Mandatory Archiving....your take on it

[+TotemLake]

I've yet to see any reason why my (or any other) cache should be up for automatic archival at any time.

Me neither.

 

Funny thing... the people promoting this as a great idea would probably change their minds once one of there caches is suddenly auto-archived. They would change their tune in a New York minute. I'll bet one of my ol' yeller eTrex units on that.

 

I don't know...I can see both sides of this (at least elmuyloco's idea, not so much the OP's version), but frankly the main reason I'd be interested as I stated would be to just help alleviate potential geo-litter which I am surprised no one really cares if it gets left out there.

 

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, if you've already agreed to physically maintain a cache then certainly virtually maintaining once a year wouldn't be that cumbersome.

You're assuming a valid cache is geolitter just because its been out there a long time. Calling it potential geolitter doesn't justify the iron fist method of auto archiving. The minute yours is placed, it becomes potential geolitter just as much as the older cache is. Typically, newbies with these great ideas tend to burnout faster and then they do leave their trash out there without a worry after so much expressed concern for it in the threads. I'm surprised a seasoned player would come up with this as a good idea.

 

Start off slowly and become accustomed to the norm of the game before suggesting changes. You'll find this works more smoothly into locating equally good locations for a cache.

 

Better yet...

 

Go after the other suggestion. Chase the archived locations for the litter left behind there and re-establish a cache there if the location is good enough to warrant it.

Edited November 23, 2007 by TotemLake

[+egami]

You're assuming a valid cache is geolitter just because its been out there a long time. Calling it potential geolitter doesn't justify the iron fist method of auto archiving. The minute yours is placed, it becomes potential geolitter just as much as the older cache is. Typically, newbies with these great ideas tend to burnout faster and then they do leave their trash out there without a worry after so much expressed concern for it in the threads. I'm surprised a seasoned player would come up with this as a good idea.

 

Well, no I am not assuming this and I've addressed it before, but I am not going to keep rehashing it. In short, all I am saying it that the introduction of a "virtual" maintainance to help verify caches are still being physically maintained isn't armageddon.

 

I would be, in theory, all for allowing recent found logs and other events (including a reviewer override) to even keep these from meeting that criteria, but I think there is a good side to the coin if you can protect the integrity of quality caches, which I've stated numerous time is a must.

 

Remember, I just said I can see the other side of it...I didn't say this is a MUST DO ITEM. I am just saying there is SOME merit to it. I am not saying there aren't potential issues.

 

Start off slowly and become accustomed to the norm of the game before suggesting changes. You'll find this works more smoothly into locating equally good locations for a cache.

 

I didn't suggest it, so please don't accuse me of suggesting it. And pulling the "you're a newb, so shut up" card is kind of lame reasoning. If the merits of an idea can't stand on their own then they can't stand on their own and there isn't really a reason to go down that road.

 

(garbage language edited by moderator)

Edited November 24, 2007 by mtn-man

[+elmuyloco5]

The people who are posting at the end of the thread are clearly not reading the idea I put forth and are somehow thinking that it's a part of the OP thread. My idea had nothing to do with old caches, and so this is a dumb thing to keep arguing about. Cleaning up geotrash that has been left behind due to negligence has nothing to do with being a newb. And if it does, I certainly hope that I never stop being new. Cleaning up the world is something we all should be doing to give back to the community. Please actually read the thread before you respond thinking your know what your talking about.

[+mtn-man]

Perhaps you should post a new topic rather than getting upset about people attempting to stay on topic with regard to the original post?

 

[+TotemLake]

The people who are posting at the end of the thread are clearly not reading the idea I put forth and are somehow thinking that it's a part of the OP thread. My idea had nothing to do with old caches, and so this is a dumb thing to keep arguing about. Cleaning up geotrash that has been left behind due to negligence has nothing to do with being a newb. And if it does, I certainly hope that I never stop being new. Cleaning up the world is something we all should be doing to give back to the community. Please actually read the thread before you respond thinking your know what your talking about.

 

And pulling the "you're a newb, so shut up" (edited by moderator)

 

Then the thread clearly went off topic and a new thread should be started. I answered to the OP and to a general skim of the thread and specifically answered a post by egami that said:

 

but frankly the main reason I'd be interested as I stated would be to just help alleviate potential geo-litter which I am surprised no one really cares if it gets left out there.

 

If you didn't mean what you typed, you'd better start proof reading your post and re-edit it.

 

And to the both of you, as far as my statement about newbies is concerned, I did say typically newbies come up with these ideas and burnout leaving the very thing behind they ranted against in the threads. Keep the statement in context please if you're going to rail against the "newbie card". I can pull up a few threads and logs from the last 4 years where they started off quick and burned out just as quick when their ideas got shot down and left trash behind.

 

These ideas may look good on paper, but they do not stand on their own when implemented. People as a society generally goes, are lazy. Only the ones with the habits instilled in them will have enough self concsience to go out and clean up after themselves and they count very few in numbers.

