justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
Also--caches don't need saving. We could probably use MORE old caches archived. We need more new ones once we've found most of the ones in our area. Let the old multis be archived--that gives you the chance to create new ones, maybe they'll be better.
I agree with you regarding most caches. But the multi I spoke of was one of the best I've ever done and deserved to be adopted.
-
Is there a searchable database for caches that are up for adoption? If not why? Instead of waiting for a cache to be archived wouldn't it be easier to list caches that are up for adoption and make the list searchable by zip code?
If I were a cache owner who was no longer interested in caching it would be much simpler to submit my cache(s) for adoption. Other cachers could search for adoptable caches in there area and locate some they may be willing to take over. If, after lets say 3 months, my cache wasn't adopted it could simply be archived. Making the adoption process easier may encourage cache owners to stop abandoning caches when they are no longer playing the game.
Owner maintenance is only going to be done by people who are active in the game. simplifying the adoption and archiving of caches will just speed up the process of getting caches and cache location in the hands of people who love the game.
A really nice old multi cache in my area was recently archived. I would have gladly adopted it if I had knew that it was up for adoption. I did place a tribute cache in its place but it's not the same thing.
-
I'll almost always replace a bad log. I do it for two reasons. First to help out a fellow cacher. Second is I can't stand the thought of a new cacher finding a cache that is in bad shape. It's bad enough for a seasoned cacher to find a cache in bad shape but it's a real bummer for someone who's new to the game.
I have, in certain situations, replaced a cache container. First I have to have found the original cache container. Never replace a container just because you didn't find the original. If I have a similar container in my caching bag I will replace the broken one (or repair if it's a simple repair.) I will make sure to note in my log that "I replaced the cache with a similar container. The new container should be ok for a while or until the cache owner chooses to replace it." This lets future cachers know that the cache is ok. It also lets the cache owner know that the new container is just a temporary fix and should be replaced soon.
If the cache owner has not been active for some time I submit a needs archived log and try to get the cache removed so another cacher can utilize the spot.
-
I don't know if it was mentioned but to possible help prevent others from just placing caches on the property without permission and I saw your cache page which looks good, but maybe add something like "Placed by permission from.....". That will show you obtain permission and any future hiders would probably contact you to ask how they can.
The land managers and our local reviewer have been in contact with each other. Our reviewer is now aware of the process required to place caches on the property. This is somthing I should have done in the beginning.
-
First up, let me tell you about myself.
I am a 19 year old musician.
I very often busk on weekends in Launceston, TAS.
Today, as I was walking around my local area, I had a thought.
What if I was a cache?
Then I thought no, that's ridiculous - but what if;
I host one of those "event caches."
I go busking, with a logbook and pen on my person.
Cachers must find me busking, and request a certain song followed by a keyword (if this goes ahead, I'll be learning The Fray's "You Found Me").
Once this is said, I give them the logbook and pen, they sign it and give it back.
Still a couple of possible kinks in this plan but, as a whole, what are your thoughts?
I've had a similar idea. I would set up a cache page and every so often (with a few weeks notice) I would post the coords to a location I was to be at for lets say 3 hours. I would simply sit at that location with logbook in hand (and a few travelers) and wait for anyone to find me. You could post different locations each time. No permission necessary as long as the location had public access.
Great way to meet other cachers and introduce people to locations that you normaly couldn't place a physical cache.
-
I am not fimular with the incident in NJ but from what I can gather it has absoutly nothing to do with this situation although I can see how people would jump to that conclusion.
There is one spot within the property that is still available to place a cache. It complys with the conservation guidelines and is far enough away from any other caches. I have received palimanary approval to place a cache there and have been working on it for a few months now (this is not a simple lock and lock cache.)
If things don't work out with the new cache I've already agreed to give up that spot so that the new cache can be relocated there. The only thing I've asked is that in the future if the new cache owners decide they nolonger want to be involved in caching they allow me to adopt the cache.
-
I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?
I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.
Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?
Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?
I confess, that's exactly what I thought but wanted to hear more from the OP. This does seem be a similar situation. I don't know that the OP means to, or realizes that s/he seems like they're creating a territorial situation and not communal.
I don't know that the new cache owner realizes that s/he may have placed a geocache in a protected wetland area or on private property because they didn't take the time to speak with the land managers about placing it in an approved location. That is what this is all about. If the land owners or managers have no problem with the location of the new cache, neither do I. If it is placed on private property it's better to remove it now before it starts to cause real problems. The bottom line is If you don't own the land you must get permission from the land owner or manager before you place a cache.
I don't know if you read about the incident in New Jersey where a caching association's president worked closely with a land manager (also a geocacher, also a member of the association) to force removal of caches already in the parks in order to replace them with the association's (his) caches.
Some parts of your posts and rebuttals come off sounding like it's similar to the NNJC situation. Especially "Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?" It seemed like you were saying, "I made the parks aware of geocaching. I worked with them to set up rules. My caches should trump anyone who did not go through the same process.'
It is nice to read that the park managers are not anti-geocaching. Sometimes approaching park management can have a detrimental effect. Sometimes they shut out geocaching entirely because it sounds harmful, sometimes they would prefer not to have to deal with it and say no because it's easier then dealing with it, and when they do allow it it almost always involves some kind of hoop-jumping and red tape. In this case they have apparently appointed you go-between without outlining the restricted areas, explaining what authority you have, or posting anything on their website regarding geocaching and who to contact. It almost sounds like they are OK with geocaching but don't want to be bothered dealing with it.
It is good to read that you are willing to work with the other cacher to get the park to officially approve their cache, rather then get the park to remove it so you can plant yours.
Thank you Lone.R for the response. I've always found that the golden rule "do to others what you would have them do to you" should apply to everytng including caching. In this case getting permission from the land owner or manager is the right thing to do as is helping the new cacher keep there cache. I am working on doing both. The whole point of all this is to do the right thing regardless of how hard it may be. We also held our first geocaching 101 event this last fall and plan on holding one every year. Education can go a long way in avoiding issues like this in the future.
The park is wholy on board with geocaching. The program has been a great sucess. Getting the new cache removed was never my intention. Making sure it was in a safe and approved location is what this is all about.
-
I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?
I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.
Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?
Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?
I confess, that's exactly what I thought but wanted to hear more from the OP. This does seem be a similar situation. I don't know that the OP means to, or realizes that s/he seems like they're creating a territorial situation and not communal.
I don't know that the new cache owner realizes that s/he may have placed a geocache in a protected wetland area or on private property because they didn't take the time to speak with the land managers about placing it in an approved location. That is what this is all about. If the land owners or managers have no problem with the location of the new cache, neither do I. If it is placed on private property it's better to remove it now before it starts to cause real problems. The bottom line is If you don't own the land you must get permission from the land owner or manager before you place a cache.
-
This is not "Just a town park" It is part of the Mount Pisgah Conservation District and is considered conservation land. It is open to the public but there are rules and regulations to using the land.
Yes, many town meetings were attended and many hoops had to be jumped through to get the 5 caches I have placed there. I guess I took it to heart when Groundspeak required us to "seek permission from the land owner or manager?" I don't own the land so I contacted the people who do. I didn't know there were ssome rules you could follow and some you could ignore.
Notice how I said 5 caches placed on the property. My sixth cache was rejected because it was 12 feet from another one of mine. Had to contact the DCR to get permission to place it on the adjacent property.
The cache in question is about 508 feet from one of my own but that's not the issue. The issue is the cache may be inside the wetland area. After talking to the cache owners I'm convinced that they tried to place the cache right along the trail which would have been ok. Due to the proximity issues they were forced to push it back off the trail and into the wetlands.
I have already mapped out the land and identified two locations that the cache could be moved to. Both ado not meet the 526 foot rule but are close.
-
I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?
I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.
Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?
