Team OUTSID4EVR

I did a quick search of ZIP code 70513 and found this cache (Some Like it Hot!). I've been to Avery Island. Nice place, but is it really necessary to have 2 virtuals there?? Are they further than .1 miles from each other? I vote "No". Who's to say someone can't place a third, fourth, fifth etc.. There needs to be a line. One less cache certainly won't hurt.

Of the caches I have placed, I would like to suggest Play It Safe!. It was inspired by this cache in southwest Virginia. If you're looking for a simple tradititional cache, Ivy Hill is a good choice.

I think this would be a good place to recognize the truly great caches in the Northeast. I'm referring to caches that you remember long after you've done dozens of drive-ups. It would be cool to provide a link to the cache you mention, so we can all check it out. Let's show appreciation for those special caches (And hopefully encourage more). I'll start by recognizing the Fair Hill Multicache. MAJELLIN and I were the last finders of this cache. If you have not tried it, go ahead! Each stage is well planned, and hidden in a creative way. You will do a decent amount of walking to complete the cache. If you're doing it for the numbers, there are some single caches located along the route that you could find as well. We really enjoyed our day at Fair Hill. [This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on March 06, 2003 at 01:49 PM.]

I have a canoe only cache, Tuckahoe By Sea. As long as it's rated 5 for terrain (special equipment..) I don't see why it would not be approved.

Suggestion: In the paper log book, write specific instructions for re-hiding the cache. Hopefully, finders will be able to follow the directions.

It seems that the poor caches (low quality) are a result of unclear requirements on the "hide a cache" page. Take the container...There is nothing saying that the cheapest plastic container can't be used. Common sense, resulting from experience, shows that Gladware and similar thin plastic containers don't make quality cache containers. Mega-hiders love them for the cost savings. The requirements should reflect the experience of geocachers "in the field".

I suggested that there *are* basic elements that physical caches and virtual caches have. They should not change. I was not suggesting that the "Mystery" category be for non-caches. I was trying to point out that there is discussion over verification methods that could be eliminated if there was a category for "Alternative Verification". Maybe "Mystery Cache" should be left for "surprises". Does anyone think a new category is needed for caches that fit the basics of a physical cache, but are different in some significant way?

quote:Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR: quote:Originally posted by Kiwi Cruiser:I find the logic a bit hard to follow. Down where I am there are not many around. Exactly the reason there shouldn't be any kind of requirement to place a cache. Well, the only _requirement_ should be following good sound guidelines. I'm writing a tutorial on placing your first cache. It's just basically a list of pointers from putting putting together a cache through getting it approved to maintenance. I'm trying to make it as simple and straight forward as possible so even someone with very few finds cames successfully place one. Personally, I think requiring one to "get experieince" before placing a cache is simply elitist. CR http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif I saw your posted tutorial in another thread. Great job! I hope TPTB take notice of it. It is certainly clearer than what is currently in place. I agree with most of your statements, except for the fact that it couldn't hurt to have a short waiting period before caches posted by newbies are placed on the site. I don't see it as elitist. This may prevent the person from getting hiding fever before understanding the game. It may also prevent a person from hiding a cache and leaving the game. If someone wishes to place a cache, there is a commitment that goes with it. I agree with the previous posts regarding a specified number of finds. That would be impractical in areas that are cache-poor.

Check out this topic: Mystery Cache Rules There, I suggested that there are bare minimum requirements that should be met. The Mystery cache category could be for caches that don't fit the mold. I think many of us can agree on the factors that make a quality cache.

Perhaps basic norms would be: 1. The cache has a stash note (if a container exists) for the benefit of non-geocachers. 2. The cache does not contain certain items. (dangerous, illegal, adult, etc...) 3. The cache is non-commercial. 4. The cache owner has provided a method to verify finds. (log books encouraged, but the decision left to the hider) 5. The cache is stationary. 6. The cache is not in a restricted area. As long as a proposed cache followed these basics, it could be listed. Can anyone think of other basics? Bottom line...A lot of discussion is happening relating to rules and approval. If the cache categories were defined clearly, and room for variation was left in the Mystery category, then maybe there would be less confusion.

quote:Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:That's not the impression I got at all. It was a vocal group against ratings that probly nixed. It's a good chance it's in the new site. And there is no way you're going to get the numbers of people needed to be brutally honest in their logs. CR http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/72057_2000.gif Thanks for clearing that up. I've been going through old threads to find out why a user rating system has not been added. You're absolutely right. It's hard to be completely blunt and honest in log entries. I never want to be the one finder to say the cache is a poor one. I guess other finders are thinking the same thing.

It might be a good place to put caches that don't "fit the mold". This way, the traditional nature of the "Traditional Cache" can be maintained without eliminating creative caches. The finder will be aware that the cache is different in some way.

WARNING...Slight topic deviation ahead... The rating system idea has been discussed many times. It seems that Jeremy has an opinion against rating of caches (a star system) by finders. I wish he would consider this idea as a way to help keep quality caches and weed out poor ones. The best thing we can do as a community is to be honest, polite, and clear in our log entries. This is very hard to do, but is the only way we can influence cachers as a whole to put more thought into their caches. (raise the bar) Generally if the cache is trash in a tree, the log entries are short, and the hider says the cache was easy. If the majority of finders TNLN, then it is possible that the cache is filled with junk. BACK to topic... I don't see that new hiders place bad caches. I have seen newbies hide a cache, and then stop geocaching. As a result, we are left with an absentee cache owner.

