Jump to content

what about vacation caches?


Recommended Posts

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." ...
"We're different, your rules shouldn't apply." Haven't we seen this argument from Texas and part of Canada in the last couple of years?

 

The fact is, the guidelines were written to support the game worldwide. Surely, we shouldn't have hundreds of different guidelines for every different area.

Link to comment

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

Just because they're there?

I've been stating that I'm against unmaintained vacation caches from the beginning of this thread. They are a blight on caching. However when it comes to caches left by visitors, cared for by responsible locals, cacher or not; I'm for them.

 

As for a reason, they are good way to get caches into an area that is cache light. Up here we now have a growing number of cachers and caches but we welcome any and all properly placed caches.

Also they introduce new caching styles to the area. When I first came here, within forty miles of here, there were no multis, two ammo cans regulars, and one breaker box cache. Everything else was Altoids cans or gladware. Thanks to the effects of cachers moving in from other areas, myself included, and some of the locals that travel a lot, other styles are showing up here now. New ideas are good for growth.

If the only way to get that growth is to have a visitor leave a cache and have a non-cacher care for it, then that is what is needed.

 

BTW, there is a cache here in ND left by a visitor from your state. It is cared for by non-cachers. Should I ask for it to be archived? I hoped you say no because it is a very nice cache and gets frequent good comments.

 

Don't get me wrong I HATE abandoned vacation caches, but I love caches that are well placed and maintained regardless of who placed, or who maintains them.

Link to comment

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

Just because they're there?

We seem close enough on 1 and 2.

 

As for 3. I have given good reasons. You just dont' like them

 

First, my own preference is that the local cacher list the cache rather than the visiting cacher. But the system allows the reverse.

 

Ignoring that, people are people and they will maintain as well as they maintain. In that light anyone can maintain a cache. Being a card carrying geocacher does not make you any better at maintaining a cache. If that were true Hawaii would not see a huge share of vacation caches.

 

In other words, geocachers are not better enough people at maintaining caches to make it worth a rule that only geocachers can be recruited to maintain a cache.

Link to comment

...Really not interested in vigilante mugglism.

 

When it comes to caches that become litter, it's merely doing the right thing.

We may argue long and hard about when they become litter, but when they do, they should be pulled.

 

To me this is the real issue in this thread. Per the reviewer comments Hawaii gets a lot of these kinds of caches. Until the listing sites have a means of dealing with these caches (Cache Rescue Mission, Caches is my suggestion from other threads) it falls to the locals.

 

Because Hawaii does see more of these than Idaho that is one big difference.

Link to comment

.... 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." ...

 

That's when they find the right box for Hawaii. :cool:

 

The catch 22 about saying some place is different is that you then have to explain how.

 

Sun Valley is different. It's not a lot like Idaho at all and yet I could show you where it is.

Fairbanks is different. Yet it's got things in common with Sun Valley, but it's different as well. I can tell people the difference.

The atmosphere in Boise Idaho is not like Twin Falls, and that's not like Pocatello but all have in common some aspects that help define Idaho

and so on.

 

In the end Every place is different. It's only a question of how they differ from each other and you build on where they are the same.

 

In Idaho the nasty word for outsiders is "Those %$8^#@ Californians".

Hawaii uses another word to express disdain for certain outsiders. I fit it to a T thank you very much. My brother and sister who reside in Hawaii don't.

Link to comment

.... 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." ...

 

That's when they find the right box for Hawaii. :cool:

 

The catch 22 about saying some place is different is that you then have to explain how.

 

Sun Valley is different. It's not a lot like Idaho at all and yet I could show you where it is.

Fairbanks is different. Yet it's got things in common with Sun Valley, but it's different as well. I can tell people the difference.

The atmosphere in Boise Idaho is not like Twin Falls, and that's not like Pocatello but all have in common some aspects that help define Idaho

and so on.

 

In the end Every place is different. It's only a question of how they differ from each other and you build on where they are the same.

