Travelling Caches

[+MusicIsMedicine]

Hello there.

 

I've just re-read through the guidelines for placing a cache and in particular the section regarding cache permanence. I noted that the guidelines state that travelling caches or temporary caches "most likely will not be published." To me that doesn't rule out the possibility all together. Is it purposely worded that way? What I'm wondering is if there are certain circumstances in which a travelling cache would be allowed to be published? Is this left up to the individual cache reviewer?

 

I can understand GC.com's position with regards to caches expected to be around for some time, but I've been looking around the site and seen some travelling caches that have worked quite successfully for years. To me, simply marking the location after picking up the travelling cache seems to be an effective way of telling anyone else searching at the same time that the cache has already been moved. Plus from what I've observed of other travelling caches, multiple searchers at the same time seems to be quite rare and far between.

 

Anyway, another cacher and I are curious if there is an outright ban on publishing new moving caches, or is there some leeway given depending on the circumstances?

Edited April 25, 2007 by Canada4Life

[+briansnat]

You can make a bet that new traveling caches will not be published and you will win money from anyone who says they might be.

[+BlueDeuce]

Anyway, another cacher and I are curious if there is an outright ban on publishing new moving caches, or is there some leeway given depending on the circumstances?

 

The issue with moving caches is that they can be placed in unauthorized locations; National parks, under interstate bridges, next to police stations, railroad tracks, schools, etc.

 

The only ‘moving’ caches I’ve seen approved are ones better describe as ‘sliders’. They can move but only within a pre-defined location, like a nature center.

Edited April 25, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+briansnat]

The only ‘moving’ caches I’ve seen approved are ones better describe as ‘sliders’. They can move but only within a pre-defined location, like a nature center.

 

I think even the slider caches need to have all potential locations pre-approved. They can't go just anywhere on the property.

[+MusicIsMedicine]

You can make a bet that new traveling caches will not be published and you will win money from anyone who says they might be.

I'm not sure that your post addresses the ambiguity of the guideline's wording. If they will most definitely not be allowed then shouldn't the guidelines reflect that rather than the current "most likely will not"?

 

The issue with moving caches is that they can be placed in unauthorized locations; National parks, under interstate bridges, next to police stations, railroad tracks, schools, etc.

Ah yes, that's something I haven't thought about, but I think it could easily be dealt with be stipulating that the cache must move to another park in the area. There are no restricted National parks in the area I have in mind, so that wouldn't be an issue.

 

The only ‘moving’ caches I’ve seen approved are ones better describe as ‘sliders’. They can move but only within a pre-defined location, like a nature center.

We were thinking of restricting it to a designated area, but probably much larger than a nature centre.

[+BlueDeuce]

The only ‘moving’ caches I’ve seen approved are ones better describe as ‘sliders’. They can move but only within a pre-defined location, like a nature center.

 

I think even the slider caches need to have all potential locations pre-approved. They can't go just anywhere on the property.

 

Even better.

[+BlueDeuce]

We were thinking of restricting it to a designated area, but probably much larger than a nature centre.

 

Pre-approved is probably your issue but hey, never say die.

[+Mach2003]

How about making it a multi: Cache stays put, but the clue card moves around?

[+Renegade Knight]

The only ‘moving’ caches I’ve seen approved are ones better describe as ‘sliders’. They can move but only within a pre-defined location, like a nature center.

 

I think even the slider caches need to have all potential locations pre-approved. They can't go just anywhere on the property.

 

That's my understanding as well. Looks like a new cache name has evolved.

[+StarBrand]

sliders - thats new.....

 

 

I would say there is virtually zero chance of a moving cache receiving approval except in VERY rare gc.com pre-approved situations.

[+minxyy]

The only 'moving' caches I have seen have been attached to either humans or animals.........and I can't find one and I'm wondering if they are TB's????

 

Sorry no help whatsoever duh......

 

It may however explain ambiguity of wording and therefore would rule out 'sliders' possibly????

