+Renegade Knight Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) ...If the cache area is worthy of a re-visit why do you need a new cache there just to visit the area again? In my area a cache maggot had effectivly implemented the auto expire concept with great success. One side effect was that new blood would hide a cache in the same cache worth location as old caches that the maggot had stolen. I found I enjoyed seeing the new spin on a cache in an old location. Sometimes it was the same hide. Sometimes they found a new angle that the orginal cache didn't use. That said I'm still for the cache owner making the call on when to retire their caches. Edited July 24, 2008 by Renegade Knight Link to comment
+Mule Ears Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 This idea strikes me as having validity for urban/cache-dense areas, and being a total disaster in the backcountry. I've put considerable effort into saving backcountry caches from normal attrition; I'd be horrified to see similar caches archived just because they reached some arbitrary age. Bad caches reproduce like rats, great caches like pandas. An across-the-board predator like your expiration mechanism would leave us with nothing but rats. I vote "no." The system might do some small good in town, but it would wreak havoc in the boonies. Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Just one question for the nay-sayers. What will you do when you've found all the caches within your normal areas of reach? Keep in mind that small communities outnumber large metropolitan areas by far, hence the possibility of that circumstance is far greater for them. And even potentially affects far more geocachers. Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Just one question for the nay-sayers. What will you do when you've found all the caches within your normal areas of reach? Keep in mind that small communities outnumber large metropolitan areas by far, hence the possibility of that circumstance is far greater for them. And even potentially affects far more geocachers. With respect. I doubt I'll find all 10,000 in this state. And at the rate of a couple hundred caches being added every week or two, I'm certainly not going to be able to keep up even if I wanted to. If the issue is about placing new caches; Why is it everyone wants to crowd the same location? Get creative. Don't come up with ideas that adds more restrictions and arbitrarily expires caches for the purpose of hiding and finding new caches in the same spot. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Just one question for the nay-sayers. What will you do when you've found all the caches within your normal areas of reach? ... Place some caches. Drive a little further to find others. Go fishing. Wait for some noobs to come along. Wait for the cache maggot to clean house for us. I've never actually seen an area fill up with caches. It's getting folks to place caches that has always been the issue. Link to comment
+IBcrashen Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 (edited) .... Example, this cache GC14X6X The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered. It's possible that the owner has passed away. There was plenty of activity up until the last day that he logged on. What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so. Actually you can. I did it to this cache. I e-mailed the approver with new coords after I replaced the container and moved it. It looked like the original might have been on private land now. They can then take off the "needs maitenence. The approver did ask me if I wanted to adopt it but out of respect I declined. I will still do up-keep on it though. Edited July 24, 2008 by IBcrashen Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 If the issue is about placing new caches; Why is it everyone wants to crowd the same location? Get creative. Don't come up with ideas that adds more restrictions and arbitrarily expires caches for the purpose of hiding and finding new caches in the same spot. Because every state is different in allowing placements. Around here there are fewer locations allowing you to place caches. City parks, Cemeteries and public wildlife lands and that is about it. You can seek out private land owners, but they are getting sticky about it. You can seek out private business, but they too seem to be getting worse. You can get a DNR permit with a 1 year max, but that is jumping through hoops. Its to the point now that we are getting more and more guardrail, lpc's, and stop sign caches! a system that allows you to keep renewing your cache would work. If you no longer participate in the hobby the system would see this and knock down your caches. Unless someone adopts them. We have a cache down the road that has been replaced 3 times now by different people. It keeps getting muggled and my last check I wasn't able to locate it on a quick search (I will return in a few days and make my final judgement if its gone AGAIN) the owner is long out of the hobby. But no one will pull this cache under the current system. Even after it sat 3 months with no maintenance. Link to comment
+usyoopers Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Just one question for the nay-sayers. What will you do when you've found all the caches within your normal areas of reach? Keep in mind that small communities outnumber large metropolitan areas by far, hence the possibility of that circumstance is far greater for them. And even potentially affects far more geocachers. We will drive a little farther, maybe take a camping/caching trip, place more for others, activate and send out some travelers and see where they end up....lots of possibilites. It really doesn't interest me very much to have a cache archieved, another placed in much the same spot and then go hunt for the "new" one. We live in a very small community and have yet to have run out of caches to find. We still have loads of places that caches could be hidden if you just get out and explore. Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Just one question for the nay-sayers. What will you do when you've found all the caches within your normal areas of reach? Keep in mind that small communities outnumber large metropolitan areas by far, hence the possibility of that circumstance is far greater for them. And even potentially affects far more geocachers. I've found 99% of the caches in my area, theo other 1% are on my ignore list, or when I get to it list. When this happens I hide more caches in my area. I derive pleasure from reading the logs of those that like to find my caches. If I need a cache fix, and I can drive less than 30 miles and find all the caches I desire. I'm really surprised that nobody argued the high gas prices are a good reason to argue for a sanitation system. Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 If the issue is about placing new caches; Why is it everyone wants to crowd the same location? Get creative. Don't come up with ideas that adds more restrictions and arbitrarily expires caches for the purpose of hiding and finding new caches in the same spot. Because every state is different in allowing placements. Around here there are fewer locations allowing you to place caches. City parks, Cemeteries and public wildlife lands and that is about it. You can seek out private land owners, but they are getting sticky about it. You can seek out private business, but they too seem to be getting worse. You can get a DNR permit with a 1 year max, but that is jumping through hoops. Its to the point now that we are getting more and more guardrail, lpc's, and stop sign caches! a system that allows you to keep renewing your cache would work. If you no longer participate in the hobby the system would see this and knock down your caches. Unless someone adopts them. We have a cache down the road that has been replaced 3 times now by different people. It keeps getting muggled and my last check I wasn't able to locate it on a quick search (I will return in a few days and make my final judgement if its gone AGAIN) the owner is long out of the hobby. But no one will pull this cache under the current system. Even after it sat 3 months with no maintenance. So in order to satisfy a need in a small handful of states, you're going to damage a working system in other states? That's not very global thinking. That's localized rationalization without consequence to the bigger picture. Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 So in order to satisfy a need in a small handful of states, you're going to damage a working system in other states? That's not very global thinking. That's localized rationalization without consequence to the bigger picture. Did I say that? NO. If you would think a tad bit outside the box, you would see what some are saying. So according to your comment, your willing to damage a system for a few states? This "few states" as you call it is a growing segment of states, but you would know that wouldn't you? Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 You have to have an idea, a starting point. That starting point isn't the final answer, its built upon, added to, subtracted from, changed and moved. If we go by what you are constantly saying totem, then Geocaching would be just the same as it was day 1. Sorry, but life isn't that way and Geocaching hasn't stayed the same. Ideas are brought forward, people tweak them and then they are used as guidelines. Without thought, there isn't much point in it. Is there? Link to comment
+junglehair Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Hey Chilehead, While I can't say that I agree with your idea, I do understand where you are coming from. I prefer to monitor my own caches though. Some of my favourite hides, I would like to see live on rather than have some newbie come in and put a micro in its place. Some of my caches are less memorable though, and often I'll archive those after a while - especially if they happen to go missing. So I like the idea of recycling some of the locations with new hides, but I hate the thought of this being an automated thing. I'd rather see a Cache Maintenance Month declared. Get people to go out and visit their caches and perhaps start thinking about archiving some to make room for new ones. Link to comment
+Casper0666 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I would say that people just need to be more creative in the caches they create. There are still plenty of rally cool ideas for planting and setting up a cache. I'm not a fan of the expiring cache, what happens if it's one that has a high difficulty rating and not many cachers want to tackle it. Should the creator be punished for that? Just food for thought. Link to comment
sdarken Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 A while back, after spending a weekend finding a lot of fairly pointless caches, I wondered whether auto-archiving wouldn't be such a bad thing. Not because it would provide lots of new hiding places but rather so that some of the uninspired caches would disappear. I'd like to see the terms of use changed so that hiders wouldn't necessarily believe that new caches would automatically survive forever (unless the hider remained active or the community volunteered to maintain the cache if the hider stops playing). Old caches would be grandfathered. When someone finds a few caches, hides one and drops out of the cache. Why is it absolutely necessary that their contribution (their hide) survive forever.? I'm all for getting rid of some of those rusty altoids tins and film cannisters that have little value. I'd like new players to be excited by the game and there are currently an ever growing collection of caches that have little value and may survive for eternity. I have the philosophy that not all caches have equal worth in the game and I'd love to see changes that affect the game in what I consider to be a positive way ie: promote quality over quantity. This is my opinion and I understand that many people disagree. Link to comment
