Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Red Dragon 109

How Many Is Too Many

Recommended Posts

Speak up fellow cachers.......how many is too many for one person and/or team to manage? I personally don't think you can set a number limit. I think it is determined by how many you personally maintain WELL. We in this area can identify numerous caches in need of repair that are all owned by the same person. I don't enjoy going on a hunt to find one that has been neglected and at the same time get my weekly notification that shows he has put out 10 more. Numbers don't make the man. I think I said that before but anyway, lets all keep a cool head and see what everyone thinks. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

EXCELLENT question! :anicute:

 

Personally speaking, I would love to see limits put on how many caches a person can own. However, as a geocaching.com volunteer, I understand the site's decision to not impose that kind of ruling. You put it well, "it is determined by how many you personally maintain WELL." I've known people who have many MANY caches and do an excellent job of maintaining them. Personally, though, I only have about 12 physical caches (I think) and it's all I can do to keep up on them.

 

As a "vet cacher" (your words from the previous thread) I've become accustomed to carrying a stock of paper towels, extra baggies, logbooks and log sheets with me. At times, I honestly feel put upon when I replace the contents of someone's cache. Almost like, "this is what they're expecting me to do." Other times I receive some really nice thank you emails from the owners.

 

I think it comes back to a community issue rather than something that we should expect Groundspeak to solve for us. I think we need to be willing to be honest with each other and say, "you really need to maintain your caches" (and say it in a respectful and cooperative way). Honestly I would rather see that kind of discussion kept on a local level or through email or other personal contacts. It's too easy for people to get defensive and--let's admit it--offensive in an open forum like this one.

 

This is the sort of thing a really good local organization should be addressing. And we all need to be big enough to not let our feelings get hurt over something like that.

 

Think of it as an intervention. You've got a friend who you've had a lot of fun with. The day comes when you surround the person and say, "Biff, we love you, but you've got a problem."

 

Bret

 

P.S. I don't know anyone named Biff...that's why I chose that name.

Share this post


Link to post

What if the person in question feels like Jesus’ right hand man and won't take constructive criticism from people he doesn’t deem worthy? Should we really surround him and tell him he has a problem??? We can do that.

 

I feel like GC should monitor DNF logs. If two or three build up and go untouched by the owner for several months they should intervene. People travel for hundreds of miles to do these caches, they should be given the respect of good ones that are properly maintained. I hate to say it but I think there should be a limit on cache hides, (a liberal number) then people would attempt to make a name by putting out quality caches instead of high numbers. I have seen the joke several times in the forums about people "throwing film canisters out of the car window" without even stopping and that the first finder would find it on the ground and at least try to hide it. Funny huh? We, geocachers, need to bring these people under control. I will never be convinced that one person / team can maintain over 100 cache hides.

Share this post


Link to post

Well after reading the other thread about the maintenance problems. The cacher who there talking about asked me if I would maintain ISQ's#436,435,434,433, because there close to my area ( he asked me to before he planted them)I said sure, there kind of new so no problems yet ,with that many caches out there you need help I know I have a hard enough time with the 6 I have. and I know the Shadow in northeast indiana maintains all the ones up there around his neck of the woods. Yes It does suck to find a cache with a wet log or a cracked container but as geocachers I take with me extra logs and whatnot's to get the find and help the person out , alot of cachers do I've even had people replace the log in my own caches.because of wetness or critter involvement. Yes there is a point were to many is to many .But to me as a Geocasher I'll help them out If the cache I'm hunting is in bad shape.Don't matter if thay have 1 of 1000 hides. thats just the way I am.

Share this post


Link to post

To back up GerbilMafia.....he himself attempted to ask this very question over on the thread where the cacher in question (SixDogTeam) and his craonies chat. He asked it in the same manner I did. He was subsequently lambasted for his impudence since his numbers do not qualify him for an opinion. CYBret I agree we as a community should "police" our own respectfully. However, you should experience the sense of entitlement that comes from one of our own. Maybe I have read his writings wrong. After all it is I who said 80% of all commo is non-verbal. I have read a lot and it all speaks the same language.

 

Is it an option that if we find a cahe that has been neglected and in need of repair, we ourselves collect it and post a note that it no longer exists? Is that too extreme or akin to theft. I would be just picking up someone elses litter (as mentioned in the other thread). Chew on that some and see how it tastes. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

I feel like GC should monitor DNF logs. If two or three build up and go untouched by the owner for several months they should intervene.

 

I feel like cachers should POST DNF logs....it doesn't mean that's going to happen. :anicute:

 

Groundspeak monitors "SBA" notes I'm not sure about "Needs Maintenance" notes.

 

As for an individual who has maintained over 100 caches very well...I can name one. I won't though. He's not from this area and it really isn't my place to name him. But he does a great job...it can be done.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

I have been reading both threads , the Vets one and this one . Some good points have been made , but sadly this seems to be more and more turning into a "Lets Bash SixDogTeam " thing.

 

I suppose you all consider me to be one of SixDogTeams "cronies" well perhaps I am .

 

This man has done a lot for geocaching in Indiana . He has a wonderful personality and wit . Do I always agree with him or his politics .. No . If you all would bother to look of the caches that he owns a good lot of them are "co-owned " with other cachers . To which they help him maintain those caches. He does this because perhaps they need the help with the cache pages themselves for they may not be as adept in making such a page, and to keep the "ISQ" caches together , this was a trend he started and a trend he has full rights to . He deserves control over this series.

