Jump to content

what about vacation caches?


Recommended Posts

ALOHA..... here in hawaii we often times get caches placed by visitors... recently we have 6 new ones placed rather helter skelter given the limited time visitors have here.... this hider is a credible cacher with hundreds of finds and hundreds of hides...we only have about 100 hides here on the big island and welcome new hides..... but many of our hides have been placed by visitors and have rapidly become geotrash and have to be salvaged by the locals to keep them alive... i have adopted a couple of prime hides in order to keep em alive and other local cachers have done the same.....my question is how should we deal with this?

should we just accept it and go with the flow or should we ask the reviewers to throttle the hides placed without local maintanence stated in the cache description? your two bits would be appreciated....

Link to comment

ALOHA..... here in hawaii we often times get caches placed by visitors... recently we have 6 new ones placed rather helter skelter given the limited time visitors have here.... this hider is a credible cacher with hundreds of finds and hundreds of hides...we only have about 100 hides here on the big island and welcome new hides..... but many of our hides have been placed by visitors and have rapidly become geotrash and have to be salvaged by the locals to keep them alive... i have adopted a couple of prime hides in order to keep em alive and other local cachers have done the same.....my question is how should we deal with this?

should we just accept it and go with the flow or should we ask the reviewers to throttle the hides placed without local maintanence stated in the cache description? your two bits would be appreciated....

 

I think this falls on the reviewer,but as I've read before,they can't really check everything about the cache,placement,permission and such.It's all on the honor system.Obviously they're not supposed to place caches outside a maintainable distance from the home coords.Of course there are exceptions.

 

Example-Here in Iraq there are caches on lots of bases (5 on my FOB,one that I helped a friend place).Obviously the service folks rotate in and out of here,so they kind of 'transfer ownership in a sense.I've got them bookmarked in a folder and get an email on the dnf/found it log.This way I can monitor them.I just hope someone will do the same when I leave in August.They are a wonderful break from the everyday routine of eat sleep work and I hope someone will step up to the plate.

Link to comment

should we ask the reviewers to throttle the hides placed without local maintanence stated in the cache description? your two bits would be appreciated....

 

Here goes:

 

Yes reviewers should be turning down any cache where the hider has not stated that it will

1 have a local maintaning it or

2 be somewhere they visit often enough to maintain it themselves

 

Having said that if there was one near me that was worth keeping I would adopt it, if it was just another hide I would ask for it to be retired/scraped/archived.

We here in New Zealand are encouraged to archive any unadopted caches if we are moving too far to continue maintaining them ourselves.

It is not that difficult to find someone who has hidden a cache nearby and send them an e-mail saying you want to find a local to look after a cache you want to place, or maybe you could introduce a local to caching so that you have someone to look after it (after they log your hide as a find of course).

Link to comment
placed without local maintanence stated in the cache description?

 

I review in Florida, and face a similar issue with vacation caches, especially in the Keys.

 

If the placer offers me a local maintainer in a reviewer note (any person), I publish, per the listing guidelines. I then bookmark those caches (o boy, more email) and tend to keep them on a short lease re maintenance issues. I can ask them to put the name of a local maintainer (cacher) on the page, but not require it.

 

If vacation caches are deteriorating, don't hesitate to log a Needs Archived. Or offer to adopt if that suits you.

 

I receive a lot of email from Florida cachers about vacation caches published, especially in south Florida. It absolutely influenced me to be careful about publishing, while still following the guidelines. The local community is clearly NOT enthused about these hides. Your local reviewer can be influenced too, though we're all bound by the guidelines.

Edited by palmetto
Link to comment

ALOHA..... here in hawaii we often times get caches placed by visitors... recently we have 6 new ones placed rather helter skelter given the limited time visitors have here.... this hider is a credible cacher with hundreds of finds and hundreds of hides...we only have about 100 hides here on the big island and welcome new hides..... but many of our hides have been placed by visitors and have rapidly become geotrash and have to be salvaged by the locals to keep them alive... i have adopted a couple of prime hides in order to keep em alive and other local cachers have done the same.....my question is how should we deal with this?

should we just accept it and go with the flow or should we ask the reviewers to throttle the hides placed without local maintanence stated in the cache description? your two bits would be appreciated....

 

Aloha. I seem to remember a cacher from an Island off the coast of Africa asking a similar question a few months back. But that was slightly different, they were getting bombarded with "maintainer requests" from the vacation cache placers. It was pretty unanimous that he start telling the people no. Here, I do believe you should ask the reviewers to throttle the hides placed without local maintenance. I myself have never really understood the desire people have to place a vacation cache. Maybe it's just me though, and this is just my .02 cents worth.

