Jump to content

what about vacation caches?


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Fair enough. Since people from all over read this forum, it's my hope that people from all over are not only made aware of the appeal process that you brought up but they understand that working closely with their reviewer and helping them understand local issues is a good best practice.

Link to comment
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.

I love these E-mails! These guys are just too easy to play with. :rolleyes:

 

OK, back on topic...

 

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.

This is what I perceive as the weak link in the chain.

The guidelines state:

Cache Maintenance

<truncated>As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.).

 

It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area. These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan.

 

If you have special circumstances, please describe your maintenance plan on your cache page. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.

 

This may be a case of actions speaking louder than words?

 

Groundspeak's words state clearly that caches should be maintained.

However, by leaving the door open for mythical maintainers, such as Aunt Edna, it could be argued that their actions indicate otherwise.

I can't speak for Pennsylvania, as I haven't been there since I started playing this game.

I can, however, speak for Florida, stating loud and clear that caches maintained by Aunt Edna will not be maintained.

Looks like many Hawaii cachers have had the same experience.

 

Maybe the real Aunt Edna actually lives in Pennsylvania, and as such, she is able to hobble out to those caches on a regular basis? :(

Link to comment

My point exactly. :(

If Groundspeak would adopt more stringent vacation guidelines across the board, Aunt Edna would never have to worry about flying Jet Blue from Orlando to Philipsburg to replace that film canister that Uncle Bubba left under a lamp post in Black Moshannon State Park. Although she does seem to relish the additional "scrutiny" she receives at the hands of airport security, she dislikes having to fit her walker in the overhead storage bins. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
<snipped from end of post>

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

Actually, I would really appreciate it if you could pop back and flesh out your post a little bit more. There are several things about the post that I don't understand.
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?

I'm not sure how you would even know about it, since it wouldn't be listed on GC.com. Are you asking if there should be some sort of formal rescue policy in effect for these caches? I suspect that it would depend largely on the cache owner. For instance, if someone from another geocaching site had agreed to babysit it and list it over there, it would remain in place even though it was never listed on GC.com. Also, the owner may not have left Hawaii yet and will pick it up. There's a number of other alternatives, as well, but those are a start.
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.
I'm not sure what your point is. I think that you will find that, on average, more geocachers know about geocaching than non-geocachers. Therefore, more geocachers are going to be responsible towards all things caching than non-geocachers. However, it doesn't follow that geocachers are any more responsible than non-geocachers. I certainly don't believe that a geocaching stranger is going to be more responsible in looking after my cache than my cousin Suzy who is doing it out of love for me, for instance.
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?

So basically, you are OK with cousin Suzy watching over a cache if she opens a GC.com account, but not if she doesn't? How does the creation of this account automatically make her a responsible person? Edited by sbell111
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.

 

Log Date: 10/5/2008

I've been told that the cache owner has relocated to Texas without designating anyone local to maintain his caches. In that case I'll archive the listing. If this is in error please get back to me...

 

I think this is a good example of a great reviewer working with the community within the guidelines. A needs maintenance report comes in. An active geocacher contacts reviewer and says that the cacher has moved. Reviewer checks to see if there is a maintenance plan has been reported or in place on the page. Cache is archived based on the word of the local cacher. Local cachers go pick it up to geo-trash.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
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.

 

Log Date: 10/5/2008

I've been told that the cache owner has relocated to Texas without designating anyone local to maintain his caches. In that case I'll archive the listing. If this is in error please get back to me...

 

I think this is a good example of a great reviewer working with the community within the guidelines. A needs maintenance report comes in. An active geocacher contacts reviewer and says that the cacher has moved. Reviewer checks to see if there is a maintenance plan has been reported or in place on the page. Cache is archived based on the word of the local cacher. Local cachers go pick it up to geo-trash.

The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Link to comment

The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

 

Another example of why Hawaii is unique. Other services are basically non-existent here. Also, this cache was clearly placed on public land and because our reviewer is on top of local issues, he knew that this hypothetical scenario would never play out. I am sure this kind of thing may be a concern in other places, but never here in Hawaii. The chance of picking up a cache that needs maintenance drawing anything but applause is non-existent.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment
<snipped from end of post>

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

Actually, I would really appreciate it if you could pop back and flesh out your post a little bit more. There are several things about the post that I don't understand.
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?

I'm not sure how you would even know about it, since it wouldn't be listed on GC.com. Are you asking if there should be some sort of formal rescue policy in effect for these caches? I suspect that it would depend largely on the cache owner. For instance, if someone from another geocaching site had agreed to babysit it and list it over there, it would remain in place even though it was never listed on GC.com. Also, the owner may not have left Hawaii yet and will pick it up. There's a number of other alternatives, as well, but those are a start.
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.
I'm not sure what your point is. I think that you will find that, on average, more geocachers know about geocaching than non-geocachers. Therefore, more geocachers are going to be responsible towards all things caching than non-geocachers. However, it doesn't follow that geocachers are any more responsible than non-geocachers. I certainly don't believe that a geocaching stranger is going to be more responsible in looking after my cache than my cousin Suzy who is doing it out of love for me, for instance.
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?

