Jump to content

what about vacation caches?


Recommended Posts

...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.

I'm going to go back to my original argument. Hawaii is special. Just like everyplace else*. Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.

 

Instead of debating the specialness of Hawaii I'm going to reverse it. Say at some point in your life you came to know and love the Owyhee's, then moved to Hawaii. You get up every now and then and work a deal to place a cache. Why the heck not? You love the land, you think it's special, you shared it with your cache. Done deal. What did you do wrong? Nothing.

 

The argument that Hawaii is special flat out doesn't hold up for caches. Vacation problems are not a special problem in Hawaii, they are a problem everyplace. Hawaii being a destination (more so than the Owyhee's) means your 'special' in that you get more of them to deal with. That's about it.

 

FWIW. There is a Hawaii tie in to the Owhyee's.

 

*Everybody holds someplace special. A place where they love the land. My places are no more, or less special than anyone else’s. Most of us have room to hold several places close in our hearts. Places we are comfortable and could call home even if we can only call one place home.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.

 

This tells me that you not only completely missed my point but you don't understand me at all.

 

I've probably read a thousand of your posts over the past few years (sorry I skip some of them) and it is hard for me to imagine you placing a cache that I would not like. Why? Because I know that you would take the time to educate your family on the issues you have read about here in the forums and you would respect them. Your family would no doubt be privy to your experience in Geocaching and I'm thinking that you would not want your name on a cache in Hawaii that is not worth finding. They might even do the right thing and contact a local Geocacher before hiding it to obtain input on any land issues that might be invisible to them.

 

In fact, I go one step further. I'd be willing to put money down that if you took time to put out a cache here.. it would make Hawaii more special :P.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment
Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.

 

This tells me that you not only completely missed my point but you don't understand me at all.

 

I've probably read a thousand of your posts over the past few years (sorry I skip some of them) and it is hard for me to imagine you placing a cache that I would not like. Why? Because I know that you would take the time to educate your family on the issues you have read about here in the forums and you would respect them. Your family would no doubt be privy to your experience in Geocaching and I'm thinking that you would not want your name on a cache in Hawaii that is not worth finding. They might even do the right thing and contact a local Geocacher before hiding it to obtain input on any land issues that might be invisible to them.

 

In fact, I go one step further. I'd be willing to put money down that if you took time to put out a cache here.. it would make Hawaii more special :).

From this post, should we take it that you see no reason to make any changes to how vacation caches are currently handled?
Link to comment
Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.

 

This tells me that you not only completely missed my point but you don't understand me at all.

 

I've probably read a thousand of your posts over the past few years (sorry I skip some of them) and it is hard for me to imagine you placing a cache that I would not like. Why? Because I know that you would take the time to educate your family on the issues you have read about here in the forums and you would respect them. Your family would no doubt be privy to your experience in Geocaching and I'm thinking that you would not want your name on a cache in Hawaii that is not worth finding. They might even do the right thing and contact a local Geocacher before hiding it to obtain input on any land issues that might be invisible to them.

 

In fact, I go one step further. I'd be willing to put money down that if you took time to put out a cache here.. it would make Hawaii more special :).

From this post, should we take it that you see no reason to make any changes to how vacation caches are currently handled?

 

No. Now run along.

Link to comment
Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.
This tells me that you not only completely missed my point but you don't understand me at all.

 

I've probably read a thousand of your posts over the past few years (sorry I skip some of them) and it is hard for me to imagine you placing a cache that I would not like. Why? Because I know that you would take the time to educate your family on the issues you have read about here in the forums and you would respect them. Your family would no doubt be privy to your experience in Geocaching and I'm thinking that you would not want your name on a cache in Hawaii that is not worth finding. They might even do the right thing and contact a local Geocacher before hiding it to obtain input on any land issues that might be invisible to them.

 

In fact, I go one step further. I'd be willing to put money down that if you took time to put out a cache here.. it would make Hawaii more special :).

From this post, should we take it that you see no reason to make any changes to how vacation caches are currently handled?
No. Now run along.
You state that you would be fine with RK's vacation cache, but you are also stating that changes should be made to how vacation caches should be handled. What changes do you believe should be made?

 

Please explain your position. Would you also try not to be so rude. Thanks.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
you now need to find a local Geocacher to get a (vacation) cache approved

I think this is a step in the right direction, and I'm glad to see Hawaii & Georgia implement this standard. Is this something that the reviewers will enforce? For instance, if I toss a film canister in a guardrail in Maui, and claim my great aunt Ethel, twice removed, will maintain it, will it get denied because she's not a geocacher? I know the posted guidelines will allow Ethel to be my maintenance contact for a vacation cache, so I must assume you've worked some magic with Groundspeak to get the guideline a bit stricter?

 

Personally, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see this expanded globally, but I won't hold my breath.

Link to comment
Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.
This tells me that you not only completely missed my point but you don't understand me at all.

 

I've probably read a thousand of your posts over the past few years (sorry I skip some of them) and it is hard for me to imagine you placing a cache that I would not like. Why? Because I know that you would take the time to educate your family on the issues you have read about here in the forums and you would respect them. Your family would no doubt be privy to your experience in Geocaching and I'm thinking that you would not want your name on a cache in Hawaii that is not worth finding. They might even do the right thing and contact a local Geocacher before hiding it to obtain input on any land issues that might be invisible to them.

 

In fact, I go one step further. I'd be willing to put money down that if you took time to put out a cache here.. it would make Hawaii more special :).

From this post, should we take it that you see no reason to make any changes to how vacation caches are currently handled?
No. Now run along.
You state that you would be fine with RK's vacation cache, but you are also stating that changes should be made to how vacation caches should be handled. What changes do you believe should be made?

 

Please explain your position. Would you also try not to be so rude. Thanks.

 

You have contributed nothing to this thread except angst, therefore you do not deserve a response. Hope this is clear enough.

Link to comment
you now need to find a local Geocacher to get a (vacation) cache approved

I think this is a step in the right direction, and I'm glad to see Hawaii & Georgia implement this standard. Is this something that the reviewers will enforce? For instance, if I toss a film canister in a guardrail in Maui, and claim my great aunt Ethel, twice removed, will maintain it, will it get denied because she's not a geocacher? I know the posted guidelines will allow Ethel to be my maintenance contact for a vacation cache, so I must assume you've worked some magic with Groundspeak to get the guideline a bit stricter?

