gerboa Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 In another thread, a cacher is driven to 2 identities to allow him to enjoy geocaching in a particularly barren country. Checking I see there are some visitor finds. A possible temporary solution may be a change in the rules. Presently caches may not be placed distant from one's stamping ground, due to the problem of maintenance. These caches are allowed if an arrangement can be made with a local cacher. Or one might register as a "local" and hide caches. Could geocaching give dispensation to visiting cachers to these areas until the situation improves? Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The locals can address the scarcity of caches easily enough. I think the complaint in the other thread is the scarcity of finders. Quote Link to comment
dunderhead Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The locals can address the scarcity of caches easily enough. I think the complaint in the other thread is the scarcity of finders. there are only 1.5 locals in the area, the .5 being an oil worker who is there 6 months per year Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 A visitor can hide a cache if they make arrangements with a local geocacher to maintain the cache, and describe their maintenance plan on the cache page. These arrangements should be planned out BEFORE dumping the cache. Errr, hiding... sorry. Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 The locals can address the scarcity of caches easily enough. I think the complaint in the other thread is the scarcity of finders. You'd be wrong on both counts. Unusual for Brian. The current guidelines are designed to maximize the density of geocaches in a few highly-populated geographic areas. Since they also strongly encourage the placement of urban microcaches, we've seen an explosion of lame urban hides in saturated areas. I don't think the guidelines were designed that way on purpose; it just happened because they weren't developed with much thought about their impact. It's kind of like central planning of economies; every piece may look good by itself, but the sum of the parts is a disaster. Short answer: the guidelines won't change, so people who live in cache-poor areas should resign themselves to their situation, while people who live in cache-rich areas should expect a continuing degradation of cache quality. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.