Jump to content

Unapproved Cache(s)


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Placing a creative cache is a bit of work, especially if the terrain is rated 3 or 4. I recently listed a cache which was abruptly archived without notice or chance to edit. Please know that before placing the cache, I poured over the "guidelines" pages (being creative in placements, I have them memorized by now) and was sure that the cache met the STATED guidelines.

 

Here's the gist. I previously placed a 4 star by 4 star cache in a deserted area which is two miles square (if you'd like to look it's GCPCNZ Merinelli's 4x4). I thought that it would be interesting to place a cache that "orbited" the other cache. It would a multi which starts with a PERMANENT & LISTED MICRO in which there would be the coordinates for a secondary final cache which "moved" from time to time around the PERMANENT LISTED MICRO and the coordinates inside the micro would list the new location of the secondary. The initial micro and the listing here would NOT CHANGE at all.

 

I felt this did not violate the "traveling cache" taboo since the listing and the start would be PERMANENT. I invited finders of the secondary to move the secondary (within the guidelines and some rules of my own) and then return to record the new location in the permanent micro, something which I would do from time to time as well since I frequent the area on my quad. I felt this cache would be fun for both the owner and the searcher. It would meet the the stated guideline

"geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time"
because stage one is PERMANENT and stage two is "anchored" to it. But no go....

 

I must express here that my approver did a bit of work on this one after archival by posting about it in the approver's forums for review (thank you!). Their consensus was that the secondary could be "moved" but only to a few other pre-determined locations. This would not be fun for the owner or the searcher and not meet my intention (both could participate in a little game of hide & seek rather than just move a game piece on a fixed board).

 

I would like your opinion on this one. I think it meets the guidelines.

Link to comment

The thing that I think would cause worry for gc.com, is that they are not in control of the moving portion, so cannot know if each hider is meeting the guidelines. That puts gc.com in an awkward spot.

 

And how can you be sure that each hider really is going to come back to the main cache and put their new coords back in it? I have enough of a hard time with people consistantly rehiding my caches poorly. I come back to my caches and find them very easy to see by passerbys all the time. So I find it hard to trust, and I would worry that someone would hide the moving portion of yours, not put in the new coords, and you would be without a portion of your cache.

 

Just a couple of thoughts.

Link to comment
I would worry that someone would hide the moving portion of yours, not put in the new coords, and you would be without a portion of your cache

 

Worry? Caches are disposable so I rarely worry about them...

 

But that "control" word..... to a born iconoclast such as myself, that word has connotations indeed. My actual beef is that the guidelines are poorly written PCspeak. There seem hard and fast rules that are not stated explicitly there and one is left to guess or to pour over some 18,000 topics and 350,000 posts to glean the tidbits necessary to not waste a few days work on a hard to hide cache. There should be some centrally located place to go where these "control" parameters are laid out in some detail... if I've missed that place (I'm sorta new here), please guide me to it.

 

I feel that the imprecise guidelines lead to boring caches (there's a box or a pill bottle at these coordinates), of which there are too many...

 

But I must say (all the while trying not to appear too much a toady) that my approver has great patience with our little group and is a reasonable, friendly fellow on most occasions.

Link to comment

There have been moving caches in the past. I'm sure someone can offer his or her views on why most of them were archived. (I have not hidden one myself)

 

To me, the guidelines are pretty clear on moving caches:

 

"Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed."

 

Even if your first stage micro is permanent, your "orbit cache" moves, and I assume that's where the logbook is? In my view, that conflicts with the guideline I quoted.

 

Even if it was allowed, I see a problem when there are multiple find attempts in a short period of time. What if another finder shows up at the permanent micro before the previous finder finishes moving the final to a new location?

 

In a more malicious scenario, some wisecrack could bend whatever rules you established for the moving part of your cache in an unpredictable way, and who knows if that action could lead to liability issues?

Link to comment

Reasonable arguments, yes, but ..

 

There have been moving caches in the past.
and some still exist, tho this self admitted "traveling cache"Rover seems to be a precursor to Travel Bugs or some variation thereof.

