Stricter Enforcement

[+ganlet]

I may be way off base here, but I live in a tourist area and i have ran into quite a few caches that no longer exist and the geocacher who posted them live in whole other states. To them its an annoyance having people complaining. To the geocacher its frustrating. I realize we have a guideline about this but it doesnt appear to be enforced in my area. also I think there is a personal responsibility if you are going to move from an area to have a local cacher adopt your caches so that they can be properly maintained.

 

I realize this is more frequent because of my location but has anyone else ran into this.

[+Haffy]

I would suggest that you contact the local reviewer for that area and explain to them what caches are in need of maintenance or archiving and let them handle it. They are pretty good about following up on any problem that exists in their designated area. At least our local reviewer is really good about things like that.

[Jeremy]

This is not a Geocaching.com feature topic, so I'm moving it to the general forum.

[Keystone]

When someone hides a cache while on vacation or otherwise beyond their "maintainable distance," the reviewer asks the cache owner what their maintenance plan is. If the owner offers up a plausible maintenance plan, we are supposed to list the cache. At that point, unless it's a repeat situation, we have no idea which hiders will honor their maintenance obligations and which ones will abandon their cache. People get mighty upset if they feel like the reviewer is doubting their word.

 

The best maintenance plan is when someone says "I don't live in the area, but I have made arrangements with XYZ [a well known geocacher who lives 5 miles from the cache] to take care of any maintenance requirements." Next best is saying "I have family in the area who I visit regularly, at least one weekend each month. If a problem arises between visits, my father has a GPS and was with me when I hid this cache, so he can take care of any immediate maintenance needs." When we hear an explanation like this, we list the cache.

 

Now, a certain percentage of these claims are false, and a certain percentage of vacation caches get abandoned. But the same is true for people living in the area, who later lose interest in the game and abandon their cache hides. In both cases, the best remedy is to use the new "needs maintenance" log type to attract the owner's attention. If that doesn't work after a reasonable period of time, use the "needs archived" log type. The latter action will attract the reviewer's attention.

 

When I see a maintenance problem reported to me on a vacation cache, I am usually a bit less forgiving before the cache is archived for failure to comply with the maintenance guidelines. If the logbook's been full for four months and the container's been leaking for two months, what happened to those visits "at least one weekend each month" that I was told about in order to induce me to publish the cache?

[+fireman121]

We have a similar problem with people putting caches all over the state who could never possible maintain them or check on them in a timely matter, so this is a wide spread problem

[+Arrow One]

This has been my pet peeve since I started geocaching. If a person places a cache and it is not maintained, its no fun for anyone. Maybe gc.com could eventually disable the cache, allow reasonable time for the owner to maintain their cache, if not, put it into an "adoption pool" for someone else to take over.

I had the idea of an "adoption pool" when I adopted a cache myself. It would also help people who are moving, put their caches up for adoption. Not everyone knows someone to take it over, and they may not use the forums. It could be a simple link on the site for people to use when they want to adopt a cache in their area. The cache owner can click a link in their listing to put the cache up for adoption. The person who wants to adopt can say why and send like we do to list a cache and the reviewer can approve or disapprove the adoption.

I know it sounds like a lot, but there seems to be a growing number of new cache owners, and then they fall off the face of the earth.

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

[+The Geocache Hunter]

Does someones number of hides ever raise a flag? I often wonder how someone maintains thier caches when they have fifty or more (sometimes way-way more). I'm guessing that some people "assume" thier caches are in good shape and wait for the "needs maintenance" or a certain number of "DNFs" before checking on thier cache.

[+Mopar]

I may be way off base here, but I live in a tourist area and i have ran into quite a few caches that no longer exist and the geocacher who posted them live in whole other states. To them its an annoyance having people complaining. To the geocacher its frustrating. I realize we have a guideline about this but it doesnt appear to be enforced in my area. also I think there is a personal responsibility if you are going to move from an area to have a local cacher adopt your caches so that they can be properly maintained.

 

I realize this is more frequent because of my location but has anyone else ran into this.

 

You're pretty new at this, so I would like to point out that the guidelines for hiding a cache you see now were not always like this. They've evolved over the years as problems crop up. There was a time when there was no rule about vacation caches. Those caches listed before a guideline came into effect are grandfathered in and allowed to stay.

