Jump to content

what about vacation caches?


Recommended Posts

...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.

 

You asked for one good reason for Vacation caches. I gave you one. It's legitimate regardless of the larger debate over vacation caches being good or bad.

 

Hawaii is no different. Yes it's smaller, but the average local still doesn't know ever nook and cranny of their island unless they are the rare person who's hobby is exploring every nook and cranny. That person may or may not be a cacher.

 

Case in Point.

In my adventure file is a series of emails from a cacher in Oregon. He told me about a sinkhole that formed during an earthquake, a cave, and a hilltop that hikers used to put the year of their hike on the rocks going back to the turn of the century (the 1800's...). Most local cachers in my area don't know about these things. Even longtime locals don't know about them. He did because when he was here a long time ago he discovered them with his own two feet. He emailed me because he hoped I'd investigate one day. I will and I may even place a cache there when I do. Had he visited, or someone he told about visited and they placed the caches, the caches would still be good.

 

Anyay, you asked when these things could be good. There is your answer. Caches stand on their own merit. A Vacation cache is no different in that regard. Are they more likely to be bad? Maybe. Is maintaince going to be an issue? Probably can the issues be fixed? Yes. Should vacationers place them? Yes, if they can maintain them. It's not like locals Hawaii won't try and place caches in Wal Mart themselves. :laughing:

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.

 

That's another thing. The thing about the maintainer, is that if they can't do the task as well as they would like they are free to pull one or more cache as part of their maintance activies. Not exactly fair, but then neither is "will you maintain as many caches and I can place if I don't mention how many I'm going to place and stick you with?".

 

Hoooah! I should stick this in my Ask RK Column.

Link to comment

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.

 

Well any problems with a nonexistant local maintainer could probably be taken care of by the reviewer sending off a quick email to them to confirm that they did agree I'd think.

 

As to the vacation cache issue as a whole, I really wouldn't want to hide a cache in a far off land I'd never or rarely see again. Maintaining my cache is a pleasure for me. I go several times a year to check up on it, read the physical logs, etc. However, at what distance would a cache be considered a vacation cache? It can't be based on just in the state you're from because you could live close to a border or in a small state in general. I can get to any state in New England if I drive for a couple hours in the right direction.

 

I guess in general flexible guidelines are better than iron shackles. Some people may have vacation homes they visit regularly or something. I guess my philosophy on cache placement isn't just to place a cache to bump up my number of hides, but putting something of value that takes someone someplace interesting. However, then you get into the whole "What constitutes a quality cache?" debate if you say that someone can only hide good vacation caches. Whose idea of good do you use? I don't understand why anyone would want to hide one, but I can't seem to think of a good reason for an outright ban if there's a legitimate plan, including verified help from a local cacher, for maintaining the cache properly.

 

All that said, if I were a thousand miles away and thought I found a great spot for a cache, I'd probably take a waypoint and suggest the location as a potentially good place for a cache to a local cacher who could take proper care of it and get credit for the hide.

Link to comment

 

Well any problems with a nonexistant local maintainer could probably be taken care of by the reviewer sending off a quick email to them to confirm that they did agree I'd think.

First of all I can't fault the reviews for not confirming every cache that has a listed contact or permission name, they have so much to do already. Remember they are all volunteers. Also, at least here, many of these caches claim that a friend or relative, and lists their name, will care for it. Well in some cases, that person doesn't even exist.

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.

 

You asked for one good reason for Vacation caches. I gave you one. It's legitimate regardless of the larger debate over vacation caches being good or bad.

 

Hawaii is no different. Yes it's smaller, but the average local still doesn't know ever nook and cranny of their island unless they are the rare person who's hobby is exploring every nook and cranny. That person may or may not be a cacher.

 

Case in Point.

In my adventure file is a series of emails from a cacher in Oregon. He told me about a sinkhole that formed during an earthquake, a cave, and a hilltop that hikers used to put the year of their hike on the rocks going back to the turn of the century (the 1800's...). Most local cachers in my area don't know about these things. Even longtime locals don't know about them. He did because when he was here a long time ago he discovered them with his own two feet. He emailed me because he hoped I'd investigate one day. I will and I may even place a cache there when I do. Had he visited, or someone he told about visited and they placed the caches, the caches would still be good.

 

Anyay, you asked when these things could be good. There is your answer. Caches stand on their own merit. A Vacation cache is no different in that regard. Are they more likely to be bad? Maybe. Is maintaince going to be an issue? Probably can the issues be fixed? Yes. Should vacationers place them? Yes, if they can maintain them. It's not like locals Hawaii won't try and place caches in Wal Mart themselves. :laughing:

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.

 

You asked for one good reason for Vacation caches. I gave you one. It's legitimate regardless of the larger debate over vacation caches being good or bad.

 

Hawaii is no different. Yes it's smaller, but the average local still doesn't know ever nook and cranny of their island unless they are the rare person who's hobby is exploring every nook and cranny. That person may or may not be a cacher.

 

Case in Point.

In my adventure file is a series of emails from a cacher in Oregon. He told me about a sinkhole that formed during an earthquake, a cave, and a hilltop that hikers used to put the year of their hike on the rocks going back to the turn of the century (the 1800's...). Most local cachers in my area don't know about these things. Even longtime locals don't know about them. He did because when he was here a long time ago he discovered them with his own two feet. He emailed me because he hoped I'd investigate one day. I will and I may even place a cache there when I do. Had he visited, or someone he told about visited and they placed the caches, the caches would still be good.

 

Anyay, you asked when these things could be good. There is your answer. Caches stand on their own merit. A Vacation cache is no different in that regard. Are they more likely to be bad? Maybe. Is maintaince going to be an issue? Probably can the issues be fixed? Yes. Should vacationers place them? Yes, if they can maintain them. It's not like locals Hawaii won't try and place caches in Wal Mart themselves. :laughing:

 

I didn't ask when these things could be good, I asked someone to explain the benefits. And brother I am not feeling them flowing in. You agree with me that they are likely to be bad and need maintenance. Is this kind of cache that is going to be welcomed in any neighborhood?

