Jump to content

Saturation


Recommended Posts

Now don't get me wrong; I like it when there are opportunities to get a number of caches in one park. It makes for a fun day out to be sure. Recently though, two local parks have basically been closed off to anyone else wanting to place a cache because another cacher saturated the park to its limit of caches per park by placing over 14+ caches in each of these two parks. The placed caches are good, but now no one else can place any in these parks until one is archived or there is a change in park policy. Am I wrong to feel a bit cheated out of an opportunity to place a cache in these parks that are now off limits?

 

Chris

Link to comment
Now don't get me wrong; I like it when there are opportunities to get a number of caches in one park. It makes for a fun day out to be sure. Recently though, two local parks have basically been closed off to anyone else wanting to place a cache because another cacher saturated the park to its limit of caches per park by placing over 14+ caches in each of these two parks. The placed caches are good, but now no one else can place any in these parks until one is archived or there is a change in park policy. Am I wrong to feel a bit cheated out of an opportunity to place a cache in these parks that are now off limits?

 

Chris

I understand why you feel that way. I thought that the guidelines were supposed to stop one person from dominating an area (power trail guideline). I guess you could ask the guy if he would let you have one of those spots. He could have his container back to hide somewhere else....
Link to comment

There are a bunch of things that go into the equation.

 

If nobody else was placing caches back when those were placed. That person did the right thing by keeping busy for future cachers.

 

If there is an active local community then the right thing to do is for them to not saturate the area and block off what other locals can place. However they can still place a lot of caches here and there. It's a big world.

 

In time the park will open up and others will be able to place caches there.

Link to comment

... thought that the guidelines were supposed to stop one person from dominating an area (power trail guideline). I guess you could ask the guy if he would let you have one of those spots. He could have his container back to hide somewhere else....

 

The saturation rule is to prevent too many caches in one area, but not so much to stop one cacher from placing all of those caches.

 

It's a subjective rule since it's in the opinion of the approver at what point you have reached "saturation". When a park itself says "we only allow 14 caches at a time in our park" that's a more solid number to work with. But it would not stop this site from setting a lower number as the saturation point.

Link to comment

... thought that the guidelines were supposed to stop one person from dominating an area (power trail guideline). I guess you could ask the guy if he would let you have one of those spots. He could have his container back to hide somewhere else....

he saturation rule is to prevent too many caches in one area, but not so much to stop one cacher from placing all of those caches.

 

It's a subjective rule since it's in the opinion of the approver at what point you have reached "saturation". When a park itself says "we only allow 14 caches at a time in our park" that's a more solid number to work with. But it would not stop this site from setting a lower number as the saturation point.

It might make sense for GC to consider a new guideline that stipulates that no single cacher would be allowed to hide his own caches closer than 0.3 miles from one of his other caches. This would allow space for others as well as discouraging power trails hidden by one person. Of course, existing caches would be grandfathered....

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

...It might make sense for GC to consider a new guideline that stipulates that no single cacher would be allowed to hide his own caches closer than 0.3 miles from one of his other caches. This would allow space for others as well as discouraging power trails hidden by one person. Of course, existing caches would be grandfathered....

 

This doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Volunteer reviewers get enough grief from people who's caches are disallowed or sent back for corrections. This would just add more agravation to their jobs.

 

I also don't think this will ever be much of a problem in any one region.

Link to comment

...It might make sense for GC to consider a new guideline that stipulates that no single cacher would be allowed to hide his own caches closer than 0.3 miles from one of his other caches. This would allow space for others as well as discouraging power trails hidden by one person. Of course, existing caches would be grandfathered....

 

This doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Volunteer reviewers get enough grief from people who's caches are disallowed or sent back for corrections. This would just add more agravation to their jobs.

 

I also don't think this will ever be much of a problem in any one region.

Good point. I can't believe the grief they get. Some people are really jerks. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I have to ask what is the point of hiding this many caches in so small an area anyways? 14 caches in the same small park can't all be taking you somewhere interesting and worth visiting, can they?

 

I'm glad it has not come to that in my area.