[Keystone]

This has been my pet peeve since I started geocaching. If a person places a cache and it is not maintained, its no fun for anyone. Maybe gc.com could eventually disable the cache, allow reasonable time for the owner to maintain their cache, if not, put it into an "adoption pool" for someone else to take over.

We already do this, day in and day out, except for the part about the adoption pool. Unmaintained caches eventually are archived, freeing up the area for fresh hides that will hopefully be maintained better.

I had the idea of an "adoption pool" when I adopted a cache myself. It would also help people who are moving, put their caches up for adoption. Not everyone knows someone to take it over, and they may not use the forums. It could be a simple link on the site for people to use when they want to adopt a cache in their area. The cache owner can click a link in their listing to put the cache up for adoption. The person who wants to adopt can say why and send like we do to list a cache and the reviewer can approve or disapprove the adoption.

I know it sounds like a lot, but there seems to be a growing number of new cache owners, and then they fall off the face of the earth.

 

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

Are you familiar with the do-it-yourself adoption tool, found at http://www.geocaching.com/adopt ? The owner puts the cache up for adoption and the new owner accepts the transfer. What could be easier? No involvement by a site volunteer or admin is necessary. If an owner doesn't know who would be a good candidate to adopt their cache, they can post a note to the cache page asking for volunteers.

[+Arrow One]

(Are you familiar with the do-it-yourself adoption tool, found at http://www.geocaching.com/adopt ? The owner puts the cache up for adoption and the new owner accepts the transfer. What could be easier? No involvement by a site volunteer or admin is necessary. If an owner doesn't know who would be a good candidate to adopt their cache, they can post a note to the cache page asking for volunteers)

 

I am familiar with this. This is how I tried to adopt a cache and the cache owner had to email the website allowing me to adopt. For some reason, it wouldnt work.

[Keystone]

Does someones number of hides ever raise a flag? I often wonder how someone maintains thier caches when they have fifty or more (sometimes way-way more). I'm guessing that some people "assume" thier caches are in good shape and wait for the "needs maintenance" or a certain number of "DNFs" before checking on thier cache.

So is 50 the magic number? Let me give you an example. One of the finest cache hiders in my review territory owns exactly 50 caches. Of these, only 21 are located in his home area. The other 29 are located one state away (but still in my review territory). I quizzed this hider pretty closely when the first "vacation cache" was hidden, but I allowed it. Those 29 caches are among the finest in the area, as a group.

 

I just checked that owner's cache hides. Of the 50 caches, all but seven are active. The seven archived caches were all retired because the land manager's permit period had expired, and the owner removed them. This model hider knows the land manager rules in the next state away far better than some of the locals, who aren't all aware of the one year time limit. There are ZERO disabled caches, and ZERO caches with the "needs maintenance" attribute flagged on them. The cache owner works full time but still finds time to maintain caches, hide new ones, and find lots more. The overall record is way better than mine; I nearly always have at least one disabled cache and right now I think the number is four. I could not personally maintain 50 caches.

 

So, be careful about proposing stricter rules. Do you want to stop this account from hiding their 51st cache? If not, then you're asking the reviewer to make a subjective judgment about who is a "good" hider and who is a "bad" hider.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Keystone

[Jeremy]

I guess the pendulum has swung back to more restriction. Next month the guidelines will be too restrictive, and so on ...

[Keystone]

I am familiar with this. This is how I tried to adopt a cache and the cache owner had to email the website allowing me to adopt. For some reason, it wouldnt work.

Just because it didn't work in one situation doesn't mean that the adoption tool is broken. Absent additional facts, I would attribute the problem to user error on the original owner's part. I recommend the do it yourself adoption link week in and week out -- so often that I have a form letter for it, and I wrote an FAQ post with detailed instructions. It is very rare to hear of a problem with it. Usually it is a simple misunderstanding, like the new owner trying to originate the transfer process instead of the original owner.

