travel bugs to travel the shortest or fastest route. Random, multidirectional movements is in the spirit of the travel bug's nature. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

I put a travel bug in a relatively new cache just off a popular hiking trail in a Phoenix desert preserve park two days ago. Another geocacher visited this cache yesterday, but they did not pick up the travel bug because they wrote that they did not have anything to trade. Here is the excerpt from their log entry: "Second cache of the day while out working up an appetite for Christmas dinner. Found the cache easily, although it is well hidden. TB is still there and we left it as we had nothing to trade today." I wrote to this geocaching team to explain to them that travel bugs are not regular trade items, so they should have picked it up. They don't appear to be inexperienced geocachers, because they have a Geocaching.com account since Feb. 2002 and have over 250 finds. Therefore, how can we experienced geocachers encourage other geocachers to pick up and move travel bugs, and not leave them behind in caches? Also, why do some geocachers don't understand that travel bugs are not regular trade items, and thus you do not have to leave something else in exchange for a travel bug? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

Here is a new cache in Higley, AZ in which the geocacher must first find two magnetic keys to unlock the cache. This is another concept that could be applied to quality "travel bug hotel". One idea I have heard which may have been implemented elsewhere for a "travel bug hotel" is a cache where the container is located in one of the lockable mailboxs at an office or residential complex. One of the mailboxes is currently unused for mail, so this is the cache. To open the cache, the geocacher must find the key hidden in a micro cache nearby. After opening the cache, the geocacher must return the key to the micro container.

Secure the cache and lock it! There is a cache in Black Canyon City, AZ, Jumbo Combo Cache, which is a large ammo can, embedded in concrete, and locked with a combination lock. To find this cache, you have to find two other caches, one which has the coordinates and the other which has the combination to the lock. While this is not a "travel bug hotel", the concept appears to be a good one to apply to travel hotels. First, the container should be securely attached so it cannot be removed easily. This method used for this cache works well, or it could be chained and locked to a tree, post, or other secure object. Second, the cache container should be locked with a combination lock. This will reduce the risk of the cache being opened by a non-geocacher. Like a regular hotel, a "travel bug hotel" is not a good hotel unless it is a high-quality building that provides safety and security to its occupants. Would you stay in a hotel that is falling apart, where could not lock the doors to your room, and where you would fear for your own safety or risk the loss of your property? I know that the reputation of any hotel declines drastically if criminals robbed, mugged, or attacked guests, or if criminals broke into rooms or vandalized, stole, or broke into cars in the parking lot. Most people wouldn't stay in a hotel under such conditions. If travel bugs had a choice, they wouldn't stay in a "travel bug hotel" that failed to offer safety and security during their stay. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

However, this brings up the biggest hazard of "travel bug hotels". Caches near rest stops, highways, and airports are likely to be found by non-geocachers and have a high risk of becoming lost, stolen, plundered, or ransacked. Such caches are also likely to be picked up and removed by workers such as groundskeepers and highway maintenance personnel. Most of these people are not aware of geocaching and assume that geocaches are trash or abandoned property. I recall reading a few year ago in a local forum that there was a cache at a rest area along an Arizona interstate, and a geocacher found the cache, not in its intended hiding location but it was in the back of the truck of one of the workers performing maintenance at the rest area. Apparently the worker found the cache and assumed it was trash, so he put it in the back of his truck. Fortunately the geocacher was able to "rescue" it from the trash, but had there not been an alert geocacher there at the time, the cache would have been discarded.

I zoomed in on the map of this location, and it appears to be very close to a road in the park. How could such a cache be remote? High quality caches should have such challenge to get to and to find. Caches that are too accessible and too easy to find are likely to become muggled.

That's is one of the biggest reasons why I dislike travel bug hotels. Most travel bug hotels are too easy to find and are highly likely to become lost, stolen, or ransacked, resulting in the loss of many travel bugs when that happens.

It appears to be in the correct cache now. However, if the travel bug never visited the cache The Treasures of Captain McGregore, you should delete the log entry for the retrieval of the travel bug from this cache.

I strongly dislike most travel bug hotels. When I have more time, I will elaborate on the reasons why I have this opinion. According to previous forum postings, it appears that Jeremy Irish dislikes travel bug hotels as well.