Link to comment

Here's an example of a vacation cache that made it through because a relative would take care of it.

 

Ok, we weren't planning on placing a cache here when we came, so this is made from what we could find in grandmas car. The cache is a big gatorade bottle with a ziploc bag in it contiaining a sheet of paper (logbook) and whatever random items we could find on the floor. (her car was very clean, all we could find were a few bandaids (new), an Illinois state quarter, and a button).

 

We placed this cache with my cousin, Will Rust, during a trip to with the relatives to Little Yellowstone. We waded up the stream until we found this great hiding place. Bring lots of bug spray, the mosquitos are terrible. Have fun and watch out for poisen ivy, crazy big ant hills, and barbed wire fences.

 

BTW the caretaker listed was grandma. She turned out to be a 80 year old woman and the cache was in 4 star terrain. :laughing:

 

Fortuantly a local has adopted it, and it's now a good cache.

Link to comment

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

 

Right next to the one that says you can't bring in any produce or brown tree snakes.

 

I think you gotta nip this right in bud and use those amnesty agriculture bins at the door as you offload into the baggage claim area. Better, we could get the ticket screeners and baggage people involved looking for geocaches too.

 

Can you see all the ammo boxes piled up at by the water bottles?

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").

 

All probably true and all definitely terrible reasons. I'd like to think he's trying to help us. I find that queer.

Link to comment

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

I do. Odd as it might seem, many folks, (some who are cachers), spend their vacations in locations that are extrodinary, at least as compared to their home coordinates. Again, odd as it may seem, there are some cachers who believe that extrodinary locations are often good places for geocaches. As both a cacher and a vacationer, I often find myself at amazing locations deserving of an ammo can.

 

(No, I won't place a vacation cache, but I'll hold my reasons for later on in this post)

 

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.

It seems to me this is an issue for the reviewer to resolve. Do the guidelines allow Aunt Martha to be the maintenance person, or do they require that a geocacher, with an active GC account, be named as a vacation cache maintainer? If the guidelines allow any swinging Richard to be listed as a cache maintainer, then I think the system is broken. How can someone who is not a cacher, and knows nothing about the game, be expected to properly perform maintenance? If the system requires an honest to Gaia cacher to be listed, it seems like it's be a simple matter to bring up the profile of the listed maintainer to see if they are suitable for the task.

 

This guy totally worked the system and now can claim more hides than anyone.

And having more caches in place is bad? Is there some kind f subtle competition going on in Hawaii to see who can hide the most? Seems kinda provincial to me. Either the caches are worthy unto themselves, in which case y'all benefit by having more quality hides nearby, or they are carp, and should be dealt with accordingly by the person who is listed as the local maintainer.

 

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.

Agreed. But I'd bet the local uderstands these issues.

 

The problem with the first statement is that most "vacation" caches don't have a cacher to take care of them.

Then the problem isn't with the tourists, it's with the reviewer.

(Sorry Erik, don't mean to throw you under the bus) :laughing:

If the Hawaii cachers want to have control over who hides what, where, then y'all need to collectively step up to the plate and voice your concerns with your reviewer. Let them know exactly how the system is being thwarted, and devise a plan to inhibit abuse. If Erik's hands are tied by the reviewer's guidelines, (forcing him to publish caches that meet what you feel are too lax criteria), move up the chain of command. Create a united front of local cachers, and explain your concerns regarding vacation caches in your area. Ask that additional steps be required when vacationers submit caches for approval, and volunteer your group's services to ensure these steps are followed. Maybe you could ask that vacation caches not be approved unless they get a nod from the _________________ ? (<~~insert name of local caching organization) If your concerns make it high enough up the chain of command, and the powers that be feel your concerns are valid, change may follow.

 

OK, I'm off my "Devil's Advocate" soap box.

So, why doesn't Clan Riffster hide vacation caches? I can assure you I know of some really kewl spots deserving an ammo can in most of the places I (mis)spent my youth. And I'm sure I could dredge up a few relatives names, claiming that they would conduct maintenance for me. With a bit of research, I could probably even contact an active local cacher and convince them to do maintenance for me. So, what's the problem? Personal accountability. I know for a fact that every cache I hide will have proper maintenance conducted...by me. I couldn't make that same promise if my cache was a few thousand miles away. In my opinion, it is utterly unacceptable to own a poorly maintained cache, and I am unwilling to risk my geo-integrity on some one else's promise, even if that promise was made in good faith. If I am on vacation, and I find an off the beaten path spot screaming for a cache, I'll contact the owner of the nearest existing cache and give them the coords. If they want to hide one there, kewl. If not, it's no sweat of my back.

 

Edit to add: This computer doesn't do spell check, as you can see. :laughing:

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Okay... Here we go!

 

In my opinion. ONLY a local Geocacher qualifies as a maintenance person for a cache hidden by a cacher from elsewhere's. Not a friend or brother's cousin's uncle's mother. Period. If they ain't a cacher then how can they be regarded as a maintainer of a cache?

 

I've adopted a cache placed by a couple from Holland. They originally placed it with a local cacher who since has moved. They contacted me and I gladly took it on, and made some friends. They're coming for a visit this summer.

 

A close caching buddy of mine who visits me often and I worked on a cache together last time he was here. we made it his cache with me as the maintainer.

 

The best way to avoid problems with "vacation" caches is to have a local Geocacher named as maintainer upon submission of said cache.

 

Now concerning the possible problem of a reviewer not wanting to leave Geolitter by not approving...

All reviewers know the active and concerned Geocachers in their area, so just email someone with the coords of a cache they know shouldn't be approved and that Geocacher will either get it or forward to all they know so someone else will. Problem solved.

 

Hawai'i is special in our style of hides and areas of placing, but most importantly "It should be local Geocachers hiding Geocaches anywhere in the world. With the option of a local taking on the maintenance duties or it shouldn't be approved.

 

Menehune Man was hea!