Edited November 24, 2007 by mtn-man

[+elmuyloco5]

 

People as a society generally goes, are lazy. Only the ones with the habits instilled in them will have enough self concsience to go out and clean up after themselves and they count very few in numbers.

 

Exactly why the idea was suggested! People are lazy and not picking up when they need to.

 

And the first comment you made was directly quoting me.....don't know how I was off on that one. Look, I already stated a few pages back that I never expected my idea to take off into a tangent in this thread. I can't move the subject matter, but the moderators can. And if you go by the title of the thread.....it was never off topic.....just not having to do with what the OP suggested. No use on starting a new a thread at this point.....it's already been hashed over here for 4 pages.

[+MickEMT]

Good Lord NO AUTO ARCHIVING

[+TotemLake]

 

People as a society generally goes, are lazy. Only the ones with the habits instilled in them will have enough self concsience to go out and clean up after themselves and they count very few in numbers.

 

Exactly why the idea was suggested! People are lazy and not picking up when they need to.

 

And the first comment you made was directly quoting me.....don't know how I was off on that one. Look, I already stated a few pages back that I never expected my idea to take off into a tangent in this thread. I can't move the subject matter, but the moderators can. And if you go by the title of the thread.....it was never off topic.....just not having to do with what the OP suggested. No use on starting a new a thread at this point.....it's already been hashed over here for 4 pages.

elmuyloco5 Posted Today, 07:14 PM

The people who are posting at the end of the thread are clearly not reading the idea I put forth and are somehow thinking that it's a part of the OP thread.

 

So which is it?

 

I may be dense, and it won't be the first time, but it sure looks like you contradicted yourself.

[Phatfish16]

What you'll wind up with are even more quick, throw it anywhere type hides than before. Boring and unimaginative.

 

NO to auto archiving.

 

Wow, this is ONE LONG thread. One that took me a while to actually develop an opinion on, because I was kind of on the fence about it. (Bass River State Forest has a LOT of caches. But there's more than enough room for more, that's for sure.)

 

The reason I quoted the above comment is that I have to admit that I put out a few, boring and unimaginative hides. I blame it on my learning curve and low experience finding choice caches. Most of the great caches in my area must have required a LOT of work by the cache owners. This is something i'm working on copying and modifying to create my own hiding style. Like others have said in this thread, new cachers tend to simply toss hides out there quickly, without much thought or effort. I actually did just that this afternoon. (But I am working on a killer mystery/puzzle, the idea spawning directly from DirtyBird and BigNastyBrain's Cerebral Codex cache.) (Although many do just the opposite.)

 

To get onto topic, I wouldn't have developed an internal NEED to hide better caches without having the opportunity to find some of the better, yet less often found caches. As somewhat of a newbie to caching, (Only a few years on and off and less than 250 finds), I personally need to find more of the quick, cache and dashes regularly, and then a few of the more involved and difficult caches here and there...in order to develop my "geosense." Since I am not as experienced as some of the cachers who have thousands of finds, 10s of 100s of FTFs, dozens of hides and have cached all over the country, I would like to keep the older, less often found caches available to me once I feel confident enough to approach them. I may try for a 5/5 tomorrow, but if it hasn't been found within the proposed guidelines, it may not be there for me to find it when I feel ready to approach it. Then, if that 5/5 cache isn't available for me to find because of this auto-archive scenario that we're discussing I will not have had the pleasant and cache-developing experience to build upon my own hiding style. Without that 5/5 available to me when i'm ready to tackle it's challenge, I will in turn be UNABLE to hide a worthy 5/5 one day. OR, my idea of a 5/5 would truly be something closer to a 3/3.

 

It's like a snowball effect...if we create this system, it could potentially decrease the level and quality of great caches. This would probably not happen for experienced cachers...but for newbies, TRUE newbies...they may not have the opportunity to experience choice caches because ALL of the choice caches have been auto-archived.

 

Another thing that I wanted to point out, just as a polite suggestion directly to the starter of this thread...if you feel that your area is swamped with caches, try checking out a new area. May cost more in gas and take more time to get there...but I personally view geocaching as a way to explore new areas that I've never been to before. I've seen the places where all of my finds have been placed...Even if those caches that are in those locations are archived and replaced with new hides, I've already seen those sights. I'm ready to see something new.

 

I DO NOT support this idea. But that's just my 2 cents. But if you add up everyone's 2 cents, we may have enough to buy some SWAG for the next cache

[+elmuyloco5]

 

So which is it?

 

I may be dense, and it won't be the first time, but it sure looks like you contradicted yourself.