 

As far as the "other" Indiana Thread where Sixdog and his cronies chat .. GM would have been welcomed there , his "tone" made him a target for attack. But like has been said before , you cant hear the inflection in ones voice or see there expressions on their faces . SO that all could very well have been misinterperted.

 

And to stay on topic :

 

Tis true , one can have to many caches to maintain , however , I think it is a good thing if we all just help each other out in doing so . A Polite note on the cache page , or an polite e-mail to the cache owner is the proper first step . Not bashing on said owner , that will get you nowhere , except for some hard feelings.

 

Like I said above, the numbers of Caches owned by SixdogTeam can be deceptive , especially if he has done the cache page in conjunction with another Cacher . That generally means that another cacher has placed the cache and stated they will maintain said cache.

 

I was going to stay out of these discussions , as I am biased so to speak , I have met SixDogTeam and they are fantastic , and not so "controlling " as they have been accused .

 

I beleive the No caching at night rule is a good one , as most cemetery vandalism is done in the dark . Most cemeteries have times of operation. It just plain makes good sense .

 

Cache On !

 

Star

Share this post


Link to post

To back up GerbilMafia.....he himself attempted to ask this very question over on the thread where the cacher in question (SixDogTeam) and his craonies chat. He asked it in the same manner I did. He was subsequently lambasted for his impudence since his numbers do not qualify him for an opinion.

Maybe someone should finance my next geocaching expedition to Indiana. Really, it doesn't cost much....will cache for food! :anicute:

 

CYBret I agree we as a community should "police" our own respectfully. However, you should experience the sense of entitlement that comes from one of our own. Maybe I have read his writings wrong. After all it is I who said 80% of all commo is non-verbal. I have read a lot and it all speaks the same language.

I'm not close enough to the area or issue to speak to this, but thank you for acknowledging that it's easy to mis-read someone. The reality is the only entitlement any of us has as cache placers exists when we uphold the guidelines. Anything else and we're just foolin' ourselves.

 

Is it an option that if we find a cahe that has been neglected and in need of repair, we ourselves collect it and post a note that it no longer exists? Is that too extreme or akin to theft. I would be just picking up someone elses litter (as mentioned in the other thread). Chew on that some and see how it tastes. :anicute:

I've trashed out a few caches that needed it, but the owners were long gone and they were extremely damaged.

 

Let me just ask this, do you honestly think ANYONE wants their cache to be trash? I have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. We'd all rather our caches be in good shape. No one wants to be known for owning garbage.

 

I'd like to think that any cacher might have their personal goal to be to own the most well-maintained caches possible....not just the most caches.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

I know this is going to sound sarcastic but it is posted as a serious question. Are you saying it was OK to blast GM for his misunderstood tone and it is not OK to blast SixDog for the same?

 

I believe SixDog's wit and charm are applied to those he wishes and if you were on the receiving end of our commo with him you might think differently.

 

We have considered his caches are co-owned but there are 334+. The numbers needing attention are in the double digits. Need we start copy pasting all that we are aware of. Like I said before it bothers me that I will find one needing much attention and yet get a notifier that he placed 10 more on his own that same day. Why not fix the ones that need fixing? Are the stats that important? That is what it seems from this perspective. If I am wrong then please enlighten me. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Not saying that at all , just saying that if someone is throwing stones , well others are bound to toss them back ... and .... an old saying gramma used a lot :

 

"ya catch more flies with honey then viniger " , we all need to be a bit nicer to each other.

 

Star

Edited by Team Tigger International

Share this post


Link to post

That's been my point too. Handle it in the community....keep it all happy.

 

Gramma was right....but she also grew up in a day when people knew how to take their lumps without getting huffy about it.

 

ONCE AGAIN: I have no feelings one way or another about the team in question....as far as I can tell, this thread is about cachers in general. If it gets personal, we'll shut it down and let you all take it to PM's.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

and most importantly: NO ONE'S OFFERING TO FINANCE MY CACHING TRIP TO INDIANA!!!!! :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
and most importantly: NO ONE'S OFFERING TO FINANCE MY CACHING TRIP TO INDIANA!!!![

Drop by a CINCO event some time and I'll treat. That's in the Kokomo, Logansport, Lebanon, Lafayette, Monticello area. Right on the edge of the fanatical ISQ region. It isn't too far away from your haunts.

Share this post


Link to post

Speak up fellow cachers.......how many is too many for one person and/or team to manage? I personally don't think you can set a number limit. I think it is determined by how many you personally maintain WELL. We in this area can identify numerous caches in need of repair that are all owned by the same person. I don't enjoy going on a hunt to find one that has been neglected and at the same time get my weekly notification that shows he has put out 10 more. Numbers don't make the man. I think I said that before but anyway, lets all keep a cool head and see what everyone thinks. :anicute:

 

I think the approval process should be changed to prevent what you describe, no maintenece, no new hides. I'd even propose in extreme neglect cases disabling the hiders ability to LOG finds until they start maintaining their caches.