Link to comment

The real issue is education of the cache placers.

 

Geocaching.com has no control over someone leaving a box in the woods. If someone places a cache, the damage is already done. Geocaching.com may refuse to list it, but is it going to matter to the unknowing ranger that the box with a Geocaching.com sticker was never published? Not really.

 

The box in the woods is now abandoned litter, possibly with hostage Travel Bugs that may never see the light of day again. The locals won't know about the cache to be able to retrieve it, and there it sits. And when the ranger finds it, what does the sticker say on the outside? Geocaching.com

 

Also - as has been stated many times before the vacation cache placer may not know all of the rules and regulations involved in placing caches in that far off land.

 

I'm glad the reviewers are sticking to the guns to look for local maintainers, and I'm also glad to hear that sometimes local cachers are telling people no. But we still need to make sure that people don't PLACE caches without a local person to maintain it. That's something that we all need to take responsibility in.

 

Hide Locally - Find Globally.

Link to comment

The real issue is education of the cache placers.

 

Geocaching.com has no control over someone leaving a box in the woods. If someone places a cache, the damage is already done. Geocaching.com may refuse to list it, but is it going to matter to the unknowing ranger that the box with a Geocaching.com sticker was never published? Not really.

 

The box in the woods is now abandoned litter, possibly with hostage Travel Bugs that may never see the light of day again. The locals won't know about the cache to be able to retrieve it, and there it sits. And when the ranger finds it, what does the sticker say on the outside? Geocaching.com

 

Also - as has been stated many times before the vacation cache placer may not know all of the rules and regulations involved in placing caches in that far off land.

 

I'm glad the reviewers are sticking to the guns to look for local maintainers, and I'm also glad to hear that sometimes local cachers are telling people no. But we still need to make sure that people don't PLACE caches without a local person to maintain it. That's something that we all need to take responsibility in.

 

Hide Locally - Find Globally.

 

Well said.

Link to comment

to follow up on my original post...i figured new caches here should be welcome if they are good ones since we have less than 100 here on hawaii. so i went looking for a couple..... it seems that they may be good ones however i DNFd the two i looked forand so did another cacher...so i posted what i though was i helpful note that might clarify a few things for the hider and future seekers....

i recieved a very hostile email from the hider......telling me i am basically no good and that i have mental issues and am jealous of his hides. it was nasty.

at this point i am putting these on my ignore list.

basically it all started when i took the postion that we dont really want vacation caches here.....several local cachers have worked hard to salvage many of these and keep them alive and most of our caches are now in good condition, and we are slowly adding more as time allows..... i just saw these as potentially trouble on down the line....

so should i drop it (my inclination)

or what?????

Link to comment

to follow up on my original post...i figured new caches here should be welcome if they are good ones since we have less than 100 here on hawaii. so i went looking for a couple..... it seems that they may be good ones however i DNFd the two i looked forand so did another cacher...so i posted what i though was i helpful note that might clarify a few things for the hider and future seekers....

i recieved a very hostile email from the hider......telling me i am basically no good and that i have mental issues and am jealous of his hides. it was nasty.

at this point i am putting these on my ignore list.

basically it all started when i took the postion that we dont really want vacation caches here.....several local cachers have worked hard to salvage many of these and keep them alive and most of our caches are now in good condition, and we are slowly adding more as time allows..... i just saw these as potentially trouble on down the line....

so should i drop it (my inclination)

or what?????

 

It looks like he did some research before he came out but missed a few pretty obvious things about The Big Island. It seems that he would have tried to appreciate the style, rate and spirit in which the caches have been placed on your island. Instead, during his one week in Hawaii, he's now tied for the most hides on the island and insisting one of the most active geocaching locals is a mentally imbalanced idiot for not being able track his caches down.

 

I just can't wrap my mind around owning 8 Geocaches 4000+ miles away from my house.

 

E100- I think all you can do is to track these hides and talk to your reviewer when half of them disappear in a few weeks. A chat with KG about where you guys are headed over there might be good.

 

I think this is a better question asked and discussed on a local level in our Hawaii forum.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

I just can't wrap my mind around owning 8 Geocaches 4000+ miles away from my house.

 

E100- I think all you can do is to track these hides and talk to your reviewer when half of them disappear in a few weeks. A chat with KG about where you guys are headed over there might be good.

 

I think this is a better question asked and discussed on a local level in our Hawaii forum.

Believe it or not we have had the same problem here in North Dakota; of course I'm sure not to the same extent. We had many vacation caches up here. Over the past few years the reviewers have been good about making the owner name someone locally to care for the cache on the cache page. This has stopped the problem of new 'abandoned' caches. Also as the older vacation caches have come to light, locals have adopted or removed and replaced them.