+Mule Ears Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 sdarken, I agree with your point that it might not be a bad thing if some mediocre, orphaned caches were archived and cleaned out. But the OP's proposal would leave them behind as geo-trash, and would threaten the survival of many fine, old backcountry caches. I understand the appeal of an automatic mechanism--nobody has to be the bad guy and say, "This cache has had it, time to archive." But that's really what is needed, for cachers to assess older, ownerless caches and decide which to keep and which to ditch. Maybe an event would do the ticket. Prior to the event, a group would meet and identify a bunch of ownerless, played out caches and get 'em archived. At the event itself, participants would grab a list of these archived caches and retrieve them. They'd bring back the remains and hold a contest for "moldiest logbook," "rustiest container," "most golfballs," and "ugliest cache carcass." Finish with a raffle of new cache containers. Voila: renewal. Kind of a CITO... Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 sdarken, I agree with your point that it might not be a bad thing if some mediocre, orphaned caches were archived and cleaned out. But the OP's proposal would leave them behind as geo-trash, and would threaten the survival of many fine, old backcountry caches. I understand the appeal of an automatic mechanism--nobody has to be the bad guy and say, "This cache has had it, time to archive." But that's really what is needed, for cachers to assess older, ownerless caches and decide which to keep and which to ditch. Maybe an event would do the ticket. Prior to the event, a group would meet and identify a bunch of ownerless, played out caches and get 'em archived. At the event itself, participants would grab a list of these archived caches and retrieve them. They'd bring back the remains and hold a contest for "moldiest logbook," "rustiest container," "most golfballs," and "ugliest cache carcass." Finish with a raffle of new cache containers. Voila: renewal. Kind of a CITO... Mule Ears, I believe the Op just started this thread as a "starting point" and "idea generator" to get the ball rolling so to speak. They put their idea out there. I don't think they intended this to be a "final" plan, but some on here read into it being that. Its a nice starting point, I like the idea mentioned above. Its a nice plan, I'm sure it can be tweaked further to make it work. Caches won't survive forever, creating new caches keeps the hobby going. Not all areas have unlimited hiding spots and not everyone will or can travel 100 miles or more to cache! Its just an idea, an opinion, and nice to hear new ideas! Whether or not its good or bad. Link to comment
+KoosKoos Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I have the philosophy that not all caches have equal worth in the game and I'd love to see changes that affect the game in what I consider to be a positive way ie: promote quality over quantity. Define quality. I'm also against an auto-expiration for any caches. If the owner isn't around, but the cache is in decent shape, where's the problem? Link to comment
+Parabola Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 As this idea is written up, I would say no way. You'll get into the arguement well what makes a "historal cache" so I can make one and don't have to worry about it. I would agree though to a time limit auto archiving on a cache when it isn't fixed say in six months after a needs maintance log is thrown on it, if the cache is not tended too. I do know of a couple of caches that are abonadoned because the owner no longer plays and the locals pretty much keep those going, fixing them if they need fixing, replacing log books, etc.... cause they are fun caches and I think most of the locals have done them a few times over anyways. But those ones that sit there for almost a year with no maintance and there's been a few "needs maintance" logs on them and when the cache owner is still placing new caches but never gets around to fixing I would say those would be nice to "auto archive". But as it's writtten I have to join the no camp. Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 The only caches that should be archived after a set time are Disabled ones. Not automated of course but after your Disabled, in need of maintenance, cache has been sitting there for a year you better be responding to reviewers when they warn you of the coming archive. Ya snooze ya lose. Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I vote NO. One of the silliest ideas that I've seen in the fora. Over and over again. If a cache is abandoned, and has many 'needs maintenance' notes, mention it to your reviewer. That seems the simplest solution. Just because a cache has not had a find in quite a while is no reason to archve it. I have one that went a year and a half between finds. Six months between finds is not unusual. Okay, so some of mine require a hike of a mile or so, each way. Some are just down-right mean. But almost all are very nice places! I do take exception to the thought that caches in urban areas are less worthy. I do a lot of urban caching, and there are some great caches in great places (including some of mine). Poor caches are poor caches whether they're urban or rural, and tend to die rather quickly. My vote is: "No. Dumb idea." Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) So in order to satisfy a need in a small handful of states, you're going to damage a working system in other states? That's not very global thinking. That's localized rationalization without consequence to the bigger picture. Did I say that? NO. If you would think a tad bit outside the box, you would see what some are saying. So according to your comment, your willing to damage a system for a few states? This "few states" as you call it is a growing segment of states, but you would know that wouldn't you? No, you didn't come right out and say it. But let's be very clear abou tthis. You are only basing your experience on your local problem and considering it to be a good idea. If implemented, it satisfies your local problem, but creates great big global problems. As for your other comment. When the majority calls it a bad idea, then it's time to lick your wounds and agree it probably isn't a good idea after all. You are defending a lost cause. As for change, I'm all for it, but it still has to have merit to be workable. This does not have merit as it stands. Edited July 25, 2008 by TotemLake Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Yes, it's a terrible idea, sort of like silencing a valve tap by filling the crankcase with sawdust but it does have merit.. In the beginning when a cache is hidden, there could be a few questions to answer on the page, or checkboxes indicating what to do with the cache at the end.. If you stop caching, or logging onto the site for 60/90/120 days (pick one), do you want this cache to: -be immediately archived -allow other cachers to perform maintenence -allow other cachers to adopt it -allow _____cacher to adopt it (choose