Share this post


Link to post

In the other thread CYBret said

Honestly, I haven't done nearly enough ISQ's to form an opinion. [about how well they are maintained]

 

I am hardly in the top 10 list of ISQ finders. Actually, since I don't pay much attention to stats I am not sure where I rank. However it seems to me that maintainence on ISQs is no better nor no worse than for other caches. This is especially true since the ISQs are placed by many people some of whom are on the ball and some who are not. Sometimes you'll run into a dud ISQ but most of of them are in good condition. At least the hiders are still active cachers -- something I can't say for the owners of other caches around Indiana.

 

What I really like about the ISQs is the back story attached to them. Even when I am not out for a day of caching -- like when I am on a trip with my wife somewhere -- we will read from our PDA the stories of the ISQs that we are passing but not hunting. Another thing I like about the ISQs is that they are generally (not always) in historic cemeteries. Who wants to be walking around places with the newly buried still getting adjusted to their surroundings?

 

The thing I don't like about the ISQs is this emphasis on scoring. E.g., who has found the most or worse who has found the most in one day. With such a wonderful set of history surrounding each ISQ why not emphaize slowing down and enjoying the area? But then, as I have mentiond, I am not much interested in stats.

 

So, in general, thumbs up on the ISQs. For 1/1 micros (in general) they are overall good ones.

Share this post


Link to post

and most importantly: NO ONE'S OFFERING TO FINANCE MY CACHING TRIP TO INDIANA!!!!! :)

 

Gimme a clue on "It's Not In The Tree", and I'll drive you around myself. :)

 

Regarding the main topic, I agree that the geocaching community needs to police itself. Fortunately, we have the tools to do so. The "Needs Maintainance" logs are a great boon as it allows for a geocacher to throw up a flag for both the cache owner and future cache hunters. (Since a number of cachers do fix-up jobs on caches that they find, I think that the Performed Maintainance logs should be available for finders as well as owners, but that's my humble opinion.)

 

The "Needs Archived" logs are useful as well. Sometimes I'll go through local caches, and if it's obvious that the owner is neglecting maintainance and that the cache is missing, I'll post a Needs Archived log just to raise the flag on the cache.

 

A very powerful tool also is the DNF log. Somehow I wish it were feasible to split this into two kinds, DNFs that say "I didn't find it, but I didn't look everywhere so it may simply be well hidden", and DNFs that say "I looked everywhere, saw the obvious spot, and most likely is missing." However, those are likely to be subject to the cache hunter's perception.

 

I think that if all of these tools are used by the majority of cachers, then it will be obvious if a cache hider has overreached themselves. It's possible for a cache hider to overreach with just one hide, while another can have hundreds and do their job reasonably well (which is also subject to personal opinion). However, I think it too much of a stretch to judge another cacher's maintainance duties without these tools being used properly.

 

One last thought. If I was planning on hunting a particular cache some distance from home, I would prefer to have these tools used so that I can judge for myself whether or not to hunt them. It shouldn't be put upon just the cache owner to go out immediately to maintain a cache (a reasonable time, like a month, seems good to me). This is everyone's responsibility, myself included.

Share this post


Link to post

and most importantly: NO ONE'S OFFERING TO FINANCE MY CACHING TRIP TO INDIANA!!!!! :)

 

I'll provide lodging, who's gonna handle his food?

 

*********

 

I went way overboard in the last thread, so I'm refraining from getting too far into this one.

 

I'd just like to offer my "virtual cache" solution to the problem of maintaining a high number of caches. The iSQers alway photograph the area nicely and research the residence. They could easily give you the coords to the cemetery entrance and then the hunt would involve finding the featured stone and reporting a key peice of info. You would still have to do a bit of searching, maybe even more.

 

Instead of a cacher with his head down at his GPS, pacing off toward some tree with a backpack full of goodies and supplies, you would have a person walking through the rows from stone to stone admiring the area and finding a person to honor. No different than any other visitor really.

 

Hold your ears, GM

 

I also want to apologize to SixDogTeam. I got wrapped up in things in the last thread and went after you hard, too hard for my own comfort. I know some of the people who are teamed with you. They are good people and if they respect you, then you must be a decent person. Sorry man.

 

I'm done with this one,

 

Six

Edited by sixgunklr

Share this post


Link to post

This board is getting interesting again.

 

As for the topic, I see no reason to limit the number of caches a cacher hides to a specific number. The reviewer could take maintenance issues into account when approving a new cache and he/she could refuse to allow a new one. I think most reviewers would be loath to say no, however. We all like to search for caches and pissing off active cachers might be counter-productive.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd just like to offer my "virtual cache" solution to the problem of maintaining a high number of caches.

 

I would guess that this hasn't been discussed because we can no longer "place" a virtual geocache here. It could be waymarked, but that's another thing entirely.

Share this post


Link to post

and most importantly: NO ONE'S OFFERING TO FINANCE MY CACHING TRIP TO INDIANA!!!!! :)

 

I'll provide lodging, who's gonna handle his food?

 

Hey, we'll help feed him... :)

Unless of course he turns out to have the appetite of your average fifteen-year-old boy. :)

Share this post


Link to post

and most importantly: NO ONE'S OFFERING TO FINANCE MY CACHING TRIP TO INDIANA!!!!! :)

 

I'll provide lodging, who's gonna handle his food?

 

Hey, we'll help feed him... :)

Unless of course he turns out to have the appetite of your average fifteen-year-old boy. :)

 

15 year old boy/grown man...they all eat the same!

 

p.s. whoo hoo, my new avitar is working!!!