I know your situation is going to be far worse than ours could be, but I think the solution could be the same. Definitely work with the reviewer and with other cachers to prevent and when needed adopot or replace these abandoned caches.

Link to comment

I just can't wrap my mind around owning 8 Geocaches 4000+ miles away from my house.

 

E100- I think all you can do is to track these hides and talk to your reviewer when half of them disappear in a few weeks. A chat with KG about where you guys are headed over there might be good.

 

I think this is a better question asked and discussed on a local level in our Hawaii forum.

Believe it or not we have had the same problem here in North Dakota; of course I'm sure not to the same extent. We had many vacation caches up here. Over the past few years the reviewers have been good about making the owner name someone locally to care for the cache on the cache page. This has stopped the problem of new 'abandoned' caches. Also as the older vacation caches have come to light, locals have adopted or removed and replaced them.

I know your situation is going to be far worse than ours could be, but I think the solution could be the same. Definitely work with the reviewer and with other cachers to prevent and when needed adopot or replace these abandoned caches.

 

Oh I believe it regarding North Dakota. I live in a Northeastern rust belt City that, like many, has lost about half it's population since the 1970's. We've seen a fair amount of caches dropped by former residents visiting relatives. The maintenance is usually quite poor, especially if the local maintainer is a non-geocacher.

 

Overall, and I don't know why, vacation caches just seem to rub the locals the wrong way. :laughing:

Link to comment

... i just saw these as potentially trouble on down the line....

so should i drop it (my inclination)

or what?????

 

Your reviewers will screen caches for vacation caches. Those will not be approved. However as Markwell notes they are already placed and because Hawaii is a major tourist location it's going to be an ongoing issue there for as long as geocaching is with us.

 

You locals should consider forming a group and figure out how to deal with the issue. Pull the ones that can't be approved, adopt the better ones that weren't approved. Recognize that some people may not be local but are there often enough to do a fair job of maintaining a cache. Some people do have the means and methods to maintain a cache by knowing locals. For example I have family in Hawaii though I'd not place a cache there.

 

As for the caches in question. Drop it for now. A snarky and snarly owner is at least an active owner. When and if they become a problem down the line, deal with it then. Don't make it a problem by dealing with it now. Plenty of other issues will come along before that time that will keep you busy.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Can you PM with the caches in question?

 

Hula Bum and I are taking our annual trip in June to Kona/Hilo and would liek to avoid caches with drama attached.

 

I've loved the caches we've found so far (over the past 3 years) and still have some on my to-do list :laughing:

 

Mahalo.

Link to comment
I just can't wrap my mind around owning 8 Geocaches 4000+ miles away from my house.

 

He must have either told the reviewer he has a local to maintain them, or he visits the area on a regular basis. Otherwide they would not have been published.

 

He did list a local cacher and I'll be interested to hear "the rest of the story" from that person. I'd be really surprised if he didn't misrepresent what he was planning to do in a pretty big way. Regardless, it's my hope that this is enough for the handful of active Big Island cachers to sit down and discuss this kind of thing cuz a few more fly-bys like this one and we are going to have start calling it "Quick and Easy" island.

 

What I was saying was even if the guy did everything by the GC.com bible, I still don't understand why he wants to own that many caches in Hawaii. Then again, he owns 211 now, so that might be telling.

Link to comment

He did list a local cacher and I'll be interested to hear "the rest of the story" from that person. I'd be really surprised if he didn't misrepresent what he was planning to do in a pretty big way. Regardless, it's my hope that this is enough for the handful of active Big Island cachers to sit down and discuss this kind of thing cuz a few more fly-bys like this one and we are going to have start calling it "Quick and Easy" island.

 

What I was saying was even if the guy did everything by the GC.com bible, I still don't understand why he wants to own that many caches in Hawaii. Then again, he owns 211 now, so that might be telling.

 

I'd be curious to hear as well. I know (of) the local cacher you mentioned and would love to know more - not for hte drama, but to know what's going on.

 

Aside from my love of the island(s), what I really enjoy about the caching out there is that you don't have the same lame caches that appear most everywhere else. No lamppost micros, etc. There seems to be a lot of pride in the chosen spots (for the most part) of the caches out there - it's NOT about the numbers out there and that is fantastic.

 

Keep in mind my comments are based on looking over the caches in question, readling this thread, and my experience of yearly visits to the islands for the past 11 years. I don't have all the facts, but am curious as to what's going on.

 

In the end, if he does have the support of a local to maintain the caches, they are going to say.

Your only option at that point is to work with the person maintaining them to see if the local group can have any influence on him.

 

Good luck.