Link to comment

hey i am glad that my OP is still alive.... thanks to TGB for getting involved in this debate.... while it is nice to have a few new caches here on Hawaii...I would say that if we get 5 or 6 vacation caches a year they could be dealt with.... either properly maintained as intended....archived because of neglect and disgust by local cachers or adopted because they are worthy. But the guy that brought all this about dropped 9 caches in one week...all micros and all but one in remote areas. as i drive around the island during my work routine i am always thinking about cache locales and debate myself as to if i am willing to maintain it ...is it more than an hour drive from my home....are there other that could be adopted and upgraded.....I have seven or eight hides and i see it as a resposibilty and source of pride to have a cache that someone would like to find and see something new and /or learn something so that throttles me a bit..... i could easily have 40 or 50 hide....especially small one that dont take much...no swag...no creativity..... but i dont.... there are about adozen active local cachers on hawaii and we are seeing all of our hides gradually increase....ther is some attrition so while we may lose one or two overthe course of time we may gain 3 or 4....so the numbers arent swelling here...barely 100 in Hawaii County....to see it increase by 10% overnight by a vacationer doesnt build much excitement...now if one of our local went on a spree of well thought out caches i think i would make real effort to see whats up and encourage me to follow thru with some of my own ideas for hides and then you will see a ripple effect among local cachers getting some new hides of their own...andthe overall count rate would increase here.... i can get behind that.....

Hawaii is very different in many ways and a vacationer on a one or two week stint cant learn the nuances....

i have been here 7 years and still learning how to fit in and survive....when you get off the plane they say you need two years to make a go of it here......I saw a bumper sticker that i thinks applies to Hawaii Geocaches very well..."Grown here not Flown here"

aloha and mahalo

Link to comment

By way of some further explanation from a cache reviewer's perspective, we have tools that flag (in bright red) any cache hidden more than 100 miles from someone's home coords. We can then look at that person's history of hides and finds to see if, in our judgment, maintenance will be an issue. For example, I had submissions this morning for caches on the island of Hawaii from a geocacher who lives 144 miles away. I checked his history of finds and the four I randomly selected were all caches on that island. So his home coords may be on another island, but he has a history of geocaching here that made me comfortable.

 

With Hawaii (or Alaska or any vacation destination), the case is all to often not one of caches placed just over 100 miles from home, but thousands of miles from home. Or there are no home coords in the system and we have to ask for them.

 

If you place a vacation cache in my review territory the cache is temporarily disabled and you get the following log e-mailed to you and attached to the cache page:

 

Hi,

 

Please see the rules for Geocaches posted here

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Please see the section on

Placing Caches on Vacation here:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#maint

Thank you for your cache submission. Your contribution to our sport is appreciated, however....

I'm concerned about your ability to maintain this cache from your home XXXXXXXXXXXXXX away in XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, so please assure me of how you are going to provide for its maintenance, check on it if it is reported missing or damaged, etc..

I want to post your cache, but not if it will become geolitter.

 

Unless you have already made other arrangements I suggest using the "find nearest cache" feature on the site to find other caches and hopefully other local geocachers. Then e-mail one and see if they would look after your cache for you. If they can let me know and I'll be happy to post it. While you're looking at those nearby caches see how often they are visited for a guide on how frequently you should be able to visit your cache for maintenance. Caches found every weekend really should be reachable within a week for example. If you have found a local geocacher to act as a cache guardian please reply with the specifics (geonick, name, etc.) If he or she does not have an account with geocaching.com that is ok, but please supply a name and e-mail address for our records.

 

Please be sure to reference your cache URL or GCxxxx number when you reply.

 

thanks,

erik - geocaching.com admin

 

NOTE: do not select "reply" in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail erik88L-R from the log there. Be sure to reference your cache URL or GC???? waypoint number so it can be found.

 

The "XXXXXXX" fields are filled in with the distance in miles or kilometers as appropriate, and the cache placers home state or country.

 

So you can see we do solicit for local maintainers, but short of arbitrarily archiving the listing and telling the hider to collect it the next time he comes to the islands for a honeymoon, there are few alternatives.

 

Hopefully discussion threads like this one will help educate the vacationing geocachers out there, and prompt them to make prior arrangements with a local geocacher before contemplating placing a vacation cache.

 

~erik~

Link to comment

I've never vacation-cached (mostly because I rarely go anywhere for vacation). If I did, I think I would be more interested in finding the caches the locals have placed anyway. I'm not sure I would be interested in seeking a cache someone who lives 3 towns away from my home placed while on vacation. But, how would I know who placed it? Sure, I could check the placers profile but that would be a LOT of work if I wanted to check out every one.

 

Why not ask a local to create a sig prison (sig item drop off only) so vacationers can leave an "I was here".

 

or

 

Maybe place a TB that can meander it's way home, or about the Vacation Destination to different caches so the cacher can go find it in a different cache next time he visits.

 

A little creativity can make this sport a whole lot more fun for everyone!

 

I just think that if you can't replace a wet log book within a day or two (unless you're away on vacation finding caches :laughing: ), you can't maintain a cache properly.

Link to comment

hey i am glad that my OP is still alive.... thanks to TGB for getting involved in this debate.... while it is nice to have a few new caches here on Hawaii...I would say that if we get 5 or 6 vacation caches a year they could be dealt with.... either properly maintained as intended....archived because of neglect and disgust by local cachers or adopted because they are worthy. But the guy that brought all this about dropped 9 caches in one week...all micros and all but one in remote areas. as i drive around the island during my work routine i am always thinking about cache locales and debate myself as to if i am willing to maintain it ...is it more than an hour drive from my home....are there other that could be adopted and upgraded.....I have seven or eight hides and i see it as a resposibilty and source of pride to have a cache that someone would like to find and see something new and /or learn something so that throttles me a bit..... i could easily have 40 or 50 hide....especially small one that dont take much...no swag...no creativity..... but i dont.... there are about adozen active local cachers on hawaii and we are seeing all of our hides gradually increase....ther is some attrition so while we may lose one or two overthe course of time we may gain 3 or 4....so the numbers arent swelling here...barely 100 in Hawaii County....to see it increase by 10% overnight by a vacationer doesnt build much excitement...now if one of our local went on a spree of well thought out caches i think i would make real effort to see whats up and encourage me to follow thru with some of my own ideas for hides and then you will see a ripple effect among local cachers getting some new hides of their own...andthe overall count rate would increase here.... i can get behind that.....