So basically, you are OK with cousin Suzy watching over a cache if she opens a GC.com account, but not if she doesn't? How does the creation of this account automatically make her a responsible person?

 

I think MM already said this once but there's no way to ensure that she will absolutely take care of the cache and this goes for any cache owner for that matter. However, if the vacation cache maintainer is unable to spend 5 minutes creating an free account (so that she can be listed on the cache page as a contact per guidelines), then it is very doubtful she is going to make the effort to get out of her chair and actually do the maintenance she's promised to do.

 

This was evident in the other vacation cache maintainer example given who was moving to Hawaii but when the local maintainer had to enter the real world of responsibility and give a contact email, they bugged out. It is a small thing to ask that would give the rest of the community comfort that this isn't another cache that they will be stuck picking up or maintaining in the future.

 

 

 

PS: Thank you for your recent positive contributions to this discussion.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment
<snipped from end of post>

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

Actually, I would really appreciate it if you could pop back and flesh out your post a little bit more. There are several things about the post that I don't understand.
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?

I'm not sure how you would even know about it, since it wouldn't be listed on GC.com. Are you asking if there should be some sort of formal rescue policy in effect for these caches? I suspect that it would depend largely on the cache owner. For instance, if someone from another geocaching site had agreed to babysit it and list it over there, it would remain in place even though it was never listed on GC.com. Also, the owner may not have left Hawaii yet and will pick it up. There's a number of other alternatives, as well, but those are a start.
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.
I'm not sure what your point is. I think that you will find that, on average, more geocachers know about geocaching than non-geocachers. Therefore, more geocachers are going to be responsible towards all things caching than non-geocachers. However, it doesn't follow that geocachers are any more responsible than non-geocachers. I certainly don't believe that a geocaching stranger is going to be more responsible in looking after my cache than my cousin Suzy who is doing it out of love for me, for instance.
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?

So basically, you are OK with cousin Suzy watching over a cache if she opens a GC.com account, but not if she doesn't? How does the creation of this account automatically make her a responsible person?

 

I think MM already said this once but there's no way to ensure that she will absolutely take care of the cache and this goes for any cache owner for that matter. However, if the vacation cache maintainer is unable to spend 5 minutes creating an free account (so that she can be listed on the cache page as a contact per guidelines), then it is very doubtful she is going to make the effort to get out of her chair and actually do the maintenance she's promised to do.

 

This was evident in the other vacation cache maintainer example given who was moving to Hawaii but when the local maintainer had to enter the real world of responsibility and give a contact email, they bugged out. It is a small thing to ask that would give the rest of the community comfort that this isn't another cache that they will be stuck picking up or maintaining in the future.

I don't see the connection between being responsible and creating a GC.com account. As I recall from my original hypothetical, cousin Suzy doesn't have an internet connection so would not create an account. She does, however, go right by the cache everyday and she has a telephone via which I could contact her regarding any logged issues.
Link to comment
The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Another example of why Hawaii is unique. Other services are basically non-existent here. Also, this cache was clearly placed on public land and because our reviewer is on top of local issues, he knew that this hypothetical scenario would never play out. I am sure this kind of thing may be a concern in other places, but never here in Hawaii. The chance of picking up a cache that needs maintenance drawing anything but applause is non-existent.
Can you please flesh this out a bit more. For instance, what do you mean that 'other services are basically non-existant'? Are you taking the position that no Hawaii caches will ever be cross-listed to other public or private listing sites?

 

Also, how do you know that my hypothetical cache was placed on public land and, even if it was, how does that affect the permission or ownership issues, in your opinion?

Link to comment

...The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Good summary.

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....

 

We get into trouble when we start assuming the worst is what will always happen. It could play out exactly like you laid out. It could play out exactly like the future owner plans. At best you have cause for a contengency plan. Not find trouble becaues you were looking.

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. ....

 

We are talking two sides of the same coin. You trust my cache placing because you know me through the forums. Yet if someone placed that cache with even more due diligence than I'd use they would be lumped into the vacation cache catagory...if you didn't know them.

 

I think there is a lot of truth not you thinking I don't understand you. 5 pages of the issue and I'm not really sure I can see the deeper undercurrente that either I can't understand or you (and others) are having a hard time articulating.