 

Personally, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see this expanded globally, but I won't hold my breath.

 

First of all, we have a great reviewer out here. Here is his post earlier in the thread that might shed some light on how this is dealt with. They do look at Hawaii differently because we have a special set of circumstances as the most isolated land mass in the world, different islands making up our one state, and the cultural connection to the land.

 

A very good first step for getting your cache approved in Hawaii would be to find a local cacher as I mentioned above. Gaining their support for the placement and maintenance is a true sign of respect that local cachers and reviewers appreciate and a lot of caches get placed like this. If they ask a few questions in the local forum it also demonstrates a real effort to place a cache that will last and not become an instant problem it doesn't hurt either.

 

We've also got a fairly vocal local majority when it comes this issue. The reviewers see and respect this more and more as the game grows here. It also helps that they see some of the crazy ideas people on vacation come up with. For example the guy hiding his camp stove by the airport and wanting to make a cache out of it.

 

So there is discretion and flexibility. This is why they call them guidelines.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment
Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.
This tells me that you not only completely missed my point but you don't understand me at all.

 

I've probably read a thousand of your posts over the past few years (sorry I skip some of them) and it is hard for me to imagine you placing a cache that I would not like. Why? Because I know that you would take the time to educate your family on the issues you have read about here in the forums and you would respect them. Your family would no doubt be privy to your experience in Geocaching and I'm thinking that you would not want your name on a cache in Hawaii that is not worth finding. They might even do the right thing and contact a local Geocacher before hiding it to obtain input on any land issues that might be invisible to them.

 

In fact, I go one step further. I'd be willing to put money down that if you took time to put out a cache here.. it would make Hawaii more special :).

From this post, should we take it that you see no reason to make any changes to how vacation caches are currently handled?
No. Now run along.
You state that you would be fine with RK's vacation cache, but you are also stating that changes should be made to how vacation caches should be handled. What changes do you believe should be made?

 

Please explain your position. Would you also try not to be so rude. Thanks.

 

You have contributed nothing to this thread except angst, therefore you do not deserve a response. Hope this is clear enough.

So basically, you refuse to both explain your position and not be rude. Why did I bother hoping for more when this is your standard?
Link to comment
Since this topic started, more of my family have moved to Hawaii. They like it. I could place a cache there and have all the local spirit and flavor. You still wouldn't like the cache.
This tells me that you not only completely missed my point but you don't understand me at all.

 

I've probably read a thousand of your posts over the past few years (sorry I skip some of them) and it is hard for me to imagine you placing a cache that I would not like. Why? Because I know that you would take the time to educate your family on the issues you have read about here in the forums and you would respect them. Your family would no doubt be privy to your experience in Geocaching and I'm thinking that you would not want your name on a cache in Hawaii that is not worth finding. They might even do the right thing and contact a local Geocacher before hiding it to obtain input on any land issues that might be invisible to them.

 

In fact, I go one step further. I'd be willing to put money down that if you took time to put out a cache here.. it would make Hawaii more special :).

From this post, should we take it that you see no reason to make any changes to how vacation caches are currently handled?
No. Now run along.
You state that you would be fine with RK's vacation cache, but you are also stating that changes should be made to how vacation caches should be handled. What changes do you believe should be made?

 

Please explain your position. Would you also try not to be so rude. Thanks.

 

You have contributed nothing to this thread except angst, therefore you do not deserve a response. Hope this is clear enough.

So basically, you refuse to both explain your position and not be rude. Why did I bother hoping for more when this is your standard?

 

I'm saying that you have not earned a response. Reread your contribution to this thread if you don't understand. If you still don't understand then it is your own standard that you should be concerned with, not mine.

Link to comment
you now need to find a local Geocacher to get a (vacation) cache approved
I think this is a step in the right direction, and I'm glad to see Hawaii & Georgia implement this standard. Is this something that the reviewers will enforce? For instance, if I toss a film canister in a guardrail in Maui, and claim my great aunt Ethel, twice removed, will maintain it, will it get denied because she's not a geocacher? I know the posted guidelines will allow Ethel to be my maintenance contact for a vacation cache, so I must assume you've worked some magic with Groundspeak to get the guideline a bit stricter?

 

Personally, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see this expanded globally, but I won't hold my breath.

First of all, we have a great reviewer out here. Here is his post earlier in the thread that might shed some light on how this is dealt with. They do look at Hawaii differently because we have a special set of circumstances as the most isolated land mass in the world, different islands making up our one state, and the cultural connection to the land.
I don't see anything in Erik's post to suggest that he is using some kind of Hawaii-specific twist to the guidelines. His example email looks like something that he would send to any geocacher, anywhere and it certainly would allow for a non-geocacher like my cousin Lucy to babysit a cache.
A very good first step for getting your cache approved in Hawaii would be to find a local cacher as I mentioned above. Gaining their support for the placement and maintenance is a true sign of respect that local cachers and reviewers appreciate and a lot of caches get placed like this. If they ask a few questions in the local forum it also demonstrates a real effort to place a cache that will last and not become an instant problem it doesn't hurt either.

 

We've also got a fairly vocal local majority when it comes this issue. The reviewers see and respect this more and more as the game grows here. It also helps that they see some of the crazy ideas people on vacation come up with. For example the guy hiding his camp stove by the airport and to make a cache out of it.

 

So there is discretion and flexibility. This is why they call them guidelines.

This is what most non-Hawaii posters have been stating throughout this old thread. It pleases me that you actually appear to believe that the current way that vacation caches are handled is the way that it should remain, in contrast to your earlier, rude, post.
Link to comment

Personally, I feel that 'vacation caches' should not be allowed.

Period.

Paragraph.

End of story.

 

'Local maintenance' should not be allowed or encouraged. If the locals wanted a cache there, they would hide one there. If 'Uncle Jim' doesn't own the cache, he probably won't maintain it properly. Hell, probably half the people who hide locally won't maintain their cache(s) properly!