Share this post


Link to post

On my trap line in Siberia 25 miles from the nearest road I think I can pull off 1000 caches without too much trouble.

 

Around town, 5 is pushing my limit.

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree with what S Keillan said. Very well said Kelly.

 

Off Topic a small bit....

Bret,

You can have all the hot dogs you want if you make it over to the Spring Picnic in May. So I guess you will be packing up the Durango and heading to the Geo-center of the Midwest. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Is it an option that if we find a cahe that has been neglected and in need of repair, we ourselves collect it and post a note that it no longer exists? Is that too extreme or akin to theft. I would be just picking up someone elses litter (as mentioned in the other thread). Chew on that some and see how it tastes. :laughing:

 

That will--fortunately--never be an option. If that were ever allowed, it would quickly turn into a hate-fest, with people claiming that the caches of some person who had offended them were in terrible shape and absconding with them right and left.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that the best-placed caches seldom need much in the way of replacing or repair...a logbook here, a new "what's this?" there and they are good for months (OK, I am thinking mostly of ammo cans in the woods when I say this, but really micros aren't that much more labor intensive).

 

The INKY members have a formal Cache-911 system. If you know of a cache in the INKY area that is in need of TLC, a volunteer will be out to do the task as soon as possible. Many other cachers follow the informal cache repair route and carry basic supplies with them on every caching trip. It is a simple thing to replace a soggy or over-full logbook, to exchange a torn baggie for a new one, etc. Chris and I carry extra ammo cans in the trunk of the car, and one of almost every cache container type we have ever seen with us in our daypacks. I need to lay in a stock of o-rings, but if I find your micro in sorry shape, I can replace it with something that will get it through until you can get out there--or better yet, perhaps I can save you a trip.

 

SHOULD everyone have to maintain other people's caches? No. But on the other hand, if you are out there placing quality caches, I would prefer to do some minor repairs for you now and then, and let you have more time to go out and hide some more goodies for me to find. Since there are many of us (in my area at least) of a like mind, I know that someone else will do the same kinds of "freshening up" for me if my cache needs it. Thinking of it all this way takes away the animosity. It isn't "us" against "them", after all. We are all geocachers, and if we take the stance that we are all responsible for each others caches, there will be many more opportunities for caches out there. That's a good thing, since some of us seem to be gifted with the ability to hide creative caches in cool places, while others of us excel only at finding them.

 

Another reason to look out for one another: I am more likely to place a cache 50 miles from my house, if I know that Joe Cacher--who lives two miles from there--won't really mind replacing the full logbook once a year or so, or that he will offer to adopt it since he is closer to it. Sure, I can go back out there and add a log book, and I would if I had to, but if Joe is right there in town, finding the cache anyway then why waste gas/time? (As long as I am willing to do the same for Joe, or his cousin Sue, who has a cache near my home).

 

There are some really marvelous caches out in Indiana (and other states) that "belong" to some people who haven't been actively caching in years now. Many of those cachers joined the game, found a few caches, hide 5 or 10 and then disappeared from the ranks. They were decent hides, in great places, and new cachers still go to the caches all the time. Some of those caches are in remote spots. Some of those caches might not be approved under newer guidelines, but they aren't causing problems, and are great places to visit. Other cachers are maintaining those caches, most often without any credit whatsoever, sometimes with their name added to the cache page. If every cacher who went to one of those caches and found a full logbook decided to take the cache and claim abandonment, those caching opportunities would be lost to the geocaching community as a whole, and geocaching in Indiana would lose some of its finest history.

 

Sometimes cachers adopt dozens of abandoned caches, and little by little work their way around to getting them repaired, replaced, remodeled, revised, and restored. It may take weeks or even months, but it will get done. Sometimes they have really only done it themselves to make sure that someone is tending the cache. In those cases, a kind and polite offer to help take care of the caches in an area near you might result in them turning some caches over to you at some point (after they are sure that you are really in geocaching for the long haul).

 

And sometimes the repair schedule just isn't as quick as you think should be, but the intent is good. I know of one cache that was down (temporarily disabled) for a long while because the police were watching it for a drug drop, and the owner didn't want geocachers going there. I know of others that have sat because of construction, the cache owner being on military deployment, having surgery or illness in the family. I had one that sat too long because I couldn't get there when the spot was open to repair it with the tool I need to retreive it from where it had fallen. Stuff does happen. In most of those cases I've mentioned, we would all make more friends by offering to assist than by pointing out the owner's inability to take care of the job themselves.

 

Is that well enough chewed to disgest, ya think?

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, food offers from Hoosiers! Where were you guys when I paid my bill at "Wings n' Things??!?!" :laughing:

 

The suggestion was made to have reviewers take maintenance history into account before listing any new caches. That's an interesting idea and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the reviewers I know occasionally do take those kinds of stands with cachers. I think it's a bit much to expect them to do it all the time, though.

 

I guess it's just me, but I have a hard enough time maintaining the few caches I own. I just checked, I have 11 physical caches. One of them I know I haven't been to for over a year. I think the last time I personally visited it was when I placed a yellow jeep travel bug in it the day they were released. However, it's an ammo box and it's a slightly tricky mystery cache (no, it's not the tree one). It doesn't get visited very often and so far none of the logs have said it needs a maintenance visit.