Does anyone else think this guy is starting to sound President of the NNJCish?
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, but you're sounding awful controlling to me here. Like it's "your park" or something. You say you were the first one to approach them for permission to place caches. I have a one word question for you. WHY? Looks to me like a ordinary Town Park in Massachusetts. The general consensus in Geocaching is if it's public land with no existing Geocaching Policy, than it's OK to place a cache there. Why butt in and get a policy created where there was none before?
You started in 2010. I know this website makes it extremely difficult to search for archived caches, but I can't imagine, unless this is a new park, that there haven't been caches there in the past.
Did you not read the part about how I'm trying to help them keep there cache? A cache that was placed without permission, within a wetland area and within 526 feet of another cache. Controlling??? Controlling would be demanding that the new cache be removed.
This is relatively new public land. It was purchased in 2008. Regardless of whether or not there were caches on the land prior to 2008, the property was purchased by new owners, and I would think you would have to get permission from the new owners to place or keep a cache on there property.
On there web site is a list of approved activities along with activities that are not allowed. At the bottom is a disclamer which reads " For all other activities and group events, permits, permissions, and other information contact:"
I would assume that geocaching falls under "all other activities."
The trust was very concerned with people just dropping caches where ever they wanted on the property. They are not cachers and asked me to monitor the area to make sure that if someone did place a cache or a letter box or anything they went through the same process I did. They are also working on getting some of the land designated as conservation land. This means that there are certain rules and guidelines that need to be maintained.
Again the new cache owners didn't know this because they didn't go through the steps to contact the proper people and get permission. If they did they would have learned some of this information and could have placed the cache in a proper spot. They got themselves into this and I'm honestly trying to help them out.
It's not my place to approve or disapprove the cache. I just informed the Trust that a new cache was placed and where it was placed. I've already invited the new cache owner to attend the next meeting and talk with the trustees.
I just think people should follow the rules and put in the time and effort if there going to place a cache. I also believe if you make a mistake you own up to it and take responsibility.
-
I'm doing everything I can to help these people keep there cache. But if this is the way it all works why have rules in the first place? Shouldn't the new cache owners say "Hey, we didn't know the rules, we placed a cache without permission in a location we shouldn't have. We'll remove it" Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? Even if the cache is allowed to remain shouldn't the offer be made?
I've already asked our local reviewer if the 526 ft rule could be waved in this case. I've identified two alternate locations within the area there cache could be relocated.
Considering the situation shouldn't the new cache owner be willing to move the cache or the reviewer be willing to grant an exception to the 526 ft rule to solve this situation?
-
I guess I was the first person to approach them about placing caches on the property.
The trustees were new to caching and it took me almost a year (and many meetings) to get the 6 caches I have there published. They were very particular as to where the caches would be hidden and what type of containers would be used. There are wetlands and fragile habitat areas they wanted to me to stay away from.
They liked the idea of having one geocaching contact person who would oversee all of the caches on the property.
The land is only 62 acres and the 8 caches that were planed would pretty much use up the available space required to place a cache within the lands boundaries.
-
The Massachusetts month my month challenge was buy far my favorite. The idea is to find a cache in every month and year since the first cache was placed in Mass.
For example I had to find a cache placed in October of 2000 fortunately the first cache placed in Mass (First Mass GC74) is still active. No caches placed in Mass in November of 2000. There were a few to choose from that were placed in December of 2000 and so on. Once you had found one in each month and year you had to find a new cache placed in the the current month an year and then were eligible to find the challenge cache and log it as a find. You had to keep a public book mark listing all of the qualifying caches you found so the cache owner could verify you completed the challenge.
Got to visit many areas around Massachusetts and found some really great caches. I'm sure many if not all states have a similar challenge. If not start one.
-
for me the one that travels far and wide outweighs the 5 that go missing within a month.
-
My only problem is I am always running out of favorite points. I currently have a 6 cache backlog. Wish there was a way to accumulate favorite points faster. I'm a moderate cacher so I don't build up favorite points quickly. I have a "pending favorite points" list I keep but that takes up time.