Hawaii is very different in many ways and a vacationer on a one or two week stint cant learn the nuances....

i have been here 7 years and still learning how to fit in and survive....when you get off the plane they say you need two years to make a go of it here......I saw a bumper sticker that i thinks applies to Hawaii Geocaches very well..."Grown here not Flown here"

aloha and mahalo

 

I wasn't going to go into the quality of hides because I haven't found them yet. Also, I don't think it is the top issue here but over time, it has been proven that most of them are sorely lacking in some important aspect. Be it container, location, or just a poor hide. It sounds like he did in fact bring a new hiding style in to the islands. It will be interesting to see how the micros in lava fields are received.

 

I think... no I know... that there's tons of talented geocachers out there that could put out a good hide on the Big Island. If the local folks on the Big Island want to encourage this, then that is great. Because I am a part time resident over there, I will be happy to throw my .02 in if they ask. On our island, Oahu, the strong consensus is that we don't want them. Of course we have 600 or so caches to choose from and this makes it even tougher for a visitor to find a good place to hide one.

 

Overall this has got to be a tough place to review caches. Our states population is spread out over 5 main islands and each island has it's own personality and local flavor. The only island I know that I have seen vacation hides being encouraged is on Kauai and that's because there is one VERY active hider over there and he wanted more caches to find. He was, however, just asking cachers from other islands to hide for him.

Link to comment

...

I didn't ask when these things could be good, I asked someone to explain the benefits. And brother I am not feeling them flowing in. You agree with me that they are likely to be bad and need maintenance. Is this kind of cache that is going to be welcomed in any neighborhood?

 

Fair enough. Same answer. I gave before.

 

To answer your more specific question. If they are good they should be welcomed. If the owner got someone to maintain it then it meets all the rules of this site and if it's in a good location and it's otherwise a good cache then there is no reason it's not a good cache.

 

More likely to have issues also admits the possibility that the cache is fine.

 

Oh, just in case I wasnt' clear. A good cache is its own benefit. Regardless of how it got there.

Link to comment

Okay... Here we go!

 

In my opinion. ONLY a local Geocacher qualifies as a maintenance person for a cache hidden by a cacher from elsewhere's. Not a friend or brother's cousin's uncle's mother. Period. If they ain't a cacher then how can they be regarded as a maintainer of a cache?...

 

I 100% disagree with this assertion.

 

A geocacher as you have put it is merely a person who "logs onto this site, has an account and logs their finds" as opposed to casual people who enjoy geocaching with you but who just don't feel any desire to do more than that. Sometiems they want to place a cache or don't mind being co-owner even if it's "off the record".

 

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in geocaching to replace a wet log book, check on a container, read the logs and enjoy the cache. If replacing the cache is especially tricky the cacher who listed it can guide them through the process.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
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 a smoke screen. The Entire USA has a lot of cultural diversity and this just doens't come up in caches in appreciable levels. Hawaii got it's diversity by showing a lot of tolerance for other cultures. Now those other cultures dominate the islands think of themselves as locals.

 

It's a non issue in a general sence. In a specific sence any one cache that does manage to offend a culture for being in the wrong spot can be fixed.

Link to comment

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

I do. Odd as it might seem, many folks, (some who are cachers), spend their vacations in locations that are extrodinary, at least as compared to their home coordinates. Again, odd as it may seem, there are some cachers who believe that extrodinary locations are often good places for geocaches. As both a cacher and a vacationer, I often find myself at amazing locations deserving of an ammo can.

 

This is really another topic in my mind and similar to what RK said. The issue here is a populated area that has an active base of cachers.

 

If an area doesn't have an established population of geocachers and is truely spectacular.. you've got to think that the first caches are probably going to be vacation caches. If these caches are stand alone in amazing places, I'd bet that visitors would do everything they can to keep the cache alive. Does it "deserve" a cache.. that's really an individual thought that I will leave for another thread.

 

(No, I won't place a vacation cache, but I'll hold my reasons for later on in this post)

 

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.

It seems to me this is an issue for the reviewer to resolve. Do the guidelines allow Aunt Martha to be the maintenance person, or do they require that a geocacher, with an active GC account, be named as a vacation cache maintainer? If the guidelines allow any swinging Richard to be listed as a cache maintainer, then I think the system is broken. How can someone who is not a cacher, and knows nothing about the game, be expected to properly perform maintenance? If the system requires an honest to Gaia cacher to be listed, it seems like it's be a simple matter to bring up the profile of the listed maintainer to see if they are suitable for the task.

 

This guy totally worked the system and now can claim more hides than anyone.

And having more caches in place is bad? Is there some kind f subtle competition going on in Hawaii to see who can hide the most? Seems kinda provincial to me. Either the caches are worthy unto themselves, in which case y'all benefit by having more quality hides nearby, or they are carp, and should be dealt with accordingly by the person who is listed as the local maintainer.

 

Okay, I suppose we are guilty of this to a degree. But IT IS our home, should we be entitled to be protective? Here's where this is going sound even worse but it's how a lot of us feel. There's nothing worse and harder to stomach than someone trying to be Hawaiian and messing it up. I've been here for 20 years and finally gave it up.

 

Vacationers (for example the hider in question here) always read a few books on Hawaiian History before they come and usually accept what they read as absolute truth, but when you really get into it, you learn that there's actually 3 or 4 accounts (sometimes very different) of the same things that they read. So, they go ahead and proudly put this history out on a cache page. To the visitor, it could be interesting, but to a local who is paying attention, it's fingernails on the chalkboard.

 

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.