 

I see a problem when there are multiple find attempts in a short period of time
No different from possible muggling and, as we needed to do once - take a cache for a ride in the truck to thaw out the lock. It seems unreasonable that approval is witheld on the highly unlikely chance that frequent finders (who would probably encounter one another along the way) would descend on this difficult terrain cache at the same moment in time and cause any more of a problem than muggles or those incompetent finders/re-hiders of regular caches.

 

In a more malicious scenario, some wisecrack could bend whatever rules you established for the moving part of your cache in an unpredictable way
Rules are bent by malicious wisecracks all the time, considering the number of caches I've had to repair.

 

and who knows if that action could lead to liability issues?
once again, we return to the unstated list of seemingly secret rules....
Link to comment
I would worry that someone would hide the moving portion of yours, not put in the new coords, and you would be without a portion of your cache

 

Worry? Caches are disposable so I rarely worry about them...

If they're moved and someone doesn't log the new location properly, "disposable" = "litter", which isn't good.

Link to comment
I would worry that someone would hide the moving portion of yours, not put in the new coords, and you would be without a portion of your cache

 

Worry? Caches are disposable so I rarely worry about them...

If they're moved and someone doesn't log the new location properly, "disposable" = "litter", which isn't good.

That is a good point, there is already enough litter to be picked up.

Link to comment

It may be potentially placing other cachers in danger as it may be less likely to meet the criteria required for an approved cache.

 

I have always been one to agree that a lot of rules are a real PITA but, sometimes, some of the rules can be very beneficial and may keep someone out of trouble.

 

(i.e.

 

a new cacher places the satellite up against the fence of an elementary school and the next cacher has law enforcement called in to visit.

 

or

 

a cacher comes by and places the satellite in an area with thorns, PI, a construction site, a busy highway and snakes and the previous areas and the cache description itself mentions none of this.)

 

'Too many factors each time someone moves it.

Link to comment
Placing a creative cache is a bit of work, especially if the terrain is rated 3 or 4. I recently listed a cache which was abruptly archived without notice or chance to edit. Please know that before placing the cache, I poured over the "guidelines" pages (being creative in placements, I have them memorized by now) and was sure that the cache met the STATED guidelines.

 

Here's the gist. I previously placed a 4 star by 4 star cache in a deserted area which is two miles square (if you'd like to look it's GCPCNZ Merinelli's 4x4). I thought that it would be interesting to place a cache that "orbited" the other cache. It would a multi which starts with a PERMANENT & LISTED MICRO in which there would be the coordinates for a secondary final cache which "moved" from time to time around the PERMANENT LISTED MICRO and the coordinates inside the micro would list the new location of the secondary. The initial micro and the listing here would NOT CHANGE at all.

 

I felt this did not violate the "traveling cache" taboo since the listing and the start would be PERMANENT. I invited finders of the secondary to move the secondary (within the guidelines and some rules of my own) and then return to record the new location in the permanent micro, something which I would do from time to time as well since I frequent the area on my quad. I felt this cache would be fun for both the owner and the searcher. It would meet the the stated guideline

"geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time"
because stage one is PERMANENT and stage two is "anchored" to it. But no go....

 

I must express here that my approver did a bit of work on this one after archival by posting about it in the approver's forums for review (thank you!). Their consensus was that the secondary could be "moved" but only to a few other pre-determined locations. This would not be fun for the owner or the searcher and not meet my intention (both could participate in a little game of hide & seek rather than just move a game piece on a fixed board).

 

I would like your opinion on this one. I think it meets the guidelines.

I noticed you only quoted the part of the guideline that suits you. Here's the whole thing:

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed.

Go back and follow the guidelines and your cache will likely be listed. Amazing concept :unsure:

Link to comment

You have a point in that the reason for the ban on moving caches could be clearer in the guidelines. The reason is an approved cache could be moved to an area that would not have been approved. It's not related to having to change the initial cordinates. If that were clearer, I'm sure you would have seen the guideline applies to your idea as well. Incidentally, the exact idea was done near me once. It sounds like it was a maintenance headache and got archived by the owner.

 

If you don't think gc.com needs to cover their butt, look at the recent Supreme Court ruling on peer-to-peer. You can be held responsible for what others do with your stuff.

Link to comment

The fact that your secondary cache moves, and it's up to the hiders to find a new place to put it - without a reviewer's approval - means they can do anything they want with it.