 

In Idaho the nasty word for outsiders is "Those %$8^#@ Californians".

Hawaii uses another word to express disdain for certain outsiders. I fit it to a T thank you very much. My brother and sister who reside in Hawaii don't.

 

I was preparing to argue that Hawaii is different for geocaching but thought better of it. It's just not worth getting into and a much better topic for our local forum anyway. As far as visitors go, they are our life blood and anyone paying attention would tell you that we would be dead in the water (sorry couldn't resist that) without them. While they are in the huge minority, there are a very select few that say things would be better without them (another substantial off topic discussion) and returning to how things were would be a better path for us. Those are the ones that use "those words" to describe you.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

It seems to me that if a person named as a cache maintainer isn't willing to even get a free Geocaching profile in order to "watch" the cache, then I doubt they'll put much effort into any other aspect of it. :huh:

 

Great point MM.

 

If a non-cacher maintainer can't spend 5 minutes to open a free account and put a watch on the cache, let's face it, it's very doubtful that they are going to invest the energy into their car, drive or hiking, to the cache and do what they are promising to do.

Link to comment
It seems to me that if a person named as a cache maintainer isn't willing to even get a free Geocaching profile in order to "watch" the cache, then I doubt they'll put much effort into any other aspect of it. :huh:
Great point MM.

 

If a non-cacher maintainer can't spend 5 minutes to open a free account and put a watch on the cache, let's face it, it's very doubtful that they are going to invest the energy into their car, drive or hiking, to the cache and do what they are promising to do.

The maintainer may not even have a computer, more less an internet connection and email. None of those are required to maintain a cache.

 

For instance, let's say you were my cousin Lucy who lives in Hawaii. I come visit you and tell you about the game. You think the game is stupid and that you couldn't play anyway because you don't have an internet connection. I hide a cache near your job and ask you to maintain it for me. You agree.

 

You look in on it occasionally and fix it up as needed. I give you a call if anyone ever mentions a maintenance issue in a log and you make a special trip to check on it within a few days.

 

That cache would get better maintenance than most caches even though it was placed on vacation and the maintainer is not a GC.com member.

Link to comment

I have in the past adopted a cache in a state park,

with the permission of the owner in another state.

The cache is now archived, but 3 approved caches

are now in that same park. The archived cache had

issues with wet conditions.

Link to comment
That cache would get better maintenance than most caches even though it was placed on vacation and the maintainer is not a GC.com member.

I doubt your imagined scenario would pan out the way you suggested. Lucy already thinks the game is "stupid". Once she becomes inconvenienced by having to play maintenance man in a game that's "stupid", I suspect her tolerance level would drop considerably, and her maintenance visits would stop.

 

Or not.

 

However, if Lucy was an active cacher, the reviewer could look at their profile and see if they were competent to maintain the cache. Because your resolution has no checks & balances, Lucy might not even exist. Requiring an active cacher to maintain a vacation cache at least resolves one issue. Apparently some folks post imaginary maintainers on their vacation cache submissions. Is this something worth resolving to you?

Link to comment
That cache would get better maintenance than most caches even though it was placed on vacation and the maintainer is not a GC.com member.
I doubt your imagined scenario would pan out the way you suggested. Lucy already thinks the game is "stupid". Once she becomes inconvenienced by having to play maintenance man in a game that's "stupid", I suspect her tolerance level would drop considerably, and her maintenance visits would stop.

 

Or not.

 

However, if Lucy was an active cacher, the reviewer could look at their profile and see if they were competent to maintain the cache. Because your resolution has no checks & balances, Lucy might not even exist. Requiring an active cacher to maintain a vacation cache at least resolves one issue. Apparently some folks post imaginary maintainers on their vacation cache submissions. Is this something worth resolving to you?

