Jump to content

When is enough, enough?


Syndam

Recommended Posts

How many caches can you really maintain and what is a reasonable number of caches for any one person to place? There is a person in my neck of the woods that has over 250 traditional caches placed. If they where to visit each one once per year, they would have to visit almost 5 per week. Can this really be done?

 

If there was a reasonable limit to how many active caches each person could have do you think it would help to improve the placement and overall quality of caches? I realize that "A reasonable number of caches" is a different number to everyone.

Link to comment

The answer is: (Total number of hidden caches) - (all caches archived without checking the location) - (all caches disabled for many months) - (all caches with valid "needs maintenance" logs that are unresolved for many months).

 

For some, the answer is zero or one. For others, it can be in the hundreds. For me, it's somewhere between 25 and 50.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment

I have 92 active hides. I keep after them pretty well. I don't "check them once a year". I check them when problems are reported. Quickly on some hides (a DNF by almost anybody = cache missing) and not so fast on others.

 

Hider in my area with 500+ - he seems to handle them just fine. That he has a vast network of friends, travels widely around the state, and places many many ammo cans out on hiking trails likely contributes to his ability to keep after that many.

Link to comment

No need to schedule a regular visit if they are well placed off the beaten path and have no reported problems from visitors. I used to visit all of mine each year but must admit that a number of them have now gone 2 plus years but still get nice logs and compliments from visitors. My city ones get regular visits - others no.

Link to comment

42

 

Realistically, what Lep said.

 

I know three cachers with over 100; one owns a construction business, the other two have full-time jobs, yet all three do better keeping up their caches than most other cachers I know.

 

I think it's safe to say that anyone that places this many caches will be well-known by their Reviewer, and the Reviewers are doing a bang-up job of protecting the listings, therefore if someone is allowed to place that many caches you can pretty much bet they have a history of maintaining them.

Link to comment

I could probably maintain at least 10 times the number I'm maintaining now and they are spaced within 2 miles from home for one group of my caches, between 50 to 110 miles for another and by far the largest active group of my caches is just under a 2000 mile drive from where I spend 80-90% of the year.

 

 

I pick mostly well outta the way to remote places for my caches and maintenance isn't usually an issue. I doubt my number of caches hidden will ever be a bother.

Link to comment
You'd think so, until you go out and try and find one of your own caches, and then see how far it has moved.

 

Yep, 45 minutes hunting one of mine ... DNFed it, emailed the last finder for a description of the hide as they found it, went back, hunted another 20 minutes, finally came up with it. The last finder must be one heckuva persistent hunter. The thing was waaaay off the coords, and off the hint too.

Link to comment

I have around 160 caches currently active. I have no problem maintaining that many. I can usually tend to reported problems within a week, or two at the most. And no, I don't sit at home all day. I work full time, coach soccer on spring and fall weekends and and volunteer at an archaeology dig on Sundays.

 

So I can see someone who is retired being able to take care of many more caches than I have.

 

I use mostly ammo boxes, which cuts down on the necessity for maintenance. If I do use a container that isn't as durable, I make sure its one I can reach quickly. Ammo boxes are for the longer hikes.

 

Judging from some caches I've found, some people can't even maintain one cache. So when is enough, enough? When the cache owner thinks its enough.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

There is a person in my neck of the woods that has over 250 traditional caches placed. If they where to visit each one once per year, they would have to visit almost 5 per week. Can this really be done?

 

Are you sure it's "a person" and not a team using a single login? I wouldn't do it that way, but some folks might.

Link to comment

I try to place my multi's so that the final cache is nearish the start point, so you do a circular walk. This means that maintenance is much easier. Having said this I have a couple of traditional caches in the mountains which take much longer for me to get to, but I spend my weekends walking, so it's not a problem.

I sometimes do maintenance on all but the longest caches at night time to keep weekend free. I find that most caches need very little maintenance too.

I guess I'm saying that it really depends upon the person and the caches.

As long as your caches are in good places it should be a pleasure going back to them as well. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

The answer is "It depends".

Exactly, not every cache is the same and I guess that a cache in a remote location requires less work than a urban one.

 

Who says I can't have a fellow cacher / friend / trained muggle who helps me with my caches or just checks them every now and then or just when necessary.

 

In an ideal world caches would be self sufficent. On persons writes in his log: "cache needs a new logbooks, pencil, I didn't have one." the next finder brings a logbook or pencil along.