 

Given that sooner or later some well-meaning fool cacher will hide a cache while on vacation, it should then fall to the upstanding members of the Geo-community in that area to either adopt the wayward placement, or collect the mis-placed goods and return them to the owner (if they want it back).

 

Unfortunately, this site cannot even encourage the removal of obviously abandoned caches, since whomever hid them still owns them. A wholly annelid posture considering our proclaimed CITO ethic. While I understand the legalities, I don't agree with the results. (more geotrash...ranger Bob finds abandoned geocache that was never removed though the listing was archived due to lack of maintenance.)

 

I hereby volunteer to collect (REMOVE) any unlistable vacation caches in my area (Central Arizona), and vow to return the container and contents to the hider at my own expense (if they want it back).

Link to comment

I'd bring this to the reviewer's attention. Theoretically no one should place a cache they cannot reasonably maintain, which pretty much eliminates vacation caches unless a local cacher agrees to maintain them.

 

There are caches and there's clutter.

 

Jeannette (angevine)

Link to comment
I'd bring this to the reviewer's attention. Theoretically no one should place a cache they cannot reasonably maintain, which pretty much eliminates vacation caches unless a local cacher agrees to maintain them.
The guidelines allow for the possibility of non-cachers to babysit caches.

 

Also, as I recall from this threads first run through, a local cacher had promised to babysit the caches in question.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

It eludes me as to why when we bring up a problem that has been going on for years...

others feel they can discount it like we're just making it up?

 

I truly feel the guidelines need to be stricter for the well being of geocaching in Hawaii and elsewhere.

 

And no we're not against ALL vacation caches.

I am the maintainer for 3 vacation caches under these circumstances.

1) A classic vacation cache out by Makapuu Lighthouse that I took over duties. (I'm 2nd maintainer)

2) Very good friend's TUNNEL VISION at Halona Beach Cove. We hid it together.

3) Made friends with while they were here and hid together. da Light cache

 

If interested... click on links from my profile page

 

Aloha and all the Bestest!

Link to comment

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.

 

AND WHY NOT?

The guidelines have been changed where virtuals are no longer allowed while some are grandfathered in.

Along with other changes over the years. More importantly is how varied this sport really is played in different places. I've seen puzzles in the middle of multi's with no mention of it on the page. That's bending it a bit..

 

AND IF NOT!

Then if something doesn't work in even one place, the guidelines need changing while allowing for grandfathering.

 

Just an opinion of a little but vocal menehune!

Edited by Menehune Man
Link to comment

okay.. i see my OP has been resurected.....that good...maybe.... but here is an update on whats happening here in kona....... i am constantly contacted by vacation cachers......(6 or so times a year) to be a maintainer.......one was placed at the entrance to bubba gumps in the flower beds by the outdoor maitrede podium...muggled before a FTF......just a plani lousy cache....evidently they liiked ther experience eating there and thought a cache was warranted....i helped them rehide it in a different place that may last longer......that was over a year ago and i was promised that they visit frequently...they have never been back...it has only been found like three times.....i think most people are turned off by the high muggle content here......another cache was placed in the middle of a hawaiian heiau (temple) in a state preserve without permission andit wouldnt have been granted given the DLNR rules here.....they asked me to maintain it after they left for home.....i declined and pointed out its bad location......it is 80 miles from my house and is now geo litter.....and when discovered by the rangers they will get a bad impression of caching........another hider placed a rather good cache in a beach area but it was muggled....he asked me to rehide it......he also asked another local to rehide it...there are now two caches within 10feet of each other there........we have a professor that visits here at the college.....he has hidden several on private property.......and in a a sacred memorial to tsunami victims......many people that travel just dont have a clue to the local culture and customs for respect and the local politics of a multicultural society....

on hawaii island wehave about 100caches......most ofthem are high quality.....we hate to see the degradation of our pastime with illconcieved,hastily, impulse driven hides.....

on that note...i have archived some of my own that fall into that category....because the just didnt prove to be as good as i hoped.....

Link to comment

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.

 

AND WHY NOT?

The guidelines have been changed where virtuals are no longer allowed while some are grandfathered in.

Along with other changes over the years. More importantly is how varied this sport really is played in different places. I've seen puzzles in the middle of multi's with no mention of it on the page. That's bending it a bit..

 

AND IF NOT!

Then if something doesn't work in even one place, the guidelines need changing while allowing for grandfathering.

 

Just an opinion of a little but vocal menehune!

So what changes are you now advocating?
Link to comment

okay.. i see my OP has been resurected.....that good...maybe.... but here is an update on whats happening here in kona....... i am constantly contacted by vacation cachers......(6 or so times a year) to be a maintainer.......one was placed at the entrance to bubba gumps in the flower beds by the outdoor maitrede podium...muggled before a FTF......just a plani lousy cache....evidently they liiked ther experience eating there and thought a cache was warranted....i helped them rehide it in a different place that may last longer......that was over a year ago and i was promised that they visit frequently...they have never been back...it has only been found like three times.....i think most people are turned off by the high muggle content here......another cache was placed in the middle of a hawaiian heiau (temple) in a state preserve without permission andit wouldnt have been granted given the DLNR rules here.....they asked me to maintain it after they left for home.....i declined and pointed out its bad location......it is 80 miles from my house and is now geo litter.....and when discovered by the rangers they will get a bad impression of caching........another hider placed a rather good cache in a beach area but it was muggled....he asked me to rehide it......he also asked another local to rehide it...there are now two caches within 10feet of each other there........we have a professor that visits here at the college.....he has hidden several on private property.......and in a a sacred memorial to tsunami victims......many people that travel just dont have a clue to the local culture and customs for respect and the local politics of a multicultural society....

My advice to you is the same as it has been. If you do not want to babysit someone's vacation cache, do not agree to do so.
on hawaii island wehave about 100caches......most ofthem are high quality.....we hate to see the degradation of our pastime with illconcieved,hastily, impulse driven hides.....

on that note...i have archived some of my own that fall into that category....because the just didnt prove to be as good as i hoped.....

The vacation cache issue has nothing to do with the quality of the cache. The guidelines do not and should not mandate 'quality'. It does this issue a disservice to drag anyone's personal opinions of quality into it.
Link to comment
The vacation cache issue has nothing to do with the quality of the cache.