Link to comment
He did list a local cacher and I'll be interested to hear "the rest of the story" from that person. I'd be really surprised if he didn't misrepresent what he was planning to do in a pretty big way.

 

Well that's what I figured. Reviewers will often allow those caches as long as a local has agreed to take care of them for the owner.

 

Regardless, it's my hope that this is enough for the handful of active Big Island cachers to sit down and discuss this kind of thing cuz a few more fly-bys like this one and we are going to have start calling it "Quick and Easy" island.

 

There isn't a lot you can do. Vacation caches are already not allowed, unless a local agrees to care for the cache. Your only alternative would be for every HI geocacher to refuse.

 

Then again, he owns 211 now, so that might be telling.

 

That is sick. Who would want to own so many caches?

Link to comment
or should we ask the reviewers to throttle the hides placed without local maintenance stated in the cache description?

The problem is, cachers lie. They'll say in the private reviewer note that "my brother in law lives nearby and was with me when I hid it and will maintain it for me" when the truth is that the cacher is an only child. The reviewer pretty much has to assume the cacher is telling the truth and must publish the cache.

I would fully support a requirement that any local maintainer be an active cacher with an active account.

Link to comment

I would like to be the official maintainer of all abandoned caches in hawaii.

 

 

now.. if I could only work out the details to make that a reality. :rolleyes:

 

 

really, not much you can do, other than follow the existing guidelines, and make sure the reviewer is aware of the issue.

Link to comment

I just can't wrap my mind around owning 8 Geocaches 4000+ miles away from my house.

 

A few reasons:

- The feeling of immortality ("a little piece of Hawaii/Florida/France bears my imprint; I'm special")

- Bragging rights, especially with non-cachers ("we even own one on Oahu" - yeah, a cache, not a 2000 sq ft home, but it's a step in the right direction)

- A genuine desire to help those poor, poor people who have so few caches. ("We gave some candy to the simply adorable local kids too").

Link to comment

I'd personally like to hear from the reviewer on the caches on the Island and why they were approved in the first place. I know our reviewer would never have approved those caches and with the guidelines as they are now I doubt any reviewer would. We used to have a lot of vacation caches here in the state. Remember this is the Maine the Vacationland state. We now have very few vacation caches here and those are mostly older grandfathered caches that I know of. IF the cache is not being maintained properly than a needs maintaining note or archiving note should be enough to get it the attention it needs.

Link to comment

The reviewer who published this cache doesn't frequent this forum on a regular basis. But, I looked at the caches and each one has a very courteous note from the owner stating that (1) the owner visits Hawaii annually and will perform any maintenance tasks during those visits, (2) due to the nature of the hides, the owner doesn't anticipate that more frequent maintenance will be necessary, and (3) in the event that maintenance *is* necessary, local geocacher X will take care of it.

 

Once I read a note like that, the show's over and I publish the cache. It meets the listing guidelines.

 

haffy, you are mistaken about the guidelines "being the way they are now." The vacation cache section of the guidelines was modified in February 2007 to de-emphasize it a bit. It now appears as one part of the "maintenance" guideline rather than a separate guideline. We are trying to be a bit more flexible with the guidelines rather than being so strict that a vacation cache cannot be placed even when there is a local maintainer.

Link to comment
placed without local maintanence stated in the cache description?

 

I review in Florida, and face a similar issue with vacation caches, especially in the Keys.

 

If the placer offers me a local maintainer in a reviewer note (any person), I publish, per the listing guidelines. I then bookmark those caches (o boy, more email) and tend to keep them on a short lease re maintenance issues. I can ask them to put the name of a local maintainer (cacher) on the page, but not require it.

 

If vacation caches are deteriorating, don't hesitate to log a Needs Archived. Or offer to adopt if that suits you.

 

I receive a lot of email from Florida cachers about vacation caches published, especially in south Florida. It absolutely influenced me to be careful about publishing, while still following the guidelines. The local community is clearly NOT enthused about these hides. Your local reviewer can be influenced too, though we're all bound by the guidelines.

 

I appreciate a reviewer weighing on this because I am sure this is qualifies as one of the banes of your coexistence with some local geocaching communities, especially in vacation destinations like Hawaii. I fully realize that you are bound by the almighty guidelines that allow them. I guessing that there's a few reviewers that secretly feel that these caches are more trouble than they are worth. You will get no argument from 90% of the cachers that I know in Hawaii if you just did away with the option to even place one.

 

Will someone please state the case for the benefits of vacation caches for me?

Link to comment

...What I was saying was even if the guy did everything by the GC.com bible, I still don't understand why he wants to own that many caches in Hawaii. Then again, he owns 211 now, so that might be telling.

 

Maybe he likes the place. I hear tell that Hawaii is special that way.