 

I think 200 caches is a bit much, but I'm certain there are real committed people out there who can juggle that many easily.

 

GermanSailor

Link to comment

How many caches can you really maintain and what is a reasonable number of caches for any one person to place? There is a person in my neck of the woods that has over 250 traditional caches placed. If they where to visit each one once per year, they would have to visit almost 5 per week. Can this really be done?

 

If there was a reasonable limit to how many active caches each person could have do you think it would help to improve the placement and overall quality of caches? I realize that "A reasonable number of caches" is a different number to everyone.

You might try placing a few caches to find your answers ....When you do you will find that the seekers who log the finds do the most maintenance. Hiding caches is just a way of giving back to a great game/sport. Try it you may like it.... <_< But, always remember, you are responsible for your caches. So it means, if you are a responsible person, heck, just hide all you want....GFI... ;)
Link to comment

So It looks like everyone is in agreement that it is possible to maintain large numbers of caches, however, what about those cachers that don't maintain their caches, have several in "Needs Maintenance" mode and are still out there placing more caches? We have a few cachers in our area that are like this. They keep placing trashy micros, just for the sake of placing them. They don't maintain them yet are still placing more caches.

 

These high number trash cachers are also stealing good caching places from other cachers. How can we expect to get new cachers into this fun if when they decide to place a cache, they can't find a place to do it?

 

My hats off to those big time placers who are doing a great job of maintenance, but what do we do about those that don't? Maybe GC.com should put a limit on the numer of placements, not just for maintenance issues, but also for the sake of not using up all the good hiding spots.

Link to comment

So It looks like everyone is in agreement that it is possible to maintain large numbers of caches, however, what about those cachers that don't maintain their caches, have several in "Needs Maintenance" mode and are still out there placing more caches? We have a few cachers in our area that are like this. They keep placing trashy micros, just for the sake of placing them. They don't maintain them yet are still placing more caches.

 

These high number trash cachers are also stealing good caching places from other cachers. How can we expect to get new cachers into this fun if when they decide to place a cache, they can't find a place to do it?....

 

Well... you have two things you are talking about. For the first I suspect reviewers keep a watch on that but I don't know when they act on it. I'm not fast when it comes to maintaining my caches. I'll get the job done. Eventually: but clearly not as fast as folks in the forums say they like. Such is life.

 

The second...if the trash cachers take all the trashy spots...that leaves a lot of good spots for new cachers willing to think about what kind of cache they would like to place and where.

Link to comment

Thrak, You are right about the retired professor. He also searches out the caches in my area and I have seen his. I just took his silver dollar from a cache he visited in November. Don't know where he gets the time, but he does it well and still has time to travel to other cache areas.

Link to comment

How often do you want to run out to maintain one that has been muggled? I have 35 and that's enough for me. I'm headed out tomorrow to replace one. I replaced one last weekend. After this weekend, I'll only have one more to replace. All mine are off hiking trails and are 2-4 terrain caches. Urbans would get muggled more often so factor that in. :lol:

Link to comment

I currently have about 600 active caches and think I do a decent job keeping them maintained. My caches run the gamut from lame park-and-grabs to convoluted puzzles to long hikes. I have tried to populate my area -- western NC -- with enough caches of all types that any caching visitor will find their hands full for a day or two.

 

I am in financial sales so can take time off to make maintenance visits if necessary. It isn't all that hard to do, and I plan on hiding more caches in the future. (But I will never catch King Boreas, and retiredprof is likely to catch me soon...)

Link to comment

I am not a cache hider but I know when someone has too many.

 

When one of their caches has this:

 

"This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache", but are submitting new caches.

 

Sorry for the gripe but I have seen it often and it frustrates me especially when I have DNF the cache that needs repair, replace, or general maintenance. I think that if any body has a cache temporarily disabled or needs maitenance then they should not be allowed to publish new caches.

Link to comment

I am not a cache hider but I know when someone has too many.

 

When one of their caches has this:

 

"This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache", but are submitting new caches.

 

Sorry for the gripe but I have seen it often and it frustrates me especially when I have DNF the cache that needs repair, replace, or general maintenance. I think that if any body has a cache temporarily disabled or needs maitenance then they should not be allowed to publish new caches.