I think there may be somewhat of a relevance between the two, if what I'm reading in the OP, and subsequent Hawaii cacher's posts have merit. There seems to be a trend over there for vacation caches to be poorly constructed and/or hidden in places where no cache should be. Perhaps there's a link between vacationers and impulsiveness? Not sure. While Florida is not the vacation Mecca Hawaii is, we have similar issues here, on a smaller scale. I have found many caches which were placed by folks on vacation, and they all shared certain commonalities, to include containers not suitable for the environment and a complete lack of maintenance.

 

I may change my mind, if I ever find a vacation cache that is of at least a reasonable degree of quality, but that hasn't happened yet.

 

Edit to add: I agree with your thoughts that our guidelines should apply across the board, as opposed to being regional.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
The vacation cache issue has nothing to do with the quality of the cache. The guidelines do not and should not mandate 'quality'. It does this issue a disservice to drag anyone's personal opinions of quality into it.

 

ahhhh..see here is where i think you are wrong....for me it is all about quality.......if you had only 100 caches in your area and had to travel via plane or boat to get more wouldnt you want thiose 100 to be quality.....or would you prefer 100 LPC...we have one here and it is a decent one...as it takes you to a magnificent view and is worth going to this location...not for the cache but for the view......if its not really about the numbers than it must be about quality.......this thread was started to discuss hawaii vacation caches...not moosejaw vacation caches or texarkana vacation caches.......in those areas its easy to ignore and move on....here i can tell you something unique about every cache on our island......each one has a story of sorts......i think it would be nice to have loccal hiders continue the tradition and when vacationers come here caching they pick up on the fact that caches are different here........and enjoy them...not be discouraged by impulsive poorly planned hides.......we have a unique situation where we as cachers have an element of control over what happens here as a group........we also have looming over us the department of land and natural resources a state agency (dlnr) they are aware of us and we are trying to work together....they have never "given " permission to hide on public lands but they havent denied it either.....if they do we will probably loose half our caches here.... they are taking a wait and see attitude.....if there becomes an issue they will probably ban caching......do tourists know this?.....i dont think so.....they could be the catylyst the ruins caching here.....we are trying to prevent that.......

Link to comment

The vacation cache issue has nothing to do with the quality of the cache. The guidelines do not and should not mandate 'quality'. It does this issue a disservice to drag anyone's personal opinions of quality into it.

This is correct. There are plenty of low-quality caches hidden in geocachers' local areas, and I'm obligated to publish them if they meet the listing guidelines. If someone moves to Hawaii and chooses to hide 50 film canister caches within 10 miles of their home, those will be published too.

 

If a distant cache has a maintenance plan, then I'm obligated to publish it. The maintenance plan does not have to involve a local geocacher. It can be the owner's Aunt Edna, who watched as the cache was hidden at the corner park.

 

There are plenty of caches hidden by geocachers in their local area that are poorly maintained. There are also "vacation caches" that are scrupulously maintained. In fact, the percentage of vacation caches archived for poor maintenance is about the same as for caches generally in the area I monitor.

Link to comment
The vacation cache issue has nothing to do with the quality of the cache. The guidelines do not and should not mandate 'quality'. It does this issue a disservice to drag anyone's personal opinions of quality into it.

 

ahhhh..see here is where i think you are wrong....for me it is all about quality.......if you had only 100 caches in your area and had to travel via plane or boat to get more wouldnt you want thiose 100 to be quality.....or would you prefer 100 LPC...we have one here and it is a decent one...as it takes you to a magnificent view and is worth going to this location...not for the cache but for the view......if its not really about the numbers than it must be about quality.......this thread was started to discuss hawaii vacation caches...not moosejaw vacation caches or texarkana vacation caches.......in those areas its easy to ignore and move on....here i can tell you something unique about every cache on our island......each one has a story of sorts......i think it would be nice to have loccal hiders continue the tradition and when vacationers come here caching they pick up on the fact that caches are different here........and enjoy them...not be discouraged by impulsive poorly planned hides.......we have a unique situation where we as cachers have an element of control over what happens here as a group........we also have looming over us the department of land and natural resources a state agency (dlnr) they are aware of us and we are trying to work together....they have never "given " permission to hide on public lands but they havent denied it either.....if they do we will probably loose half our caches here.... they are taking a wait and see attitude.....if there becomes an issue they will probably ban caching......do tourists know this?.....i dont think so.....they could be the catylyst the ruins caching here.....we are trying to prevent that.......

First, let me just mention that your post was incredibly difficult to read. The Lord gave us the ability to type in capital letters and spaces for a reason.

 

Second, I hear you. You live in an area with few caches and you want each cache hunt to be worthy of your time. While I share your desire (in my own way), I simply don't think the desire to find awesome caches has anything to do with the vacation cache issue.

 

Third, if I were in Hawaii, I wouldn't mind finding a ho-hum cache, because I would be in Hawaii.

 

Anyway, my advice to you is twofold. First, don't agree to babysit a cache that isn't up to your own standards. If you and all of your local buds follow this advice, you will reduce the amount of poor vacation caches in your area, but not eliminate them. Second, Take a hard look at each cache that pops up in your area that is owned by 'someone else'. If it looks like a cache that you are not interested in finding, put it on your ignore list.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
ahhhh..see here is where i think you are wrong....for me it is all about quality.......if you had only 100 caches in your area and had to travel via plane or boat to get more wouldnt you want thiose 100 to be quality.....or would you prefer 100 LPC

While I certainly agree with your desire to have more caches which fall into your particular aesthetic, I'm not sure that you made your case as to why more stringent vacation cache guidelines should apply to only Hawaii, instead of everywhere. All the points you made, (and I agree with most of them), can be applied to Podunk just as easily as Maui.

Link to comment

Looking back at my post, I see your point regarding punctuation. I normally don't post such long entries and I can see where it is difficult to read the style that Iwas using. Point taken. When someone is just inserting a few words into a conversation it may work, but to expound an idea or concept I should use what works: proper english grammar and punctuation. mea culpa.

Link to comment

So what changes are you now advocating?

 

The same as I have from the beginning...