There are micro caches at all levels of quality, and many micro caches are high-quality caches. The one drawback of any micro cache is that there is no room for trading objects other than small items such as coins or pins, and there is no room for most travel bugs. However, a micro cache is appropropriate for hiding in locations where there is no room to safely hide a larger cache container. There are many places, particularly in urban areas, where it is not appropriate to place a container such as an ammo can, because such a container of that size is too exposed and will soon become lost, stolen, or ransacked. Some examples of low-quality caches that I have observed in my home region are ammo cans or other full-sized containters that are in exposed locations, such as under shrubbery in a community park or greenbelt or situated right next to a road. Caches like these usually have a short life expectancy. Many such caches in community parks are found and removed by groundskeepers or kids playing in the area. Ammo cans really should be used for backcountry locations or other large areas of open space where they are less likely to be found accidentally by non-geocachers, and where they can provide long-lasting protection to the contents from the elements. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

I hope the reviewers can loosen the "maintainable distance" to encourage experienced geocachers to place more high-quality caches in remote areas. I live in Arizona and there are many geocaches in the Phoenix metropolitan area, where I live, but when I travel to the less-populated regions of the state, there are many areas where there may not be any cache within a radius of 10 or more miles. When I drive throughout Arizona, I would like to see more caches in the regions of low population density. For example, this weekend I plan to visit a friend at a motel in Holbrook, where we will go hiking in Petrified Forest National Park. However, there are only two caches within 11 miles of Holbrook, as you can see here. Another example is Gila Bend, a small town along I-8 in southwestern Maricopa County. I own a virtual cache in this community, but since no active geocachers live in Gila Bend, the next closest cache is 12.4 miles away. I don't want geocaching to be just an urban activity. Geocaching should be an activity that encourages people to go hiking and traveling to all regions of the USA and the world. Geocaching should not be restricted to places close to geocachers' homes or densely-populated areas. Most of my favorite geocaches are those that are not within my home metropolitan area, but are in places that take me to many interesting locations that I wouldn't have thought of visiting otherwise. Some small, rural communities, such as Gila Bend, have no active geocachers living in them. If we did not encourage experienced geocachers to place high-quality caches in interesting yet remote or sparsely-populated places not within their home metropolitan areas, then how would some of those regions ever get any caches? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

Here is another example of an easy cache that I couldn't find during a trip to Ireland. The cache Ninestar006 in Killarney was "inside big dead tree stump, on right riverbank, between two bridges (visible from cache location)," according to the cache hint. There was only one stump that fit this description. I looked throughout the entire stump during my two visits to this location but I couldn't find the cache. I thought the cache had to be missing. However, after I returned to the USA, another geocacher found it. Therefore, why couldn't I find this cache? This is especially disappointing to me because this was a cache in Ireland that I particularly wanted to find. I also had travel bugs with me, and I wanted to leave one in this cache. Since this cache is far from my home, I will probably never return to this location again. Geocachers, please give me advice to help me avoid recording more no-finds like this one. I don't understand how I could look in the exact location described in the hint and could not find the cache. In this case, I was at the exact location where the cache was hidden, but I could not identify the cache in its obvious hiding location. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

MisterNixter, We need more caches in remote areas. Please place caches in interesting places when you travel. Make sure they are well-hidden, not too close places where people congregate, and you use a durable container, preferably an ammo can. We need to encourage geocachers to place more geocaches in places other than urban areas.

Here is an example of an easy cache (Amber's Awesome Cache) that I couldn't find during a trip to visit family members in Connecticut. It appears to be a large container and a geocacher with less than 20 finds confirmed that it was in place. I looked for over an hour for this cache and I feel that I looked under every rock and used the description and hint accurately, but I still couldn't find it. Frankly, I feel that I must be one of the least effective geocachers who has over 1,000 finds. I should never leave an easy cache go unfound. Is there anyone else who feels the way I do? Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

Don't expect travel bugs to take the most direct route towards their goals. Part of fun of travel bugs is seeing all the different places they visit while en route to their goals. Sometimes they may go all around the world just to travel a short distance.

One of my pet peeves is geocachers putting travel bugs in exposed caches and other caches that have a high risk of becoming lost or stolen. Geocachers should use common sense and not put travel bugs in caches that have a high risk of becoming lost or stolen. If this happens to a cache with travel bugs inside, then all of the travel bugs in the cache become lost as well. (That's one of the reasons why I don't like travel bug hotels, because many of them are in easily-accessible, exposed locations and become muggled, but that is a topic for discussion another time). In my opinion, it is better to hold onto a travel bug for a little longer, rather than putting it in a risky cache. Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)

Place travel bugs in any quality cache (but not a cache that is too exposed or likely to become lost or stolen - many travel bugs become lost in this way when such caches disappear with travel bugs in them). This is especially good when you return from a trip with a collection of travel bugs, and you have found most of the caches near your home. Have fun making a return trip to these caches to drop off travel bugs. For example, I drop off many of the travel bugs that I collect while traveling by revisiting caches in South Mountain Park in Phoenix (a large urban backcountry desert park with many high-quality caches). Ken Akerman (a.k.a. Highpointer)