 

have fun whatever you decide to "try" and do

minxyy

[+BlueDeuce]

sliders - thats new.....

 

Not really. Sac&Fox Slider - Hidden: 2/5/2004

[+palmetto]

I'd guess that the "most likely" is to give Groundspeak wiggle room to publish something they might want to.

As a reviewer, I'd nix a moving cache, and then the cacher could use appeals@geocaching.com to appeal. Or they could just use contact@geocaching.com first and see what might be possible.

[+MusicIsMedicine]

[edit] double post.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Canada4Life

[+MusicIsMedicine]

Hey Mach2003. Sorry, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I've read the listing for a moving multi cache, but both parts moved. (GC4411) In your idea something would still be moving, so I'm guessing there would be issues in getting it published. Unless I'm misunderstanding you...

 

Just for clarification, I have no idea what a slider cache is. Never heard of it until this thread, so it may be another name for what I'm thinking of, or may be something completely different. Here's a bookmark list of some caches that fit what I'm thinking of. http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...65-f7aa2c549617

I haven't looked at every one on the list, so they may not all be the same idea. The first travelling cache that I saw, and the one that gave us the idea, was GCA0D6.

 

Hope that helps clarify what I'm referring to.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Canada4Life

[+-Hawk-]

What is to prevent this "Traveling" cache from being eventually located too close to the .10 of a mile distance required from another cache or one of it's WP's if it is a multi?

I would really doubt, that with all the unknown variables that would come of this, that an approver would go for it. I would like to hear from some approvers to see what they will require from one of these, as far as guidelines, to make it approvable.

[+MusicIsMedicine]

I would like to hear from some approvers to see what they will require from one of these, as far as guidelines, to make it approvable.

That's precisely why I started this topic.

[+Harry Dolphin]

How about Travelling Virtual Locationless caches?

When pigs fly? Think TPTB have made up their mind on this subject.

[+MusicIsMedicine]

But have they? Because if we read the guidelines they don't definitively say that moving caches will not be published. If the powers that be no longer allow moving caches to be published, then I accept that, it's their website and they can run it how they see fit. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just looking for some clarification. Maybe posting in the forums is not the right venue to get that clarification...

[+palmetto]

I would like to hear from some approvers to see what they will require from one of these, as far as guidelines, to make it approvable.

 

From my post above:

 

As a reviewer, I'd nix a moving cache, and then the cacher could use appeals@geocaching.com to appeal. Or they could just use contact@geocaching.com first and see what might be possible.

[+Bob Blaylock]

I'm not sure that your post addresses the ambiguity of the guideline's wording. If they will most definitely not be allowed then shouldn't the guidelines reflect that rather than the current "most likely will not"?

  Something that's impressed me is how this organization emphasizes “guidelines” rather than “rules”.  Guidlines are in place to prohibit things that are thought to be too likely to create problems, or which are not sufficiently consistent with what Geocacing is supposed to be.  My impression is that the reviewers have the power to make an exception to any guidline, if someone can make a sufficiently strong case for having come up with an idea that, while violating the letter of a guidline, can be counted on not to create the problems that the guideline was intended to prevent; and to uphold the spirit of geocaching.  I think this is the basis for them not wanting to use absolute language, that would seem to solidly rule out any such exceptions.

[Keystone]

Because "Cache Permanence" is a guideline and not a rule, this permitted me to publish a fun cache called "Everyone's the FTF" where each finder is asked to move the cache one post further down a long guardrail. That way, each person is "first to find in the new location." I found it amusing, and because the guardrail is in a defined place, I had no concerns about the "moving" cache going someplace where it shouldn't.

 

I may have published a handful of others with similar designs over the past four years. Like, "the cache is under one of the four park benches along this trail, feel free to move it to one of the other three."