Agreed. But I'd bet the local uderstands these issues.

 

Let's look at the local candidate for a minute. Remember, we are usually working with a week of vacation. A day to recover, a few days to explore, it's late in the week and the clock is ticking by the time the cache is placed and now you've got a shorter window because the reviewer usually takes a day to look everything over and ask the questions that Erik asks. In this period of time, is the local going to be able to check the hide for land issues that might not be apparent? Make sure that the container will not be tropical mush in a month? The cache page for cultural and geographical accuracy? No, he's just agreed to clean up the mess and all the rest is on the visitor. This is just seems like a bad system that is going to generate bad caches to me.

 

The problem with the first statement is that most "vacation" caches don't have a cacher to take care of them.

Then the problem isn't with the tourists, it's with the reviewer.

(Sorry Erik, don't mean to throw you under the bus) :anicute:

If the Hawaii cachers want to have control over who hides what, where, then y'all need to collectively step up to the plate and voice your concerns with your reviewer. Let them know exactly how the system is being thwarted, and devise a plan to inhibit abuse. If Erik's hands are tied by the reviewer's guidelines, (forcing him to publish caches that meet what you feel are too lax criteria), move up the chain of command. Create a united front of local cachers, and explain your concerns regarding vacation caches in your area. Ask that additional steps be required when vacationers submit caches for approval, and volunteer your group's services to ensure these steps are followed. Maybe you could ask that vacation caches not be approved unless they get a nod from the _________________ ? (<~~insert name of local caching organization) If your concerns make it high enough up the chain of command, and the powers that be feel your concerns are valid, change may follow.

 

OK, I'm off my "Devil's Advocate" soap box.

So, why doesn't Clan Riffster hide vacation caches? I can assure you I know of some really kewl spots deserving an ammo can in most of the places I (mis)spent my youth. And I'm sure I could dredge up a few relatives names, claiming that they would conduct maintenance for me. With a bit of research, I could probably even contact an active local cacher and convince them to do maintenance for me. So, what's the problem? Personal accountability. I know for a fact that every cache I hide will have proper maintenance conducted...by me. I couldn't make that same promise if my cache was a few thousand miles away. In my opinion, it is utterly unacceptable to own a poorly maintained cache, and I am unwilling to risk my geo-integrity on some one else's promise, even if that promise was made in good faith. If I am on vacation, and I find an off the beaten path spot screaming for a cache, I'll contact the owner of the nearest existing cache and give them the coords. If they want to hide one there, kewl. If not, it's no sweat of my back.

 

Edit to add: This computer doesn't do spell check, as you can see. :anicute:

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment
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 a smoke screen. The Entire USA has a lot of cultural diversity and this just doens't come up in caches in appreciable levels. Hawaii got it's diversity by showing a lot of tolerance for other cultures. Now those other cultures dominate the islands think of themselves as locals.

 

It's a non issue in a general sence. In a specific sence any one cache that does manage to offend a culture for being in the wrong spot can be fixed.

 

Maybe you can answer this one question for me then. Why do almost all visitors use the term "back in the USA" when they are in Hawaii and referring to the state they live in? We are closer to the third world country than most state in a lot of ways. It IS that different, trust me on this.

Link to comment

...

I didn't ask when these things could be good, I asked someone to explain the benefits. And brother I am not feeling them flowing in. You agree with me that they are likely to be bad and need maintenance. Is this kind of cache that is going to be welcomed in any neighborhood?

 

Fair enough. Same answer. I gave before.

 

To answer your more specific question. If they are good they should be welcomed. If the owner got someone to maintain it then it meets all the rules of this site and if it's in a good location and it's otherwise a good cache then there is no reason it's not a good cache.

 

More likely to have issues also admits the possibility that the cache is fine.

 

Oh, just in case I wasnt' clear. A good cache is its own benefit. Regardless of how it got there.

 

I do think your answer is in general a good one. It just doesn't apply to Hawaii. Oh, and absolutely, a good cache is a good cache regardless of it's origin. It is truly a benefit and should be coveted. It's just that they are so rarely placed here because of the many factors already mentioned. The norm is the cacher that packed a magnetic micro in their bag, ignored the -no vacation caches- sign at the airport, and stuck it to something metal. It's hard to plan a parade around that.

Link to comment
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 a smoke screen. The Entire USA has a lot of cultural diversity and this just doens't come up in caches in appreciable levels. Hawaii got it's diversity by showing a lot of tolerance for other cultures. Now those other cultures dominate the islands think of themselves as locals.

 

Without turning this into a political debate - I 100% disagree with that statement.

Hawai'i got it's diversity through brute force, not open tolerance or acceptance - but that's a whole other conversation.

 

It seems like the remedy to THIS situation would be to talk with the local who is approving these. If the consensus is that these are not the type of caches that the locals want around, then he should email the "owner" and explain that he, nor anybody else is willing to maintain them and then have them archived.

Link to comment
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 a smoke screen. The Entire USA has a lot of cultural diversity and this just doens't come up in caches in appreciable levels. Hawaii got it's diversity by showing a lot of tolerance for other cultures. Now those other cultures dominate the islands think of themselves as locals.

 

It's a non issue in a general sence. In a specific sence any one cache that does manage to offend a culture for being in the wrong spot can be fixed.

 

Maybe you can answer this one question for me then. Why do almost all visitors use the term "back in the USA" when they are in Hawaii and referring to the state they live in? We are closer to the third world country than most state in a lot of ways. It IS that different, trust me on this.

 

Why do Alaskans call the Lower 48 the Lower 48? Why do some peole call Californa Kalifornia? What does it matter? Apparently it's no so different that locals don't go caching. We are discussing caching aren't we?

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

...Without turning this into a political debate - I 100% disagree with that statement.

Hawai'i got it's diversity through brute force, not open tolerance or acceptance - but that's a whole other conversation.

 

It seems like the remedy to THIS situation would be to talk with the local who is approving these. If the consensus is that these are not the type of caches that the locals want around, then he should email the "owner" and explain that he, nor anybody else is willing to maintain them and then have them archived.