While Lucy doesn't care to play the game, checking on my cache doesn't inconvenience her much and, frankly, she loves me. She is happy to do this small thing for me. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
It seems to me that if a person named as a cache maintainer isn't willing to even get a free Geocaching profile in order to "watch" the cache, then I doubt they'll put much effort into any other aspect of it. :huh:
Great point MM.

 

If a non-cacher maintainer can't spend 5 minutes to open a free account and put a watch on the cache, let's face it, it's very doubtful that they are going to invest the energy into their car, drive or hiking, to the cache and do what they are promising to do.

The maintainer may not even have a computer, more less an internet connection and email. None of those are required to maintain a cache.

 

For instance, let's say you were my cousin Lucy who lives in Hawaii. I come visit you and tell you about the game. You think the game is stupid and that you couldn't play anyway because you don't have an internet connection. I hide a cache near your job and ask you to maintain it for me. You agree.

 

You look in on it occasionally and fix it up as needed. I give you a call if anyone ever mentions a maintenance issue in a log and you make a special trip to check on it within a few days.

 

That cache would get better maintenance than most caches even though it was placed on vacation and the maintainer is not a GC.com member.

 

That is certainly a good example of how it possibly could work, but I do not think it is the norm. In the vast majority of situations, the vacation caches we see placed here are not placed with ease of maintenance in mind at all.

 

Using the OPs example of the recent vacation placements on the Big Island, maintenance was the furthest thing from the hiders mind. I am aware of more than one of the placements being micros in some pretty difficult areas to access, one even suggesting use of a four wheel drive. For certain, there is no way you could drive to them all in one day. On an island, you almost have to do this intentionally.

 

I would think the frequency of finds (or DNFs) that come automatically to you when you watch or own a cache would be essential information that anyone who is -really- watching over a cache would want to have. If the maintainer doesn't have an internet connection then the onus is on the vacation hider if he was -really- concerned to would snail mail or phone in this information to the maintainer... that is if they get mail or have a phone.

 

The fact remains that this hider started hiding on the Big Island with 211 caches hidden, he's now got 224 (some in Iowa and one in Michigan) and it hasn't even been a month yet. If I was a reviewer, this is something that I would look at. "Gee.. you've got 224 hides spread out over 6000 miles and 4 time zones. Do you really think all this is manageable?"

Link to comment

I'm not big numbers hider, but perhaps Brian can pop in and give his opinion on frequency of maintenance and whether one would need to maintain all of them on the same day. Perhaps Lucy owns a WJ just like mine and can drive to any that require 4WD.

 

I'm sure that I would call Lucy and let her know of any issues identified in the logs.

Link to comment

I'm not big numbers hider, but perhaps Brian can pop in and give his opinion on frequency of maintenance and whether one would need to maintain all of them on the same day. Perhaps Lucy owns a WJ just like mine and can drive to any that require 4WD.

 

I'm sure that I would call Lucy and let her know of any issues identified in the logs.

 

In this specific case, I know the maintainer and it is not your beloved Lucy. Kona Gold was asked to maintain a few caches and then one day he woke up to several emails from local cachers asking him what is up. He was surprised as the rest of us. There is no way that he was informed that he was going to be responsible for this many caches placed all over the island like that.

 

Again, this is yet another local issue but the people on the Big Island almost consider their home two islands because of the distance and geographical barriers (2 13K+ high volcanoes) that separate the island. If you look at the hides placed locally, the local hiders do not place caches on the opposite side of the island because they know that it could be months or even years (hard to understand but true) before they venture over there.

Link to comment

I'm not big numbers hider, but perhaps Brian can pop in and give his opinion on frequency of maintenance and whether one would need to maintain all of them on the same day. Perhaps Lucy owns a WJ just like mine and can drive to any that require 4WD.

 

I'm sure that I would call Lucy and let her know of any issues identified in the logs.