 

But I have never published a true, classic moving cache. I have, however, seen a number of problems with the dwindling group of grandfathered moving caches. One, owned by a guy in Utah, was moved by a midwestern cacher to a park in my area of Pennsylvania that is off-limits to geocaching. The police and town council had gotten involved in previous caches at that park. How would someone from 1000 miles away know this?

 

I'd put the odds of a true freely moving cache being published today at somewhere north of 1 in 10,000. But I never say never. They're guidelines.

[+Mach2003]

Hey Mach2003. Sorry, I'm not sure I know what you mean. I've read the listing for a moving multi cache, but both parts moved. (GC4411) In your idea something would still be moving, so I'm guessing there would be issues in getting it published. Unless I'm misunderstanding you...

 

Just for clarification, I have no idea what a slider cache is. Never heard of it until this thread, so it may be another name for what I'm thinking of, or may be something completely different. Here's a bookmark list of some caches that fit what I'm thinking of. http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...65-f7aa2c549617

I haven't looked at every one on the list, so they may not all be the same idea. The first travelling cache that I saw, and the one that gave us the idea, was GCA0D6.

 

Hope that helps clarify what I'm referring to.

 

I do not KNOW how this would be accepted, but try this idea on.

 

Place a "regular" cashe at a fixed location, that never moves. Create a (hopefully unique) small tag that has the coordinates to the final cache, or a clue to it. Allow the finder to move the clue (not the cache), to a new location (within some bounds). This way the clue would not likely interfere with another cache if it was placed too close to it, and you could set the range of travel so that it does not get moved to a "very" far off place.

 

Just a thought of how a reviewer *might* allow it.

[4wheelin_fool]

Hello there.

 

I've just re-read through the guidelines for placing a cache and in particular the section regarding cache permanence. I noted that the guidelines state that travelling caches or temporary caches "most likely will not be published." To me that doesn't rule out the possibility all together. Is it purposely worded that way? What I'm wondering is if there are certain circumstances in which a travelling cache would be allowed to be published? Is this left up to the individual cache reviewer?

 

I can understand GC.com's position with regards to caches expected to be around for some time, but I've been looking around the site and seen some travelling caches that have worked quite successfully for years. To me, simply marking the location after picking up the travelling cache seems to be an effective way of telling anyone else searching at the same time that the cache has already been moved. Plus from what I've observed of other travelling caches, multiple searchers at the same time seems to be quite rare and far between.

 

Anyway, another cacher and I are curious if there is an outright ban on publishing new moving caches, or is there some leeway given depending on the circumstances?

 

If you really must have a moving cache, just create a small cache and attach a travelbug tag to it. You can call the travelbug "the moving cache" and as long as it travels like a travelbug and gets placed inside of larger caches with preapproved locations it should be ok.

[+Prime Suspect]

I do not KNOW how this would be accepted, but try this idea on.

 

Place a "regular" cashe at a fixed location, that never moves. Create a (hopefully unique) small tag that has the coordinates to the final cache, or a clue to it. Allow the finder to move the clue (not the cache), to a new location (within some bounds). This way the clue would not likely interfere with another cache if it was placed too close to it, and you could set the range of travel so that it does not get moved to a "very" far off place.

 

Just a thought of how a reviewer *might* allow it.

The "clue" is a multi-cache stage. They're subject to the same rules as traditional caches.

 

The wording of the guidelines, "most likely will not be published", leaves open the idea that someone might come up with a workable moving cache. It's an acknowledgment that the sport is still evolving.

 

From what I've seen, the few remaining moving caches from "the old days" only remain viable due to the intense, nanny-like monitoring by a core group of interested individuals. Without it, they quickly become lost.

[+phoneman66]

From what I've seen, the few remaining moving caches from "the old days" only remain viable due to the intense, nanny-like monitoring by a core group of interested individuals. Without it, they quickly become lost.

 

I hope I'm a nanny in this regard. I have recently obtained GC7572, and I have worried ever since about where it goes next. It has been around a long time, and while I understand why traveling caches have gone away, this is a little piece of history. At least as far as geocaching is concerned, and I don't want to be the last person to log this cache. Any perspective takers???