I feel the guidelines should be amended to prominently show the need for any vacation cache that the owner can not maintain, has to have a resident cacher as maintainer prior to the physical placement of said cache.

Which of course comes before subitting a cache for approval.

 

This would avoid most of the problems with placement, acceptable containers, maintenance, etc.

 

Too many cachers leave a cache, go home, then find out their cache can not be approved.

Those become geo-litter unless adopted, maintenance duties volunteered for, or removed by resident cachers.

Sometimes they say (maybe truthfully) that "Aunt Edna" will maintain the cache. But why should a non-cacher be allowed the responsibilty of maintaining a cache? They're not even a part of the game. Just doesn't make sense. If a travelling cacher can not contact a local cacher or two, to find out if a particular placement won't be a problem, then they're not taking their responsiblity as 'owner' seriously. Which, as pointed out in previous posts by others, can put geocaching in that area in peril.

Link to comment

1)The guidelines allow for the possibility of non-cachers to babysit caches.

 

2)Also, as I recall from this threads first run through, a local cacher had promised to babysit the caches in question.

 

1) Non-cachers are just that. So I don't feel that they should be maintainers of caches.

2) That's true. But he agreed to maintain 'A' cache, then the vacationer went bezerk and left many.

Totally abusing the aloha of the resident cacher.

Link to comment

The vacation cache issue has nothing to do with the quality of the cache. The guidelines do not and should not mandate 'quality'. It does this issue a disservice to drag anyone's personal opinions of quality into it.

This is correct. There are plenty of low-quality caches hidden in geocachers' local areas, and I'm obligated to publish them if they meet the listing guidelines. If someone moves to Hawaii and chooses to hide 50 film canister caches within 10 miles of their home, those will be published too.

 

If a distant cache has a maintenance plan, then I'm obligated to publish it. The maintenance plan does not have to involve a local geocacher. It can be the owner's Aunt Edna, who watched as the cache was hidden at the corner park.

 

There are plenty of caches hidden by geocachers in their local area that are poorly maintained. There are also "vacation caches" that are scrupulously maintained. In fact, the percentage of vacation caches archived for poor maintenance is about the same as for caches generally in the area I monitor.

 

It appears you run a pretty tight ship as a reviewer Keystone, just as you do here in the forums. However, I think you can agree that the areas that you oversee have a different circumstance than Hawaii. The thing that jumps out at me (other than obvious) is the ratio you cite of archival for vacation caches vs locally maintained caches. This is off the charts in the other direction in Hawaii. It's a fact that very few vacation caches see a year anniversary. This in part due to the maintenance required is also much higher because of the tropical environment but there are other factors involved as well.

 

I think you can also agree that different reviewers and the circumstances that they encounter dictate different styles of enforcement of the guidelines. We work closely with our reviewer and therefore he is very informed on local issues. So while he is also very fair and considerate, he doesn't take quite the same approach that you do. I do not mean any offense to you because I am sure your methods are very effective and fair as it relates to the vacation caches placed in your area but I do feel very fortunate that our reviewer does not follow your in your footsteps.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

I'm quite confident that I'm enforcing the guidelines as Groundspeak wants us to.

 

I've tried saying that the maintainer needs to be identified specifically, and was told by Groundspeak that this cannot be required.

 

I've tried saying that the maintenance plan needs to be spelled out on the cache page, and was told by Groundspeak that this cannot be required.

 

That is the beauty of the appeals process. It helps to control against any particular bias that any reviewer might have.

 

In no case has Groundspeak said to me that the circumstances are different when someone comes to Pennsylvania to go deer hunting vs. when someone goes to Hawaiii to sit on the beach.

Link to comment
The vacation cache issue has nothing to do with the quality of the cache. The guidelines do not and should not mandate 'quality'. It does this issue a disservice to drag anyone's personal opinions of quality into it.

 

ahhhh..see here is where i think you are wrong....for me it is all about quality.......if you had only 100 caches in your area and had to travel via plane or boat to get more wouldnt you want thiose 100 to be quality.....or would you prefer 100 LPC...we have one here and it is a decent one...as it takes you to a magnificent view and is worth going to this location...not for the cache but for the view......if its not really about the numbers than it must be about quality.......this thread was started to discuss hawaii vacation caches...not moosejaw vacation caches or texarkana vacation caches.......in those areas its easy to ignore and move on....here i can tell you something unique about every cache on our island......each one has a story of sorts......i think it would be nice to have loccal hiders continue the tradition and when vacationers come here caching they pick up on the fact that caches are different here........and enjoy them...not be discouraged by impulsive poorly planned hides.......we have a unique situation where we as cachers have an element of control over what happens here as a group........we also have looming over us the department of land and natural resources a state agency (dlnr) they are aware of us and we are trying to work together....they have never "given " permission to hide on public lands but they havent denied it either.....if they do we will probably loose half our caches here.... they are taking a wait and see attitude.....if there becomes an issue they will probably ban caching......do tourists know this?.....i dont think so.....they could be the catylyst the ruins caching here.....we are trying to prevent that.......

 

Of course we would all like to see quality caches,* no matter where we live. But we cannot mandate it. And of course, we all feel that where we live is special, whether that be "Hawaii", "Moosejaw" or "Texarkana". But you know what? One place on earth is no more special than any other spot, and to say that your spot on earth deserves better is a put down to those other places.

 

* and we all know that quality is in the eye of the beholder

Link to comment

So what changes are you now advocating?

 

The same as I have from the beginning...

I feel the guidelines should be amended to prominently show the need for any vacation cache that the owner can not maintain, has to have a resident cacher as maintainer prior to the physical placement of said cache.

Which of course comes before subitting a cache for approval.

 

This would avoid most of the problems with placement, acceptable containers, maintenance, etc.

 

Too many cachers leave a cache, go home, then find out their cache can not be approved.

Those become geo-litter unless adopted, maintenance duties volunteered for, or removed by resident cachers.

Sometimes they say (maybe truthfully) that "Aunt Edna" will maintain the cache. But why should a non-cacher be allowed the responsibilty of maintaining a cache? They're not even a part of the game. Just doesn't make sense. If a travelling cacher can not contact a local cacher or two, to find out if a particular placement won't be a problem, then they're not taking their responsiblity as 'owner' seriously. Which, as pointed out in previous posts by others, can put geocaching in that area in peril.