 

Neither. I don't think your dense, just misunderstanding me.....and I might not have clarified myself well enough. You could look at a "topic" as being two different things. First you have the Title of the thread being the topic, for which I was not off of. My idea deals with a form of mandatory archiving, one which is done ONLY to caches whose owners have chosen to no longer be active in the geocaching community. This doesn't matter whether they have an old or new cache (new meaning only a year as compared to old being more than a year). It's simply a way to make sure there is a clean up of online info as well as a clean up of those caches out there that no longer have an owner attached to them. Or, if the cache is loved by someone, it can be adopted. Next, you can look at the topic as being the content of the OP, who also dealt with mandatory archiving, but a method and reason much different than the one I proposed. It depends on how you look at what "off topic" is. In one way, I would be, and another not. My intentions were not to derail the thread. My original post just said simply that I didn't agree with the idea the OP had, and suggested where I thought a mandatory archive would help. From there most of the discussion has been about my post, so I'm not sure one could say that my continuance to answer and clarify my ideas to be "off topic"

[+Rockin Roddy]

Well elmuy...I haven't a clue what you're idea is and I'm far too lazy to go back and try to find out. As was suggested, you might want to start your own thread.

 

If you're worried about geotrash, you might want to check out MiGO (I already suggested this, but you might have missed it). We have a rescue mission which is all about cleaning up geotrash. Extremely simple...and something any org can implement!

[+elmuyloco5]

No, I didn't miss your post. I looked on the site though and only found two things, the adopt a highway and adopt a forest programs. Is that what you're talking about? Our group actually already adopted highway land, but we can't help with their CITO programs on it as we have 3 little kids (not appropriate for the highway, and they ask you not to bring children). As for the forest program, that's something that needs to get approval and funding through the forest service. I'm not sure how much it would serve to clean up geotrash though. But, we personally CITO while were caching and when we place caches as well. We have one currently that is just on the outskirts of a very popular hot springs where trash tends to accumulate. Although the trash isn't near our cache, there's quite a bit on the way to it. We are planning to host an event this Spring after the snow melt to clean up. We also disabled it for a few weeks so we can go up and clean up now as the trash is a pretty continual thing and we don't like people seeing trash on the way to our cache. We always try to make sure we clean up as much as we can. That's why I suggested my plan to begin with. It helps keep the environment cleaned up of unwanted caches. If I'm missing what you're talking about, please let me know as I would be very interested in introducing a geotrash cleaning idea to our statewide group.

[+Menehune Man]

No! To mandatory archiving, it's up to the individual cache owner.

 

How I play?

I have archived quite a few over the years and am totally comfortable with that.

Various reasons... ranging from muggled to re-opening the area.

I have some caches that I'll maintain and keep active as long as I am,

while others I archive without remorse.

 

The guidelines state a minimum of 3 months and I use that time as a probationary period.

Not all caches need to be there forever more, but again it's up to the owner in my opinion.

[+Rockin Roddy]

No, I didn't miss your post. I looked on the site though and only found two things, the adopt a highway and adopt a forest programs. Is that what you're talking about? Our group actually already adopted highway land, but we can't help with their CITO programs on it as we have 3 little kids (not appropriate for the highway, and they ask you not to bring children). As for the forest program, that's something that needs to get approval and funding through the forest service. I'm not sure how much it would serve to clean up geotrash though. But, we personally CITO while were caching and when we place caches as well. We have one currently that is just on the outskirts of a very popular hot springs where trash tends to accumulate. Although the trash isn't near our cache, there's quite a bit on the way to it. We are planning to host an event this Spring after the snow melt to clean up. We also disabled it for a few weeks so we can go up and clean up now as the trash is a pretty continual thing and we don't like people seeing trash on the way to our cache. We always try to make sure we clean up as much as we can. That's why I suggested my plan to begin with. It helps keep the environment cleaned up of unwanted caches. If I'm missing what you're talking about, please let me know as I would be very interested in introducing a geotrash cleaning idea to our statewide group.

Sorry lost this...also, sorry, I had forgotten that it wasn't available since we've moved to our new site..you now have to be a member to read it.

 

BUT...membership IS free!!

Edited January 11, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+Rockin Roddy]

No! To mandatory archiving, it's up to the individual cache owner.

 

How I play?

I have archived quite a few over the years and am totally comfortable with that.

Various reasons... ranging from muggled to re-opening the area.

I have some caches that I'll maintain and keep active as long as I am,

while others I archive without remorse.

 

The guidelines state a minimum of 3 months and I use that time as a probationary period.

Not all caches need to be there forever more, but again it's up to the owner in my opinion.

 

We think a lot alike!

[+Team Cotati]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

[Keystone]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns.

[+Menehune Man]

No! To mandatory archiving, it's up to the individual cache owner.

 

How I play?

I have archived quite a few over the years and am totally comfortable with that.

Various reasons... ranging from muggled to re-opening the area.

I have some caches that I'll maintain and keep active as long as I am,

while others I archive without remorse.

 

The guidelines state a minimum of 3 months and I use that time as a probationary period.

Not all caches need to be there forever more, but again it's up to the owner in my opinion.

 

We think a lot alike!

 

Cool and I think most do?!

[+PhxChem]

Simply, like I said, if the owner chooses to archive the cache themselves they can note whether or not they have retrieved it. If not, the cache goes on the same archival list. It leaves you no worse off then before since we are all hoping that these people are collecting their caches now.