Link to comment
Am I wrong to feel a bit cheated out of an opportunity to place a cache in these parks that are now off limits

 

Your feelings are your feelings. Go ahead, feel cheated - I'm not being sarcastic here.

 

As the game matures there are now many urban parks that are 'full up'. Whether the caches were placed by 1 cacher or 20, there's still no place for a new hide. Just how it is.

 

You might try contacting that prolific cache placer and ask if he'd archive one his in favor of yours. Personally I'd archive many (not all) of my hides for someone who wanted to place something new in the area.

But he can say no. He got there first. It's how the game works.

Link to comment

I have to ask what is the point of hiding this many caches in so small an area anyways? 14 caches in the same small park can't all be taking you somewhere interesting and worth visiting, can they?

 

I'm glad it has not come to that in my area.

It really can't be all that small of a park if it holds 14+ caches all .1 miles away from each other. :unsure:

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

Now don't get me wrong; I like it when there are opportunities to get a number of caches in one park. It makes for a fun day out to be sure. Recently though, two local parks have basically been closed off to anyone else wanting to place a cache because another cacher saturated the park to its limit of caches per park by placing over 14+ caches in each of these two parks. The placed caches are good, but now no one else can place any in these parks until one is archived or there is a change in park policy. Am I wrong to feel a bit cheated out of an opportunity to place a cache in these parks that are now off limits?

 

Chris

 

So you're upset because the park is over-saturated because you wanted the chance to be the one to over-saturate it? :unsure:

Link to comment

So you're upset because the park is over-saturated because you wanted the chance to be the one to over-saturate it? :unsure:

 

No, I think it's because the OP wants to place a cache, but SuperHider has gone around and sucked up all the good spots leaving little for everyone else. SuperHider probably did that before the OP even found the hobby.

Link to comment

... thought that the guidelines were supposed to stop one person from dominating an area (power trail guideline). I guess you could ask the guy if he would let you have one of those spots. He could have his container back to hide somewhere else....

he saturation rule is to prevent too many caches in one area, but not so much to stop one cacher from placing all of those caches.

 

It's a subjective rule since it's in the opinion of the approver at what point you have reached "saturation". When a park itself says "we only allow 14 caches at a time in our park" that's a more solid number to work with. But it would not stop this site from setting a lower number as the saturation point.

It might make sense for GC to consider a new guideline that stipulates that no single cacher would be allowed to hide his own caches closer than 0.3 miles from one of his other caches. This would allow space for others as well as discouraging power trails hidden by one person. Of course, existing caches would be grandfathered....

 

Really? This makes absolutely no sense at all! (IMHO of course)

 

I have a park here with 20+ (I'm thinking 28, but could be wrong) hides...some are really rough bushwacking hides (called adventure series...these aren't for the prissy cachers), some very simple (to get to) hides which take you along nice trails or to great views, and even a couple of multis (one is a 4 stager that'll have you climbing and balancing)...while not everyone will agree that these are all nice hides, they are all challenging and lead you to nice areas!

 

Here's the deal...I worked very hard to get permission granted to place these hides (a state park...this was before MiGO brokered their deal with the S.P.'s) and was given exclusive hiding rights to this park! I also host our event (a weekend camp/cache event) and have been very busy working with this park to set up a cacher program. Sure, it may seem stingy of me to take up all that space for my hides...BUT, think about how many cachers can now come from all around and spend a weekend camping and caching...never even having to leave the park!

 

I also worked out a deal with another local park (about 4 miles from the S.P.) and was given exclusive rights to that one as well! I hid plenty of caches at first, but have pulled some and have opened that park up to others (although no one has taken me up on the offer as of yet).

 

Neither of these parks had previously allowed caches (well, the S.P. did, but you had to pay...no one wanted that), so my work paved the way. In no way should I be limited by GS because someone feels cheated of a chance to place a hide! Work brings benefits!!