 

In this specific case, I know the maintainer and it is not your beloved Lucy. Kona Gold was asked to maintain a few caches and then one day he woke up to several emails from local cachers asking him what is up. He was surprised as the rest of us. There is no way that he was informed that he was going to be responsible for this many caches placed all over the island like that.

 

Again, this is yet another local issue but the people on the Big Island almost consider their home two islands because of the distance and geographical barriers (2 13K+ high volcanoes) that separate the island. If you look at the hides placed locally, the local hiders do not place caches on the opposite side of the island because they know that it could be months or even years (hard to understand but true) before they venture over there.

So it's your position that Kona Gold should have asked for the location of these caches before saying 'yes'? If so, I agree with you.
Link to comment

I'm just a tadpole, but after reading this thread (and owning a summer home in a vacation destination) I'd like to make two suggestions to anyone thinking of placing a vacation cache:

 

1. Before you place the cache, check with a local geocacher and see if someone there would be willing to "co-sign". If you can't get someone on board, don't leave it. (I've a suspicion that people are placing caches then going home to take care of the details of registering, etc. By then the damage is done if there is no one there to maintain.)

 

2. Make virtual caches in interesting places if you really want to share that place with others but can't maintain it after you're gone. Vacation destinations, especially isolated ones, are enticing precisely because they are remote. I think the virtual cache is a great solution.

 

By the way, are there instructions in the getting started section with constructive ideas for vacation caches? Think I'll go check. Not that we'd want to encourage it, but a little "education" might help it be not quite so offensive.

 

Cheerios!

Link to comment

I'm just a tadpole, but after reading this thread (and owning a summer home in a vacation destination) I'd like to make two suggestions to anyone thinking of placing a vacation cache:

 

1. Before you place the cache, check with a local geocacher and see if someone there would be willing to "co-sign". If you can't get someone on board, don't leave it. (I've a suspicion that people are placing caches then going home to take care of the details of registering, etc. By then the damage is done if there is no one there to maintain.)

 

2. Make virtual caches in interesting places if you really want to share that place with others but can't maintain it after you're gone. Vacation destinations, especially isolated ones, are enticing precisely because they are remote. I think the virtual cache is a great solution.

 

By the way, are there instructions in the getting started section with constructive ideas for vacation caches? Think I'll go check. Not that we'd want to encourage it, but a little "education" might help it be not quite so offensive.

 

Cheerios!

Ummm, virtual caches are no longer allowed.
Link to comment

Ummm, virtual caches are no longer allowed.

 

Interesting, there is still one listed that I know of and I thought it was a great idea. The location is under raging white water at times and a cache would never survive. You're supposed to go to the location, take a picture and post it at the cache page.

 

I'm glad I said I was a tadpole up front. Guess it shows. I'm probably not understanding the harm of virtual caches.

 

Should I take any action?

Link to comment

Ummm, virtual caches are no longer allowed.

 

Interesting, there is still one listed that I know of and I thought it was a great idea. The location is under raging white water at times and a cache would never survive. You're supposed to go to the location, take a picture and post it at the cache page.

 

I'm glad I said I was a tadpole up front. Guess it shows. I'm probably not understanding the harm of virtual caches.

 

Should I take any action?

 

Is it possible that the owner of the "virtual" cache I'm talking about used the term virtual by mistake? What do you call the type of cache I refer to above?

Link to comment

[

Is it possible that the owner of the "virtual" cache I'm talking about used the term virtual by mistake? What do you call the type of cache I refer to above?
]

 

Okay, the cache has a little ghost on it. (I'm learning so much). I clicked on it. This one must've been grandfathered in. I'm glad of that. It's a geocaching kind of find by the time you get there.

 

Goodbye and thanks for your patience.

Edited by 4852
Link to comment

It seems to me that if a person named as a cache maintainer isn't willing to even get a free Geocaching profile in order to "watch" the cache, then I doubt they'll put much effort into any other aspect of it. :huh:

 

Great point MM.