 

Well, except the number of archives are going to increase. No? If not, what is the point of this plan?

 

And the number of new caches will increase....creating more work for the reviewers. If you going to archive my hides....well, I'm going to hide more. I hid them for a reason....to be found.

 

 

Oh, and the last point.....why do we need to do this again? Saturation? The OP said that it has to do with saturation. So, it's too saturated but no one visits those caches? HHMMMMMM....not in my area.....even if there was high saturation (and how do we define this?) they get visited on a routine basis.

 

Which geographical area are they having a "problem" with "saturation?"

[+Team Cotati]

Simply, like I said, if the owner chooses to archive the cache themselves they can note whether or not they have retrieved it. If not, the cache goes on the same archival list. It leaves you no worse off then before since we are all hoping that these people are collecting their caches now.

 

Well, except the number of archives are going to increase. No? If not, what is the point of this plan?

 

And the number of new caches will increase....creating more work for the reviewers. If you going to archive my hides....well, I'm going to hide more. I hid them for a reason....to be found.

 

 

Oh, and the last point.....why do we need to do this again? Saturation? The OP said that it has to do with saturation. So, it's too saturated but no one visits those caches? HHMMMMMM....not in my area.....even if there was high saturation (and how do we define this?) they get visited on a routine basis.

 

Which geographical area are they having a "problem" with "saturation?"

 

I quite agree. There is no "over saturation".

[+PhxChem]

I quite agree. There is no "over saturation".

 

And even if there were problems...I think a new spacing rule would take care of that.

[+Renegade Knight]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. ...

 

Caches have a natural life span. A remote cache can exist for 20 years with few if any finds seasonally. IT can last so long becuse most locals have not found it. An urban cache can be 'used up' in a year. An urban cache with frequent visits by travelers can last for years even though all the locals have found it.

 

You would be hard pressed to find a formula for automatic archival.

 

Even if you did figure out a magic formula that works, do you want to be the one to come get MY cache when YOU archived it and created a maintaince issue out of a perfectly good cache?

[+Rockin Roddy]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns.

Quite true...I've seen this first hand!!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation. ...

 

Caches have a natural life span. A remote cache can exist for 20 years with few if any finds seasonally. IT can last so long becuse most locals have not found it. An urban cache can be 'used up' in a year. An urban cache with frequent visits by travelers can last for years even though all the locals have found it.

 

You would be hard pressed to find a formula for automatic archival.

 

Even if you did figure out a magic formula that works, do you want to be the one to come get MY cache when YOU archived it and created a maintaince issue out of a perfectly good cache?

 

I surely don't!!

[+Team Cotati]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns.

Quite true...I've seen this first hand!!

 

What is it that you have "seen first hand"?

[+Rockin Roddy]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns.

Quite true...I've seen this first hand!!

 

What is it that you have "seen first hand"?

Reviewers restricting amount of caches allowed placed in an area regardless of the 528' guideline.

[+snowfrog]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns.

 

Finally someone who understands my point. Not over saturation by it's literal 528' definition, but rather that a park, trail, or certain area has become stagnant (to me) and needs an infusion of new challenges. Can I submit another option:(Moderator tolerance please,still on topic). Perhaps a way to allow existing "cool caches" or the oldies to be left for newbies by creating a "bending" of the 528' issue. Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say participation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas.

[+baloo&bd]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns.

 

Finally someone who understands my point. Not over saturation by it's literal 528' definition, but rather that a park, trail, or certain area has become stagnant (to me) and needs an infusion of new challenges. Can I submit another option:(Moderator tolerance please,still on topic). Perhaps a way to allow existing "cool caches" or the oldies to be left for newbies by creating a "bending" of the 528' issue. Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say To make it fair for all, warticipation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to say that Level 1 caches can be found on Sun, Tues and Thurs, Level 2 on Mon, Wed, Friday and Saturday, Level three on days exceeding 32 degrees and level 4's on Feb 29th?

 

And, as always, let us know when there is a over saturation issue.

[+Alan2]

That's an interesting concept Snowfrog worth fleshing out. Kinda like 3 dimensional chess. Of course the hider would have had to find all of Level 1 first before he would be allowed to hide a Level 2 cache so he would know where the Level 2 caches are so he doesn't overlap one of them.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Alan2

[+snowfrog]

There's no "over saturation". You can only place caches within 528' of each other. There can therefore be no "over saturation".

Sorry, but that is an incomplete reading of the "Cache Saturation" guideline. An area can become saturated even if all the caches are more than 528 feet apart. More and more so, reviewers are having to say "no more caches along this bike trail" or "no more caches in this park" due to power trail concerns.