 

Now, if someone were to come up to me and ASK me to allow a cache to be hidden (yep, still plenty of room for more in the S.P.), I'd consider it...as long as the hide were in a good location and was of quality...(and yes, I'd be the judge of that)!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

I have a park here with 20+ (I'm thinking 28, but could be wrong) hides...some are really rough bushwacking hides (called adventure series...these aren't for the prissy cachers), some very simple (to get to) hides which take you along nice trails or to great views, and even a couple of multis (one is a 4 stager that'll have you climbing and balancing)...while not everyone will agree that these are all nice hides, they are all challenging and lead you to nice areas!

 

Let me guess that your state park is probably bigger than 0.7 x 0.4 miles in size. The OP is referring, I believe, to city parks, that might only be half that - perhaps only 100 acres. Theoretically it could perhaps hold 14 or 15 caches, but should it?

Link to comment

When I started caching there is a huge park near me and it had only 3 caches in it. By huge, I mean 8,000 + acres. Now, 2 years later it has a LOT more because I placed some there. There have only been about 4 other caches placed not by me in the past 2 years, not because of my caches, but because no one was placing them. Cachers that didnt live in the area didnt even know the park existed until I gave them a reason to come here. There is still plenty of places for others to place caches, but there isnt that many local cachers here. I guess you could say I have monopolized a great part of the park by now, but If I didnt place the caches I have, there wouldnt be a good day or two worth of caching in the park.

Link to comment

I have a park here with 20+ (I'm thinking 28, but could be wrong) hides...some are really rough bushwacking hides (called adventure series...these aren't for the prissy cachers), some very simple (to get to) hides which take you along nice trails or to great views, and even a couple of multis (one is a 4 stager that'll have you climbing and balancing)...while not everyone will agree that these are all nice hides, they are all challenging and lead you to nice areas!

 

Let me guess that your state park is probably bigger than 0.7 x 0.4 miles in size. The OP is referring, I believe, to city parks, that might only be half that - perhaps only 100 acres. Theoretically it could perhaps hold 14 or 15 caches, but should it?

 

Just a touch bigger :):)

 

One shouldn't be limited because someone else was late in placing. When I first started, I couldn't find any place save cemeteries to hide caches. As I progressed, I found some parks and then these parks I've mentioned. When I first started, I also felt much like the OP (all the good places have been used up) BUT, with a bit of work and a LOT of caching, I was able to find new areas...maybe the OP will to!

 

Limiting cachers from placing their hides a distance from their other hides seems a bit ridiculous to me, why should someone else be able to use the area and not the one who first thought of it?

Link to comment
So you're upset because the park is over-saturated because you wanted the chance to be the one to over-saturate it?

 

:) Not necessary. I'm just asking a simple question.

 

Back to topic. Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. The local society has had to work with the parks to get them opened up to 20 caches for each park. This is regardless of the size of the park. The caches for the most part are located well over the 25 foot off trail guideline. Already, well-defined trails are being formed through wetlands and other sensitive areas--and these were all just placed in the last 2 weeks, 14 in one park and 18 in another. So, there is a risk that the park(s) will pull the caches because of environmental damage--and close the parks to all geocaching. In addition, they are not clearly marked as geocaches which the park clearly states they must be. The caches are good, but not great. They are not winter-friendly by any means. One I found the day it was placed was full of water.

 

I think it's great someone wants to place a lot of caches. Some of us enjoy the finding more than the hiding or the hiding more than the finding, as it were. However, these caches are placed in concentration in small portions of the park, excluding other interesting areas. Some are placed in obvious floodplains. Some are placed in high muggle traffic areas when other less active parts of the park have no caches. I think if you cached these areas you might understand.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Limiting cachers from placing their hides a distance from their other hides seems a bit ridiculous to me, why should someone else be able to use the area and not the one who first thought of it?
So having your caches 0.3 miles apart from each other doesn't allow you to hide them where you want to hide them? I don't have any caches near that close together and I managed to find cool spots for all of them. The funny part is that you are not supposed to hide a series of caches that are all 528 feet apart from each other anyhow. So the idea I proposed was really is just another way of stating the current guideine but with a simple measurement rather than a vague statement that nobody understands.
Link to comment
Limiting cachers from placing their hides a distance from their other hides seems a bit ridiculous to me, why should someone else be able to use the area and not the one who first thought of it?
So having your caches 0.3 miles apart from each other doesn't allow you to hide them where you want to hide them? I don't have any caches near that close together and I managed to find cool spots for all of them. The funny part is that you are not supposed to hide a series of caches that are all 528 feet apart from each other anyhow. So the idea I proposed was really is just another way of stating the current guideine but with a simple measurement rather than a vague statement that nobody understands.