 

What if a new cacher buried it without realizing they shouldn't?

 

What if someone wanted to hide a cache nearby yours that may or may not violate the 528' rule depending on where yours is placed?

 

What if someone..... etc etc.

 

Having cachers move a cache around without the approval process has caused plenty of problems in the past. Wouldn't you think they're banned for a reason?

Link to comment

An orbit is a circle. The circle is predefined. You can meet both criteria by requing that the cache be somewere on the circle. As long as it's a 528' circle or smaller. Too big a circle blocks too many other potential caches.

 

Caches with a pre-defined moving area have been approved before specificly because the area was pre-defined and therefore could be checked against the guidelines. A traditional moving cache could move about anywhere.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Here is an idea of how to get your cache done in spite of the archival by GC.com. Put a single stage cache in the spot where the initial micro will be. That will get approved by GC.com. I don't think you can include a note in this cache referring anyone to the other, but you can place a *second* cache at the same location and *not* list it. This does not violate any rules since it is not a *listed* cache. This second cache can be placed so that you won't find just the one, you will always find both. Then you can make this second cache the launching pad for the orbiting micro.

 

Technically GC.com has no connection to the second pair of caches so they have no liability and no responsibility and certainly should have no objection.

 

Or you can just post the orbital cache at another geocaching web site. Someone posted that in the forum recently and I didn't get the name.

Link to comment
An orbit is a circle. The circle is predefined. You can meet both criteria by requing that the cache be somewere on the circle. As long as it's a 528' circle or smaller. Too big a circle blocks too many other potential caches.

 

Caches with a pre-defined moving area have been approved before specificly because the area was pre-defined and therefore could be checked against the guidelines. A traditional moving cache could move about anywhere.

I am the volunteer reviewer who handled the caches in question. In response to Renegade Knight's post, I would like to point out that the cache owner was, in fact, offered the option of setting up the "orbit" cache in a way that would use a number of pre-defined locations that were reviewed to confirm that they met the listing guidelines. This option was not chosen. The cache was recently listed as a two-stage multicache with both stages remaining stationery.

 

It is not quite as simple in this case as drawing a perfect circle and saying that any spot within that circle is OK. The pre-existing multicache is in roughly a star-shaped pattern, and with three different starting points to choose from. It takes up a good chunk of real estate. I look forward to finding this cache when I make it up to Team Rattlebars' area.

 

Finally I would like to note that this cache has already been brought before the reviewers in our private forum. The cache owner is exercising his right to discuss the matter in the public forum.

Link to comment

I've got to disagree with tossedsalad's suggestion. Finding a loophole to purposely avoid GC.com's rules and placing a "rogue" cache is NOT the solution. First of all, cachers won't be able to log it on the site, or get any information about it. And more importantly, there's no reason to "sneak" caches into the system---that's just asking for problems.

 

The idea of a pre-determined circle might work, you'd have to check with the approver on that. But basically, you've gotta understand that the rules and regulations have been created over a period of time, and are interpreted and enforced by VOLUNTEERS who may or may not have had anything to do with writing those rules. They do their best to balance the wishes of the cachers with the requirements of their position. So if the rules aren't always clear, or are interpreted differently depending on circumstance, cut the approvers a little slack, cause without them, the sport would be total chaos, which would be much, MUCH worse.

Link to comment
I've got to disagree with tossedsalad's suggestion.  Finding a loophole to purposely avoid GC.com's rules and placing a "rogue" cache is NOT the solution.  First of all, cachers won't be able to log it on the site, or get any information about it.  And more importantly, there's no reason to "sneak" caches into the system---that's just asking for problems.

But "loophole", "rogue" and "sneak" are YOUR words, not mine and not groudspeak's. More than once I have read responses from reviewers or other Groundspeak reps who say that if you don't like their rules, then you can place your cache and list it elsewhere. So you can place caches anywhere you want if they are not listed at GC.com.

 

No, the finders can't log the orbit find on the site and they won't be able to leave notes... But is that what caching is all about, the web site? I thought it was about the hunt, the find and the spirit of the game.

 

As for problems, there are alternate sites to list caches. They use different rules and do not worry about geographically conflicting with GC.com caches. So adding a cache in this manner would not create any additional problems.