 

Finally someone who understands my point. Not over saturation by it's literal 528' definition, but rather that a park, trail, or certain area has become stagnant (to me) and needs an infusion of new challenges. Can I submit another option:(Moderator tolerance please,still on topic). Perhaps a way to allow existing "cool caches" or the oldies to be left for newbies by creating a "bending" of the 528' issue. Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say To make it fair for all, warticipation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to say that Level 1 caches can be found on Sun, Tues and Thurs, Level 2 on Mon, Wed, Friday and Saturday, Level three on days exceeding 32 degrees and level 4's on Feb 29th?

 

And, as always, let us know when there is a over saturation issue.

Anyway........., for the sake of discussion and not useless dribble. Yes, you can argue that it adds unneeded complications, but I fail to see what is wrong with creating possibilities for new caches to coexist with some old ones. New caches that will take you back to old places. Now I'm not contradicting myself by suggesting we have more caches because, as has been brought up, over saturation is not necessarily too many, just not enough new ones nearby which causes some to have to drive farther each time out.

Edited January 19, 2008 by snowfrog

[+snowfrog]

Actually, I think adding a new twist to the game such as players hiding new and higher level caches in close proximity of other ones with ultra camouflage to avoid detection by seekers of the other level cache would be very challenging as a hider, and allow some to pursue bragging rights associated with rank instead of just numbers. I like the idea of a 3 dimensional game.

[+team lagonda]

i agree also..

[+Confucius' Cat]

The problem is that there are very few cachers capable of hiding "ultra camouflage" caches. The art of "ultra camouflage" is a fine art practised and master by very few.

 

Perhaps that would be a new class of cache that would be given an exception to the 528 rule from the get-go.

 

In any case though, the problem of "no new caches" is not solved by a "three dimensional" system, but only postponed.

• there are only a limited number of cache hiders in a given area
  
• Of those hiders an even more limited number have the ability to hide quality caches
  
• An even more limited number will have the interest and/or means to hide additional quality hides
  
• Creativity does not lend itself to "commercialization"... i.e. really creative hides cannot be output like water from a tap, they require much thought and inspiration
  
• eventually even the really creative hides in a given area will 'saturate"
  
• sooner or later the cacher who has presently found all the local caches will have found all the NEW local caches and will be stuck with driving farther away in spite of the new revisions
  

Perhaps your idea could better be accomplished by a local group that would be composed of AVID cachers in the area and they could operate their own independent listing service open only to their members. then you could implement the "1.5mm" rule or the "2 mile rule" or whatever rules the group deems fit.

[+Team Snorkasaurus]

...I would be willing to "give up my territory" to new hides, if my finds dried up.

Thats great, do it. If the finds on your caches dry up then by all means you are free to archive your own caches. You don't need new rules to do this.

 

...but the decision would be made by us, the caching community, by the lack of activity.

The caching community does not own individual caches, the person who creates and places them does. As long as a cache is being maintained it should last for as long as the cache owner decides.

 

There should be absolutely no time limits on the life of a well maintained cache. There are, unfortunately, many caches that are not maintained by their owners and these caches are fair game for "Needs Maintainance" and "Should Be Archived" logs. I don't see how your suggestions improve the game; however, I do respect your desire to improve your local caching situation. Fortunately, a fair solution already exists.

 

[+Confucius' Cat]

The Indiana DNR already has a policy in the state parks that requires a cache to be pulled after one year. It presently is not enforced as best as i can tell.

 

I pulled This cache back in November 2006 because i read the policy and decided, "what the hey, if that's what the DNR wants, OK, I'll obey."

 

My cache was placed way before the policy and did not have a permit. In short, it was "grandfathered" and I could probably have left it there forever. It was active and in good condition.

 

I figured if I took it down also that would "free up some space" for a new cache that perhaps i could go FTF even.

 

Still waiting...

Edited January 19, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

[+snowfrog]

The Indiana DNR already has a policy in the state parks that requires a cache to be pulled after one year. It presently is not enforced as best as i can tell.

 

I pulled This cache back in November 2006 because i read the policy and decided, "what the hey, if that's what the DNR wants, OK, I'll obey."

 

My cache was placed way before the policy and did not have a permit. In short, it was "grandfathered" and I could probably have left it there forever. It was active and in good condition.

 

I figured if I took it down also that would "free up some space" for a new cache that perhaps i could go FTF even.

 

Still waiting...

 

Interesting to me that the reasons the DNR requires closing (geolove), are largely considered invalid in the forums. Not a Greenpeacer but many consider a cache location as a piece of property, and defend the right to stay thar 4ever A little Hatfield and McCoy don't ya think?

Edited January 19, 2008 by snowfrog

[+snowfrog]

I realize that rating caches in difficulty is subjective, and so is camo creativity. Many times I have found a 2-4, which was overrated IMO, but that didn't matter to me. On another note, I would like to see a rating option by finders at the time of logging in which an average of peer ratings would replace the initial ratings of the hider., on difficulty and terrain. Perhaps it should be discussed in another thread but a "Layered" or three dimensional game I think is an interesting concept. I see a light at the end of the tunnel, and realize if limitations were not placed on the number of higher level caches stacked on top of pre-existing ones were not in place, the muti-dimensional thing would spin out of control. Another layer of difficulty allowed within 528' would yes, be only a minor and temporary solution, where they are needed if any, but let's see....another more challeging cache per location times all the caches near me. You're right, that's not any better? Obviously a higher level hide would have to be identified as being just that, in case it's found by level 1 seekers. You know what, never mind, more caches, more challenging,more attempts at ultra camo, yuck........ how boring is that.