Sorry but I have three caches on my farm, with your suggestion I would have to pull one to make room for somebody else, even though I have no intention of allowing someone else to place one here if I can't do it myself. :) Bad idea.

Link to comment
Limiting cachers from placing their hides a distance from their other hides seems a bit ridiculous to me, why should someone else be able to use the area and not the one who first thought of it?
So having your caches 0.3 miles apart from each other doesn't allow you to hide them where you want to hide them? I don't have any caches near that close together and I managed to find cool spots for all of them. The funny part is that you are not supposed to hide a series of caches that are all 528 feet apart from each other anyhow. So the idea I proposed was really is just another way of stating the current guideine but with a simple measurement rather than a vague statement that nobody understands.

Sorry but I have three caches on my farm, with your suggestion I would have to pull one to make room for somebody else, even though I have no intention of allowing someone else to place one here if I can't do it myself. :) Bad idea.

That means that you think the power trail guideline is also a bad idea because it's basicially the same thing. :)
Link to comment

I would say it's natural to feel that way..but not necessarily right..

 

I mean..if you had caches there and someone else didn't, then they'd feel the same way, so..

 

IF....IF.....IF. Please tell me, how is it that you know this? I don't think that it is very likely that your Iffee there would be inclined to suckup the entire cache capacity of a couple of parks. Do you believe that?

Link to comment
So you're upset because the park is over-saturated because you wanted the chance to be the one to over-saturate it?

:) Not necessary. I'm just asking a simple question.

 

Back to topic. Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. The local society has had to work with the parks to get them opened up to 20 caches for each park. This is regardless of the size of the park. The caches for the most part are located well over the 25 foot off trail guideline. Already, well-defined trails are being formed through wetlands and other sensitive areas--and these were all just placed in the last 2 weeks, 14 in one park and 18 in another. So, there is a risk that the park(s) will pull the caches because of environmental damage--and close the parks to all geocaching. In addition, they are not clearly marked as geocaches which the park clearly states they must be. The caches are good, but not great. They are not winter-friendly by any means. One I found the day it was placed was full of water.

 

<snip>

If what you state is true, you should contact your local Reviewer. One very large park here has rules about caches being close to trails and individual cachers have actually pulled caches they have found to be in violation when they went for the FTF. In another area, I was FTF on a cache that was too far off a trail in a sensitive area. That cache owner moved the cache after I expressed concerns in my "Found it" log.

 

If your initial post had mentioned these problems with the caches, placed with disregard for Park Guidelines, I think the responses would have been different . . .

Link to comment
If your initial post had mentioned these problems with the caches, placed with disregard for Park Guidelines, I think the responses would have been different . . .

 

You're right. I should have. When I said cheated it wasn't so much me hiding caches (I like the find better), but the opportunity to see a variety of caches by a variety of hiders. There are a few new cachers that have placed some nice finds in the area and maybe might have made it out to these closed parks. A few veterans with some great hides have placed a couple in these parks too and it would be fun to see more of them.

 

There's a rail to trail here that has caches placed all along it by several different cachers. It's been a lot of fun finding these caches. You have no idea what to expect when you're coming up against new hiders.

Link to comment
So you're upset because the park is over-saturated because you wanted the chance to be the one to over-saturate it?

:) Not necessary. I'm just asking a simple question.