[+mtn-man]

Another issue to consider is that you cannot change the coordinates very much. That effectively eliminated moving caches.

[+briansnat]

Place a "regular" cashe at a fixed location, that never moves. Create a (hopefully unique) small tag that has the coordinates to the final cache, or a clue to it. Allow the finder to move the clue (not the cache), to a new location (within some bounds). This way the clue would not likely interfere with another cache if it was placed too close to it, and you could set the range of travel so that it does not get moved to a "very" far off place.

 

I've seen this doen many times with travel bugs that hold the clue for a cache at a fixed location. The TB may have the combination to a lock on the container, or the actual coordinates (or part of the coords with other TBs providing the rest).

[+MusicIsMedicine]

Another issue to consider is that you cannot change the coordinates very much. That effectively eliminated moving caches.

For the moving cache I've found the new location was logged as an additional waypoint. When you re-hide the cache you post the waypoint in your log, and the cache owner updates the "additional waypoint" in the cache description.

 

So mtn-man, since you're the reviewer in my area, are there any circumstances where you would approve a moving cache? Maybe we can work something out? lol

[Mushtang]

Another issue to consider is that you cannot change the coordinates very much. That effectively eliminated moving caches.

For the moving cache I've found the new location was logged as an additional waypoint. When you re-hide the cache you post the waypoint in your log, and the cache owner updates the "additional waypoint" in the cache description.

 

So mtn-man, since you're the reviewer in my area, are there any circumstances where you would approve a moving cache? Maybe we can work something out? lol

he may be the reviewer in your area, but he lives in my City, and to get cAches approved it really helpS to know His weeknesses! just last week he approved a new virtual cache for me, and i'm goinG tO submit a loveLy moving cache next week in honor of this threaD. i have no doubt it will be approved.

 

[+Totem Clan]

he may be the reviewer in your area, but he lives in my City, and to get cAches approved it really helpS to know His weeknesses! just last week he approved a new virtual cache for me, and i'm goinG tO submit a loveLy moving cache next week in honor of this threaD. i have no doubt it will be approved.

 

i Have thOught about placeimg one also. i Wonder how Many yoU Could Have in one area. Well I wiLL just have to contact my revIewer To ask. This Area does have any, so i Know it shouldn't bE a problem.

 

 

[+Morgan's Marauders]

he may be the reviewer in your area, but he lives in my City, and to get cAches approved it really helpS to know His weeknesses! just last week he approved a new virtual cache for me, and i'm goinG tO submit a loveLy moving cache next week in honor of this threaD. i have no doubt it will be approved.

 

i Have thOught about placeimg one also. i Wonder how Many yoU Could Have in one area. Well I wiLL just have to contact my revIewer To ask. This Area does have any, so i Know it shouldn't bE a problem.

 

 

 

HA HA!!

[+MusicIsMedicine]

he may be the reviewer in your area, but he lives in my City, and to get cAches approved it really helpS to know His weeknesses! just last week he approved a new virtual cache for me, and i'm goinG tO submit a loveLy moving cache next week in honor of this threaD. i have no doubt it will be approved.

 

Um... Not sure if you were trying to be funny or what, but I was only asking him because he apparently reviews all the caches in my city, and it sounds like it's completely up to the reviewer as to what's allowed and what's not.

[+Too Tall John]

Um... Not sure if you were trying to be funny or what, but I was only asking him because he apparently reviews all the caches in my city, and it sounds like it's completely up to the reviewer as to what's allowed and what's not.

they were talking in code. as a hint, what you said in your last post was "uni," But they weRe talkIng aBout how thEy "grease The wHeEls." (both Mushtang and totem clan)

 

 

daNg... is my shift key brOken?

[+MusicIsMedicine]

Yes I noticed the "code". Just not sure what the point was as it doesn't really contribute anything useful to the topic.