 

Ignoring the Brute Force comment which at best is only partly true, There are two issues at hand.

 

A: If a cache is going to be maintained it's approvable and it's good.

B: Territorialism. Meaning "We locals don't like You foreign types placing caches in our hood".

 

My take is A.

My stand on B is "Tough Nuts". It's not a vote.

 

"We locals having been duly ordained as locals by the local's club which is for hte locals by the locals, and from the locals having duly considered this matter do hereby banish any and all non local caches whcih from this day forward we shall call Vacation caches". That's a crock.

 

The only good reason to not have vacation caches is maintance. If you can maintain it, then it's not a vacation cache. Beyond that it's territorialssm.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Maybe you can answer this one question for me then. Why do almost all visitors use the term "back in the USA" when they are in Hawaii and referring to the state they live in? We are closer to the third world country than most state in a lot of ways. It IS that different, trust me on this.
Obviously, you've never been to Mississippi.

 

Just kidding, Mississupials)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
...

I didn't ask when these things could be good, I asked someone to explain the benefits. And brother I am not feeling them flowing in. You agree with me that they are likely to be bad and need maintenance. Is this kind of cache that is going to be welcomed in any neighborhood?

Fair enough. Same answer. I gave before.

 

To answer your more specific question. If they are good they should be welcomed. If the owner got someone to maintain it then it meets all the rules of this site and if it's in a good location and it's otherwise a good cache then there is no reason it's not a good cache.

 

More likely to have issues also admits the possibility that the cache is fine.

 

Oh, just in case I wasnt' clear. A good cache is its own benefit. Regardless of how it got there.

I do think your answer is in general a good one. It just doesn't apply to Hawaii. Oh, and absolutely, a good cache is a good cache regardless of it's origin. It is truly a benefit and should be coveted. It's just that they are so rarely placed here because of the many factors already mentioned. The norm is the cacher that packed a magnetic micro in their bag, ignored the -no vacation caches- sign at the airport, and stuck it to something metal. It's hard to plan a parade around that.
I'm sorry, but you haven't yet adequately explained why Hawaii is so different than the rest of the world that it should have it's own rulebook. Please enlighten us further. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

This is an exact copy of what I posted on a Hawaii geocachers online forum moments ago.

 

"I've noticed that some on the national forum don't understand the reasons why vacation caches are a problem and just think Hawaii cachers are being territorial. Although some in Florida seem to think the same as most here.

 

I think a push by "us" for a universal change in the rules stating that an active local cacher be listed as the maintainer, instead of just anyone who lives there, be applied to any cache placements outside a maintainable distance from the placing cachers home base.

 

This seems to me to be the direction to take our concerns.

 

Erik stated on the forum that it doesn't need to be a cacher as long as the reviewer gets an email address of the maintainer, which could be just a fake one made up by the cacher placing it. So that doesn't cut it in my book!"

Edited by Menehune Man
Link to comment

Here's some discussion...

 

The Reviewers have had discussions about this very topic, trying to reach a consensus on what the maintenance criteria should be. If you’ll look at the most recent version of the geocaching guidelines you’ll see we’ve removed the section on vacation caches and combined it with “cache maintenance”. I can tell you that I am the strictest of the reviewers when it comes to documentation for “cache guardians”, but have become so over time. There were things people got away with a year ago that won’t fly now. I now require either the geonick of the cache guardian if it’s a geocacher; or the name and e-mail address if it’s a friend, relative, or business associate. No more vague “my uncle lives there….” Unfortunately we can’t refuse to publish a cache if someone swears that a “kona gold” will maintain it, or creates a fictitious name and opens a hot mail account in that name to give us.

 

Another dilemma we have is that if a cache isn’t published it’s still there as perpetual geolitter. I just disable those listings in an unpublished state in the hope that the cache owner will eventually find someone to maintain it or remove it himself in a year or two. Unfortunately there are other reviewers who will publish them with a note asking that the first person who finds the cache to be in less than perfect condition should remove the cache and post a SBA note. That handles the geolitter issue, but results in other vacationers seeing that cache listing and thinking theirs can be published under the same conditions. We can’t win for loosing.

 

And it seems neither can we!

Link to comment

Okay... Here we go!

 

In my opinion. ONLY a local Geocacher qualifies as a maintenance person for a cache hidden by a cacher from elsewhere's. Not a friend or brother's cousin's uncle's mother. Period. If they ain't a cacher then how can they be regarded as a maintainer of a cache?...

 

I 100% disagree with this assertion.

 

A geocacher as you have put it is merely a person who "logs onto this site, has an account and logs their finds" as opposed to casual people who enjoy geocaching with you but who just don't feel any desire to do more than that. Sometiems they want to place a cache or don't mind being co-owner even if it's "off the record".

 

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in geocaching to replace a wet log book, check on a container, read the logs and enjoy the cache. If replacing the cache is especially tricky the cacher who listed it can guide them through the process.

 

A Geocacher cares MORE for the sport than an occasional hiking partner. Why would they or should they place a cache without becoming a Geocacher? That's rediculous!

And no it doesn't take a PHD but it does take time and effort wouldn't you say? Sheesh.

Link to comment

Well any problems with a nonexistant local maintainer could probably be taken care of by the reviewer sending off a quick email to them to confirm that they did agree I'd think.

See the 4,395 threads that follow the theme of "my reviewer is giving me a hard time." There are a lot of complaints to Groundspeak when the reviewers are viewed as getting in the way of swift cache publications. Asking for factual verification is generally regarded as overkill, with the exception of permission details in areas that have published geocaching policies. The goal is to make it easier, not harder, to get a cache published.

 

I guess in general flexible guidelines are better than iron shackles. Some people may have vacation homes they visit regularly or something.

I have published dozens and dozens of caches hidden by people while staying at their weekend/summer homes (for example, in the Allegheny National Forest). They've worked out very well. I keep track of all possible "vacation caches" that I publish, and hold them to a high standard for maintenance. Yet, the percentage that are archived isn't too different than the overall percentage. It is just as easy for a local person to hide a cache and lose interest in the game a few months later.