Link to comment
The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Another example of why Hawaii is unique. Other services are basically non-existent here. Also, this cache was clearly placed on public land and because our reviewer is on top of local issues, he knew that this hypothetical scenario would never play out. I am sure this kind of thing may be a concern in other places, but never here in Hawaii. The chance of picking up a cache that needs maintenance drawing anything but applause is non-existent.
Can you please flesh this out a bit more. For instance, what do you mean that 'other services are basically non-existant'? Are you taking the position that no Hawaii caches will ever be cross-listed to other public or private listing sites?

 

Also, how do you know that my hypothetical cache was placed on public land and, even if it was, how does that affect the permission or ownership issues, in your opinion?

 

Maybe it would be faster for you to tell me what services exist in Hawaii that have more than 10 listings. I am saying there isn't one. If you know of one, please educate me. The cache in question is on public land so the scenario with the cache being stolen you present is not possible. We are familiar with the cache and the circumstances surrounding it, as we are nearly every cache.

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....

 

We get into trouble when we start assuming the worst is what will always happen. It could play out exactly like you laid out. It could play out exactly like the future owner plans. At best you have cause for a contengency plan. Not find trouble becaues you were looking.

 

It is not that I am looking for trouble. What bothers me is the apparent willingness of Groundspeak and some reviewers to uncritically accept whatever people say. This "don't ask don't tell" attitude just invites abuse. I would just like to see some judgement used to evaluate statements made. Now, if these people had said; we have a house under construction in Volcano and expect to move to Hawaii on or about April 30, 2009, that is a little more believable. They could still be lying through their teeth but at least the statement has some substance to it. I am not expecting anything extraordinary. Just some common sense evaluation of the veracity of statements made. We all do this every day when talking to people.

 

BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". Bison tubes dropped in a park... Wonderful! You would think that they might have had better things to do on their honeymoon.

Link to comment

I cache in an area that used to have a lot of vacation caches. Some of them actually lasted a few years! (Many of the virtuals there are vacation caches.) Fortunately, there is now a large number of local cachers filling the void. I will never understand the chutzpah of anyone hiding a cache thousands of miles from home and expecting a local to maintain it. Yes. That's a pretty spot, but not being local, you did not realize that it's a major cruising area. The local who did offer to maintain it replaced it twice, and gave up. After six months. Yes. That's a nice spot. Did you realize that homeless people frequent that spot? The folding chair under the leaves might have given that away. Or the many logs concerning the trash hidden there? Or the recent logs concerning the smell from what homeless people do in the bushes? (That one has been muggled four times! Travel bugs are missing. Oddly, it has been replaced again.) Yes! That's an interesting historic area! First DFN mentions the butcher knife hidden in the wall. Been muggled three times. Yes. Your sister promised to replace it again. And those are ones with someone actually attempting to maintain the cache. Nice cache. Nice hide. Lasted three months. The promised maintainer never maintained it. Oh, well. The new cache nearby is by a local, and he does maintain it!

No. I cannot say that I understand the concept of vacation caches.

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. ....

 

We are talking two sides of the same coin. You trust my cache placing because you know me through the forums. Yet if someone placed that cache with even more due diligence than I'd use they would be lumped into the vacation cache catagory...if you didn't know them.

 

I think there is a lot of truth not you thinking I don't understand you. 5 pages of the issue and I'm not really sure I can see the deeper undercurrente that either I can't understand or you (and others) are having a hard time articulating.

 

Whoa. You painted a real life scenario where you had additional family in Hawaii and it was you placing the cache. I responded that I would have no problems with that and would probably even volunteer to maintain it. That is the only side of the coin you presented. Not the other scenario you just posted.

 

If someone did the due diligence and followed the guidelines to the letter, currently they would still get additional questions from our reviewer because of our history and the unique (note the change from "special") area in which we live. That is the way it is but you'd have a tough time finding any local cacher who supports vacation caches in Hawaii.

 

What we keep saying is that we are in fact unique. We live on the most isolated land mass in the world, my island is only 44 miles long and 30 miles wide, our state is comprised of several different islands, the recorded history and the land issues are much more complicated as our island was inhabited several hundred years before your land, we have 150K fresh muggles come and go very week on our island alone, a standard container that you would use where you live would be toast in a matter of weeks, I easily fill this page up with more reasons but if you don't get the idea now, you won't at the bottom of the page either.

 

We have a different set of circumstances than most of the rest of the world (not just the USA) and you are right, either we aren't doing a very good job of explaining this fact to you or you aren't doing a very good job of understanding what we are trying to tell you. I'm not sure how else I can articulate this for you but while we are discussing coins, you've given no tangible reasons to believe that your square peg fits into our round hole. The fact that just because Groundspeak tries to do this isn't a reason. Our reviewer will tell you he doesn't believe it.