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Snazz: I'm sorry, I do appreciate that you took the time to write all this up, however I must point out that these are not guidelines. They are subjective and don't establish clearly what ought to happen. They are certainly good _questions_ that approvers ought to ask themselves, but they really don't offer up how to make a decision... An example (in my worm-riddled mind) of guidelines would be (complete with arbitrary numbers): - A cache hider is required to provide home coordinates. These can optionally be the coords of their home city, for privacy reasons. - A cache hider is required to have found at least 20% of the caches within a 25 mile radius of their home coordinates (unless overriden by special considerations, such as group placement accounts) - No more than 1 cache per 2 acres of city park - No more than 1 cache per 10 acres of state park - No more than 1 cache per 2 square miles of public (BLM managed) lands - No more than 1 cache per 4 square miles of National Forest lands etc, etc. Yes, my rambling thoughts were not guidelines. As you said, they are things that should be taken into consideration. Your more specific ideas are a good start, I'm assuming you're not being sarcastic.

How about some meaningful ideas for how to improve cache quality during the acceptance process? I'll ask you again: What guidelines do you propose to help determine during cache acceptance what delineates a good cache from a bad one? ]http://geocachingwa.org I'll jump in here... How about looking at the hider to determine if he/she has hidden other caches. --Experience, as well as quality of previous caches can be taken into consideration. How about considering cache density in the area of the cache? -- Does a small park *really* need another cache? How about considering how long the person has been geocaching? Did they place a cache the first day/week they registered? Consider how far the hider's home territory is from the cache. --Cache maintenance issues...Is this a "Vacation cache" that will never see a return visit? Above all, open dialogue between hider and admin will solve most problems. The admins need to be clear when they communicate with the hider. Let's also not expect a new cache to be approved quickly. Is it unreasonable to allow a longer period of time to do a bit of research into the proposed cache? All of my ideas will still not ensure quality caches. It's up to local cachers to point out junky caches and encourage quality. y

Some form of verification MUST be required. The cache hider must be able to determine who visited the cache to keep the online logs "honest". A logbook is not the only way to do this. I doubt many cache owners cross-reference the paper log book with the online logs. e

I have always believed in quality, not quantity. I'm glad geocaching.com supports quality. Obviously, I support limiting the number of caches that get listed. BUT...There needs to be a clear understanding of the rules and a fair application of them. The "hide a cache" guidelines are not worded in such a way as to be seen as set in stone rules. If they are not flexible, then REWORD THEM so there is less confusion. The admins should make public their guidelines for approving caches as soon as possible. Are there rules that the admins are enforcing that ARE NOT on the "hide a cache" page?? There is way too much uproar over this. On a side note, I agree with BassoonPilot's suggestion to increase the number of regional approvers. This will add a human element to the otherwise anonymous submission of caches.

quote:Originally posted by sbell111:Its been my experience that people let you know when your cache is great, but don't tell you that it stinks. I totally agree!! Peer pressure *should* help ensure better caches, but many of us don't want to offend the hider by saying the cache is trash in a tree stump. From the logs, you can sometimes read between the lines and figure this out, but many times, I do not read through the logs prior to looking for the cache. **Back on topic... I feel there should be a minimum waiting period from the time a user first registers until he/she can submit a cache. A minimum number of finds would not be helpful for many reasons,but the approvers should look closely at the finds/other hides of newbies before giving their stamp of approval..

quote:Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:Two answers to this. Permission granted by the vending machine owner and you dont have to expend any funds to open the machine I say yes. No permission or you have pay to open the machine then I say no. I agree.

quote: I don't think there's anything wrong with any type of cache, as long as it says something about it in the description. This whole virtual cache fast food restaurant approval whatever is kind of bull****. I don't see why it needs to be so stringently filtered. Eli, I realize you are quite new to the game. Let me point out that without any filtering of geocaches, there would be a huge amount of spam-like submissions from businesses and others who don't care about geocaching. Right now, the "signal to noise" ratio is reasonable. Without guidelines and restrictions, geocaching would not survive. To stay on-topic, I would not necessairily have a problem with a cache hidden in a newspaper box. The commercial nature is rather benign. If a cache required you to visit a store, I feel that is a bit too much. Generally, I'm against the caches of a commercial nature because of the slippery slope that might be created if some are allowed.

For a multi, I have used the offset technique. See Play It Safe! for some ideas. I wanted to make sure visitors stopped at all points. The first container contains only bearing and distance pairs to get the seeker from place to place. A log book exists at the final cache only. Why can't the container be a bit larger? That way, some items could be placed in it. If the placement of the cache requires a small container, then you can still add a log book. The code number is a good idea. As far as the idea you ahve presented, I see no problem with it, as long as the location is worth a visit. There are plenty of junky caches in poor locations that have been approved (with a log book and McToys). A log book should not be the only method we can use to verify finds. "Quality, not Quantity!"µ

Disguising a cache as a rock would be OK IMHO. Placing a fence post or trail sign where one did not previously exist would not be OK.

I would assume it was missed by the approvers. I would contact an approver and make your case..

I wouldn't alter the landscape in any way. There are plenty of ways to hide containers naturally. One suggestion is to paint the cache container to match the surroundings. I have seen black cloth used to disguise a cache that was hidden in a dark area. The cloth broke up the outline of the container and made it hard to see.

It is perfectly reasonable that there be a guideline that stipulates that caches should be at least .1 miles from each other. This would include caches hidden by the same person. I would like to see it written on the "Hide a cache" page. Cache density c ould potentially be one gripe that land managers have with geocaching. In the case of a park in Maryland, it was reason enough to have all caches removed. Hiders should use discretion when placing separate caches in close proximity to each other. Why not create a multi?? It seems that "it's about the numbers" again. One example of cache crowding&