 

Perhaps there's other ways of demonstrating affection and respect for a place you like. Why can't a vacationer can't just bring a beefed up maintenance kit and administer first aid? Why can't he put a watch on his favorite caches in Hawaii?

 

I do not understand the desire or need for ownership in a vacation destination.

Link to comment

 

Will someone please state the case for the benefits of vacation caches for me?

:unsure::blink:

 

Yeah right.

 

Not even from here in the state with the fewest caches period will I say they are a benefit.

 

In fact we (the local cachers) are always cleaning up geolitter dropped be 'well meaning' vacationers that whiz by on the interstates. ;) I'm just waiting for this summer's crop.

 

On the upside the our reviewer does a whiz-bang job of sniffin' out the bad ones and is quick to helps us fix the ones that slip through via SBA or adoption. :D

 

I will say this though. We do have a handful that were placed by former residents during a trip home. Those caches usually have someone local that will help the out-of-town cacher until they can return. Those I don't mind. It's the drop-n-run ones that burn me up.

Link to comment

...Will someone please state the case for the benefits of vacation caches for me?

 

I'll bite.

 

When I lived in Alaska I was too busy working and living to actually go do all things tourists do and see that show what a great state Alaska is. Nope I worked, worked, worked and worked.

 

If a tourist is actually getting to the spots that the locals aren't becuase the locals are so busy making a living then it's a benefit and may get a local off their duff one weekend to go see something that makes their state great that they would have missed.

 

Heck now that I don't live in Alaska I still only manage to visit family and still miss out on the touristy stuff that I always wanted to do.

 

(Note I'm well aware of the issues of vacation caches, you just wanted to know a reason "why" they may do you some good).

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

 

I'll bite.

 

When I lived in Alaska I was too busy working and living to actually go do all things tourists do and see that show what a great state Alaska is. Nope I worked, worked, worked and worked.

 

If a tourist is actually getting to the spots that the locals aren't becuase the locals are so busy making a living then it's a benefit and may get a local off their duff one weekend to go see something that makes their state great that they would have missed.

 

Heck now that I don't live in Alaska I still only manage to visit family and still miss out on the touristy stuff that I always wanted to do.

 

(Note I'm well aware of the issues of vacation caches, you just wanted to know a reason "why" they may do you some good).

When I lived, and cached, in Alaska the opposite was true. The locals knew where all the best spots were and that's where their caches were. On our move here to ND we took the Marine Highway. We made a point of it go to the caches instead of following the tour brochures. We saw things we never saw when we passed through just as tourist a few years before.

We saw views of the Mendenhall Glacier and followed trails the tour-guides don't mention. We even had pizza at a great little pizza joint that was owned by a local cacher. We had emailed them and ask if one of trails would open when we got there.

It's my experience here and in Alaska that the tourist see and know the highways, the big parks and the gift shops. Locals know those plus all the other things to see and do.

Link to comment

I'll bite, also. I actually own a vacation cache. I created it because I wanted to.

 

Wow, that's helpful...... :laughing:

 

If a vacationer wants to enjoy the area - DO the caches, don't leave caches. I would guess that 90% of the time the vacationer isn't familiar with the local caching style and/or guidelines. Let's take Hawaii as an example - the locals may have chosen to not place caches near of the sacred heaus for fear of cachers tearing them apart or causing damage - then a vacationer comes along, enjoys the spot and then decides to place a cache there because nobody else has.

 

Granted, in most cases they have to ask for a local to maintain it - but how often do you think people will say "no" when asked? Nobody wants to say "no" to others unless it's an extreme example.

 

Place cachers where YOU can maintain them. Let others "own" thier local area. There's enough room on the planet for everybody to place caches themselves, without fear of somebody from out of the area swooping in and putting them in their backyard.

Link to comment

 

I'll bite.

 

When I lived in Alaska I was too busy working and living to actually go do all things tourists do and see that show what a great state Alaska is. Nope I worked, worked, worked and worked.

 

If a tourist is actually getting to the spots that the locals aren't becuase the locals are so busy making a living then it's a benefit and may get a local off their duff one weekend to go see something that makes their state great that they would have missed.

 

Heck now that I don't live in Alaska I still only manage to visit family and still miss out on the touristy stuff that I always wanted to do.

 

(Note I'm well aware of the issues of vacation caches, you just wanted to know a reason "why" they may do you some good).

When I lived, and cached, in Alaska the opposite was true. ...Locals know those plus all the other things to see and do.