 

Remember, as Jermey will tell you (and has) Groundspeak owns the trademark geocaching.com, but not the activity geocaching.

Link to comment
But is that what caching is all about, the web site? I thought it was about the hunt, the find and the spirit of the game.

 

Yes, and you can also randomly pick a set of coordinates near you and try to get your GPS to it, but what's the point in that either?

 

Just putting a second set of coords *near* a posted cache and having someone try to find it is a waste of time unless they have a reason. Is there something else neat in the area to see? If so, why not make a second cache? If it's too close for the 528' rule, then make it a multi.

 

Your "solution" of having a listed cache (container, log book, smiley) in one place, and sending finders to a second location for no gain doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
...It is not quite as simple in this case as drawing a perfect circle and saying that any spot within that circle is OK. The pre-existing multicache is in roughly a star-shaped pattern, and with three different starting points to choose from. It takes up a good chunk of real estate. ...

I see what you mean about the cache and starting points.

 

Since an actual orbit is about the center of mass of the star, the stars center could be the center of the orbit. The distance is set, you have a known center point and a known ring.

 

The issue comes down to predefined. 5 points along that circle doesn't fit the theme, but perhaps making the circle so it's clearly defined and less nebulous?

 

"A bonus cache is 528' feet from the center of mass of the star which is here at these coordinates. Walk the ring find the cache and move it to a new spot on the ring". You can't find it if you can't plug in the correct center coordinates. Once you do have the find though you already have the correct information to place it correctly.

Link to comment
But is that what caching is all about, the web site?  I thought it was about the hunt, the find and the spirit of the game. 

 

Yes, and you can also randomly pick a set of coordinates near you and try to get your GPS to it, but what's the point in that either?

 

Just putting a second set of coords *near* a posted cache and having someone try to find it is a waste of time unless they have a reason. Is there something else neat in the area to see? If so, why not make a second cache? If it's too close for the 528' rule, then make it a multi.

 

Your "solution" of having a listed cache (container, log book, smiley) in one place, and sending finders to a second location for no gain doesn't make sense.

I don't know what your point is. Of course there is a purpose to the second cache. It is a cache and in fact, it is a different kind of cache. If you don't want to participate, fine. Just like many don't care for micro caches, they don't pursue them. But if you can't list this cache on Groundspeak, then this is one way to let people find it. Sort of a "bonus" cache.

Link to comment

A general reply to the latest posts:

 

I would have brought this up whether or not the cache in its now revised stationary form was approved. It has been as GCPEEP.

 

I was looking for reasons and I've heard a few good ones in today's posts. I'm simply trying to learn. The guidelines are vague and if there are liability issues at the Supreme Court level, they need stated plainly for us underlings so we don't waste our time nor waste our overworked reviewer's time.

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed.

 

I read that very carefully and explicitly as a whole and DID NOT read it selectively. This cache was not a "traveling cache" having a permanent starting point anchor. A well stated rule would say "a cache or any part of a cache" cannot move. The second portion of that guideline implies that a cache that won't be there (like "event" caches) tomorrow will not meet approval, but caches that meet the first "permanence" portion (or "goal" if you will) of the guideline are ok (reading the ENTIRE guideline, that is, as it should be read).

 

Litter: That was not my intent with "disposable" as you very well know.

 

I'm in agreement with those who say that using this web site in any underhanded fashion is NOT the way to go at all. I would not suggest that in any form. If one uses the services here, one should comply with the rules (if one can divine what they are exactly).

 

Keystone: Thank you for your unending pateince with me and your extra efforts on this one. Please see the first part of this post as per your reviewer note to me today. This thread is not an attempt to get the listing re-revised to its intitial form (it's just fine as it stands - a "metaphor") and I'm not exercising any "right" of appeal here, I'm merely trying to learn what the guidelines actually are. But your post today has "real estate" implications. I was very careful in my first cache in this area to place the waypoints far enough away from each other so as not to "capture" the entire area away from other potential placements by others. Perhaps there are more things I need to learn...

Link to comment

I had a cache exactly like the OP's. It was very popular, but I archived it for two reasons. First, I had no control over where the second stage was hidden and I was afraid someone would place it in an inappropriate spot. Second, I was worried that a hider would screw up the coordinates and "lose" the final stage.