 

Back to topic. Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. The local society has had to work with the parks to get them opened up to 20 caches for each park. This is regardless of the size of the park. The caches for the most part are located well over the 25 foot off trail guideline. Already, well-defined trails are being formed through wetlands and other sensitive areas--and these were all just placed in the last 2 weeks, 14 in one park and 18 in another. So, there is a risk that the park(s) will pull the caches because of environmental damage--and close the parks to all geocaching. In addition, they are not clearly marked as geocaches which the park clearly states they must be. The caches are good, but not great. They are not winter-friendly by any means. One I found the day it was placed was full of water.

 

<snip>

If what you state is true, you should contact your local Reviewer. One very large park here has rules about caches being close to trails and individual cachers have actually pulled caches they have found to be in violation when they went for the FTF. In another area, I was FTF on a cache that was too far off a trail in a sensitive area. That cache owner moved the cache after I expressed concerns in my "Found it" log.

 

If your initial post had mentioned these problems with the caches, placed with disregard for Park Guidelines, I think the responses would have been different . . .

I overlooked this post because it wasn't in your original post. This changes everything. I agree with Miragee. Contact your local reviewer! You should do it before it's too late. We've had all caches pulled from parks and it's a pain to get back in again! :) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Limiting cachers from placing their hides a distance from their other hides seems a bit ridiculous to me, why should someone else be able to use the area and not the one who first thought of it?
So having your caches 0.3 miles apart from each other doesn't allow you to hide them where you want to hide them? I don't have any caches near that close together and I managed to find cool spots for all of them. The funny part is that you are not supposed to hide a series of caches that are all 528 feet apart from each other anyhow. So the idea I proposed was really is just another way of stating the current guideine but with a simple measurement rather than a vague statement that nobody understands.

Sorry but I have three caches on my farm, with your suggestion I would have to pull one to make room for somebody else, even though I have no intention of allowing someone else to place one here if I can't do it myself. ;) Bad idea.

That means that you think the power trail guideline is also a bad idea because it's basicially the same thing. ;)

 

No, you shouldn't hide them every 528' just because you can, but it doesn't say that you CAN'T. The guidelines state every 528'...how does your 0.3 miles statement echo the guidelines? I have several that are well within the 0.3 mile distance, if the guidelines state otherwise, I'm certain our very experienced and knowledgeable reviewer would have stopped us. He did mention the power trail issues once, but we assured him our intentions weren't to just use space for the sake of having a cache and he was content in letting us hide on! Sometimes, great places are closer than 0.3 miles apart!

Link to comment

Now don't get me wrong; I like it when there are opportunities to get a number of caches in one park. It makes for a fun day out to be sure. Recently though, two local parks have basically been closed off to anyone else wanting to place a cache because another cacher saturated the park to its limit of caches per park by placing over 14+ caches in each of these two parks. The placed caches are good, but now no one else can place any in these parks until one is archived or there is a change in park policy. Am I wrong to feel a bit cheated out of an opportunity to place a cache in these parks that are now off limits?

 

Chris

 

I'd say yes you are wrong to feel cheated. If you were so set on placing a cache in one of those parks you should have done it before the other cacher did. Also there are plenty of other parks out there.

 

Besides, it gives you more caches to find. I've had many times where I was considering a spot for a cache, only to have someone beat me there. Fine with me. Gives me a chance for a find.

 

Back to topic. Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. The local society has had to work with the parks to get them opened up to 20 caches for each park. This is regardless of the size of the park. The caches for the most part are located well over the 25 foot off trail guideline. Already, well-defined trails are being formed through wetlands and other sensitive areas--and these were all just placed in the last 2 weeks, 14 in one park and 18 in another. So, there is a risk that the park(s) will pull the caches because of environmental damage--and close the parks to all geocaching. In addition, they are not clearly marked as geocaches which the park clearly states they must be. .

 

Now you discussing a horse in a different garage. If you know for a fact that the caches are violating local park rules you probably should discuss this with the cache owner, or your local reviewer.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Now don't get me wrong; I like it when there are opportunities to get a number of caches in one park. It makes for a fun day out to be sure. Recently though, two local parks have basically been closed off to anyone else wanting to place a cache because another cacher saturated the park to its limit of caches per park by placing over 14+ caches in each of these two parks. The placed caches are good, but now no one else can place any in these parks until one is archived or there is a change in park policy. Am I wrong to feel a bit cheated out of an opportunity to place a cache in these parks that are now off limits?