 

I've seen the "Aunt Edna" thing mentioned several times on cache pages, and I agree, it sounds quite ridiculous, and may even be a lie in some cases. But I can also see where defining the maintainer as a "cacher" would never work. What, 1 find? 10 finds, but none in the last 2 years? Someone with 5,000 finds who regularly gets their caches archived for lack of maintenance while out finding 50 caches a week? Don't laugh, I've seen examples similar this one many times.

 

I do happen to agree Hawaii is a "special place" in the case of vacation caches. C'mon now, I think the Hawaii reviewer might get a few more vacation cache submissions than Keystone gets Deer Hunter vacation submissions in Meadville. :)

 

I also remember a native of an Island nation (or territory) off the coast of Africa who started a similar thread a year or two ago. They claimed, as one of only a handful of known cachers on the island, to receive several out of the blue email requests per year to maintain dropped vacation caches. I can't remember the name of the Island or find the thread, but this really happened. Really it did. I'd consider this Island a "special place" too.

 

Not that I think Hawaii and this Island necessitate the need for a re-write of the guidelines or anything. But there really aren't that many "special places" either.

Link to comment

So what changes are you now advocating?

 

The same as I have from the beginning...

I feel the guidelines should be amended to prominently show the need for any vacation cache that the owner can not maintain, has to have a resident cacher as maintainer prior to the physical placement of said cache.

Which of course comes before subitting a cache for approval.

 

This would avoid most of the problems with placement, acceptable containers, maintenance, etc.

 

Too many cachers leave a cache, go home, then find out their cache can not be approved.

Those become geo-litter unless adopted, maintenance duties volunteered for, or removed by resident cachers.

Sometimes they say (maybe truthfully) that "Aunt Edna" will maintain the cache. But why should a non-cacher be allowed the responsibilty of maintaining a cache? They're not even a part of the game. Just doesn't make sense. If a travelling cacher can not contact a local cacher or two, to find out if a particular placement won't be a problem, then they're not taking their responsiblity as 'owner' seriously. Which, as pointed out in previous posts by others, can put geocaching in that area in peril.

 

I've seen the "Aunt Edna" thing mentioned several times on cache pages, and I agree, it sounds quite ridiculous, and may even be a lie in some cases. But I can also see where defining the maintainer as a "cacher" would never work. What, 1 find? 10 finds, but none in the last 2 years? Someone with 5,000 finds who regularly gets their caches archived for lack of maintenance while out finding 50 caches a week? Don't laugh, I've seen examples similar this one many times.

 

I do happen to agree Hawaii is a "special place" in the case of vacation caches. C'mon now, I think the Hawaii reviewer might get a few more vacation cache submissions than Keystone gets Deer Hunter vacation submissions in Meadville. :)

 

I also remember a native of an Island nation (or territory) off the coast of Africa who started a similar thread a year or two ago. They claimed, as one of only a handful of known cachers on the island, to receive several out of the blue email requests per year to maintain dropped vacation caches. I can't remember the name of the Island or find the thread, but this really happened. Really it did. I'd consider this Island a "special place" too.

 

Not that I think Hawaii and this Island necessitate the need for a re-write of the guidelines or anything. But there really aren't that many "special places" either.

 

I am also a Hawaii geocacher and as you can see the subject of vacation caches is a hot topic here for many reasons detailed above. I just wanted to comment on the "Aunt Edna" maintenance issue. I adopted two vacation caches which were supposed to be maintained by "Aunt Edna" but ended up being orphaned and the stories may be instructive. First cache was dropped by a cacher from Colorado and was going to be maintained by a Continental Airlines pilot who flew to Hawaii regularly. Then this pilot was reassigned and the cache was orphaned. Second cache was going to be maintained by the cacher's sister, a non-geocacher. Well... the sister got married, started to have a family so cache maintenance had no place in her life. Lesson learned; maintenance by non cachers does not work long term.

 

So what do you suggest you ask? As other Hawaii cachers have, I have seen so many ill conceived and abandoned vacation caches that I feel that they should not be allowed, period. I also understand that this may not be a position that Groundspeak can support. So, I would support them as long as there is a local maintainer. But no Aunt Ednas. Active cachers only, who live within the local area. It should also be required that these maintenance arrangements be made prior to the cache being submitted for approval with the maintainer's name included on the cache page. By doing things this way, local cachers could, to some degree, control the number and placement of vacation caches by agreeing or not agreeing to maintenance arrangements. If we (local cachers) agree to maintain vacation caches then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the problem.

Link to comment

 

I am also a Hawaii geocacher and as you can see the subject of vacation caches is a hot topic here for many reasons detailed above. I just wanted to comment on the "Aunt Edna" maintenance issue. I adopted two vacation caches which were supposed to be maintained by "Aunt Edna" but ended up being orphaned and the stories may be instructive. First cache was dropped by a cacher from Colorado and was going to be maintained by a Continental Airlines pilot who flew to Hawaii regularly. Then this pilot was reassigned and the cache was orphaned. Second cache was going to be maintained by the cacher's sister, a non-geocacher. Well... the sister got married, started to have a family so cache maintenance had no place in her life. Lesson learned; maintenance by non cachers does not work long term.

 

So what do you suggest you ask? As other Hawaii cachers have, I have seen so many ill conceived and abandoned vacation caches that I feel that they should not be allowed, period. I also understand that this may not be a position that Groundspeak can support. So, I would support them as long as there is a local maintainer. But no Aunt Ednas. Active cachers only, who live within the local area. It should also be required that these maintenance arrangements be made prior to the cache being submitted for approval with the maintainer's name included on the cache page. By doing things this way, local cachers could, to some degree, control the number and placement of vacation caches by agreeing or not agreeing to maintenance arrangements. If we (local cachers) agree to maintain vacation caches then we have no one to blame but ourselves for the problem.