 

Never said the locals didn't know cool places. Just they didn't always have time to visit them and place caches. Alaskans always went to Hawaii on vaction. :laughing:

 

Besides unless your job is "local guide" nobody knows all the cool places in their own back yard. Places an evil tourist just might know about from their grandfather. There is a reason caches need to be maintained. But each cache is also based on it's own merits. A good cache is a good cache regardless of the owners local pedigree.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I'll bite, also. I actually own a vacation cache. I created it because I wanted to.

 

Wow, that's helpful...... :laughing:

 

If a vacationer wants to enjoy the area - DO the caches, don't leave caches. I would guess that 90% of the time the vacationer isn't familiar with the local caching style and/or guidelines. Let's take Hawaii as an example - the locals may have chosen to not place caches near of the sacred heaus for fear of cachers tearing them apart or causing damage - then a vacationer comes along, enjoys the spot and then decides to place a cache there because nobody else has.

 

Granted, in most cases they have to ask for a local to maintain it - but how often do you think people will say "no" when asked? Nobody wants to say "no" to others unless it's an extreme example.

 

Place cachers where YOU can maintain them. Let others "own" thier local area. There's enough room on the planet for everybody to place caches themselves, without fear of somebody from out of the area swooping in and putting them in their backyard.

 

Thanks, Kealia, that saves a lot of typing for me.

 

Heaus are indeed a concern but only a small part all the written and unwritten land issues that exist in Hawaii. With all of our cultural diversity we have, there's a better chance of a visiting cacher offending someone with some aspect of a cache placement than not.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

 

I'll bite.

 

When I lived in Alaska I was too busy working and living to actually go do all things tourists do and see that show what a great state Alaska is. Nope I worked, worked, worked and worked.

 

If a tourist is actually getting to the spots that the locals aren't becuase the locals are so busy making a living then it's a benefit and may get a local off their duff one weekend to go see something that makes their state great that they would have missed.

 

Heck now that I don't live in Alaska I still only manage to visit family and still miss out on the touristy stuff that I always wanted to do.

 

(Note I'm well aware of the issues of vacation caches, you just wanted to know a reason "why" they may do you some good).

When I lived, and cached, in Alaska the opposite was true. ...Locals know those plus all the other things to see and do.

 

Never said the locals didn't know cool places. Just they didn't always have time to visit them and place caches. Alaskans always went to Hawaii on vaction. :laughing:

 

Besides unless your job is "local guide" nobody knows all the cool places in their own back yard. Places an evil tourist just might know about from their grandfather. There is a reason caches need to be maintained. But each cache is also based on it's own merits. A good cache is a good cache regardless of the owners local pedigree.

 

That is where Hawaii is different from Alaska. In two hours, you could pretty much drive around any of the islands. So, the obstacle of not being able to reach any of the interesting cool places doesn't apply to a very populated island like Oahu. Perhaps loosely it could be applied to one of the outer islands, Big Island perhaps, but the majority of the cachers there say they'd rather place the caches at their own pace and have some control over who they are making mad. There's very little desire to fill up the blank spots with caches.

 

I'm sure that vacation caches weren't even an issue because there were no caches. In a populated island with limited space and a ton of existing great caches, it just makes no sense.

Link to comment

 

Will someone please state the case for the benefits of vacation caches for me?

:D:laughing:

 

Yeah right.

 

Not even from here in the state with the fewest caches period will I say they are a benefit.

 

In fact we (the local cachers) are always cleaning up geolitter dropped be 'well meaning' vacationers that whiz by on the interstates. :laughing: I'm just waiting for this summer's crop.

 

On the upside the our reviewer does a whiz-bang job of sniffin' out the bad ones and is quick to helps us fix the ones that slip through via SBA or adoption. :laughing:

 

 

I've resigned myself to this is pretty much how it is going to go. We've got a great reviewer who is watching this really closely and the rest, it's just a matter of time until we have to deal with them. I'd say 80% of the vacation caches placed here are abandoned in the first year.

Link to comment

I'll bite, also. I actually own a vacation cache. I created it because I wanted to.

 

Wow, that's helpful...... :laughing:

 

If a vacationer wants to enjoy the area - DO the caches, don't leave caches. I would guess that 90% of the time the vacationer isn't familiar with the local caching style and/or guidelines. Let's take Hawaii as an example - the locals may have chosen to not place caches near of the sacred heaus for fear of cachers tearing them apart or causing damage - then a vacationer comes along, enjoys the spot and then decides to place a cache there because nobody else has.

 

Granted, in most cases they have to ask for a local to maintain it - but how often do you think people will say "no" when asked? Nobody wants to say "no" to others unless it's an extreme example.

 

Place cachers where YOU can maintain them. Let others "own" thier local area. There's enough room on the planet for everybody to place caches themselves, without fear of somebody from out of the area swooping in and putting them in their backyard.