 

Chris

 

Hi Chris,

 

Let me give you a reason why this is a blessing. It's going to keep you from "robo hiding" and adding to the sameness of that saturated park. I'd be amazed if any of those hides so close together are memorable adventures for the seeker.

 

I didn't check where you are from and I'm not sure it's even necessary to make this statement. There's a great place near you that nobody has even thought of to put a cache in. When you find it, you'll have a unique and great cache with your name on it. It will be something to be proud of and not a the duplication you are pondering. It's there.. just look around.

Link to comment
I'd say yes you are wrong to feel cheated. If you were so set on placing a cache in one of those parks you should have done it before the other cacher did. Also there are plenty of other parks out there.

 

Might want to read the whole thread before you reply.

 

Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. ...When I said cheated it wasn't so much me hiding caches (I like the find better), but the opportunity to see a variety of caches by a variety of hiders.

 

Considering the poor placement of some of the caches, the problem will probably resolve itself in time.

Link to comment

Back to topic. Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. The local society has had to work with the parks to get them opened up to 20 caches for each park. This is regardless of the size of the park. The caches for the most part are located well over the 25 foot off trail guideline. Already, well-defined trails are being formed through wetlands and other sensitive areas--and these were all just placed in the last 2 weeks, 14 in one park and 18 in another. So, there is a risk that the park(s) will pull the caches because of environmental damage--and close the parks to all geocaching. In addition, they are not clearly marked as geocaches which the park clearly states they must be. The caches are good, but not great. They are not winter-friendly by any means. One I found the day it was placed was full of water.

 

I think it's great someone wants to place a lot of caches. Some of us enjoy the finding more than the hiding or the hiding more than the finding, as it were. However, these caches are placed in concentration in small portions of the park, excluding other interesting areas. Some are placed in obvious floodplains. Some are placed in high muggle traffic areas when other less active parts of the park have no caches. I think if you cached these areas you might understand.

You really need to go back and edit the OP and CLEARLY indicated what you changed. My first thought when I read the OP was a sarcastic "Oh, boo hoo". But this new info changed the whole meaning of the complaint. As others have already told you, if the caches are clearly against park guidelines you should report them to the local reviewer BEFORE the park officials ban all caching. Even better, send an email to the owner pointing to this thread.

Link to comment

I introduced a friend to geocaching a while back. He works for the parks department and wanted to place some caches in a certain part of the park. (We have the third largest city park in the nation so there is a lot of room.) He got all pushed out of shape when it turned out that a local cacher had pretty much sewed up the particular area where he wanted to place his caches. Now the person who had hidden the caches there had been caching for a couple of years and had, over time, placed his caches. I was kind of boggled that the n00b would be peeved since he was just starting out. I know that when I started I made a list of places that I thought would be great spots for a cache and then discovered that literally all of them had been used by folks who had been caching for a while. I just waited and eventually found other places to hide caches. No big deal.

 

My friend was even more annoyed when I placed a cache in the area he had said was totally "hogged" by the older cacher. I slid one in .11 miles from all of the others. Adding insult to injury, he tried to be FTF on my cache and looked for a couple of hours in the pre-dawn hours without finding it. He got cold and wet and grumpy. He eventually looked for it 5 times without finding it before I went and showed it to him. He was so peeved he wouldn't even log the thing. It's been a fairly popular cache too and has had good logs. Sadly, my friend no longer geocaches but maybe it's for the best.

Link to comment

...Back to topic. Problem is that the caches for the most part are in violation of the park guidelines. The local society has had to work with the parks to get them opened up to 20 caches for each park. This is regardless of the size of the park. The caches for the most part are located well over the 25 foot off trail guideline. Already, well-defined trails are being formed through wetlands and other sensitive areas--and these were all just placed in the last 2 weeks, 14 in one park and 18 in another. So, there is a risk that the park(s) will pull the caches because of environmental damage--and close the parks to all geocaching. In addition, they are not clearly marked as geocaches which the park clearly states they must be. The caches are good, but not great. They are not winter-friendly by any means. One I found the day it was placed was full of water.