 

If a non-cacher maintainer can't spend 5 minutes to open a free account and put a watch on the cache, let's face it, it's very doubtful that they are going to invest the energy into their car, drive or hiking, to the cache and do what they are promising to do.

 

A Geocaching.com account has nothing to do with a persons integrity or ability to maintan a cache under the guidance of a cacher. Your arguments don't stand up.

Link to comment

I'm not big numbers hider, but perhaps Brian can pop in and give his opinion on frequency of maintenance and whether one would need to maintain all of them on the same day. Perhaps Lucy owns a WJ just like mine and can drive to any that require 4WD.

 

I'm sure that I would call Lucy and let her know of any issues identified in the logs.

 

In this specific case, I know the maintainer and it is not your beloved Lucy. Kona Gold was asked to maintain a few caches and then one day he woke up to several emails from local cachers asking him what is up. He was surprised as the rest of us. There is no way that he was informed that he was going to be responsible for this many caches placed all over the island like that.

 

Again, this is yet another local issue but the people on the Big Island almost consider their home two islands because of the distance and geographical barriers (2 13K+ high volcanoes) that separate the island. If you look at the hides placed locally, the local hiders do not place caches on the opposite side of the island because they know that it could be months or even years (hard to understand but true) before they venture over there.

So it's your position that Kona Gold should have asked for the location of these caches before saying 'yes'? If so, I agree with you.

 

That was exactly his comment to me, he should have asked more questions. But he was asked to the be the maintainer, there were just a few localized hides.. the guy got the permission and then went on a hiding spree before leaving the island. He was still releasing them a week after he left, so it's like the reviewer says, the choices are approve them or be responsible for the geo-litter.

 

To my knowledge, this has never happened before to anyone and you wouldn't think that it even was a question worth asking, until now. Also there's a ton of other much more pressing questions to be asked when someone unfamiliar with land issues places a cache here. Now, there's one more.

Link to comment

...1. Before you place the cache, check with a local geocacher and see if someone there would be willing to "co-sign". If you can't get someone on board, don't leave it. (I've a suspicion that people are placing caches then going home to take care of the details of registering, etc. By then the damage is done if there is no one there to maintain.)

 

2. Make virtual caches in interesting places if you really want to share that place with others but can't maintain it after you're gone. Vacation destinations, especially isolated ones, are enticing precisely because they are remote. I think the virtual cache is a great solution.

...

 

I'm glad you weighted in. I don't happen to agree with your take, but I do like that you bring a different angle to the debate. My take is different this way.

 

1) If you find a worty location for a cache, find a local cacher to list the cache and give you credit. If you can't but you know someone who can help maintain the cache, bring them along, explain what they will need to do, if they are willing, then list the cache and use the help to maintain it. If you will never in your life be back just in case that help doesn't pan out. Don't place the cache because you have ultimate responsblity. While I'm arguing that vacation caches are viable if the issues are resolved I'm also saying make sure the issues are resolve.

2). Virtual caches (which I wish were still being published on this site) also require maintance. Statues get moved, signs replaced. They are less work than a regualr cache but, they do require someone to check up on them if there is a problem. The solution of which, take you back to #1)

 

Lastly, if you do make it back regularly (and to me that's once a year like clockwork, others are not so liberal) then place the cache yourself. It's not a vacation cache.

Turns out we aren't so far apart after all.

Link to comment
That was exactly his comment to me, he should have asked more questions. But he was asked to the be the maintainer, there were just a few localized hides.. the guy got the permission and then went on a hiding spree before leaving the island. He was still releasing them a week after he left, so it's like the reviewer says, the choices are approve them or be responsible for the geo-litter.

 

To my knowledge, this has never happened before to anyone and you wouldn't think that it even was a question worth asking, until now. Also there's a ton of other much more pressing questions to be asked when someone unfamiliar with land issues places a cache here. Now, there's one more.