I did that as well when I started. But I soon realized that I couldn't keep writing "I'll give it a Fav when I get my next one" on cache pages, because half the time I forgot about the cache. That got me thinking. If I don't really really really remember the experience I had at the cache, or solving the puzzle, then does it really deserve a favorite point? I've learned to be selective in which caches I favorite. Favorite points are supposed to be for the really well thought out/well executed caches. People now days seem to throw out favorite points everywhere now. I know some of the cachers in my area don't usually give out favorite points, and many of them have hundreds that they don't use.
One thing I don't like though is when a cacher gives my cache a favorite point, and then five days later takes that point away. I've had a cache that had 10 points on it. I checked the listing two weeks after that, and it was down to seven. I think if there's one thing that Groundspeak should add to the favorite points system, is that once you've posted a favorite to a cache then you can't take it back.
As for the original topic: I agree with making a bookmark list. That's the easiest and best way to do it.
The problem is I issue favorite points for many reasons. Area, cache hide. camo, originality or just the caching experience I had that day. I guess I just like many of the caches I've done. I have removed favorite points but only from caches that have been archived.
-
I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.
that is what I was leaning on doing. The only problem is that the Trust that owns the land wanted one person handling the cashes placed on the property. I have already sent an e-mail to the cache owner asking that they attend the next meeting so they can meet everyone. I also want to make sure that if they ever leave caching they give me the opportunity to adopt the cache.
thanks for the response.
I agree with edscott regarding working with the cache owner to get proper permission. It is great that you opened up a dialogue with the conservation authorities to allow anyone to place a cache on conservation land with permission. Or is my understanding incorrect, was the negotiation for permission only for you to hide caches on the Rauscher farm land owned by the Town of Clinton?
My intent was to gain permission to hide caches within the conservation land. The trustees wanted a single point of contact regarding caches on the property. I agreed to place 8 caches around the area and be responsible for maintaining them. I don't think they will mind having another cache owner using the property as long as we communicate. The other concern the trust has is placing caches in sensitive wetlands and habitats. The new cache is in an area that should be ok but again, not my land not my decision. That's why I want to clear it with the trust.
-
I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.
Yeah, this sounds like the right attitude. Once he knows about the issue, the other CO might want to just archive his cache and turn the area over to the OP. But if the OP's very lucky, the other owner will want to keep his cache in place, and then there will be a second CO working to maintain caches on this property. Given that the Trust wants one person responsible, the other owner might have to turn over official ownership, but that doesn't prevent the OP and this new CO from recognizing between the two of them which caches are whose.
I hate to be the curmudgeon here but like I noted in a previous post I've been working on two more caches for some time now and would hate to have to scrap some of that work.
I hate to be a curmudgeon, either, but I have to tell you that other caches sometimes foil our plans, so you should accept the fact that some of your effort was wasted with grace.
The funny thing is that after I place my last two caches there would not be enough room to place another within the conservation land boundaries.
Oooh! Sounds like a good puzzle cache! "There's only one place within the conservation land boundaries that I could place a cache, so that's where this one is."
Not sure what the last post is referring to but having another cache owner keeping an eye on the area is a good idea.
-
I'd place your other planned cache and help the other cache owner work through the permission process.
that is what I was leaning on doing. The only problem is that the Trust that owns the land wanted one person handling the cashes placed on the property. I have already sent an e-mail to the cache owner asking that they attend the next meeting so they can meet everyone. I also want to make sure that if they ever leave caching they give me the opportunity to adopt the cache.
thanks for the response.
-
Now I see that the westernmost and southernmost caches that are not circled on the map above are owned by the original poster suggesting that the Google map is inaccurate. Reading the cache page of one of the intruders shows that the recommended access is through the park and the description suggests that it is within the boundary.
I'm sure that the cache in question is on the property without permission. I think the cache owner simply thought that since there are caches already on the property it was ok to place another.