 

One of my multi-caches takes 45 minutes to just check on. If I have to make repairs I can usually count on an hour and a half.

 

Dang, I'm pathetic. :(

 

Back to my point, I'd like to think I know when I've hit that "enough's enough" level. I feel bad enough when I get the occasional, "The log is full" note, I'd hate to be out there replacing whole caches all the time...that would cut into my OWN caching time! :unsure:

 

Someone recently fed me the 10% line. You know...for every 10 caches you find, you ought to place 1. Well, I know me, and there's no way I'm going to pepper the landscape with 126 crappy caches that I can't maintain. Geocachers don't deserve that and I don't need the headache.

 

Ok....sorry...just a bit of a rant at myself before calling it quits on a LONG day!

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

Just food for thought... we have a cacher in MN that has somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 caches placed all over the state. They are some of the best caches you can go after. So should you limit the number someone can place? No way.

Share this post


Link to post

The INKY members have a formal Cache-911 system. If you know of a cache in the INKY area that is in need of TLC, a volunteer will be out to do the task as soon as possible.

 

I suppose I should mention that I am the Illinois representative of Indigo's Cache-911 system. At least that's what I got suckered into at a meeting in Evansville a few months ago. :P

 

I do carry some baggies and logbooks. I carry some micro log sheets printed out on National Geographic Adventure Paper (works great even when wet) and I've got a couple film canisters in my bag too. I hadn't thought about carrying o-rings for bison tubes, but that's an interesting thought too. My only problem with all this is that I seldom carry my full pack when I know I'm going to a micro and it's hard to pack all that repair gear into my little GPS case and still have room for the stuff I need.

 

Just to air a pet peeve here, though...When I go to a micro and instead of finding an "official" logsheet I find an impossibly long roll of adding machine tape, in my mind that means one thing: The owner isn't planning on coming back. I've found a few that were so full you couldn't hardly get them out of the container, and if you show up after there's been a bunch of finds...ugh...they're a pain to unroll and re-roll.

 

Sorry..just a pet peeve...I hope that doesn't muddy things up....I don't have anyone in particular in mind, it's just a trend I don't care for.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

We did a few of the ISQ caches in the Columbia City general area a few weeks ago, and many of them were in sad shape. Those little film cannisters start out nice, but they are by no means waterproof. We tried to mention it in our logs, and have made needs maint logs to some.

The series had a very good intention when it was started, but I think it has drifted from it's original intent. The "small, rural, historic" has changed to 'a graveyard in Indiana' . We still enjoy the series, but it would be nice if the owners were able to keep them in better shape.

 

Thanks for the Adventure

Gary and Mary

Share this post


Link to post

Touching on what CYBret said...

I never even thought of the "wads" of rolled up paper!!!

I have come across this many times, and cut my finger a time or two on the rim of the container trying to get the roll out! I SO HATE THOSE!!! Especially if the paper gets a little wet! I am finding more and more of these "jumbo size rolls of paper in a matchstick container" and while I am sure it is handy for the owner...it's a pain in the but for me, and many other cachers I am sure!

Share this post


Link to post
... [CyBret is] the Illinois representative of Indigo's Cache-911 system. ...

 

Hum. If they have an Illinois rep then they might have reps in northern Indiana. Gary & Mary, why don't you try it out and see? Send mail to: indigogeo@aol.com

 

I probably should offer to be the rep in the Lafayette area ... except one of the seven caches listed as needing maintainence is mine so that is not a very good recommendation.. :-( Yes, I'll get to it At least I disabled it for the time being.

 

... [CyBret carrys] some micro log sheets printed out on National Geographic Adventure Paper ...

 

Now that is a good idea for something to hand out at a meet'n'greet. We've had people hand out cache containers and other stuff to get newbies started. Why not some pre-printed micro water-resistant micro paper? I'll have to see if I can get my act together to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
... [CyBret carrys] some micro log sheets printed out on National Geographic Adventure Paper ...

 

Now that is a good idea for something to hand out at a meet'n'greet. We've had people hand out cache containers and other stuff to get newbies started. Why not some pre-printed micro water-resistant micro paper? I'll have to see if I can get my act together to do that.

 

National Geographic Adventure Paper is NOT cheap. My pack of 15 legal sized sheets cost $20.00. You do get several micro logs to each sheet, of course. And save the side pieces for those little Listerine pocket pack caches.

 

I bought mine at Gander Mountain in Terre Haute. You can also buy it on Amazon.com...maybe cheaper.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

Just wadding in since I haven't for a while. It seems everyone is on the same page here.

 

1. No we don't need to limit numbers based solely on the numbers. It is based more on the individual's capabilities.

 

2. We should support each other. To some that means carrying supplies to fix what is broke and to others it means proper notification in the cache logs or through e-mail.

 

3. Most people like ISQ's for one reason or another.

 

One thing I would like to add. If this is going to work and we are all to be one big happy supportive family, we each individually must accept criticism and take responsibility when folks start mentioning there is a problem. We can't continue to place caches and ignore that flags have been raised. Acknowledgement must be made so that we know the owner is aware and intends to fix the problem regardless of timeline. I am willing to wait as long as I know you intend to fix the problem as I am sure most of us are. Provided the flags are respectful of course.