 

The latter did happen when a veteran geocacher recorded the coords wrong. Thankfully another cacher stumbled on the cache a few hundred yards from where it was said to be hidden, but that was the straw that led me to archive it.

Link to comment
I invited finders of the secondary to move the secondary (within the guidelines and some rules of my own) and then return to record the new location in the permanent micro, something which I would do from time to time as well since I frequent the area on my quad.  I felt this cache would be fun for both the owner and the searcher.

It can be done, if you're careful about the spot you choose. We have a cache ("Got change for a cache?") that encourages finders to move the container. It's within the guidelines because the rule on the cache page is that you have to place the container in a spot that still fits the posted coordinates, within the margin of error of the GPS. We picked a spot with a lot of potential hiding places:

- the location has spotty reception, so the GPS EPE is often 30 feet or more;

- the area is full of caves and boulders and ledges and crevices;

- the area is very steep, allowing for lots of changes in elevation that don't cause the lat/long to change at all.

 

I've been amazed at the creativty that finders have displayed when re-hiding the cache (which is a regular-sized one, not a small or micro). This has been our most fun -- and most difficult -- cache. There are about as many posted DNFs as finds (and probably a lot of unlogged DNFs as well). I've had several DNFs there myself after a rehide. (After three consecutive DNFs, we ask the rehiders to post an encrypted hint.)

Link to comment

If I understand right, you are talking about a 2 step multi where the first stage would have the Coordinates to the final. The final would move around, and the coordinates would be updated in the first stage.

 

This cache was not a "traveling cache" having a permanent starting point anchor.

 

I guess that I would look at it that since the 2nd stage that would actually have to be logged, then that is the actual cache, therefore the cache would be a traveling cache.

 

Also, I beleive I have seen it stated on several occasions that each step of a multi has to fit the guidelines. In this case, the second step would not meet the guidelines because it is moving.

Link to comment

I read that very carefully and explicitly as a whole and DID NOT read it selectively. This cache was not a "traveling cache" having a permanent starting point anchor.

Just because ONE STAGE doesn't move, doesn't mean it's NOT a traveling cache. It is, and violates the guidelines. Your choosing to delude yourself into believing otherwise doesn't make it true.

Link to comment
Rattlebars-"Reasonable arguments, yes, but ..

 

QUOTE "There have been moving caches in the past." END QUOTE

 

and some still exist, tho this self admitted "traveling cache"Rover seems to be a precursor to Travel Bugs or some variation thereof."

I think you've answered this one yourself. The Mars Rover (which I have logged) ONLY moves into existing approved caches, it is not just placed in totally random spots. So although it is moving, it isn't like your idea at all.

 

I guess I don't understand your trying to make the rules fit your cache rather than making your cache fit the rules.

Link to comment
A general reply to the latest posts:

 

I would have brought this up whether or not the cache in its now revised stationary form was approved. It has been as GCPEEP.

 

I was looking for reasons and I've heard a few good ones in today's posts. I'm simply trying to learn. The guidelines are vague and if there are liability issues at the Supreme Court level, they need stated plainly for us underlings so we don't waste our time nor waste our overworked reviewer's time.

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (“traveling caches”), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be listed.

 

I read that very carefully and explicitly as a whole and DID NOT read it selectively. This cache was not a "traveling cache" having a permanent starting point anchor. A well stated rule would say "a cache or any part of a cache" cannot move. The second portion of that guideline implies that a cache that won't be there (like "event" caches) tomorrow will not meet approval, but caches that meet the first "permanence" portion (or "goal" if you will) of the guideline are ok (reading the ENTIRE guideline, that is, as it should be read).

You're just arguing semantics. Your cache moves, therefore it is a travelling cache. It doesn't matter if your "anchor" is a cache page that says "Please keep it in so-and-so county" or if it's a fixed point. Each person hunting the cache will find the logbook in a different place. Remember, it's the logbook that makes the cache as caches aren't approved without them.

Link to comment

Delusional - that's a good one. I came here asking for opinions and help to understand geocaching, not abuse. Bottle up that anger and hide it under the bed. You may need it someday for something important.

 

Semantics - rules ARE semantics (visit link). To think otherwise is dimwitted.

