How Many Is Too Many

[+CYBret]

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

 

We might be getting a little off subject, but I want to point out that Rite-in-the-Rain and National Geographic Adventure paper are not the same thing. Rite-in-the-Rain is is water resistant but not waterproof. It will eventually rot and fall apart from exposure.

 

Buying together is a great idea. We've talked about it in our local group. Of course, you can always just offer to sell some to your friends.

 

Bret

[+RPW]

... just offer to sell some [adventure paper] to your friends.

 

That assumes that after all of these "flame" wars (mild as they are) that we still have any friends. :-)

 

Honestly $20 for the paper isn't that bad. I haven't checked shipping yet though. But when I put out a fully loaded ammo can as a cache, well that costs close to $15 or more and I have no assurance that it won't be muggled the next day.

 

Pulling this topic slightly back on course, what would geocaching.com think if I ran a pocket query that had "needs maintainence" caches on it and put some (not all) of the information from the PQ on the CINCO web site? My thinking is that if we can all see the caches that need help then we might actually get out there to help them.

 

P.S. Yes Kelly, I know, I know. You cache is ok (so why not do a "maintainence done" log on it) while mine shouldn't be disabled.

[+Team Tigger International]

 

Pulling this topic slightly back on course, what would geocaching.com think if I ran a pocket query that had "needs maintainence" caches on it and put some (not all) of the information from the PQ on the CINCO web site? My thinking is that if we can all see the caches that need help then we might actually get out there to help them.

 

P.S. Yes Kelly, I know, I know. You cache is ok (so why not do a "maintainence done" log on it) while mine shouldn't be disabled.

 

Interesting idea. I just ran a PQ on all the 'needs maintainence' caches around Star's house and found that they all fit on 1 page (radius of 100 miles) and that only two of them were ISQs.

 

Wulf

[+Red Dragon 109]

As was mentioned before....the needs maintenance log is rather new and not all caches that need maintenance are logged as such. Great tool and props for creating it. It is a good place to start posting the NM caches for the community to rally on. It will be awahile before a truer representation of what needs fixed can be found that way. But like I said.....good idea and a good place to start.

[+Joypa]

 

Pulling this topic slightly back on course, what would geocaching.com think if I ran a pocket query that had "needs maintainence" caches on it and put some (not all) of the information from the PQ on the CINCO web site? My thinking is that if we can all see the caches that need help then we might actually get out the word.

 

Sounds good. Do it.

[+S Keillan]

Pulling this topic slightly back on course, what would geocaching.com think if I ran a pocket query that had "needs maintainence" caches on it and put some (not all) of the information from the PQ on the CINCO web site? My thinking is that if we can all see the caches that need help then we might actually get out there to help them.

It shouldn't be a problem. Indeed, it would be nice for CINCO to have its equivalent of a Cache-911 system. I think that we could include possible cache adoption options, but that's another subject.

 

P.S. Yes Kelly, I know, I know. You cache is ok (so why not do a "maintainence done" log on it) while mine shouldn't be disabled.

Actually, I'm planning on stopping by today (weather permitting) to add a log book and clean up a bit on the cache in question. I sort of been waiting for a time that I could hit another cache in the area. (Silly me.)

 

[edited for silly omission of an n't]

Edited March 10, 2006 by S Keillan

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

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

 

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

 

A few quick observations.

1. I detest the ISQ. It was fine at first but it has outlived it's welcome. That is my personal opinion and I won't complain further, I'll live my life you live yours.

2. I haven't seen the bashing, perhaps Rupert2 is taking it more personally because he is closer to the subject, easily understood and no harm done yet. Hopefully a peacefull, friendly accord will be reached, nothingf was every accomplished by anger.

3. I can't offer Cybret true lodging, but I have 80 acres he is free to camp on for a couple of nights if he likes.

[+501_Gang]

We have done close to 100 ISQ's and have only found a couple that need repair and have a couple of DNF's on them. We cache mainly in IN, IL and MI and have found many non-ISQ caches out there that need TLC badly. We have even been the FTF on some that had ammo cans with barely anything in them. But instead of complaining we added stuff to them and went on our way.

 

As for how many someone should be allowed to put out, we feel as many as they want. We have seen cachers that have only found one cache start putting out caches. Should there be a rule that you have to find, say 100 caches, before you can put out you first?

 

Just recently we joined the ISQ crew (cronies) and enjoy doing the research to find out about the cemetery and going out and looking over the markers to find intresting people to write about. Sure alot of ISQ's end up micros, but the whole idea of the cache is to get you there, walk you around, and tell you a little bit of the history of the place.

 

As for SDT, we have met him a few times and each time he was a pleasent person and we enjoyed talking with him, before and after we became an ISQer.

 

There was one that we placed that came up missing the day after we replaced it. After replacing it 3 or 4 more times we finally archived it. Another that we have, we kept getting DNF's posted and would check it after 3 DNF's only to find it was still where we placed it, so now we decided to wait until 5 or 6 DNF's are logged before checking on it since it seems to be one people have a hard time finding, even though to us, it's a typical hide.

 

We suggest, if you don't seem to like the ISQ's, don't look for them. If you don't like ammo cans, leave them be. Why fight and argue, it doesn't help the sport out and it only make enemies, lifes to short to be fighting all the time.

 

We for one like the ISQ, especially after finding a Shadow coin last time we went out!!

 

Happy Caching to all!!