 

Again, I bet I could name a dozen examples of "active geocachers" just within 50 miles of my home coords who couldn't give a hoot about maintenance on their own caches, and have had caches involutarily archived for lack of maintenance while they are happily running around increasing their smiley count. I don't see why the local geocaching organization couldn't compile a list of responsible active geocachers willing to maintain vacation caches. I don't see why Groundspeak couldn't work with a local organization in this manner, although it sounds like something they just wouldn't do. I could be wrong about this. :rolleyes:

 

As it stands right now, any geocacher, with varying degrees of experience hiding caches, can drop a cache in Hawaii, claim to have an Aunt Edna, and voila, geotrash is born. Not in all cases, of course. And besides, has there ever been a female child anywhere in the world born after 1940 named "Edna"?

 

Food for thought. I'll not name the cache or any cachers, but here are some logs from a rather recent "vacation cache" placed in my area:

 

This was too short of a walk from the car with so much space to place a cache....COME ON!!!

 

Nasty area though....definitely not a nighttime cache.

 

A cache is a cache I guess. TFTC!

 

Found quickly with xxxxxx...interesting location...I have to say only a non-local would choose this spot...

 

The last guy, I'll bet, only lives a mile or two from this cache. Vacation caches just rub people the wrong way, whether it's politically correct to say this or not.

 

I really don't see why Groundspeak couldn't work the local geocaching organization to come up with a plan for a "special place" inundated with vacation caches.

Link to comment

when i get an email like this:

 

Aloha!

 

We had a question for you. We placed a cache over at Lapakahi State Park

last week (in memory of our dog) and we're going to be moving there within

the next 6-9 months, fingers crossed. (We're looking to build in Volcano

where we have some land) We asked a friend if he would maintain the cache

if any problems should arise and he reluctantly said yes. (He doesn't

"get"

geocaching) Well they want his email and to talk to him and I emailed to

make sure this was okay. He was less than thrilled and basically said no.

 

We were wondering if there was any way you could temporarily agree to

guardian the cache until we get out there? At this point if no one can, it

becomes geo-litter and we'd hate to see that happen. I guess we

should've

waited until we were there permanently. Sigh.

 

If not, it's no big deal, maybe we can put a note on one of our other

caches

for people who may be heading to the Big Island to see if they can remove

it.

 

Let us know.

Much mahalos!

 

it makes me think i am getting an email like this:

 

I viewed your personal/business profile that you are a reliable and honest person capable of handling this important business proposal believing also that you will never let me down either now or in the future.As a private audit consultant with the Societe Generale Bank in France. There is an account opened in this bank in 1997 and since 2003 nobody has operated on this account it has been dormant.Going through records,I discovered if this money is not remitted out urgently it would be forfeited to the government as an unserviceable dormant account.The account owner was Dr. Nordeen El Halaab, a foreign geologist miner-Kruger Gold Company,died 2003 in a plane crash.No knowledge of details of this account since his death.My findings during auditing end 2006,the deceased had no will nor next of in/beneficiary and his last employers' are not aware of this account.I wish to transfer this fund into a safe foreign account.My estimates,this transaction will be within 15 working days as soon as we hear from you further details will be sent.

 

Regards.

Matt.

Link to comment

The original local maintainer ought to have been sufficient. The cache owner who's planning to move to Hawaii does not need to provide an e-mail address for the interim maintainer. All the owner needs to do is state that there is a local maintainer.

 

See, this is a prime example of where we get into trouble. So they are going to move to Hawaii in 6 to 9 months (fingers crossed) and build in Volcano. Sounds kind of iffy to me. Has anyone heard of the credit meltdown. Highly likely that they will be unable to get the building loan and can't make the move for some time. So who is going to maintain the cache? Their first choice of a temporary maintainer, who who would have satisfied the requirement on paper, doesn't "get" geocaching and was reluctant from the start. A highly probable scenario is that there will be another orphaned cache that escondido100 or another Big Island cacher will have to clean up.

 

So... I say again, no vacation caches. Failing that, local maintainers must be active cachers who agree up front to take responsibility. No Aunt Ednas. Oops sorry, too old fashioned. No Aunt Tiffanys.

 

Yeah, I keep getting those emails from the nice bank officials in Nigeria who are in a sweat to transfer $3,000,000 to my account if I will only send them my personal information. They get deleted along with the ones from mainland cachers wanting me to maintain their film canister under a pile of rocks in a parking lot cache.

Link to comment

when i get an email like this:

 

Aloha!

 

We had a question for you. We placed a cache over at Lapakahi State Park

last week (in memory of our dog) and we're going to be moving there within

the next 6-9 months, fingers crossed. (We're looking to build in Volcano

where we have some land) We asked a friend if he would maintain the cache

if any problems should arise and he reluctantly said yes. (He doesn't

"get"

geocaching) Well they want his email and to talk to him and I emailed to

make sure this was okay. He was less than thrilled and basically said no.

 

We were wondering if there was any way you could temporarily agree to

guardian the cache until we get out there? At this point if no one can, it

becomes geo-litter and we'd hate to see that happen. I guess we

should've

waited until we were there permanently. Sigh.

 

If not, it's no big deal, maybe we can put a note on one of our other

caches

for people who may be heading to the Big Island to see if they can remove

it.

 

Let us know.

Much mahalos!

 

it makes me think i am getting an email like this:

 

I viewed your personal/business profile that you are a reliable and honest person capable of handling this important business proposal believing also that you will never let me down either now or in the future.As a private audit consultant with the Societe Generale Bank in France. There is an account opened in this bank in 1997 and since 2003 nobody has operated on this account it has been dormant.Going through records,I discovered if this money is not remitted out urgently it would be forfeited to the government as an unserviceable dormant account.The account owner was Dr. Nordeen El Halaab, a foreign geologist miner-Kruger Gold Company,died 2003 in a plane crash.No knowledge of details of this account since his death.My findings during auditing end 2006,the deceased had no will nor next of in/beneficiary and his last employers' are not aware of this account.I wish to transfer this fund into a safe foreign account.My estimates,this transaction will be within 15 working days as soon as we hear from you further details will be sent.

 

Regards.

Matt.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. One thousand percent agreed! I would do the same in your shoes, with the exception that my refusal emails might be a lot crankier than yours! Thank God you have clear and sane boundaries and are unafraid to set them clearly, else these buffoons, with their idiotic and thoughtless behavior, would drive you mad in short order!