Edited January 19, 2008 by snowfrog

[+Team Snorkasaurus]

The Indiana DNR already has a policy in the state parks that requires a cache to be pulled after one year...

Wow, I have never heard of this sort of local policy before. I wonder how common policies like this are? How aware is your local geo-community of this requirement? Anyway, local policy and Geocaching policy are separate subjects. The OP is suggesting a new Geocaching policy, one which I find entirely objectionable; however, this does not change our obligation to follow local laws.

 

So if a cache is inadvertently placed and approved too close to active rail lines (there is an active one near me)...

Bring this cache to your local reviewers attention immediately. Allow the reviewer to archive if necessary.

 

This thread started with:

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation...

My take: I believe this is an awful and ultimately unnecessary idea. We already have the ability to SBA caches that are not properly maintained. Layering would only increase cache density in areas with caches already in need of archival. Proper, responsible and fair use of the SBA option should be all that is necessary.

 

If your local geo-community feels the same as you, why not simply choose to archive your older caches collectively? If they do not share your feelings, what right do you have to impose your restrictions on others? If you are referring to geo-trash (caches that are not maintained) then simply use the SBA option to open up new space.

[+snowfrog]

The Indiana DNR already has a policy in the state parks that requires a cache to be pulled after one year...

Wow, I have never heard of this sort of local policy before. I wonder how common policies like this are? How aware is your local geo-community of this requirement? Anyway, local policy and Geocaching policy are separate subjects. The OP is suggesting a new Geocaching policy, one which I find entirely objectionable; however, this does not change our obligation to follow local laws.

 

So if a cache is inadvertently placed and approved too close to active rail lines (there is an active one near me)...

Bring this cache to your local reviewers attention immediately. Allow the reviewer to archive if necessary.

 

This thread started with:

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation...

My take: I believe this is an awful and ultimately unnecessary idea. We already have the ability to SBA caches that are not properly maintained. Layering would only increase cache density in areas with caches already in need of archival. Proper, responsible and fair use of the SBA option should be all that is necessary.

 

If your local geo-community feels the same as you, why not simply choose to archive your older caches collectively? If they do not share your feelings, what right do you have to impose your restrictions on others? If you are referring to geo-trash (caches that are not maintained) then simply use the SBA option to open up new space.

I respect your right to disagree, as most have, but remember hoss.........this is just a discussion and I have no plans to impose my selfish and evil restrictive wishes onto my local community, or to take over the world for that matter.Just so you know

[+JohnnyVegas]

I Mandatory archiving is a lame idea at best. If a cache is being maintained it should remain.

Part of the reason number visits to cache over any given period of time is because more cache are being hidden. When I started geocaching getting 100 caches really ment something, I mean you had to wark at maybe for several months to find 100 caches. Now depending on were to are you can find 100 caches in two days. It is getting to the point that find 1000 caches does not mean much anymore.

[+TrailGators]

When I started geocaching getting 100 caches really ment something, I mean you had to work for several months to find 100 caches. Now depending on were to are you can find 100 caches in two days. It is getting to the point that finding 1000 caches does not mean much anymore.

All numbers really mean is that somebody has a lot of time to cache.

[+Team Snorkasaurus]

I respect your right to disagree, as most have, but remember hoss.........this is just a discussion and I have no plans to impose my selfish and evil restrictive wishes onto my local community, or to take over the world for that matter.Just so you know

HAH!

 

Darn, and I was just polishing up my atomic powered destruct-o-beam for ya!

 

 

Sorry, I should have worded my reply better! I was certainly not trying to come across harshly or imply any evil intent. Sometimes the tone of a reply doesn't come across as intended in text. Very funny though! In truth, I admire anyone who cares enough to try to improve the Geocaching experience! Moreover, I am grateful to Geocachers who dare to share their opinions on these sometimes treacherous forums, even when their opinions are contrary to the majority. I have certainly expressed my share of unpopular opinions. For instance, I once expressed my belief that batteries should be included in the list of items banned from Geocache containers. I sure got blasted for that one! However unpopular, I still firmly believe it to be the right choice based on my own Geocaching experiences. Even though I may disagree with you, I entirely respect you and your opinions. Now, what am I gonna do with this destruct-o-beam?

 

Hoss?!?

 

(tee-hee)

Edited January 19, 2008 by Team Snorkasaurus

[+Glenn]

This thread started with:

I would like to see a mandatory archive of caches to help with over saturation...