 

I think it's great someone wants to place a lot of caches. Some of us enjoy the finding more than the hiding or the hiding more than the finding, as it were. However, these caches are placed in concentration in small portions of the park, excluding other interesting areas. Some are placed in obvious floodplains. Some are placed in high muggle traffic areas when other less active parts of the park have no caches. I think if you cached these areas you might understand.

 

Chris

 

You sure pass a lot of judgment on these caches. The other day I got a log on a cache of mine that's in need of some TLC. They hated the cache and said it wasn't kid, dog, or shorts friendly. Strangly I had most of those either on or in tow when I placed it. How they managed to beat themselves up so badly when I didn't have to amazes me. But then I can't always tell another persons skill or judgment until I meet them and see for myself.

Link to comment

We we're "the mad cachers" that wayfarer222 is refering to.

Not one person has made an effort to bring this to our attention yet. I got here via SurferJoe (local reviewer).

Keep in mind....I'm only one part of Abra Cadaver.

Our thinking on this was, as wayfarer222 stated, some people like the find, some people like the hide.

Honestly, whats the point of driving 20-30 min. just to get out, walk for 15-20 min, find a cache, walk back then drive somewhere else to do the same thing. Why not drive one place, park and get sevral, plus a nice walk out of the deal. Some are on hiking trails, some are on horse trails, some are on bike trails, some you can bring you're dog to, some you can't. They we're ALL approved by THREE RIVERS PARKS. They were ALL family/user friendly.

Honestly, I don't see the problem here. We have had nothing but possitive feedback from 99% of the people who seek our hides. I mean, why not, a day out in the sun, hiking in the park, finding caches . If somebody else wanted to place a cache in these parks, don't you think they would have?

These are 500+ acre parks. But the park regulations clearly state, "25' from center of trail". True, we did gamble with some, and they were approved and published. The distance of each cache veried as much as the cache containers themselves. We didn't measure out .3 and drop. We dropped where we thought was a good place to drop. Sometimes it was a 1/2 mile, sometimes it was 3/4. Sometimes more. We were VERY limited to our locations, as we were trying to follow the 25' rule. That really doesnt leave a lot of freedom to roam.

After reading this thread, we have decided to archive almost all of out caches. We will be leaving some of the cooler ones where they are. Now, nobody feels cheated. 500+ acres, 2 caches.

Happy caching.

 

P.s....wayfarer222- next time you accuse someone of violating the rules, make sure a rule has been violated first.

Edited by Abra Cadaver
Link to comment
wayfarer222- next time you accuse someone of violating the rules, make sure a rule has been violated first.

 

Funny, that's not what the reviewer said.

 

This was the last cache of the day for me as the sky began to rumble and the rain started to fall in earnest. This cache is in violation of Three Rivers Parks' geocaching regulations.
Re: GC152BK
Link to comment

The same reviewer that published them AFTER 3 rivers approved them? Does this mean 3 rivers didn't do their job or our local reviewer didn't do his?

Keep in mind, it's not you're job to distinguish right from wrong. It's the local reviewers.

Wayfarer, you got youre way. you cried enough, now the park is empty.

Thought THAT would make you happy.

Some people just like to complain.

All this critisizm from someone who has 0 hides. Are you sure "cheated " is the right word?

 

 

You must not have been too traumatized by our caches, you found time to snap a picture....

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d0-b7537f34da55

Edited by Abra Cadaver
Link to comment

Sounds like the next step in this issue is for the OP and the hiders to take it to private emails. There's no need for a finger-pointing match on the public forums.

 

I'll leave this one open for now, hopefully any remaining discussion can take place in a civil manner.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

On the contrary this shows that the system works--and it works well. Three Rivers did their job. They maintained their park limit. The hider did his job to register them. The reviewer did his job to make sure that the geocaching guidelines were followed. At that point, it's up to the geocaching community as a whole to police themselves, which is exactly what happened. The reviewer acted appropriately. The hider acted appropriately.