 

So, with a strict standard for vacation caches, all the honest hiders who *do* maintain their caches would feel like they're getting the third degree and that their word wasn't being trusted by the reviewers. After enough complaints about that, the general trend is to be a bit more trusting about vacation caches.

 

I sometimes can't tell who is being honest and who is lying about their vacation cache maintenance plan. Honestly, I've neither the time nor the inclination to conduct a detailed examination. So I publish the ones that meet the guidelines, and then I address any problems through monitoring compliance with the maintenance guidelines.

 

Now concerning the possible problem of a reviewer not wanting to leave Geolitter by not approving...

All reviewers know the active and concerned Geocachers in their area, so just email someone with the coords of a cache they know shouldn't be approved and that Geocacher will either get it or forward to all they know so someone else will. Problem solved.

Problem *not* solved. Reviewers are not supposed to do this. The cache remains the owner's property and it may be listed on another listing service. Do you have any idea how many vacation Terracaches there are in Hawaii? I do. 14 out of 16.

 

This is an exact copy of what I posted on a Hawaii geocachers online forum moments ago.

 

"I've noticed that some on the national forum don't understand the reasons why vacation caches are a problem and just think Hawaii cachers are being territorial. Although some in Florida seem to think the same as most here.

 

I think a push by "us" for a universal change in the rules stating that an active local cacher be listed as the maintainer, instead of just anyone who lives there, be applied to any cache placements outside a maintainable distance from the placing cachers home base.

 

This seems to me to be the direction to take our concerns.

 

Erik stated on the forum that it doesn't need to be a cacher as long as the reviewer gets an email address of the maintainer, which could be just a fake one made up by the cacher placing it. So that doesn't cut it in my book!"

You are welcome to advocate for having the Guidelines tightened up. I think, however, that you'll find that the winds of change are blowing in the other direction. If more people complain about the Guidelines being too strict, and reviewers being too difficult with the publication process, your voices may be outvoted. And it's not a democracy anyways.

 

And, once again, I'll note that the new batch of caches that triggered this thread would have passed muster under the tighter standard for which you are advocating. They named a local Hawaii geocacher as the maintainer.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

As erik has said, the reviewer page has a red flag when the cache placers home coords (or zip code center) are more than 100 miles from the proposed cache coordinates. BUT, cachers who are staying a while in a vacation locations sometimes change their home coords to that location. I see this a great deal from cachers spending a hunk of the winter in Florida.

 

I don't think it's done to game the site or the reviewer, but it allows their caches to sail through review. I've published hides where the website is indicating cacher is 8 miles from cache, and then started getting grumpy email from locals asking why I published a hide by some guy from Indiana.

 

I'm not going to chase down the profile of every cacher whose user name I don't recognize (I'd like to have a life outside of reviewing). And even if I did, there's nothing I can do under the guidelines but list a cache where the cacher indicates she is local. The review is predicated upon believing the cacher is telling the truth, and overwhelmingly they are.

 

Tightening listing requirements to smoke out the few who are deliberately deceptive strikes me as counter productive. You're just going to annoy and delay the many that are good to catch a very few that are problematic. And as Keystone has said, the caches that triggered this thread were 'legal' under the guidelines in any case, with a local maintainer who has an established GC account.

Link to comment

 

Why not ask a local to create a sig prison (sig item drop off only) so vacationers can leave an "I was here".

 

 

Now that is interesting. How does this work and have you seen this done? If so, please post the GC#.

 

I'm sorry, I haven't seen one before. That was a random thought. You'll get used to me after a while.

 

My basic idea is:

If there is a vacation hotspot and someone wants to leave a little piece of them, leave something in a cache that is by design a deposit only cache. I enjoy looking at sig items in my local area to see who's been there and, from the forums, it looks like others do too. These could be a little museum of sorts. See who's been there, from where, watch it over the years... that kind of stuff. I know it could turn out pretty big. I thought that once it grows that much maybe it could turn into a place rather than a cache. A local tavern or restaurant could display the items on the wall, and add yours. It may help business by becoming a curiosity.

 

I'm sure there is more to this idea than I've been able to stitch together.

 

Anyway, like I said, you'll get used to me.

Link to comment

I have no problem with cachers from one area coming here and placing a cache as long as they or another cacher cares for it. There are caches in the area hidden by a cachers for the Minneapolis area. However they have family up this way. They are often passing through and check on their caches. They also know some local cacher that the can contact between visits.

Caches like these are very welcome. These types of caches are set up within the guidelines with no intent to slip anything past the reviewers. There are no reasons to complain about these.

 

However this is not the type of caches that are left as the normal "vacation" cache. Most of these caches are left in the care of a fictitious person, or someone who is incapable or unwilling to care for it properly. Also many of them are hastily made and placed.

Like the one I had to remove from the State Park yesterday. It was a small gladware cache place in the crook of a tree. It was off the trail on a slope where trail erosion would have been a problem. It was also near a waterfowl nesting area. The reviewer was told that all the required paperwork was in order even though neither the rangers nor I had seen any paperwork. In fact the staff didn't even know that the cache was there until I mentioned it in meeting two weeks ago.

 

I don't want see a ban on out of area caches, but something has to be done to rid us of the abandoned "vacation" caches. I don't know what to do about it, after all the reviewers can only go by what they are told.

Link to comment

 

So, what's the problem? Personal accountability. I know for a fact that every cache I hide will have proper maintenance conducted...by me. I couldn't make that same promise if my cache was a few thousand miles away. In my opinion, it is utterly unacceptable to own a poorly maintained cache, and I am unwilling to risk my geo-integrity on some one else's promise, even if that promise was made in good faith. If I am on vacation, and I find an off the beaten path spot screaming for a cache, I'll contact the owner of the nearest existing cache and give them the coords. If they want to hide one there, kewl. If not, it's no sweat of my back.