 

We see this mistake being made every day all around us by a multitude of service and business entities. It simply does not work. So.. you say that we are being elitist by asking our own set guidelines. Let's not misunderstand each other any further, this is NOT what we are saying. For the most part, the guidelines work fine for us. But in some cases, such as vacation caches, they don't. So while we don't advocate for our own set of rules, regional flexibility on certain issues like vacation caches makes a lot sense.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

Ok, I absolutely love Hawaii. It is quite simply one of my favorite places on the planet. And I know and understand the land issues, however, I'm having a hard time grasping the concept that caches places in Hawaii are different from caches placed on any other island country/state.

 

Why would it be different from the Bahamas or Bermuda or the Azores? And I'm not talking about vacation caches. I'm asking about caches placed by people who live there. Why should there be "additional questions" asked? I'm trying to understand that.

Link to comment

I cache in an area that used to have a lot of vacation caches. Some of them actually lasted a few years! (Many of the virtuals there are vacation caches.) Fortunately, there is now a large number of local cachers filling the void. I will never understand the chutzpah of anyone hiding a cache thousands of miles from home and expecting a local to maintain it. Yes. That's a pretty spot, but not being local, you did not realize that it's a major cruising area. The local who did offer to maintain it replaced it twice, and gave up. After six months. Yes. That's a nice spot. Did you realize that homeless people frequent that spot? The folding chair under the leaves might have given that away. Or the many logs concerning the trash hidden there? Or the recent logs concerning the smell from what homeless people do in the bushes? (That one has been muggled four times! Travel bugs are missing. Oddly, it has been replaced again.) Yes! That's an interesting historic area! First DFN mentions the butcher knife hidden in the wall. Been muggled three times. Yes. Your sister promised to replace it again. And those are ones with someone actually attempting to maintain the cache. Nice cache. Nice hide. Lasted three months. The promised maintainer never maintained it. Oh, well. The new cache nearby is by a local, and he does maintain it!

No. I cannot say that I understand the concept of vacation caches.

 

Sometimes vacation caches do last. The two that I adopted have lasted 5 and 7 years respectively. But only because of diligent and on-going maintenance. Both have gone MIA twice but I keep them going because they are in great places and are popular with visitors. Others deserve a quick death. One of the latest on Oahu lasted slightly less than two weeks before it got muggled and was archived.

Link to comment

I tried but just couldn't stay away. :D

Many cachers from many places have stated the same concerns. (this thread)

It's not just Hawaii!

 

We do have religious sites all over from various groups.

Also watershed land that you can visit but not leave a cache at.

There are more examples but this will do.

Vacationers don't know this and it's uncool to leave a cache although it's a cool spot.

 

Look, come visit even contact locals beforehand and we'll hike together!

Or possibly maintain a vacation cache that we believe in.

 

There are over 500 caches on Oahu presently!

ENJOY!

Link to comment

I tried but just couldn't stay away. :D

Many cachers from many places have stated the same concerns. (this thread)

It's not just Hawaii!

 

We do have religious sites all over from various groups.

Also watershed land that you can visit but not leave a cache at.

There are more examples but this will do.

Vacationers don't know this and it's uncool to leave a cache although it's a cool spot.

 

Look, come visit even contact locals beforehand and we'll hike together!

Or possibly maintain a vacation cache that we believe in.

 

There are over 500 caches on Oahu presently!

ENJOY!

 

Like MM says come on over and visit. Contact local cachers here, make some friends, go on some hikes and if you really GOTTA place a cache maybe we can help you.

Link to comment

Ok, I absolutely love Hawaii. It is quite simply one of my favorite places on the planet. And I know and understand the land issues, however, I'm having a hard time grasping the concept that caches places in Hawaii are different from caches placed on any other island country/state.

 

Why would it be different from the Bahamas or Bermuda or the Azores? And I'm not talking about vacation caches. I'm asking about caches placed by people who live there. Why should there be "additional questions" asked? I'm trying to understand that.

 

Thanks for the aloha Motorcycle Mama. The title of the thread is vacation caches, so that is where our situation is different than most places. Just to cite another way we are unique, if you take the finds that are recorded in one day, it is not unusual for the majority of them to be logged by visitors. From my many conversations with the reviewers, there's an unusually high percentage of the submissions that are from visitors as well.

 

Although I am not familiar with the caches in the Bahamas or Bermuda or the Azores, I would bet that they have similar issues with vacation caches. Without checking, I would think that our visitor counts would be higher but don't quote me on that.

 

A little off topic but another thing that makes us unique is that we do have some amazing cache hunts here. Not to say that there aren't incredible hunts everywhere but we have a very creative group of hiders here. You can browse through the links in my sig line and read the galleries and the logs if you want some examples.

 

Here's a gallery that will getcha back here.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

...The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Good summary.

 

Totally not applicable to Hawaii, but a good summary.

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. ....