 

On a personal note, rather than being "traumatized," I enjoyed the caches. I'm a finder, not a hider. The last few, "Beacon Deacon" and "Cuttleflage" were exceptional. And I do say all the conservation stuff from experience as a former DNR employee, former USFS employee, former USFWS employee and NPS volunteer. Getting tied up in their bureaucracy is something you don't want. If their rules are violated, it's a knee jerk reaction.

 

I do apologize publicly, AbraCadaver, that you were hurt.

Link to comment
On the contrary this shows that the system works--and it works well. Three Rivers did their job. They maintained their park limit. The hider did his job to register them. The reviewer did his job to make sure that the geocaching guidelines were followed. At that point, it's up to the geocaching community as a whole to police themselves, which is exactly what happened. The reviewer acted appropriately. The hider acted appropriately.

 

On a personal note, rather than being "traumatized," I enjoyed the caches. I'm a finder, not a hider. The last few, "Beacon Deacon" and "Cuttleflage" were exceptional. And I do say all the conservation stuff from experience as a former DNR employee, former USFS employee, former USFWS employee and NPS volunteer. Getting tied up in their bureaucracy is something you don't want. If their rules are violated, it's a knee jerk reaction.

 

I do apologize publicly, AbraCadaver, that you were hurt.

You might also apologize to your other local finders who won't have these good caches to go after, now that your actions got them archived.
Link to comment

 

This was the last cache of the day for me as the sky began to rumble and the rain started to fall in earnest. This cache is in violation of Three Rivers Parks' geocaching regulations.
Re: GC152BK

 

As a noob who has great fun in finding a few (and searching for lots) of Abra's caches, and as someone

who wants to place a few caches in the future, what was the violation for the above mentioned

cache GC152BK?

 

I thought that all of the caches were approved?

Does the 'Park' go and look at each location to give their approval?

 

Curious....

 

-Sean

Link to comment
You might also apologize to your other local finders who won't have these good caches to go after, now that your actions got them archived.

 

wayfarer222's actions had nothing to do with the caches getting archived.

 

I found a few of these caches to be in gross violation of the Three Rivers Parks geocaching policy while caching under my player account over the weekend. The policy requires that all caches be within 25 feet of an established park trail. This district considers anyone more than 25 feet off-trial to be trespassing. The caches in question were 100-300 feet from the nearest trail. I pointed this out to the cache owner in a private email and gave him the option of either moving the caches to be in compliance, or to remove and archive them.

 

For several years, caching was outright banned in this district. Through a great deal of hard work by the Minnesota Geocaching Association, we are not only allowed back in, but have a very good relationship with them. Part of my job as a volunteer cache reviewer is to make sure that relationship is maintained.

 

Surfer Joe

Link to comment
You might also apologize to your other local finders who won't have these good caches to go after, now that your actions got them archived.
wayfarer222's actions had nothing to do with the caches getting archived.

 

I found a few of these caches to be in gross violation of the Three Rivers Parks geocaching policy while caching under my player account over the weekend. The policy requires that all caches be within 25 feet of an established park trail. This district considers anyone more than 25 feet off-trial to be trespassing. The caches in question were 100-300 feet from the nearest trail. I pointed this out to the cache owner in a private email and gave him the option of either moving the caches to be in compliance, or to remove and archive them.

 

For several years, caching was outright banned in this district. Through a great deal of hard work by the Minnesota Geocaching Association, we are not only allowed back in, but have a very good relationship with them. Part of my job as a volunteer cache reviewer is to make sure that relationship is maintained.

 

Surfer Joe

... After reading this thread, we have decided to archive almost all of out caches. We will be leaving some of the cooler ones where they are. Now, nobody feels cheated. 500+ acres, 2 caches.

Happy caching.

 

P.s....wayfarer222- next time you accuse someone of violating the rules, make sure a rule has been violated first.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...