Cache only near home coordinates?

[Civet Cat]

Last spring I placed a cache in Baja, Mexico, where we often spend the winters. It was rejected by the reviewer because I could not prove that I would be able to maintain it, as our home coordinates are in Wisconsin. There are two other caches nearby that were placed by tourists from the U.S. like ourselves. We visited both and they look fine.

 

I explained to the reviewer that we often winter in Baja, and that we have geocacher friends who also travel down to Baja that would be able to check on the cache from time to time. The reviewer wanted to know the addresses of these people. I see no reason to supply that information.

 

After trying to contact the reviewer via the Waypoint page to try to address his questions, I finally received a message from the reviewer by email that since I was not responsive to his requests, he was archiving the cache.

 

I don't get the requirement for being close to the cache in order to monitor it. I have not placed a cache previous to this one, primarily because I was holding off for one of those "perfect" spots. Now that I have gone thru the process, I doubt I will waste the time doing it again.

[+fishingdude720]

I had the same problem. I wanted to place a geocache in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. We visit there more than once a year and even own a house there! But since it was 500 miles away I got a no-no.

[+Bob Blaylock]

Last spring I placed a cache in Baja, Mexico, where we often spend the winters. It was rejected by the reviewer because I could not prove that I would be able to maintain it, as our home coordinates are in Wisconsin. There are two other caches nearby that were placed by tourists from the U.S. like ourselves. We visited both and they look fine.

 

I explained to the reviewer that we often winter in Baja, and that we have geocacher friends who also travel down to Baja that would be able to check on the cache from time to time. The reviewer wanted to know the addresses of these people. I see no reason to supply that information.

  I think the general concern is whether you would be able to maintain that cache as needed.  If the cache should be damaged or go missing while you are back home in Wisconsin, how long would it be before it was repaired?  If you're not going to be able to get to the cache in order to repair it in a timely manner, then I think the reviewer wants some assurance that you've got someone else available in the area with whom you've made arrangements regarding the maintenance of the cache.

 

  It seems to me that you want to place a cache that you can't properly maintain.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Bob Blaylock

[+John Wayne Pooch]

This opens another question then. How long do you visit from your home coordinates? Will you be able to maintain your home coordinate caches while you are visiting your home in mexico in a timely maner? Sounds to me like you shouldn't be allowed to place any caches if this is the case.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, i'm behind you. Just trying to make a point.

 

I'm not trying to break any Groundspeak rules/guidelines but some times it seems that they are more PC then the government.

 

I can understand the guidelines for this though. Obviously these type of caches have become a problem over time and that is why they are no longer allowed.

Edited July 9, 2007 by JDubPooch

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Last spring I placed a cache in Baja, Mexico, where we often spend the winters. It was rejected by the reviewer because I could not prove that I would be able to maintain it, as our home coordinates are in Wisconsin. There are two other caches nearby that were placed by tourists from the U.S. like ourselves. We visited both and they look fine.

 

I explained to the reviewer that we often winter in Baja, and that we have geocacher friends who also travel down to Baja that would be able to check on the cache from time to time. The reviewer wanted to know the addresses of these people. I see no reason to supply that information.

 

After trying to contact the reviewer via the Waypoint page to try to address his questions, I finally received a message from the reviewer by email that since I was not responsive to his requests, he was archiving the cache.

 

I don't get the requirement for being close to the cache in order to monitor it. I have not placed a cache previous to this one, primarily because I was holding off for one of those "perfect" spots. Now that I have gone thru the process, I doubt I will waste the time doing it again.

People willing to place and maintain geocaches which fit listing guidelines are the heart of our game.

 

People who demand to be allowed to break the rules to place caches are not.

 

'Vacation caches', caches placed outside one's normal area of frequent travel, generally are not allowed because cache maintenance is expected to be timely after notification of an issue with the cache... meaning weeks, not months.

 

If you can reach agreement with a local maintainer AND provide contact information for them to your Reviewer you MIGHT be granted an exception, if the Reviewer believes your local maintainer can and will respond to cache issues in a timely manner. Thus the need for your local maintainer's contact info both as proof that you have one and as a way to contact someone to deal with cache issues.

 

There are vacation caches which pre-date this requirement that are grandfathered and thus do not set precedent for today's placements.

 

Go with the guidelines, they really do allow the game to work nicely.

Edited July 9, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Knight2000]

I dont think the issue would be the home co-ords.

 

If the cache was reported as needing maintenance, how soon could you get there?

 

1 week?

2 weeks?

1 month?

6 months?

 

I can see the reviewer asking for contact email addresses for local cachers who would help you maintain your cache. Maybe that is all the reviewer wanted, not their physical address.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I dont think the issue would be the home co-ords.

 

If the cache was reported as needing maintenance, how soon could you get there?

 

1 week?

2 weeks?

1 month?

6 months?

 

Better yet: How long did it/will it take you to remove the cache once the listing was archived?

 

1 week?

2 weeks?

1 month?

6 months?

 

Never?

 

If you can't remove that rejected cache within two weeks of its archival, then you don't really need more evidence that you could not adequately maintain it. However, maybe you already did. Maybe you picked it up within the week.

[Neos2]

There are very good reasons to ask that cache owners live near their hides. Exceptions are made in very rare instances, but they usually have special circumstances.

 

One thing a reviewer looks at is the history of the other hides the owner has placed. It is possible to place a cache out that will need very little attention. For instance, a well-placed ammo can with a large waterproof log book may go years without needing any attention. Unfortunately, since you have not placed any other caches yet, the reviewer couldn't use your history as a cache owner to justify an exception.

 

Even the best cache will sometimes need TLC. Usually caches with long-distance owners have locals who have agreed to step in to help now and then. For a remote cache, you don't neccessarily need to rush out to do a repair today. Although it's always best if the repairs can be made quickly, it can wait a short time. If you do have other folks willing to help you maintain the cache, providing their contact information to the reivewer would help to assure that someone will be by in a resonable amount of time to make the repair. In a vacation spot, you'd want the repair made sooner, rather than later, since most people won't be there long to try the cache again.

 

Frankly, I'm concerned with one of the other caches you did near there. It's amazing it has survived as long as it has. From the logs, it looks like it was placed on the spur of the moment by a cacher who has never again logged in to the system under that name. It was originally placed in a gatorade bottle. The coordinates are apparently off. Over the years, it had lost it's cap, and needed a new log. TBs and coins that go into it might not be getting logged out of it properly. Finally someone replaced the old container with a mayonaise container.

 

If I wanted to place caches in that area, I would have begun by tending to that one. Who knows, the reviewer may have noticed that I took care of the other cache, and taken that into consideration if I placed a cache near there It still needs a better container. IThere has to be something better to leave there than someone's emergency use of their picnic garbage. I'm fond of ammo cans, but they really don't work just anywhere, if I hadn't been there, I take several types of containers to find just the right one. (Of course, you've been there, so you know what would be best already). Even if you don't want to place a cache near there now, you'd still be doing other cachers a favor if you repaired that one.

 

If I were you, I would begin by placing a few local caches, and begin to build my reputation as a cache owner. After some time, you may be able to get that cache placed. Or, you may find that you no longer think it's a good an idea to place that cache so far from home. In either case, you'll be no worse off than you are now.