 

We are talking two sides of the same coin. You trust my cache placing because you know me through the forums. Yet if someone placed that cache with even more due diligence than I'd use they would be lumped into the vacation cache catagory...if you didn't know them.

 

I think there is a lot of truth not you thinking I don't understand you. 5 pages of the issue and I'm not really sure I can see the deeper undercurrente that either I can't understand or you (and others) are having a hard time articulating.

 

Whoa. You painted a real life scenario where you had additional family in Hawaii and it was you placing the cache. I responded that I would have no problems with that and would probably even volunteer to maintain it. That is the only side of the coin you presented. The other scenario you just posted is another story.

 

If someone did the due diligence and followed the guidelines to the letter, currently they would still get additional questions from our reviewer because of our history and the unique (note the PC change from "special") area in which we live. That is the way it is and you'd have a very tough time finding any local cacher who supports vacation caches in Hawaii. We become garbage collectors.

 

What we keep saying is that we are in fact unique. We live on the most isolated land mass in the world, my island is only 44 miles long and 30 miles wide, our state is comprised of several different islands that really should be treated as different states, the recorded history and the land issues are much more complicated as our islands were inhabited several hundred years before the mainland, we have an influx of 150K fresh muggles every week on our island alone, a standard container that you would use where you live would be toast in a matter of weeks. I easily fill this page up with more reasons but if you don't get the idea now, you won't at the bottom of the page either.

 

We have a different set of circumstances than most of the rest of the world (not just the USA) and you are right, either we aren't doing a very good job of explaining these facts to you or you aren't doing a very good job of understanding what we are trying to tell you. I'm not sure how else I can articulate this for you but while we are discussing viewpoints and positions, you've given no tangible reasons to believe that your square peg fits into our round hole. The fact that just because Groundspeak tries to do this isn't a reason nor is the fact that Billy Bob Ohyee needs a Geocache in Waikiki because that is his Geo given right.

 

We see this mistake being made every day all around us by a multitude of service and business entities. It simply does not work, in fact it fails every single time. So.. next you say that we are being elitist by asking our own set guidelines. Let's not misunderstand each other any further, this is NOT what we are saying. For the most part, the guidelines work fine for us as they do most places. But in some cases, such as vacation caches, they don't. So while we don't advocate for our own set of rules, regional flexibility on certain issues like vacation caches makes a lot sense.

Link to comment
The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Another example of why Hawaii is unique. Other services are basically non-existent here. Also, this cache was clearly placed on public land and because our reviewer is on top of local issues, he knew that this hypothetical scenario would never play out. I am sure this kind of thing may be a concern in other places, but never here in Hawaii. The chance of picking up a cache that needs maintenance drawing anything but applause is non-existent.
Can you please flesh this out a bit more. For instance, what do you mean that 'other services are basically non-existant'? Are you taking the position that no Hawaii caches will ever be cross-listed to other public or private listing sites?

 

Also, how do you know that my hypothetical cache was placed on public land and, even if it was, how does that affect the permission or ownership issues, in your opinion?

Maybe it would be faster for you to tell me what services exist in Hawaii that have more than 10 listings. I am saying there isn't one. If you know of one, please educate me.
I think that you missed the point of my post. It actually doesn't matter if the cache is listed to another public listing site. Go back and give it another read and I think you'll understand.
The cache in question is on public land so the scenario with the cache being stolen you present is not possible.
Two questions:

 

First, how do you know that my hypothetical cache is hidden on public land?

 

Second, why does it matter whether the land is public or private? Permission is permission and private property is private property. Unless there are laws on the books in Hawaii that state that there is no such thing as private property and that land managers have no authority, I think you are in error.

We are familiar with the cache and the circumstances surrounding it, as we are nearly every cache.
How can you possibly be familiar with my hypothetical cache?
Link to comment
BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". Bison tubes dropped in a park... Wonderful! You would think that they might have had better things to do on their honeymoon.
I don't see the problem.

 

The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test.

 

A maintenance plan is in place.

 

If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
... Oh, well. The new cache nearby is by a local, and he does maintain it!
If it's a new cache, how are you positive that it will be maintained well? I guess if the person has hidden lots of local caches that you may know his track record, but you still can't be sure that this cache will be trouble free. Of course, this line of thought is all moot because caches hidden by locals have nothing to do with the thread, so don't bother responding.

 

I tried but just couldn't stay away. :D

Welcome back.

 

Would you mind popping back to post 205 and responding to my post? I would appreciate it.

Link to comment
BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". Bison tubes dropped in a park... Wonderful! You would think that they might have had better things to do on their honeymoon.
I don't see the problem.

 

The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test.

 

A maintenance plan is in place.

 

If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem.