 

Also, I believe I have seen it stated on several occasions that each step of a multi has to fit the guidelines.

Well, 528 feet is left out on a multi among other things like a log book in each container etc. But again, my complaint. If one is not a forum hound, "seen it stated" is meaningless unless one must peruse 18,000 topics and 350,000 posts. Why is that not stated EXPLICITLY in the guidelines. Ran into something similar with a cemetery micro. Suddenly, there were extras I was not aware of.... wastes reviewer's time and if I were one, I'd insist on better written guidelines - I'm busy enough.

 

I guess that I would look at it that since the 2nd stage that would actually have to be logged, then that is the actual cache, therefore the cache would be a traveling cache.

Actually, no. The guidelines define the initial "the first cache or waypoint" while the final is described also as a cache. The "cache" is not described strictly as 'the box with the logbook' (and if you read the guidelines, there are a number of things left out for "each cache" as stated) but, very strictly speaking the final is also a cache so it can't move. A multi normally has only one logbook for all parts. But, true, all parts are "caches" each and every one. I'm in agreement here, now. One reason I asked. Thanks for your help :D - at least thanks to those that were helpful...

Link to comment
Why is that not stated EXPLICITLY in the guidelines.

 

Because if they had to specifically state every possible scenario that a person might possibly come up with in an effort to circumvent the guidelines, then the guidelines would end up being so long and detailed that nobody would bother reading it.

 

Sure, you can take any rule or guideline and twist it around enough to make it seem to be something different than it is, but that doesn't mean that anybody else is going to fall for it.

 

The guidelines are written at face value- read them that way any you won't have any problems.

 

I gotta ask- you aren't a defense attorney, are you? :D

Link to comment

 

Also, I believe I have seen it stated on several occasions that each step of a multi has to fit the guidelines.

Well, 528 feet is left out on a multi among other things like a log book in each container etc.

Uhh, no it's not. each stage of a multi has to be at least 528 feet from another cache. True, they don't have to be 528 feet from another stage of the same cache, though.

Link to comment

Yet another example of stiffling creativity.

 

Why do I get visions of requiring parking coordinates and approved routes to follow because someone might trespass? It's been done plenty of times. Sure, folks should find a legal route. Just like folks should hide that traveling cache in a "legal" spot.

 

Why is it that letterboxing has been around for over 150 years and still has few rules, yet geocaching is what is getting restricted, legislated, and requires an 1" thick rul... excuse me...book of guidelines?

Link to comment

My two cents:

I think this is an amazingly creative and fun idea for a cache. I hate to see it killed. There are issues that were raised, which may make it impracticle, but it's still a great idea for a cache and should be allowed to stay. I don't understand, nor agree, with the ban on moving caches, especially when the first leg is permanent.

Link to comment

Virtual caches generally aren't approved. One way people have adapted to this rule is to create multi-caches with virtual legs. Apparently these are not considered virtual caches. On the other hand, it seems that multi-caches with moving legs are considered to be moving caches. Regardless of the reasons behind these interpretations of the guidelines, they are inconsistent and may be leading to confusion.

Link to comment
I don't understand, nor agree, with the ban on moving caches, especially when the first leg is permanent.

 

With moving caches, neither GC.COM nor the owner have any congtrol over where the cache is placed. They could wind up in spots that could cause headaches for this sport, such as RR stations, national parks, private property and similar areas.

 

The fact that the first leg is permanent doesn't change this.

Link to comment
Why is it that letterboxing has been around for over 150 years and still has few rules, yet geocaching is what is getting restricted, legislated, and requires an 1" thick rul... excuse me...book of guidelines?

Why indeed. Perhaps because the population who plays is highly secretive, don't leave notes in their boxes explaining what it is, and is a rather small population of players. They are, by the way, running into the same issues now that they are on the Interweb.

Link to comment
Yet another example of stiffling creativity.

Odd that here you are advocating the removal of rules, while in a thread adjacent you are asking that a new rule be created to stop people from logging a find twice on the same cache listing page. Now are you trying to stifle or enable creativity in both cases, or providing an example of a double standard?

Link to comment
Yet another example of stiffling creativity.