I don't see that as a Hawaii specific issue (or even a vacation cache-specific issue). If someone asks you to do something, you should make sure that you no what you are being asked to do before saying yes (unless you are married to the person). Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

...That was exactly his comment to me, he should have asked more questions. But he was asked to the be the maintainer, there were just a few localized hides.. the guy got the permission and then went on a hiding spree before leaving the island. He was still releasing them a week after he left, so it's like the reviewer says, the choices are approve them or be responsible for the geo-litter.

 

To my knowledge, this has never happened before to anyone and you wouldn't think that it even was a question worth asking, until now...

 

It's like co-signing a loan. Kona Gold has a solution availabe if they wish to use it. I suggested they pull the ones that they can't maintain. You could hold the "Vacation Cache Roundup" Event, have a good meal, then go on a cache maintance run and pull the ones that can't be maintained.

Link to comment

I think we are at a point where a slightly different issue should be addressed.

 

If you agree to maintain a cache, what happens when you don't want to do it anymore? Do you have the right to SBA the cache AND retrieve the container?

 

<or exactly what RK posted right above me.>

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

It's like co-signing a loan. Kona Gold has a solution availabe if they wish to use it. I suggested they pull the ones that they can't maintain. You could hold the "Vacation Cache Roundup" Event, have a good meal, then go on a cache maintance run and pull the ones that can't be maintained.

 

I agree. Heck, hold the "event" in June when I'm out there and I'll help! :(:huh:

Link to comment
While Lucy doesn't care to play the game, checking on my cache doesn't inconvenience her much and, frankly, she loves me. She is happy to do this small thing for me.
Aunt Lucy doesn't really love you. She tolerates you because you look like her favorite movie star. <_<<_<
Sometimes you have to take what you can get.
Link to comment

It seems to me that if a person named as a cache maintainer isn't willing to even get a free Geocaching profile in order to "watch" the cache, then I doubt they'll put much effort into any other aspect of it. <_<

 

Great point MM.

 

If a non-cacher maintainer can't spend 5 minutes to open a free account and put a watch on the cache, let's face it, it's very doubtful that they are going to invest the energy into their car, drive or hiking, to the cache and do what they are promising to do.

 

A Geocaching.com account has nothing to do with a persons integrity or ability to maintan a cache under the guidance of a cacher. Your arguments don't stand up.

 

And that's okay for you to say RK, because I haven't been impressed by yours either. So let's just agree to disagree. There are others out there that agree with your position while some follow my inclination. Peace <_<

Link to comment

I think we are at a point where a slightly different issue should be addressed.

 

If you agree to maintain a cache, what happens when you don't want to do it anymore? Do you have the right to SBA the cache AND retrieve the container?

 

I was faced with this very issue concerning the "Hawaiian GeOhana" cache (GCWNZ3). I was up till recently the original maintainer for it. I met the Geocacher ShadowAce, while he was here on his last trip and we went on a few Geo-hikes together. He asked me to maintain this puzzle cache idea and I agreed. When I no longer would be nearby, I contacted Off-Roader and asked if he'd be willing to take it on. He agreed and we let ShadowAce know of our plans and he also agreed. All's well that ends well. <_<

 

So my suggestion is for the maintainer to try and find a replacement if no longer interested in the duty.

Link to comment
i think i might know Lucy....do you have her phone number.??
Ummm, Team Geoblast is my cousin Lucy.

 

If a non-cacher maintainer can't spend 5 minutes to open a free account and put a watch on the cache, let's face it, it's very doubtful that they are going to invest the energy into their car, drive or hiking, to the cache and do what they are promising to do.
... For instance, let's say you were my cousin Lucy who lives in Hawaii. ...
:laughing::grin::grin: Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

...And that's okay for you to say RK, because I haven't been impressed by yours either. So let's just agree to disagree. There are others out there that agree with your position while some follow my inclination. Peace :grin:

 

That's ok, my arguments stand up. Impressing you was optional.