 

I agree with most of your points, Sbell111. But why are these caches there? Easy to look up the caches, btw, seeing as they're new. These people found 5 caches in Hawaii, and dropped two bison tubes. You'd think the bison tubes were in the luggage, and the intent of dropping caches existed before the trip. Probably not too many places to buy bison tubes on Maui. :D Sorry, I just don't understand the desire to drop vacation caches. Is it the perceived prestige of having caches in exotic far away places listed under "hides" in your profile?

 

I can see the desire a little bit in "the old days", say 2002 and earlier, when there were far fewer caches in the world, and many of these vacation destinations had no caches at all.

Link to comment
BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". Bison tubes dropped in a park... Wonderful! You would think that they might have had better things to do on their honeymoon.
I don't see the problem.

 

The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test.

 

A maintenance plan is in place.

 

If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem.

I agree with most of your points, Sbell111. But why are these caches there? Easy to look up the caches, btw, seeing as they're new. These people found 5 caches in Hawaii, and dropped two bison tubes. You'd think the bison tubes were in the luggage, and the intent of dropping caches existed before the trip. Probably not too many places to buy bison tubes on Maui. :D Sorry, I just don't understand the desire to drop vacation caches. Is it the perceived prestige of having caches in exotic far away places listed under "hides" in your profile?

 

I can see the desire a little bit in "the old days", say 2002 and earlier, when there were far fewer caches in the world, and many of these vacation destinations had no caches at all.

The world may never know.

 

tootsie_pop.jpg

 

I've actually stopped wondering what people's personal motivations are.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Another example of why Hawaii is unique. Other services are basically non-existent here. Also, this cache was clearly placed on public land and because our reviewer is on top of local issues, he knew that this hypothetical scenario would never play out. I am sure this kind of thing may be a concern in other places, but never here in Hawaii. The chance of picking up a cache that needs maintenance drawing anything but applause is non-existent.
Can you please flesh this out a bit more. For instance, what do you mean that 'other services are basically non-existant'? Are you taking the position that no Hawaii caches will ever be cross-listed to other public or private listing sites?

 

Also, how do you know that my hypothetical cache was placed on public land and, even if it was, how does that affect the permission or ownership issues, in your opinion?

Maybe it would be faster for you to tell me what services exist in Hawaii that have more than 10 listings. I am saying there isn't one. If you know of one, please educate me.
I think that you missed the point of my post. It actually doesn't matter if the cache is listed to another public listing site. Go back and give it another read and I think you'll understand.
The cache in question is on public land so the scenario with the cache being stolen you present is not possible.
Two questions:

 

First, how do you know that my hypothetical cache is hidden on public land?

 

Second, why does it matter whether the land is public or private? Permission is permission and private property is private property. Unless there are laws on the books in Hawaii that state that there is no such thing as private property and that land managers have no authority, I think you are in error.

We are familiar with the cache and the circumstances surrounding it, as we are nearly every cache.
How can you possibly be familiar with my hypothetical cache?

 

If your hypothetical cache is in Hawaii, we would know everything that I just said we would. If you are planting a hypothetical cache someplace else, you are off topic.

 

I got an idea. I think I am going to write Groundspeak and ask them to allow hypothetical caches. That way, you'd have plenty to argue about and we wouldn't have to deal with cleaning up the mess. This is kinda what we are both looking for?

Link to comment
The only problem that I have with your scenario is that there is frightful little communication with the person who actually owns the box of trinkets which may or may not also be listed to some other public or private listing site (or other source).

 

Here's my thinking: Let's imagine a situation where I go to a land manager and ask permission to hide a box of trinkets somewhere. I explain geocaching and, therefore, that people will come to look for the box, etc. He gives me approval to hide the box. That authority to hide my private property at that location does not go away if the cache is archived on GC.com. Therefore, strangers don't automatically have authorization to remove personal property simply because the cache is no longer actively listed. If you looked at the issue from a legal point of view, the random geocacher would have no authority to remove the private property, doing so could be considered theft.

Another example of why Hawaii is unique. Other services are basically non-existent here. Also, this cache was clearly placed on public land and because our reviewer is on top of local issues, he knew that this hypothetical scenario would never play out. I am sure this kind of thing may be a concern in other places, but never here in Hawaii. The chance of picking up a cache that needs maintenance drawing anything but applause is non-existent.
Can you please flesh this out a bit more. For instance, what do you mean that 'other services are basically non-existant'? Are you taking the position that no Hawaii caches will ever be cross-listed to other public or private listing sites?

 

Also, how do you know that my hypothetical cache was placed on public land and, even if it was, how does that affect the permission or ownership issues, in your opinion?

Maybe it would be faster for you to tell me what services exist in Hawaii that have more than 10 listings. I am saying there isn't one. If you know of one, please educate me.
I think that you missed the point of my post. It actually doesn't matter if the cache is listed to another public listing site. Go back and give it another read and I think you'll understand.
The cache in question is on public land so the scenario with the cache being stolen you present is not possible.
Two questions:

 

First, how do you know that my hypothetical cache is hidden on public land?