 

I would like to mention something that was briefly mentioned earlier. There were several that were bothered by the way some were complaining about SixDogTeam and the ISQ's. It was said that it wasn't fair to "gang" up on him for not understanding him. One of the things that brought this to a head was that some time ago, GerbilMafia did just what everybody here says you should do. He brought the maintenance needs of several caches to SDT's attention respectfully. He was ignored for reasons unknown. So he did what he thought he was supposed to do next which was ask about the protocol in the forums. He was shown no mercy by the supporters of SDT, for making him look bad. He was admonished for being a new guy and accussed of telling falsehoods and half truths. Was that fair? Was it any different than what was happening here with the roles reversed? For us to really speak openly we must first look at our own faults. I am not exempt. We all take responsibility for this sport. The people who run the web site do not go out and physically make this happen, we do. I agree there is no need for a numerical limit. I also agree that we should make notice to the owner respectfully. I must insist that the owner also has a responsibility to the rest of us to acknowledge they have maintenance needs and keep the lines of communication open and flowing in both directions. Nuff said for tonight. BRP Strong! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Well, one of the things that I know some cachers have run across is that when there is an over-abundance of caches owned by an individual in one area...mainly micros, it limits other cachers abilities to place regulars because of cache distance rules.

Just my 2 cents...I'll take my change now!

Share this post


Link to post

 

We did a few of the ISQ caches in the Columbia City general area a few weeks ago, and many of them were in sad shape. Those little film cannisters start out nice, but they are by no means waterproof. We tried to mention it in our logs, and have made needs maint logs to some.

The series had a very good intention when it was started, but I think it has drifted from it's original intent. The "small, rural, historic" has changed to 'a graveyard in Indiana' . We still enjoy the series, but it would be nice if the owners were able to keep them in better shape.

 

Thanks for the Adventure

Gary and Mary

 

Thanks for that kick in the head Gary and Mary!

 

It looks like we now degenerated from the lets trash talk SixDogTeam into lets trash talk the ISQ series (that would be my que to jump into the melee). You really should not let the pursuit of those similey faces get in the way of READING THE TEXT ON THE CACHE PAGE. The purpose of the series is clearly described on every single page. These cemeteries are all historic and quite frankly I do not care what size or how rural they are. There are good stories to be found and heroic individuals who deserve to be honored in most cemeteries out there if anyone is willing to take the time and look.

 

Why in the world are we whining about wet cache logs? That is equivilent to crying becuause your boots got muddy looking for a cache. Unless the cache is hidden in an ammo box (and i have seen those wet too) the log WILL get wet sooner or later. As you pointed out 35mm canisters (nor tuperware boxes, nor magnetic key boxes, nor cookie tins, nor waterproof match containers, nor zip loc bags, nor dcon containers...need I go on) are not waterproof. I have found wet logs on caches that I was FTF on including one in a "water tight" gasketed container. Who cares? Instead of crying about it in the forums, why not help a brother out and replace the log? Others have done it for me it is greatly appreciated. That is why I carry extra log sheets and replace as needed. It barely takes any time or effort and makes the sport fun for everyone. We all do our best to stay on top of things, but none of us should be expected to sitting next to the computer waiting for wet log notices to pop up on our computers either. Lets be reasonable here.

 

Ya know, SDT used to put all his logs in little plastic zip-loc bags to keep them try. Would you believe that we griped about that too becuase they were difficult to get in/out and properly sealed?

 

As TTI pointed out earlier, this has been the bash SixDogTeam thread from the beginning. Two mods have been in on this thread (perhaps I am also including the "Questions for Veteran Cachers" thread) but yet I continue to see the singling out of a single geocacher is allowed to continue. Why?

 

Bret: I appreciate your attempt to moderate a meaningful discussion, but other than the side-bars about financing your Indiana geocaching trip, this has all been about SixDogTeam (not to mention COMPLETELY off topic). I am not quite sure how the feud got started, but this appears to be the continuation of a previous spat between the members of Team Pretorious (did I spell that right?) and SDT. Look at the OP's stats. He has only logged only one of SDT's caches. The claim of non-maintenance of caches apepars to be unfounded based on only one find logged.

 

As far as the issue of not allowing night caching (from origional thread), YOU CAN ALL BLAME THAT ONE ON ME! I made the recommendation to both SDT and MountianClimber to not allow night caching in cemeteries (or at least to discourage it). I do have some professional experinece in this area having served as a consultant dealing with DNR (and more directly the SHPO). State law gives the authority to the counties to impose curfews at cemeteries. Since most of the non-active cemeteries fall under the jurisdiction of the township trustees the specific rules (I never said law) will vary greatly within each county. I should point out that I have no idea what (or if) there are posting requirements. There are 92 counties within Indiana. For arguments sake lets assume there are 6 townships per county on average. That is approximately 552 different areas within Indina that may or may not allow/prohibit being in a cemetery at night. Keep in mind that does not include active cemeteries. Does anyone out there want to go figure out where is is allowed and where it is not?

 

The practical problem I was seeing was that cachers in my neighborhood (I live within one mile of about three of my caches) is the police were consistently questioning goecachers who were attempting to find my caches at night. While there was no foul play involved, 11 pm in a cemetery is not the best time nor place to introduce local law enforcement to geocaching.

 

Yes! SDT's listing on the cache page should have said you may (could, might...) be arrested... instead of WILL. IT DOES NOT MATTER. What does matter is that the OP completely missed the point that one takes a risk by being there at night. As Bret pointed out, given the OP's tendancy to test boundaries, a situation like this could get REALLY UGLY. If we need some sort of legal review prior to posting our cache pages, then this sport has become way too serious for me.