 

Oh boy. :laughing:

 

You see that's where we disagree because your arguments are fantasy land. Not the real world.

Link to comment

I've stated the case of Hawaii geocacher's concerns about 'Vacation caches' and what we feel would work best to the best of my abilities. There is no more to add so Aloha!

 

You stated some concerns. Ignored solutions, didn't answer questions, didn't help us better understand what you were saying when we did show an interest in your thoughts, refused to try and understand others thoughts. In short, You post as one who is prejudiced. Then you cut and run. Given the former, the later is a gift for which I must say Mahalo.

Link to comment

This is in the G.G.A. "special' guidelines for placing caches in Georgia.

 

"Placing caches while traveling.

You cannot place traditional physical caches while on vacation or business unless you have contacted a cacher in the area and have an agreement with them that they will look after your cache for you. If you have a problem with the cache then you have no way to check it in a timely manner and it will probably be archived if there are issues."

 

Seems that not only most Hawaii cachers, but other caching communities feel this way.

Hmmm.

Link to comment

This is in the G.G.A. "special' guidelines for placing caches in Georgia.

 

"Placing caches while traveling.

You cannot place traditional physical caches while on vacation or business unless you have contacted a cacher in the area and have an agreement with them that they will look after your cache for you. If you have a problem with the cache then you have no way to check it in a timely manner and it will probably be archived if there are issues."

 

Seems that not only most Hawaii cachers, but other caching communities feel this way.

Hmmm.

Any standards such as this that are put in place by a local organization really would only apply to that organization's members. They would certainly not enforcable on any geocacher (or non-geocacher) who is not a member of their club, whether that individual lived in the same geographic area as club members, or not. Heck, they likely couldn't be enforced even on their own members.

 

That being said, I'm not sure why that flash of insight necessitated this thread's resurrection after a year and a half of peaceful slumber.

Edited by sbell111
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!

 

It is interesting to come back and read this thread and see how things have progressed. I was almost sad to read this post. Knowing MM, I heard this story first hand. The Geocacher from Holland did in fact return for three weeks, found a ton of caches, but never bothered to contact (not even an email) the local maintainer who has been taking care of her cache.

 

So this presents a case for scratching the claim that vacation caches bring Geocachers together. I wish I could make this ----> :P a little bigger.

Link to comment
It seems to me that if a person named as a cache maintainer isn't willing to even get a free Geocaching profile in order to "watch" the cache, then I doubt they'll put much effort into any other aspect of it. :P
Great point MM.

 

If a non-cacher maintainer can't spend 5 minutes to open a free account and put a watch on the cache, let's face it, it's very doubtful that they are going to invest the energy into their car, drive or hiking, to the cache and do what they are promising to do.

The maintainer may not even have a computer, more less an internet connection and email. None of those are required to maintain a cache.

 

For instance, let's say you were my cousin Lucy who lives in Hawaii. I come visit you and tell you about the game. You think the game is stupid and that you couldn't play anyway because you don't have an internet connection. I hide a cache near your job and ask you to maintain it for me. You agree.

 

You look in on it occasionally and fix it up as needed. I give you a call if anyone ever mentions a maintenance issue in a log and you make a special trip to check on it within a few days.

 

That cache would get better maintenance than most caches even though it was placed on vacation and the maintainer is not a GC.com member.

 

That is certainly a good example of how it possibly could work, but I do not think it is the norm. In the vast majority of situations, the vacation caches we see placed here are not placed with ease of maintenance in mind at all.

 

Using the OPs example of the recent vacation placements on the Big Island, maintenance was the furthest thing from the hiders mind. I am aware of more than one of the placements being micros in some pretty difficult areas to access, one even suggesting use of a four wheel drive. For certain, there is no way you could drive to them all in one day. On an island, you almost have to do this intentionally.