First, I would assume that a cacher would not agree to take care of a cache that was doing harm to the area. If they did agree, I would argue that they weren't, in fact, properly maintaining it if the cache caused harm and was left in place.

 

Second, I disagree with your inference that caching styles should not be imported from area to area. In fact, I would argue that this is one of the best things about the game.

Link to comment
Heaus are indeed a concern but only a small part all the written and unwritten land issues that exist in Hawaii. With all of our cultural diversity we have, there's a better chance of a visiting cacher offending someone with some aspect of a cache placement than not.
That's the cool thing about how vacation caches are handled under the guidelines. If the local cacher sees a problem, they can toss the red flag. Both the cacher who has agreed to maintain the cache and any local cacher can do this.
Link to comment
That is where Hawaii is different from Alaska. In two hours, you could pretty much drive around any of the islands. So, the obstacle of not being able to reach any of the interesting cool places doesn't apply to a very populated island like Oahu. Perhaps loosely it could be applied to one of the outer islands, Big Island perhaps, but the majority of the cachers there say they'd rather place the caches at their own pace and have some control over who they are making mad. There's very little desire to fill up the blank spots with caches.

 

I'm sure that vacation caches weren't even an issue because there were no caches. In a populated island with limited space and a ton of existing great caches, it just makes no sense.

It's not really about distance, There are plenty of places within an hour's drive from me that I wouldn't know whether are 'good enough' for a cache, but I know lots of places that are thousands of miles away that would be great.
Link to comment
Will someone please state the case for the benefits of vacation caches for me?
:D:laughing:

 

Yeah right.

 

Not even from here in the state with the fewest caches period will I say they are a benefit.

 

In fact we (the local cachers) are always cleaning up geolitter dropped be 'well meaning' vacationers that whiz by on the interstates. :laughing: I'm just waiting for this summer's crop.

 

On the upside the our reviewer does a whiz-bang job of sniffin' out the bad ones and is quick to helps us fix the ones that slip through via SBA or adoption. :laughing:

I've resigned myself to this is pretty much how it is going to go. We've got a great reviewer who is watching this really closely and the rest, it's just a matter of time until we have to deal with them. I'd say 80% of the vacation caches placed here are abandoned in the first year.
I wonder why the locals who agreed to maintain these are so irresponsible.
Link to comment

Don't get me wrong, in a sense I'm talking about theoriticals here.

 

For this particular instance, I think the best course of action is to talk to and work with the local who agreed to maintain them. If he's part of the local "caching community" and the rest of the community isn't wild about these, they may be able to influence him.

 

At the heart of the "problem" are the locals who agree to maintain the caches. Without them, vacation caches wouldn't exist :laughing:

Link to comment
At the heart of the "problem" are the locals who agree to maintain the caches. Without them, vacation caches wouldn't exist

 

Well, yes and no. The frustration a cache reviewer has is that we're reviewing something that's already been placed. It's one of those dadgum if you do, dadgum if you don't situations. If the cache isn't published it's instant geolitter. If it is published after forcing the cache placer to come up with a local "cache guardian" it apparently still becomes a problem.

 

I've sent a Hawaiian geocacher a list of the coords of unpublished caches, but never heard if they were still there to be removed, or were found to have been listed on another site, or were removed by the placer before he returned home, or??? There were some goofy ones among them - like the geocacher who submitted the coords where he hid his camping stove near the Hilo airport because he knew he couldn't take it home on the plane. He thought this was a "cache" the locals would appreciate. Go figure.

 

As long as visitors change the home coords and city on their profile page, or come up with real or invented local maintainers, these vacation caches will continue to slip through the system.

 

Maybe we need a sign at the Honolulu airport arrivals concourse that says "vacation caches are not welcome here"

 

erik - volunteer cache reviewer for states #49 and #50

 

edited to add: I never typed the word "dadgum". I used a less polite term but the site "fixed it" for me.

Edited by erik88l-r
Link to comment
I just can't wrap my mind around owning 8 Geocaches 4000+ miles away from my house.

 

He must have either told the reviewer he has a local to maintain them, or he visits the area on a regular basis. Otherwide they would not have been published.

 

He got permission but neglected to tell the local maintainer how many he was going to place. Small detail.. he was not thinking TEN. This guy totally worked the system and now can claim more hides than anyone.

Link to comment

I'll bite, also. I actually own a vacation cache. I created it because I wanted to.

 

Wow, that's helpful...... :laughing:

 

If a vacationer wants to enjoy the area - DO the caches, don't leave caches. I would guess that 90% of the time the vacationer isn't familiar with the local caching style and/or guidelines. Let's take Hawaii as an example - the locals may have chosen to not place caches near of the sacred heaus for fear of cachers tearing them apart or causing damage - then a vacationer comes along, enjoys the spot and then decides to place a cache there because nobody else has.