 

So there you have it. I have now painted a huge bullseye in the center of my chest. At least now you can quit bashing SDT and start taking some cheap shots at me.

Edited by Rupert2

Share this post


Link to post

Quite passionate if I was reading that right. Looking at my stats isn't going to help you with understanding the background on this because I was speaking up for my brothers. And I will say this only ONCE more. The issue from the other thread was what to do when a cacher over steps his/her bounds. If you don't care I don't care. Check my last posting over there and you will see. This thread is about How many Caches Is Too Many! Yes SDT was brought up because the issue began there. I am new and local so I am unaware of who may also have hundreds of caches with several being in need of attention. This applies to anyone who is placing caches no matter how many there are. Some issues were brought up by other regarding SDT both for and against. I am guessing you are for. Anyway, this thread was not about bashing SDT. Try re-reading some of the content without emotion and see what info there is. You can't possibly know the writer's intent. No one should bash you. Unless you are trying to pick a fight. In which case I will shut down this thread myself since I started it. Your post reads quite aggressively. If I am wrong correct me. You can't deny what has already occured between other cachers that didn't involve you and is dirtectly related to this topic. Again read my last posting on this thread. I feel as if I am talking in circles so I will end this one. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is about How many Caches Is Too Many!

 

That discussion ended somewhere in post #3 of this thread. This is a personal attack on someone and I find it disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post

:laughing:

Rather than spending all that time trying to figure out which "rules" apply to which cemeteries...wouldn't it just be easier for each cache placer to seek out the person in charge of the cemetery they want to (or already have) placed a cache in and get permission. I think it is already a Groundspeak requirement that placers have permission to place a cache on properties they don't own anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. I sit down to watch a movie with my daughter and come back to this. What was I thinking? :laughing:

 

There are several points that need to be addressed here. First and foremost, it's my opinion that most of the posters in this thread (and the other one) have done a good job in avoiding bashing any one person/team/whatever. I think you would have to agree that there are certain high profile cachers in this area that immediately come to mind and yes, they have been named. I also see several posts in these threads that show support for these individuals. Honestly, Rupert, I'm not seeing the bashing you're seeing. Maybe I'm blind to it, or maybe I'm far enough away from it.

 

And most importantly, I'm getting free food from Indiana people....eventually.

 

This thread is about How many Caches Is Too Many!

That discussion ended somewhere in post #3 of this thread. This is a personal attack on someone and I find it disgusting.

No. I would say this thread has evolved into one about "how are we going to support all those caches out there?" I went back to count how many posts have been about "community maintenance" and I lost count at about six (it's 12:30...give me a break..I can't count that high!). We've heard suggestions on how Groundspeak could encourage maintenance, how the community is prepared to do maintenance, and how maintenance is the responsibility of the cache owner. What do the guidelines say?

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

Yeah, we've all seen nasty logbooks and soaked caches. But you don't fix the problem by capitulating and saying, "Who cares?" I think we've answered that question: we all care. We carry logbooks, we carry replacement containers, we ALL do maintenance. But according to the guidelines (which every cacher claims to have read when they place a cache) it's still the owner's responsibility.

 

Once again..I'm not picking on anyone...Check my stats...I haven't logged enough ISQ's to be talking about JUST one cacher. I've seen caches all over this country and lots of them were in bad shape. Few of them had to be.

 

Rather than spending all that time trying to figure out which "rules" apply to which cemeteries...wouldn't it just be easier for each cache placer to seek out the person in charge of the cemetery they want to (or already have) placed a cache in and get permission. I think it is already a Groundspeak requirement that placers have permission to place a cache on properties they don't own anyway.

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

 

The big question is, "What is adequate?" Is permission from the cemetery board adequate? How about the groundskeeper? What about a prominent family? Or is it adequate to simply hide the cache in such a way that it doesn't interfere with the day-in-day-out business of a cemetery? Ultimately I think it has a lot to do with what the hider is comfortable with and (equally as important) what the reviewer is comfortable with. Maybe MountainClimber can address that issue...or maybe he's not going to come back since he now owes me $20.00 worth of pork rinds.

 

And finally I just want to apologize for not wading into here earlier. I spent the evening with a charming young lady who wanted to watch a movie with her old Dad. We stayed up way too late, so please don't tell her mom. You've all raised some good issues that could be applied to cachers in any region. Honestly, this would make an interesting thread in the main forum, though I think it could do with a title change.

 

Oh and by the way, the charming young lady is offering to babysit her younger siblings this Saturday so Dad can escape the house. Be watching for the Bretmobile somewhere on the Hoosier back roads.

 

Bret

Share this post


Link to post

I can't not say this. Rupert2 you have missed the boat. If you are that bothered by what is being said here then do what any good free speach community member would do and don't read it. You aren't doing your friends any service with your statements. If anything you are bring attention back to one cacher rather than letting the thread continue to evolve. See you at the spring picnic :laughing:

 

To get my post back on topic.........I will just reiterate that I believe the community can support the cache owner at whatever level each of the other cachers feels is appropriate as long as the owner is acceptable to the attention to the cache being made so publically. Not everyone has been so polite when we have called attention to their caches here in the recent past. The two way street premis.