 

Second, why does it matter whether the land is public or private? Permission is permission and private property is private property. Unless there are laws on the books in Hawaii that state that there is no such thing as private property and that land managers have no authority, I think you are in error.

We are familiar with the cache and the circumstances surrounding it, as we are nearly every cache.
How can you possibly be familiar with my hypothetical cache?
If your hypothetical cache is in Hawaii, we would know everything that I just said we would. If you are planting a hypothetical cache someplace else, you are off topic.

 

I got an idea. I think I am going to write Groundspeak and ask them to allow hypothetical caches. That way, you'd have plenty to argue about and we wouldn't have to deal with cleaning up the mess. This is kinda what we are both looking for?

Would you mind actually answering my questions?

 

Also, please explain how you would know everything about any cache placed in Hawaii.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I'll add my ditto to those who don't appreciate vacation caches. We have a few here and the associated maintenance issues. Don't appreciate them one bit.

 

Not only do I not sponsor vacation caches, I don't keep them up or encourage locals to maintain them. If a spot is good enough for a vacation cache then it's good enough for a local to place it. However, that little bit of wisdom doesn't really hold true as my experience tells me that most vacations caches aren't in good locations. Go figure.

Link to comment
But why are these caches there?

 

Man I wish you had to have an answer to this before placing a cache!

 

These people found 5 caches in Hawaii, and dropped two bison tubes. You'd think the bison tubes were in the luggage, and the intent of dropping caches existed before the trip. Probably not too many places to buy bison tubes on Maui. :D Sorry, I just don't understand the desire to drop vacation caches.

 

Herein lies the crux of what we are trying to say in this thread. Thank-you for not understanding this.

 

Is it the perceived prestige of having caches in exotic far away places listed under "hides" in your profile?

 

But now consider the other side of this phenom. How about if you lived on a island where this attempted weekly by someone?

 

I can see the desire a little bit in "the old days", say 2002 and earlier, when there were far fewer caches in the world, and many of these vacation destinations had no caches at all.

 

There was a time where very few local players lived in places like Hawaii and I can see that to expand the game that vacation caches were something that would be almost necessary. Now things have changed and there are established Geocaching communities in many of these places who are constantly immersed in the process of getting the activity accepted. It is an uphill battle in many areas but tiny steps forward are made with each cache that is placed responsibly.

 

Then, you have to explain that what you do by accepting Geocaching you've opened the flood gates for any player in the world to travel there and hide something anywhere they think it would be "fun" with almost no oversight. Sure, they are supposed to get permission, but they never do. Yeah, it would be good if they took the time to understand a little about the land issues, but they don't. Then... after doing this, the next thing they do is board a plane and travel at least two thousand miles. Is this a game that any sane land manager would support?

 

I am not sure how Groundspeak thinks this is an easy sell or continues to let it go.

Edited by Team GeoBlast
Link to comment

...BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". ..

 

That's exactly the method I used when I placed where I didn't feel I could maintain as well as I'd like (and I'm liberal when it comes to maintaining). Where they are geocachers I just have them list under their account. Where they aren't "Non geocaching friend" works well enough for me.

Link to comment
Would you mind actually answering my questions?

 

If land issues were this easy to explain, I'd probably be in favor of vacation caches. You just need to take our word for it. If it wasn't that way, do you think this thread would exist.

 

Also, please explain how you would know everything about any cache placed in Hawaii.

 

I never said we know everything. However, it's pretty easy to tell who the land owner is on any cache placement with a few maps I have on my computer. Since we are a very tight community and barely have 500 caches total, details travel very fast too.

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. ....

 

We are talking two sides of the same coin. You trust my cache placing because you know me through the forums. Yet if someone placed that cache with even more due diligence than I'd use they would be lumped into the vacation cache catagory...if you didn't know them.

 

I think there is a lot of truth not you thinking I don't understand you. 5 pages of the issue and I'm not really sure I can see the deeper undercurrente that either I can't understand or you (and others) are having a hard time articulating.

 

Whoa. You painted a real life scenario where you had additional family in Hawaii and it was you placing the cache. I responded that I would have no problems with that and would probably even volunteer to maintain it. That is the only side of the coin you presented. ...

 

What we keep saying is that we are in fact unique. ..

 

We have a different set of circumstances than most of the rest of the world (not just the USA) ...

 

So.. you say that we are being elitist by asking our own set guidelines. ...

 

You are right. I painted one picuture. If I did it, its still a vacation cache. That you would accept it seems odd to me. If someone else had better circumstances but was an unknown, only the familiarity changes. Not the vacation cache or lack of it.