Odd that here you are advocating the removal of rules, while in a thread adjacent you are asking that a new rule be created to stop people from logging a find twice on the same cache listing page. Now are you trying to stifle or enable creativity in both cases, or providing an example of a double standard?

Re-read my post.

 

:blink:

Link to comment
Why is it that letterboxing has been around for over 150 years and still has few rules, yet geocaching is what is getting restricted, legislated, and requires an 1" thick rul... excuse me...book of guidelines?

Why indeed. Perhaps because the population who plays is highly secretive, don't leave notes in their boxes explaining what it is, and is a rather small population of players. They are, by the way, running into the same issues now that they are on the Interweb.

We're running into the same issues because we're being lumped in with the geocachers. Letteboxing probably only comes on one's radar after geocaching.

 

As far as population is concerned, I'm sure we'd have a lot fewer headaches if the geocaching population was as small as the letterboxing population.

Link to comment
I don't understand, nor agree, with the ban on moving caches, especially when the first leg is permanent.

 

With moving caches, neither GC.COM nor the owner have any congtrol over where the cache is placed. They could wind up in spots that could cause headaches for this sport, such as RR stations, national parks, private property and similar areas.

 

The fact that the first leg is permanent doesn't change this.

In defense of the OP, I'll assume that this scenario is unlikely since he seemed to have taken the time to scout the location to potentially avoid this problem.

 

However, he has no control over copycat placements that will run into these issues.

 

A 2 mile square area is very large. In order to minimize the potential problems of multiple find attemps simultaneously, the area should be much smaller, which was the suggestion made on this thread.

 

And if the OP was truly creative, he would have found a way to work within these guidelines and still pull off something that would impress.

Link to comment
We're running into the same issues because we're being lumped in with the geocachers. Letteboxing probably only comes on one's radar after geocaching.

?? Not sure why you need me to re-read your posts when you don't spot check yours. I'm assuming you mean letterboxers are being lumped in with geocachers? But you're probably right that letterboxing gets more interest because geocaching exists. What point are you making here?

 

As far as population is concerned, I'm sure we'd have a lot fewer headaches if the geocaching population was as small as the letterboxing population.

 

Yes. Small things don't get much attention. I'm still not quite sure what your point is. Are you agreeing that 150 years of letterboxing silence is due to the points I made above? If so, your dislike/advocasy of rules isn't supported by your note that letterboxing has gone on fine without them, but that letterboxing hasn't been big enough for any radar sightings. It seems that the point is moot.

 

What exactly are you advocating?

Link to comment
We're running into the same issues because we're being lumped in with the geocachers.  Letteboxing probably only comes on one's radar after geocaching.

?? Not sure why you need me to re-read your posts when you don't spot check yours. I'm assuming you mean letterboxers are being lumped in with geocachers? But you're probably right that letterboxing gets more interest because geocaching exists. What point are you making here?

 

As far as population is concerned, I'm sure we'd have a lot fewer headaches if the geocaching population was as small as the letterboxing population.

 

Yes. Small things don't get much attention. I'm still not quite sure what your point is. Are you agreeing that 150 years of letterboxing silence is due to the points I made above? If so, your dislike/advocasy of rules isn't supported by your note that letterboxing has gone on fine without them, but that letterboxing hasn't been big enough for any radar sightings. It seems that the point is moot.

 

What exactly are you advocating?

You're right. I can see how that could be confusing. "We" as in those who are also lettterboxers.

 

I'm probably the most upset because we, geocachers and letterboxers in South Carolina, are fighting draconian legislation because of one hobby, geocaching. Why? Because some geocaches came under someone's radar. If the hobby had stayed low key, this would not have happened.

 

Letterboxing, by its nature, is low key. Geocaching is becoming in-your-face and is fast approaching being its own worse enemy, both from the inside and out. Unfortunately, letterboxing gets dragged along and lumped into the same bin as geocaching.

Link to comment
I'm probably the most upset because we, geocachers and letterboxers in South Carolina, are fighting draconian legislation because of one hobby, geocaching. Why? Because some geocaches came under someone's radar. If the hobby had stayed low key, this would not have happened.

What does this have to do with moving caches?