I hate to be the curmudgeon here but like I noted in a previous post I've been working on two more caches for some time now and would hate to have to scrap some of that work. I also don't want to have the other cache removed. The cacher's first find was one of the caches I placed here.
The funny thing is that after I place my last two caches there would not be enough room to place another within the conservation land boundaries.
Will have to think about what to do next.
-
I only see 4 caches placed within the boundaries (unless the multi has stages within the boundaries), you are the CO of all four. I understand park boundaries are not always as portrayed on maps.
Not sure what your looking at?
-
My only problem is I am always running out of favorite points. I currently have a 6 cache backlog. Wish there was a way to accumulate favorite points faster. I'm a moderate cacher so I don't build up favorite points quickly. I have a "pending favorite points" list I keep but that takes up time.
-
Unless the landowner has some form of "blanket" policy, each individual cache needs explicit or at least adequate, permission.
The fact that the new caches "interfere" with your plans is another matter. If that cacher has adequate permission, it is generally accepted as a first-come, first-served activity.
Quite possibly, addressing the issue with the "new cacher" can produce an amicable solution and understanding.
Thanks. I checked with the land owners and they did not give permission for the new cache. The land owners agreed to allow me to place caches on the land with the understanding that I would be the one maintaining them. My only other question is how did this new cache get published without supplying land owner permission?
-
I currently have a series of 6 caches placed on a piece of conservation land. It took over a year and attending many meetings to gain permission to place them.
Recently a new cacher placed a cache within the conservation land. I have been working with the land owners on placing another 2 caches of my own but now the new cache interferes with the placement of one of them.
My question is this. Even though caches have been approved for a particular area do you still need permission to place any new caches in that area?
Thanks
-
Really? I've logged finds on a number of caches that I never actually touched. Sometimes, I was even the first person to spot the cache. Often, the last person spot the cache retrieves it, passes the log around (or signs everyone's names for them, or signs an informal team name on everyone's behalf), and then replaces the cache. In most cases, I think it's important for the person who retrieved the cache to be the person to replace it, just to minimize cache migration. But I don't see the point of having everyone in the group touch the cache.In my opinion If you don't have the cache in hand you can't log it as a find.The point is could you have retrieved the cache yourself and signed the log if you wanted to. If I had to answer no to ether question I wouldn't claim it as a find. If I were with a group of people and we found a cache which required a climb I could not do, I would not log the cache as a find. If I felt that I could have retrieved the cache on my own I would have no problem letting one member of my group grab it and replace it. I wouldn't expect each member of the group to climb up and replace the cache one by one. But I would still want to sign the log myself. No wrong answers, just personal preference.
In the case of the original question. The party was not present in the hunt or the retrieval of the cache. Don't see how they could claim it as a find.
I thought the idea waas you search for the cache, find it, open it up and sign the log.
That may be the difference. I don't consider the cache ratings (difficulty, terrain, size, attributes, whatever) to be something that the finder "earns". These ratings are just a way for the CO to communicate the general nature of the cache experience to potential seekers. That way, others can seek caches that they're more likely to enjoy.What was the difficulty and Terran rating on the tree cache? If you didn't actually climb the tree and retrieve the cache you really didn't earn whatever the cache rating was.
Cache adoption
in General geocaching topics
Posted
The adoption process could be added right to the geocaching main page as a drop down selection under "play". That way everyone would know about it.
I usually don't check the pages of caches I have previously found so If a cache owner posted an adoption note on the cache page of a cache i've already found I probably wouldn't see it. As was the case of the multi I mentioned.
I think it would involve a lot of e-mails if I were to "watch" every cache I would consider adopting.
the biggest benefit of this would be a searchable list of caches, that if not adopted, would soon be archived. It would allow a cacher like myself to anticipate a particular area becoming available and give me time to design a new cache for the spot.
I agree that the majority of caches should probably be archived to make way for new caches. But there are some that should be preserved.