 

I would think the frequency of finds (or DNFs) that come automatically to you when you watch or own a cache would be essential information that anyone who is -really- watching over a cache would want to have. If the maintainer doesn't have an internet connection then the onus is on the vacation hider if he was -really- concerned to would snail mail or phone in this information to the maintainer... that is if they get mail or have a phone.

 

The fact remains that this hider started hiding on the Big Island with 211 caches hidden, he's now got 224 (some in Iowa and one in Michigan) and it hasn't even been a month yet. If I was a reviewer, this is something that I would look at. "Gee.. you've got 224 hides spread out over 6000 miles and 4 time zones. Do you really think all this is manageable?"

 

Again, interesting to look back on this situation and what we have learned from it. This was not a good situation when it happened and now that it has had time to play itself out, here is what we know.

 

1. The hider has returned to Hawaii since he hid all of these caches just as he promised. Only problem is he went to Maui and never bothered to look in on all of his caches on the Big Island. I wonder if he detailed this plan when he placed them all.

2. He did not place a cache on Maui but logged several finds. One has to ponder why it was such a good idea to place 8 on his previous trip and none on his one. Perhaps he ran into a more diligent review process this time? :D

3. At the time of this thread, few of us had visited all of these "quick and easy" hides. I've since found some of them and all suspicions were confirmed. He just arbitrarily spewed caches out where ever he happened to be touring with very little research or regard for land use issues.

 

Cases in point:

a. The cache he placed in turn out that is off the highway but not visible by cars passing by. What he didn't know is that this area is famous for drug activity and avoided by most everyone who lives in the area. The cache was tossed in the weeds in the center of an unofficial dumping ground. Reports of fresh diapers and trash were common place until it got several DNFs and was archived.

b. The cache he put at a lookout where the local land management agency had specifically asked us not to put caches. Cops got involved by people reporting suspicious behavior around the area. The local agency has still not forgotten this as it was mentioned in a completely different incident involving a cache several months later. A true set back in our relations with them.

c. The micro in the middle of the woods on private property with the instructions on a the cache page to drive down a private road to get to it.

d. The micro off the side of the road in a sugar cane field in the middle of nowhere. Log book has been full for several months now.

 

4. Hider has since taken it upon himself to insult people's intelligence who cannot find his caches and choose to voice concerns about their location. This is so contrary to how people in Hawaii act, especially Geocachers.

 

The good news is that this incident helped raise awareness about this problem and things are noticeably different now. Just as they do in Georgia, you now need to find a local Geocacher to get a cache approved and we've seen a sharp decline in the vacation caches placed, although I am told the requests keep rolling in at an unexplainable rate. The majority of the ones that are approved have been looked at by a local cacher first and land issues and other considerations are put into the mix. For the most part, they turn out to be good caches that are enjoyed by everyone.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

This is in the G.G.A. "special' guidelines for placing caches in Georgia.

 

"Placing caches while traveling.

You cannot place traditional physical caches while on vacation or business unless you have contacted a cacher in the area and have an agreement with them that they will look after your cache for you. If you have a problem with the cache then you have no way to check it in a timely manner and it will probably be archived if there are issues."

 

Seems that not only most Hawaii cachers, but other caching communities feel this way.

Hmmm.

Any standards such as this that are put in place by a local organization really would only apply to that organization's members. They would certainly not enforcable on any geocacher (or non-geocacher) who is not a member of their club, whether that individual lived in the same geographic area as club members, or not. Heck, they likely couldn't be enforced even on their own members.

 

That being said, I'm not sure why that flash of insight necessitated this thread's resurrection after a year and a half of peaceful slumber.

 

If you go back and read this thread again, it was a fairly productive thread and an issue that is certainly worth revisiting again and again as Geocaching continues to grow. Where we get into trouble is when these local issues are applied globally as a few tried to do. We all live in places that are unique and different in their own way and while there is some commonality in the game we play, the issues we face doing it are unique and often cannot be compared fairly.

 

I will quote the great Markwell again:

 

Hide locally, cache globally.

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...