[+ganlet]

I just wanted to say, as the one who started this topic I didnt mean to talk about new rules. I realize the error of my way by titling this "stricter enforcement" instead of more appriopriately "vacation caches" I was curious first off how many of us run into them and secondly how strictly the reviewers are regarding them. I am happy to hear the reviewers point of view and I thank you. I also realize that quite a few of the caches that I run across are from different times before the guidelines were in place. I guess more than anything i was curious how strictly they were enforced and once again thank you to the reviewers who replied

Edited April 17, 2006 by ganlet

[Keystone]

ganlet, I don't think you made any errors at all. It is a good topic for discussion. The reviewers talk about vacation caches a lot. Based on those discussions I can safely say that it is an issue nearly everywhere, not just in popular tourist destinations like Hawaii (to use one example). Even if a city doesn't have an attraction like Disney World, it will still see its share of vacation caches from people who are home for the holidays visiting relatives, and just *had* to place a cache in the nearby park. (It's amazing how often those caches are hidden 150 feet from the ending point of a multicache that the visitor didn't have time to find!) It is an issue internationally, not just in the USA. A good international example is Ireland. They have a fine local geocaching community and a growing number of caches. Why do so many who visit Ireland feel compelled to "do the locals a favor" and leave a cache behind?

[+palmetto]

Reviewing caches in Florida I see many vacation caches. I quote the listing guidelines vacation section and ask for their maintenance plan. I really want them to post something about their ability to maintain the cache directly to the cache page. I often quote this from the guidelines, "For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page." Something about having it right on the page helps remind them that they have maintenance responsibilities, and it cuts down the "omigod why did you list another VACATION cache?!?!" sent email to me.

Believe me, the reviewers are aware that the locals (everywhere) don't like seeing new caches from folks with home coords 1120 miles away.

[+ganlet]

I went to run an errand and all the while this topic was on my mind. Its unreasonable to think that the reviewers can catch it all. also it can be a while before the cache really needs maintaince. I guess its a personal issue for the owner, realizing they can't maintain it and hand it off to someone closer. Having said that I like arrows idea regarding an adoption method where someone can submit a cache to the locals. or a simplier idea having a way to identify local cachers who would be willings to maintain a cache for someone who is unable to. the idea is those who get bored with the game or are unable to maintain it have a list of people who are willing to take over their responsibilities. I think arrow had a good idea. I know I wouldnt mind taking care of some of the near by neglected caches. i mean i already add fresh log books when the current one is soggy and new containers when the old ones leak.

 

all im sayin is it could be handy for people if there was some type of way to identify those in the area who would take on caches.

 

this would be helpful for both vacation caches and people who gave up the game

 

thoughts?

Edited April 18, 2006 by ganlet

[+Miragee]

We have a San Diego Thread in the Regional Forums. When a couple of people moved away, they just posted there mentioning the caches they had and hoped someone would adopt.

 

Others in the area volunteered for the caches they would adopt.

 

That worked out really well . . .

[+ganlet]

We have a San Diego Thread in the Regional Forums. When a couple of people moved away, they just posted there mentioning the caches they had and hoped someone would adopt.

 

Others in the area volunteered for the caches they would adopt.

 

That worked out really well . . .

 

I see how that works wonders for people who are in a large city where there is a forum for that area. but for people who dont participate in forum or arent responsible there has to be a better way of identifying those willing to help.

[Steak N Eggs]

Mopiece said....

 

You're pretty new at this, so I would like to point out that the guidelines for hiding a cache you see now were not always like this. They've evolved over the years as problems crop up. There was a time when there was no rule about vacation caches. Those caches listed before a guideline came into effect are grandfathered in and allowed to stay.

 

End comment

 

Do they ever shut up on your planet??

Edited April 18, 2006 by Steak N Eggs

[+cache_test_dummies]

Mopiece said....

 

You're pretty new at this, so I would like to point out that the guidelines for hiding a cache you see now were not always like this. They've evolved over the years as problems crop up. There was a time when there was no rule about vacation caches. Those caches listed before a guideline came into effect are grandfathered in and allowed to stay.

 

End comment

 

Do they ever shut up on your planet??

 

The post to which you refer looks pretty helpful to me. Am I missing something?

[vagabond]

We have a San Diego Thread in the Regional Forums. When a couple of people moved away, they just posted there mentioning the caches they had and hoped someone would adopt.

 

Others in the area volunteered for the caches they would adopt.

 

That worked out really well . . .

 

I see how that works wonders for people who are in a large city where there is a forum for that area. but for people who dont participate in forum or arent responsible there has to be a better way of identifying those willing to help.

 

I'm not sure if you know about the Poison Oak Cachers, but if you look in the west and southest forums

you'll find them there, they sound like a pretty good group of cachers