Link to comment

The original local maintainer ought to have been sufficient. The cache owner who's planning to move to Hawaii does not need to provide an e-mail address for the interim maintainer. All the owner needs to do is state that there is a local maintainer.

 

I purpose that the original maintainer was NEVER sufficient.

A reluctant maintainer equals none at all.

 

Thanks to everyone that has posted here, especially the reviewers.

This same concern has been resounding from many different areas and cachers.

 

I've decided to "Just say no!" to requests for maintenance duties unless worked out as friends in advance.

Also will post 'needs archive' notes as warranted and remove offending caches as necessary.

 

Wish Groundspeak would realize that the cachers speaking out are just concerned citizens.

We are members and purchasers of all things geocaching.

Link to comment
1)The guidelines allow for the possibility of non-cachers to babysit caches.

 

2)Also, as I recall from this threads first run through, a local cacher had promised to babysit the caches in question.

1) Non-cachers are just that. So I don't feel that they should be maintainers of caches.
We were all non-cachers once. Also, we need to remember that cachers haven't been shown to be more responsible than the average person on the street. There is no reason to believe that some stranger who caches would take better care of my cache than a non-cacher with whom I have a relationship. Personally, I would trust my cousin Lucy over some caching stranger every single day.
2) That's true. But he agreed to maintain 'A' cache, then the vacationer went bezerk and left many.

Totally abusing the aloha of the resident cacher.

I bet that he won't make that mistake, again.
Link to comment

Many people have proposed that these caching babysitters be worked out prior to cache submittal. No one is arguing this point. In fact, the guidelines already require it. Unfortunately, it's something that simply cannot be enforced. We all need to remember that the guidelines describe what is required for a cache to be published. It really has no power over the behavior of any cacher, or non-cacher.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The original local maintainer ought to have been sufficient. The cache owner who's planning to move to Hawaii does not need to provide an e-mail address for the interim maintainer. All the owner needs to do is state that there is a local maintainer.

 

I purpose that the original maintainer was NEVER sufficient.

A reluctant maintainer equals none at all.

 

Thanks to everyone that has posted here, especially the reviewers.

This same concern has been resounding from many different areas and cachers.

 

I've decided to "Just say no!" to requests for maintenance duties unless worked out as friends in advance.

Also will post 'needs archive' notes as warranted and remove offending caches as necessary.

 

Wish Groundspeak would realize that the cachers speaking out are just concerned citizens.

We are members and purchasers of all things geocaching.

I agree with your suggestion that, quite obviously, the original maintainer proposed by the vacation cache owner was never sufficient, and I agree with the rest of the points in your post as well, with the sole exception of the last pargraph -- Groundspeak does already have some pretty strong guidelines in place to prevent placement of vacation caches that will become a burden, but it may well be that some reviewers are better, and more diligent, than others in catching potentially problematic vacation caches and in stopping them at the gates.

Link to comment

Many people have proposed that these caching babysitters be worked out prior to cache submittal. No one is arguing this point. In fact, the guidelines already require it. Unfortunately, it's something that simply cannot be enforced. We all need to remember that the guidelines describe what is required for a cache to be published. It really has no power over the behavior of any cacher, or non-cacher.

 

So, if this condition isn't met or the vacation cache breaks any other guideline?

What are we to do? Remove it. Right?

 

And I don't know about your neck of the woods but around here cachers have repeatedly been shown to be more responsible towards all things caching than non-cachers.

 

Now if a brand new, excited about the game cacher comes on board as a maintainer, cool!

That means a very minimum of opening a free Geo-account. Don't you think?

 

Okay, I'll take a break and just watch for a while.

Link to comment

Your other ideas sound constructive, but what do you mean by "removing offending caches as necessary?" That could be problematic. :rolleyes:

 

I think he means remove caches that were never approved under the "vacation cache" rule. I tried to (but failed) to find a forum post from the last year or so by an Austrailian who dropped a micro at Niagara Falls (my area) asking someone to remove it for them, after it was rejected. I'd imagine this happens quite a bit in Hawaii. I guess he had no Aunt Tiffany, or Aunt Edna, or whatever, in the area. :(

 

Eegads, will I still be alive when someone named Tiffany is old enough to be an Aunt?

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

The original local maintainer ought to have been sufficient. The cache owner who's planning to move to Hawaii does not need to provide an e-mail address for the interim maintainer. All the owner needs to do is state that there is a local maintainer.

 

Keystone.. go back and read that email from the vacation cacher moving to Hawaii again. The reviewer asked them for the email. When the real possibility of being accountable for maintenance arose the non-caching maintainer bailed out. There is also a very real possibility that they never existed too. Whatever the reality, it worked the way it was intended in my view and I am very thankful that our reviewer will do things like this.

 

You don't seem to believe flexibility exists between reviewers and regions and I respectfully think you are not correct in this. Just hearing your perspective vs. the relationship we have in Hawaii with our reviewer is a good example of that. I've also had contact with 3 different reviewers on different issues in different states. They all had a unique approach to each circumstance, manner of communication and interpretation of the situation. Not black and white different but they definitely treated the situations using their own style. Another specific example was when I held an event in another state and I not only had to provide several local cachers names and but emails before he would approve it.

Link to comment

I am quite certain that I've stated the vacation cache listing standards accurately, and exactly as Groundspeak wishes for them to be applied. The instructions I received do not allow for variation. I have been overruled when my attempts to be stricter have been appealed, and I'm not aware of any instructions from Groundspeak that say a vacation cache in Ohio should be treated differently than one in Hawaii. So, if your reviewer is doing something stricter than Groundspeak has specifically asked us to do, he or she is flying under the radar. The cache owner is welcome to appeal the decision. It is not my concern. Rather, my obligation as a forum moderator is to state the listing guideline interpretations as accurately as possible. People from all over read the forums.

Link to comment

I'm jumping into this tread kind of late so if I missed some of the post sorry about that.

 

I wouldn't go as far as banning all vacation caches. As long as the person really does have someone lined up to maintance it. If they don't then it should never be approved. Which is the case, I think.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to use the SBA log if a cache has gone missing and the owner lives 4000 miles away and his or her maintainer isn't taking care of it.

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...