My take: I believe this is an awful and ultimately unnecessary idea. We already have the ability to SBA caches that are not properly maintained. Layering would only increase cache density in areas with caches already in need of archival. Proper, responsible and fair use of the SBA option should be all that is necessary.

 

If your local geo-community feels the same as you, why not simply choose to archive your older caches collectively? If they do not share your feelings, what right do you have to impose your restrictions on others? If you are referring to geo-trash (caches that are not maintained) then simply use the SBA option to open up new space.

I respect your right to disagree, as most have, but remember hoss.........this is just a discussion and I have no plans to impose my selfish and evil restrictive wishes onto my local community, or to take over the world for that matter.Just so you know

 

Wow, I can't believe that this discussion is still going on. If someone has found a good spot to place a cache and is maintaining the cache then let the cache stand! It seem to me that these so called saturation problems are being used as an excuse to advocate for a policy with the apparent ultimate objective of taking an established cache location from someone who maintains it properly and give it to someone else who may or may not maintain the cache.

 

I've moved to three different states since I stated geocaching and I know first hand how hard it can be to find a good place to put a cache in an area where geocaching is well established. But I have never though about taking someone else cache location from them. I just have to work a little harder and maybe travel a little further to find a good spot. The other cacher was there first and as long as they maintain their cache they have every right to keep that location! However if someone is obviously neglecting their cache I have no qualms in logging an SBA. If we use the tools that are already provided to us then there is no need for automatic archive feature.

[+Fan4]

I've only been caching for a bit less than 2 yrs now, and it's not about the numbers for me. I could have a lot more caches found, but I don't get a big charge out of finding 1 in a series of 25+ skirt lifters, or any other hastily placed, crappy micro.

 

I agree that some type of quality control needs to work its way into this hobby. I imagine this idea has already been beat up plenty (but I couldn't find anything all that close in my search), but what about some kind of rating system tied into the logging of a cache...i.e. a 2 or 3 item questionaire asking the finder what they think about the difficulty/terrain/overall experience of the cache and then the option for pocket queries to be filtered based on these numbers. I recall seeing some cache owners with links to such a rating page, but is this possible to be worked into the gc.com cache pages?

[+Confucius' Cat]

The Indiana DNR already has a policy in the state parks that requires a cache to be pulled after one year. It presently is not enforced as best as i can tell.

 

I pulled This cache back in November 2006 because i read the policy and decided, "what the hey, if that's what the DNR wants, OK, I'll obey."

 

My cache was placed way before the policy and did not have a permit. In short, it was "grandfathered" and I could probably have left it there forever. It was active and in good condition.

 

I figured if I took it down also that would "free up some space" for a new cache that perhaps i could go FTF even.

 

Still waiting...

 

Interesting to me that the reasons the DNR requires closing (geolove), are largely considered invalid in the forums. Not a Greenpeacer but many consider a cache location as a piece of property, and defend the right to stay thar 4ever A little Hatfield and McCoy don't ya think?

DNR's reasons ARE invalid as far as I'm concerned. Geotrails heal miraculously over time. Most caches do not even cause them to form to begin with. They are a phenomenon of unusually heavy foot traffic and are only of concern on those caches that are very active. Few are. The "damage" caused by a few people going off trail, unless on an everyday basis, substantially repairs itself between visits. Also this "damage" is of nowhere near the intensity of animal trails because the animals are there full-time and habitually use the exact same paths. We're typically talking trampled weeds and nettles here... hardly anything to shout "the sky is falling" about (but environmentalist whackos will anyway- that's what they do).

 

The "property rights" thing is extant in the hobby. This is part of the objection to the thread's proposal, but not all of it. There really is no need for an artificial limit on cache life and removal of a cache does "open up" the territory for a new and exciting cache hide, but there is no guarantee that one will be hidden.

 

That was my point in pointing out the "space" I freed up over a year ago which no one has come forward to fill. I do not know the reason why no one has taken the space but I do have my hunches, one of which is that nobody wants to go through all the trouble to place the cache, get a permit and then go pull it after a year. I think the DNR policy effectively killed new caches in the state parks- or at least seriously slowed them down. Perhaps that was the intention of the one year rule?

 

And even if the "freed-up space" was immediately filled, there would be no guarantee that the new cache would be better than what it replaced. In fact, the evidence of current trends and forum discussions would suggest that the chances of a GREAT cache replacing the old one are diminishing rapidly as the hobby seems to be relentlessly shifting toward a simple numbers game.

 

I really think the only thing we can do to get consistently good new caches locally is play our own local game outside of GC. It is a cinch you will never get acceptance of any cache quality standards or sunset rules in these forums.

[+snowfrog]

The Indiana DNR already has a policy in the state parks that requires a cache to be pulled after one year. It presently is not enforced as best as i can tell.

 

I pulled This cache back in November 2006 because i read the policy and decided, "what the hey, if that's what the DNR wants, OK, I'll obey."

 

My cache was placed way before the policy and did not have a permit. In short, it was "grandfathered" and I could probably have left it there forever. It was active and in good condition.