 

Granted, in most cases they have to ask for a local to maintain it - but how often do you think people will say "no" when asked? Nobody wants to say "no" to others unless it's an extreme example.

 

Place cachers where YOU can maintain them. Let others "own" thier local area. There's enough room on the planet for everybody to place caches themselves, without fear of somebody from out of the area swooping in and putting them in their backyard.

First, I would assume that a cacher would not agree to take care of a cache that was doing harm to the area. If they did agree, I would argue that they weren't, in fact, properly maintaining it if the cache caused harm and was left in place.

 

Second, I disagree with your inference that caching styles should not be imported from area to area. In fact, I would argue that this is one of the best things about the game.

 

The list is long of things that you just can't expect a vacation hider to understand before hiding their cache here in the tropics. For example, most of the containers used in drier climates do not last at all in Hawaii. I've seen ammo boxes crumble when I picked them up.

 

I was reading another thread about not including a plastic baggie to hold the log. What if it is always wet in the area? We put -everything- in bags no matter how waterproof the container is.

Link to comment
At the heart of the "problem" are the locals who agree to maintain the caches. Without them, vacation caches wouldn't exist

 

Well, yes and no. The frustration a cache reviewer has is that we're reviewing something that's already been placed. It one of those dadgum if you do, dadgum if you don't situations. If the cache isn't published it's instant geolitter. If it is published after forcing the cache placer to come up with a local "cache guardian" it apparently still becomes a problem.

 

I've sent a Hawaiian geocacher a list of the coords of unpublished caches, but never heard if they were still there to be removed, or were found to have been listed on another site, or were removed by the placer before he returned home, or??? There were some goofy ones among them - like the geocacher who submitted the coords where he hid his camping stove near the Hilo airport because he knew he couldn't take it home on the plane. He thought this was a "cache" the locals would appreciate. Go figure.

 

As long as visitors change the home coords and city on their profile page, or come up with real or invented local maintainers, these vacation caches will continue to slip through the system.

 

Maybe we need a sign at the Honolulu airport arrivals concourse that says "vacation caches are not welcome here"

 

erik - volunteer cache reviewer for states #49 and #50

 

Ahem.. lucky I already said our reviewer is a good guy huh? Erik.. could you make those coords available to an email list or me and I will forward? We can call in the long arm of the cachinator and they will be gone. Besides, I need a new camp stove.

Link to comment

First, I would assume that a cacher would not agree to take care of a cache that was doing harm to the area. If they did agree, I would argue that they weren't, in fact, properly maintaining it if the cache caused harm and was left in place.

 

Second, I disagree with your inference that caching styles should not be imported from area to area. In fact, I would argue that this is one of the best things about the game.

The problem with the first statement is that most "vacation" caches don't have a cacher to take care of them. The vacationers slips them through by telling the review that so-and-so will take care of it. The fact is so-and-so doesn't exist or was never contacted. That's why we (the local cachers) end up have to take care of the problems.

 

With your second statement I would have to agree that caching style should be imported. It makes the game more interesting, but do it right. Just dropping a cache while on vacation never to bother with it again is not the type of caching I want imported or exported anywhere.

 

If a cacher wants to come up here and place a cache here, and they have it taken care of by a real live local, I say more power to them. I always welcome more caches, but we don't need more geolitter.

Link to comment

 

As long as visitors change the home coords and city on their profile page, or come up with real or invented local maintainers, these vacation caches will continue to slip through the system.

 

erik - volunteer cache reviewer for states #49 and #50

Thank you!

 

There in lies there problem. It's not the legit caches that are the problem.

 

erik, thank you for what you do. I know all the reveiwers do their best to help with this, but their is only so much you can do.

Link to comment
Will someone please state the case for the benefits of vacation caches for me?
:D:laughing:

 

Yeah right.

 

Not even from here in the state with the fewest caches period will I say they are a benefit.

 

In fact we (the local cachers) are always cleaning up geolitter dropped be 'well meaning' vacationers that whiz by on the interstates. :laughing: I'm just waiting for this summer's crop.

 

On the upside the our reviewer does a whiz-bang job of sniffin' out the bad ones and is quick to helps us fix the ones that slip through via SBA or adoption. :laughing:

I've resigned myself to this is pretty much how it is going to go. We've got a great reviewer who is watching this really closely and the rest, it's just a matter of time until we have to deal with them. I'd say 80% of the vacation caches placed here are abandoned in the first year.
I wonder why the locals who agreed to maintain these are so irresponsible.

 

I think you need a hug.

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...