 

Edit to add: This computer doesn't do spell check, as you can see. :blink:

 

I agree. I don't have any caches yet. When I place one, I know it will be my box in the woods, my responsibility. I would even enforce the same standards on myself if I moved to another state.

Archive and pull the caches. If someone else want to place one in the same location, great. If someone wants to adopt it great, but I would pull it and hand it to them to start fresh. Now it's their placement. Who knows, maybe they'll have a better or more interesting idea than me.

Link to comment

...A Geocacher cares MORE for the sport than an occasional hiking partner. Why would they or should they place a cache without becoming a Geocacher? That's rediculous!

And no it doesn't take a PHD but it does take time and effort wouldn't you say? Sheesh.

A geocacher participates more visiblty than a non cacher. That does not mean they will care more and better for a cache.

 

If a local cacher is needed to maintain the cache then the local cacher should be the one actually listing the cache. Even then that's not a gurantee that the local cacher would actually do a better job than the other person. Cachers don't have a lock on the abuility to but time and effort into a cache. Woudln't you say?

Link to comment

This is an exact copy of what I posted on a Hawaii geocachers online forum moments ago.

 

"I've noticed that some on the national forum don't understand the reasons why vacation caches are a problem and just think Hawaii cachers are being territorial. Although some in Florida seem to think the same as most here.

...

Erik stated on the forum that it doesn't need to be a cacher as long as the reviewer gets an email address of the maintainer, which could be just a fake one made up by the cacher placing it. So that doesn't cut it in my book!"

 

Hawaii is no different than Montana, Florida, and others that have taken time to rally agasinst vacation caches. If after the maintance issue is resolved for a cache you still want it gone because it's sill a vacation cache in your eyes then you are being territorial.

 

As for the logic in the last paragraph. Let me spin it for you.

Since locals can provide a throw away email address and place caches willy nilly all over the place with no regarde to actually maintaining tham, that doesn't cut it in my book. Locals should be banned. (By the way, this actually does happen).

 

Yeah, right.

 

PS. I do understand, but that doesn't mean I have to agree once the problem is solved. You will note that I did suggest a solution to the issue that started this entire thread. That was glossed over in the larger debate.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

 

Hawaii is no different than Montana, Florida, and others that have taken time to rally agasinst vacation caches. If after the maintance issue is resolved for a cache you still want it gone because it's sill a vacation cache in your eyes then you are being territorial.

I have to agree with you there.

 

I just wish there was a way we could fix the problem of the falsified caches without bogging down the system. But until we can, we just have keep taking care of these caches as the appear. We as local cachers should care for the caches in our region. That doesn't mean we become cache police, just considerate, responsible cachers with attitude of doing what is best for the caching community at large.

Link to comment

 

Hawaii is no different than Montana, Florida, and others that have taken time to rally agasinst vacation caches. 1)If after the maintance issue is resolved for a cache you still want it gone because it's sill a vacation cache in your eyes then you are being territorial.

 

As for the logic in the last paragraph. Let me spin it for you.

2)Since locals can provide a throw away email address and place caches willy nilly all over the place with no regarde to actually maintaining tham, that doesn't cut it in my book. Locals should be banned. (By the way, this actually does happen).

 

Yeah, right.

 

PS. I do understand, but that doesn't mean I have to agree once the problem is solved. You will note that I did suggest a solution to the issue that started this entire thread. That was glossed over in the larger debate.

 

1) If the maintenance issues are truly resolved then we (most Hawaii cachers) don't have a problem with it.

 

2) Then that cacher when discovered should be banned.

 

3) You still haven't given a good reason why a non-cacher should maintain a cache.

Just because they're there?

Link to comment

 

1) 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.

 

2)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.

 

1) As we've discovered through correspondence, the reviewers hands are kind of tied. So caches get approved without proper maintenance in place.

 

2) We're working on organizing eventually. So if caches are approved that we have issues with, what's your suggestions on action to take?

 

Really not interested in vigilante mugglism.

Link to comment
Hawaii is no different than Montana, Florida, and others that have taken time to rally agasinst vacation caches. If after the maintance issue is resolved for a cache you still want it gone because it's sill a vacation cache in your eyes then you are being territorial.

 

I should know better than entering into a debate like this one. In my business, I deal with mainland suppliers who are always trying to fit Hawaii into their little box they have everyone else placed in. Over the years, I've learned to to state my case once and then let it go and eventually 100% of them come around full circle and one day exclaim.."wow Hawaii IS different."

 

The thing is we are a very small drop in the ever growing caching bucket and GC.com isn't going to change the rules even if we did document every vacation cache failure and prove 90% failure. The fact is, the system does work most places, or so it seems. Hence this is the norm and it is the norm that the rules are made for. It's the price of paradise I suppose and we'll just continue to pay it.

Link to comment
The thing is we are a very small drop in the ever growing caching bucket and GC.com isn't going to change the rules even if we did document every vacation cache failure and prove 90% failure. The fact is, the system does work most places, or so it seems. Hence this is the norm and it is the norm that the rules are made for. It's the price of paradise I suppose and we'll just continue to pay it.

 

Actually it is my understanding that at the root of the guidelines on cache maintenance/vacation caches is complaints from Hawaiian cachers years ago. So you guys were (or are) at the leading (or bleeding) edge on this topic.

 

Having said that, the geocaching guidelines are guidelines, not fast rules, so have to be flexible enough not to stifle the growth of our sport in third world countries and/or remote locations with draconian demands on verifiable maintenance by a local geocacher.

 

We generally have to have geocaches before we can have geocachers, so until the area was "seeded" by visitors we had no geocachers in places like China. I turned down caches placed at the Great Wall by visitors for years until finally getting some with promises of business associates maintaining them. Some of those caches are long gone (the Chinese apparently keep that area really picked up), but it helped get the sport started in that country.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that the guidelines have to be loose enough to allow some flexibility in how they're administered. Hence they're not hard and fast rules.

 

~erik~

 

(edited to fix typo)

Edited by erik88l-r
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...