Link to comment

Oh, it could be something about letterboxers have their stuff together enough to not need reviewers. You place a letterbox and you post it on the site. No review. No complaining in the forums that you couldn't get your box approved because of somebody might do something inappropriate. Stuff like that.

 

Oh, I understand the reason for, and the need for, the popularity of geocaching, but like I've said before, it's becoming its own worst enemy.

 

Let's face it, if placing a cache were as difficult as placing a letterbox there would a lot fewer of them. The simplest box could be a tupperware container, a store bought stamp, a small logbook, and a simple set of clues. Still, that's a lot tougher than a film can, a strip of paper, and a push of the button to grab coordinates. While the sky is the limit on either hobby for creating a hide, a typical letterbox involves carving a custom stamp. That's a lot more than finding a rubbermaid container, a handfull of dime store swag, a couple of pens, and 3x5 spiral notebook.

 

It could be that if you're going to put that kind of effort into a hide, you are much more likely to make sure it is a decent hide. While I understand there is a faction that don't care what they hunt, it is clear an atleast equally large group that would rather hunt quality hides. This isn't a geocaching versus letterboxing comparision, it's a simple contrasts comparison. Geocaching would enjoy a much smaller, but higher quality, set of caches if what was acceptible was something that took effort to place the cache which included the ability to "self-review." If everyone could self review then moving caches wouldn't be a problem. I'm not saying that geocachers can't self-review, most can. My point is that too many can't.

 

Besides, if traveling caches were so bad, instead of being grandfathered, they should have all been pulled.

Link to comment
I would worry that someone would hide the moving portion of yours, not put in the new coords, and you would be without a portion of your cache

 

Worry? Caches are disposable so I rarely worry about them...

 

Would you worry about the person that spent two hours looking for a cache only to get home and discover that someone had moved it?

 

Let's say Cacher A (not his real name), finds the "anchor", goes a mile north to find the cache and takes the cache three quarters of a mile west to hide it, then returns to the anchor to put in the new coordinates.

Meanwhile, Cacher B (not his real name, but it is his initial), finds the anchor 20 minutes after Cacher A was there, heads north to find the cache and can't find it because Cacher A (that little #%&*#) moved it and didn't change the coordinates yet.

 

I don't know how many cachers there are in your area, but around here it is not unusual to meet other cachers at a cache. And it's quite common to see by the previous log in the book that a cacher was there just a few minutes before but you never saw them.

Link to comment

Well, I was pretty much done with this thread but there are two posts I must reply to...

 

Because if they had to specifically state every possible scenario that a person might possibly come up with in an effort to circumvent the guidelines, then the guidelines would end up being so long and detailed that nobody would bother reading it.

 

First of all, I was NOT trying to circumvent the guidelines. I was trying to follow what I believed to be the guidelines. Quite frankly, if they employed someone who could write above the sophomore in high school level AND if they dropped all the politically correct happy speak in the guidelines, they could easily SHORTEN them by more than 30% - EASY. One word means one thing in one part of the guidelines and something complety different in another... the guidelines look like what they very likely are - a collection of clauses that evolved over some time - sloppy and confusing. They need a concise and coldly logical re-write.

 

RattleBars, I'd say your best bet would be to work with your appovers, not against them. If an appover makes a suggestion, he/she is doing so for a reason. You might not understand or agree with the reason, but that doesn't impact the reason's validity.

That's precisely what this whole bloody thread is about. The approver offered NO suggestions but simply archived the cache without comment other than a terse "read the guidelines" remark. Well, I HAD read the guidelines very carefully before setting this rather difficult terrain cache and believed I was within the parameters of the guidelines. After the archive I made some requests for clarification, but a response to the requests was - shall we say - not forthcoming. Only after I relisted the cache as a mulit with two PERMANENT and UNMOVING (pun there) waypoints, did I get any response and any suggestions. I in my initial post and those thereafter, quite honestly told why I did not choose to accept any restrictions and preferred that this simply remain a metaphor of my original intent. Nowhere in this thread have I made a statement that would lead anyone to believe that I was uncooperative. Others, however, have made comments that would lead one to believe that I was uncooperative, but I won't name names.

 

I came here trying to learn. I got help from some and got beat up by others in typical forum style. I'm a veteran of forums. But they never change... so I don't hang around them very often...

Edited by Rattlebars
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...