 

Also I would like to thank Bret for supporting the thread as a discussion as it was intended. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Posts #3 and #4 is where it was turning into a bash fest at least to me . Even involving a bit of name calling.

 

RedDragon , you have my respect . Its takes a strong person to admit they did something childish. Well done.

 

There is more I could say but I don't see the need , nor see a purpose in stating such at this time.

 

Cybret we are looking forward to you caching in Indiana ! Hope you have fun ....

 

Star

Share this post


Link to post

I became curious on how many 'needs maintenance' but still active caches there are. I am presuming that 'needs maintenance ' but inactive means that the owner is on the ball to monitor it via the computer but hasn't physically gotten to the cache yet. While if the cache is still active but in need of repair means that we have a problem hider. So ... running some pocket queries reveals:

 

32 in Indiana

23 in Illinois

58 in MI, OH, KY combined (I got lazy)

 

All in all, very low numbers considering the total number of caches in place. Indiana's total is higher than the other states but not overly so. There are several ways to look at this data.

 

1) Overall we are actually doing a good job in handling caches in bad condition.

and/or

2) Few people use the 'needs maintenance' button to report caches in need of repair.

Share this post


Link to post

I became curious on how many 'needs maintenance' but still active caches there are. I am presuming that 'needs maintenance ' but inactive means that the owner is on the ball to monitor it via the computer but hasn't physically gotten to the cache yet. While if the cache is still active but in need of repair means that we have a problem hider. So ... running some pocket queries reveals:

 

32 in Indiana

23 in Illinois

58 in MI, OH, KY combined (I got lazy)

 

All in all, very low numbers considering the total number of caches in place. Indiana's total is higher than the other states but not overly so. There are several ways to look at this data.

 

1) Overall we are actually doing a good job in handling caches in bad condition.

and/or

2) Few people use the 'needs maintenance' button to report caches in need of repair.

 

Unfortunately that's not the best presumption. One of my caches got a Needs Maintainence log in January, but given that the log was addressing a damp interior and an almost-full log book, I didn't de-activate it. (Later finders didn't comment on these, however.) Truth is that my wife and I have recently moved and we're still trying to overcome chaos at our new place, so I've not have the proper time to deal with it properly. I suspect that if the actual number of caches with the NM flag could be counted that it would be somewhat higher.

 

As I stated earlier, the NM log is a great tool, but as with many things, severeness of the need is going to vary. Does a wet log require de-activation? If it's merely damp, then not really. (That would include your cache, Rick.) If it's falling apart, then probably yes. Under the current system where a NM attribute can be cleared only by the cache owner, using that flag would be best if a quick repair (i.e. new log, new baggies, etc.) won't fix the problem. It probably should only be used if the cache has a crack in it or if the circumstance requires the owner to move the cache to a better spot.

 

Just my few pence.

Share this post


Link to post

I have recent evidence that at least some people are not using the NM option. I recently archived a cache that had extremely wet contents. A few of the finders noted the wetness and one even cleaned out some items that were ruined. Reading these logs led me to act----but the NM was never used by any of the visitors.

Share this post


Link to post
National Geographic Adventure Paper is NOT cheap. My pack of 15 legal sized sheets cost $20.00. You do get several micro logs to each sheet, of course. And save the side pieces for those little Listerine pocket pack caches.

 

Does ink jet printing run with this paper?

Edited by Maxima

Share this post


Link to post

I have recent evidence that at least some people are not using the NM option. I recently archived a cache that had extremely wet contents. A few of the finders noted the wetness and one even cleaned out some items that were ruined. Reading these logs led me to act----but the NM was never used by any of the visitors.

 

Keep in mind the "Needs Maintenance" log type is still really new. I'm sure it will get used more when people become aware that it's there. The use of this log type would also be a great topic for some local geocache group meetings and forums.

 

And to Maxima, yes, National Geographic Adventure Paper works great in ink jets.

Share this post


Link to post

Keep in mind the "Needs Maintenance" log type is still really new. I'm sure it will get used more when people become aware that it's there. The use of this log type would also be a great topic for some local geocache group meetings and forums.

 

Maybe we could have an event in Indiana that we can finance your visit to in order to discuss the new log options. :anicute: In any case, it would be nice to encourage others to use it. Perhaps a FAQ would help. (For all I know, one exists but I haven't seen it.)

Share this post


Link to post
National Geographic Adventure Paper is NOT cheap. My pack of 15 legal sized sheets cost $20.00. You do get several micro logs to each sheet, of course. And save the side pieces for those little Listerine pocket pack caches.

 

Does ink jet printing run with this paper?

 

Like CyBret said, this is expensive, but you can get it a little less dearly than what he paid by going here...http://www.riteintherain.com

 

Folks could always get together on an order to split. If we met up at an event that we were all attending to distribute it we could even save extra shipping costs.

 

I had an old field notebook made of this paper that I have been using to make logs for caches that are a bit further from home so that I won't have to visit them so often. The nice thing about the field notebook is that it has lines on it that serves as decent cutting lines, and I have noticed that folks tend to sign inside the lines most of the time, which cuts down on the space they use to log (I have mixed feelings bout that--on one hand it means fewer log replacement runs, on the other it means short logs to read). But they make and sell loose sheets, rolls, bulk sheet paper, and every size book.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...