 

Elitist is your term. I'm not as well traveled as a lot of folks but I've seen some of this country and seen some of the diversity of the people and land within it. Being special isn't unique. Being unique isn't special. It's merely your own local reality. What do you know about Tundra? Permafrost? Ice Lenses? Probably not much if you haven't had to deal with it. But whaling? Maybe theats a point of intersection between Hawaii and the North Slope of Alaska. Take Lava. English lacked words to describe lava flows. They were borrowed from Hawaiin. You talk lava flows in another post. What do you think Idaho and Hawaii have in common other than Owhyee? Lava Flows. Some of the most brutal hiking you can ever do on God's green earth. Lava is not unique to hawaii, but it's part of what makes that area unique yet at the same time it's what makes Idaho unique. You probably can't keep tourists out of your lava flows (and getting hurt as a result), we can't get tourists to visit ours. Same unique thing, completely different local flavor.

 

Maybe the difference in our views is that I don't view speical as unique, it just is, there is something special and unique about anywhere you can go. I just accept that is is that way and that locals know what's what and newcomers can learn.

Link to comment
Would you mind actually answering my questions?
If land issues were this easy to explain, I'd probably be in favor of vacation caches. You just need to take our word for it. If it wasn't that way, do you think this thread would exist.
Actually, it is that simple. If someone allows me to place an item on their property, then it is fine for that item to be there. It makes no difference whether the item is listed on a website such as GC.com and no third party is empowered to remove my personal property simply because the item is not listed to any specific website.

 

It gets no simpler than this and you have not shown how Hawaii is unique in relation to personal property law. Given that you haven't offered anything to sjhow why Hawaii is special in this reagrd, I cannot simply 'take your word for it'.

 

Sorry.

Link to comment
BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". Bison tubes dropped in a park... Wonderful! You would think that they might have had better things to do on their honeymoon.
I don't see the problem.

 

The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test.

 

A maintenance plan is in place.

 

If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem.

 

OK,sorry. I wasn't clear because I had drifted off topic. Yes, these caches meet all the requirements and follow all of the rules. Big deal. I consider them geotrash right from the getgo. Many of the cachers I know will spend weeks or months planning their caches; scouting locations, developing a puzzle, fabricating a container or researching the cache page. The hope is to provide the finder with a unique, special (dare I use those words) or enjoyable experience or maybe take them to a cool place where they might never have gone. I would consider success to be when you hear a cacher, months after they found it, say; yes I remember that one, that was a great cache. These caches you will have forgotten five minutes after you have signed the log.

Link to comment
BTW. Two more vacation caches published on Maui this morning, to be maintained by "non-geocaching friends". Bison tubes dropped in a park... Wonderful! You would think that they might have had better things to do on their honeymoon.
I don't see the problem.

 

The caches are in a park. Therefore, they pass the 'why here?' test.

 

A maintenance plan is in place.

 

If the maintenance plan fails, pretty much the worse scenario is that the bison tubes will go missing and the caches will be archived. I don't see a potential geotrash problem.

 

OK,sorry. I wasn't clear because I had drifted off topic. Yes, these caches meet all the requirements and follow all of the rules. Big deal. I consider them geotrash right from the getgo. Many of the cachers I know will spend weeks or months planning their caches; scouting locations, developing a puzzle, fabricating a container or researching the cache page. The hope is to provide the finder with a unique, special (dare I use those words) or enjoyable experience or maybe take them to a cool place where they might never have gone. I would consider success to be when you hear a cacher, months after they found it, say; yes I remember that one, that was a great cache. These caches you will have forgotten five minutes after you have signed the log.

 

Hey Etoa Nrish, What you typed is a no-brainer to you, me, and many other people. Maybe people who signed up for geocaching.com on the same date in 2003 think alike. :blink: But to some others around here? You really didn't want to go there, did you? :D

Link to comment
Would you mind actually answering my questions?
If land issues were this easy to explain, I'd probably be in favor of vacation caches. You just need to take our word for it. If it wasn't that way, do you think this thread would exist.
Actually, it is that simple. If someone allows me to place an item on their property, then it is fine for that item to be there. It makes no difference whether the item is listed on a website such as GC.com and no third party is empowered to remove my personal property simply because the item is not listed to any specific website.

 

It gets no simpler than this and you have not shown how Hawaii is unique in relation to personal property law. Given that you haven't offered anything to sjhow why Hawaii is special in this reagrd, I cannot simply 'take your word for it'.

 

Sorry.

 

It seems like you are trying to steer the conversation towards permission issues on public vs private land. That is another topic all together and we are talking about vacation caches in Hawaii.

 

I am pretty much in agreement with every post in this thread except for yours, there's been a good cross section of Hawaii cachers that have come in a shared their like experiences, a lot of very good facts and opinions have been presented. That is enough for me to say that we've reached a consensus without you.

 

Sorry.

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...