I agree with you, but only to a point. In the first reply to this thread, I said:

 

The answer is: (Total number of hidden caches) - (all caches archived without checking the location) - (all caches disabled for many months) - (all caches with valid "needs maintenance" logs that are unresolved for many months).

 

(Emphasis added.) There is nothing wrong with having a cache disabled for a short period of time, or even for longer times so long as there are updates posted. And not all "needs maintenance" logs are valid, or require immediate attention.

 

I disagree with adding a maintenance test as an additional hurdle to getting a cache published. There are already too many rules. Imagine how long it would take to get a cache published if the reviewer had to check each of the owner's 50 other hides to see if they had a "needs maintenance" log, or if they were disabled. Well, perhaps the process could be automated, but I would not like to see a judgement call entrusted to a computer. Someone who disables a cache for the winter because the park is closed should not be prohibited from hiding a cache elsewhere in the meantime.

 

I say let the reviewers and the community enforce the maintenance guidelines separately from the process of listing new caches. If you DNF a cache that's been disabled for four months, place a "needs archived" note on it to attract a reviewer's attention.

Link to comment

andGuest is right about those that are placing more caches while some of theirs "Need Maintenance". Maybe not all NM listings are necessary, but 99% of them are. Why else would someone post that it NM?

 

True... to those that are stating a well placed cache shouldn't need maintenance, but there are way too many cachers in my neck of the woods that aren't placing "maintenance free" caches. The big number placers are using magnetic key holders, film canisters, and other non weatherproof containers. Today I even ran across a folded piece of paper with a pen next to it. No container. Another was a key holder with a frozen log in it. We had to add a sheet of our own just to sign it.

 

I'm sure many of the posters in this forum are placing maintenance free caches or are able to maintain the big numbers, but I reiterate my previous question... What about those that are placing high numbers of junk?

 

We have a guy in our area that has placed about 80 trash caches, doesn't maintain them and is now talking about heading into other counties that are a good 45 minutes to 1 1/2 drive away from his home.

 

Maybe some feel that there are too many rules for posting caches now, but we need the rules to stop the garbage placers that just want to go to an event and brag that they have 100+ placed.

Link to comment

What can you do about "trash hiders"? Email them and voice your concerns.

 

Good idea... if only they would listen. The posters in this forum who are keeping up their megga number of caches are obviously those that care about their caches and what others think about their caches. The mega trash hiders don't care about what others think. To them it's about the numbers... not the quality. Therfore they don't care about others opinions. :blink:

Link to comment

I have about 220 active caches and here is what is up for me.

 

I have some high maintenance caches that are easy for me to fix and keep going. If it is only log replacement, I don't mind. If it is repeated abuse and disappearance I archive and chalk it up to a baad placement on my part.

 

There are remote caches that are just too much trouble for most folks to look for and are the least trouble.

 

There are several that are fun for visitors and casual cachers and I will tolerate the work needed to keep these up and running.

 

The funny ones are worth keeping up at any expense.

 

The ones away from home have a bunch of volunteer (local) helpers to get them up and moving after some disaster.

 

There are a lot of ways to keep your caches up and healthy. .......and there are some mean people out there that want to make certain that your caches are "maintenance intensive."

Link to comment

I have a few caches of my own.If I notice that a local cache has been dissabled I check to see why.If I can help the owner out by checking to see if the cache is Ok ,I will.I read all the logs on my caches and if something is not right I will check it as soon as possible.As stated before some caches can be hidden for years without needing any maintainance.Others need it more often.You know if you can or can not handle more caches.

Link to comment

How many caches can you really maintain and what is a reasonable number of caches for any one person to place? There is a person in my neck of the woods that has over 250 traditional caches placed. If they where to visit each one once per year, they would have to visit almost 5 per week. Can this really be done?

 

If there was a reasonable limit to how many active caches each person could have do you think it would help to improve the placement and overall quality of caches? I realize that "A reasonable number of caches" is a different number to everyone.

You place them...seekers will maintain and let you know of any problems. Why don't you try it?

Link to comment

 

You place them...seekers will maintain and let you know of any problems. Why don't you try it?

 

I like reporting problem caches just to see how well the owner maintains them. Or gets others to do it.

 

If they can keep up with their own caches and not place them simply expecting strangers to do the work, then there's no problem.

Edited by BlueDeuce
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...
×
×
  • Create New...