 

I figured if I took it down also that would "free up some space" for a new cache that perhaps i could go FTF even.

 

Still waiting...

 

Interesting to me that the reasons the DNR requires closing (geolove), are largely considered invalid in the forums. Not a Greenpeacer but many consider a cache location as a piece of property, and defend the right to stay thar 4ever A little Hatfield and McCoy don't ya think?

DNR's reasons ARE invalid as far as I'm concerned. Geotrails heal miraculously over time. Most caches do not even cause them to form to begin with. They are a phenomenon of unusually heavy foot traffic and are only of concern on those caches that are very active. Few are. The "damage" caused by a few people going off trail, unless on an everyday basis, substantially repairs itself between visits. Also this "damage" is of nowhere near the intensity of animal trails because the animals are there full-time and habitually use the exact same paths. We're typically talking trampled weeds and nettles here... hardly anything to shout "the sky is falling" about (but environmentalist whackos will anyway- that's what they do).

 

The "property rights" thing is extant in the hobby. This is part of the objection to the thread's proposal, but not all of it. There really is no need for an artificial limit on cache life and removal of a cache does "open up" the territory for a new and exciting cache hide, but there is no guarantee that one will be hidden.

 

That was my point in pointing out the "space" I freed up over a year ago which no one has come forward to fill. I do not know the reason why no one has taken the space but I do have my hunches, one of which is that nobody wants to go through all the trouble to place the cache, get a permit and then go pull it after a year. I think the DNR policy effectively killed new caches in the state parks- or at least seriously slowed them down. Perhaps that was the intention of the one year rule?

 

And even if the "freed-up space" was immediately filled, there would be no guarantee that the new cache would be better than what it replaced. In fact, the evidence of current trends and forum discussions would suggest that the chances of a GREAT cache replacing the old one are diminishing rapidly as the hobby seems to be relentlessly shifting toward a simple numbers game.

 

I really think the only thing we can do to get consistently good new caches locally is play our own local game outside of GC. It is a cinch you will never get acceptance of any cache quality standards or sunset rules in these forums.

Amen brother...........preach on.....literally

[+PhxChem]

Not over saturation by it's literal 528' definition, but rather that a park, trail, or certain area has become stagnant (to me) and needs an infusion of new challenges.

 

Over saturation (too many caches in one place) and the lack of new caches seem to me to be to totally different topics....although obviously, if you keep placing new caches without old ones being archived, you're going to hit a critical mass at some point.

 

I don't agree with the time limit to begin with, but if the point of your limit is actually to address a lack of fresh caches to find....

 

I think that would definitely get fewer people on board (if that's possible)...

[+Glenn]

Not over saturation by it's literal 528' definition, but rather that a park, trail, or certain area has become stagnant (to me) and needs an infusion of new challenges.

 

Over saturation (too many caches in one place) and the lack of new caches seem to me to be to totally different topics....although obviously, if you keep placing new caches without old ones being archived, you're going to hit a critical mass at some point.

 

However critical mass is rarely achieved and when it is it's short lived. People for many reasons are unable or unwilling to maintain their caches and then they get archived opening the area up. If you happen to have a cache owner with a cache that is getting significantly less visits than the cache around it or is in an area where the visits over all have significantly declined the best course of action is to talk the cache owner(s). Try to talk them in to trying something different. Like archiving a couple of traditional caches and making a multi-cache or puzzle cache. Archiving a multi-cache and hiding and hiding some traditional and letterbox hybrid caches. You could even see if there is any interesting geology nearby that can be listed as an Earth cache.

[+geomann1]

I like the idea of a time based archiving (3 or 5 years), as it would increase cache opportunties over the long run and be a step towards keeping caches fresh.

 

It really isn't that big of a deal for a cache owner as part of a normal maintenance trip to collect and move a cache to another location and re-log. Personally, I don't expect any of may caches to last forever (since some are in relatively high traffic/activity area, I expect then to get muggled); all I care about is that people had some fun with them. I've moved a cache to what I believed was a better location, and people had fun finding the container (not given a hint that it was the same container moved) a second time.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Like archiving a couple of traditional caches and making a multi-cache or puzzle cache.

I am getting concerned a little about the proliferation of puzzle caches. I think they should be exempt from the 528 rule for two reasons:

1. the coordinates are unsearchable and interfere with getting a traditional cache published
   
2. Most require a significant commitment in time and concentration to solve, making them fit for a select subset of cachers that enjoy the challenge and a PITA or ignore list fodder for the rest of the community.
   

We seem to have a lot of them popping up in my area. I look at them and do enjoy doing them, but more often than not, i give up on them pretty quickly. i have better things to do with my time than beating my head against a wall that shows no sign of "giving." (Don't ask me what these 'better' things are )

 

My over-all point here is that the mandatorily archived cache might be replaced by a type that is even LESS popular than the unpopular cache that had "run its course." It would be NEW though, that is true, provided someone put out a new cache at all.