up to 2 cachers) If the cache is archived in your absence would you want: -the cache to be left alone -an auto notification posted on the page requesting it's removal This would solve many problems (and create a few new ones) but overall I think it would work. Auto expiration overall is a bad idea, as most people can decide for themselves if they want their caches archived. If you are talking about a forced archival then it is even a worse idea. But I can certainly understand it, as many caches are not built to withstand a few years without needing maintenance. Some of those nano caches need maintenence (log change) every few visits. My first find was seven years ago and it has never needed maintenance. I revisited it last summer and it was exactly where the owner left it and in fine shape. What I had written in it was still there and the logbook was a good read, and there still was plenty of room for more signatures (I think it has a 200 page logbook) The hiding spot is simple and clever, and probably the reason why it has lasted so long. I'd rather see more long lasting caches promoted and encouraged rather than just accepting that most are just temporary. Edited July 25, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool Link to comment
markandlynn Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 The other thing here is how do we let the new cachers know there was a cache there that's been auto archived ? the fantastic spot only known to a few people may dissapear from caching for ever if no one spots the archival and then replaces it. What if the old container is not removed ? i compare log books against finds if any are missing i delete the find now if there are two boxes near enough to each other .... SBA and needs maintainance logs are all we need. Link to comment
+guinea gal Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Well, you know I like the idea. Funny thing, though, is when I mentioned it in NYGO or wherever a few months back, the last thing I thought of was upping ones numbers. I was thinking of the garage full of ammo cans I have that I can't hide, because all the wooded parks in my area are taken, and no one is budging. Even funnier is, the folks who have already fully saturated those parks are the first ones to criticize noobs who can only contribute lampskirts and guardrails to the cause. I don't think automatically retiring caches is the answer though. Our friends on the other side of the Falls seem to have a great thing going by automatically retiring their own caches after a certain amount of time (I didn't research into just how long, but it certainly isn't more than 2 years). Maybe it is an idea that should be included in regular cache maintenance: make sure containers are intact, replace used logbooks and pencils, swap out geotrash with swag, retire after a reasonable amount of time. If the state parks have a 2 year limit....then why not elsewhere. If the area is worth bringing people to, another one will certainly be placed, there or nearby. But by all means, let some of the newer people have a crack at hiding a quality cache. Link to comment
+IBcrashen Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Well, you know I like the idea. Funny thing, though, is when I mentioned it in NYGO or wherever a few months back, the last thing I thought of was upping ones numbers. I was thinking of the garage full of ammo cans I have that I can't hide, because all the wooded parks in my area are taken, and no one is budging. Even funnier is, the folks who have already fully saturated those parks are the first ones to criticize noobs who can only contribute lampskirts and guardrails to the cause. I don't think automatically retiring caches is the answer though. Our friends on the other side of the Falls seem to have a great thing going by automatically retiring their own caches after a certain amount of time (I didn't research into just how long, but it certainly isn't more than 2 years). Maybe it is an idea that should be included in regular cache maintenance: make sure containers are intact, replace used logbooks and pencils, swap out geotrash with swag, retire after a reasonable amount of time. If the state parks have a 2 year limit....then why not elsewhere. If the area is worth bringing people to, another one will certainly be placed, there or nearby. But by all means, let some of the newer people have a crack at hiding a quality cache. Funny thing is is that life is like that. There are tons of things I wish I could do but someone beat me to it so I cant. I live with it, its a lesson we learn in life. Even funnier is that the first LP hide was innovated but after you do a few with basically the same view, same setting, they all seem the same, much like going back to the same 528` area just to find a different spot in it with another container would be. Check it out the area the first time, maybe that is why the placer put it there. Or go back later, do you really need a new cache to find there to go back if its such a worthy area? I think someone with an innovated new way of hiding a cache could come up with a place to implement it. Heck, why not find a place with no cache and come up with an innovated way to hide one there. Not all state parks/city/county/state/countrys have the 2 year limit. But most of them do have a time rule because of environmental damage. That is already in the Cache Placement Guidelines, like most of the reasons that people for this are already. I would love to see a newbie place a cache right away. Maybe that way they would learn how important it is to re-hide the cache the same or better, or not to put it where "it should have been", or the concept of trading even or up. Whats a quality cache, whats geotrash, whats a etc. etc.? Is it the same to everyone? Who gets to draw the line? To impose your style of caching and your views ( thats a general you, not singling you personally out) on how to play this game, of quality and/or trash, on all comes across as selfishness for various reasonings. Play this game the way you want to but don`t force it on everyone. This site has done a great job of doing that. Whats right for your area isnt right for everywhere. Others who have disagreed started there own site and we see how well they are doing. Edited July 25, 2008 by IBcrashen Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) This cache is NOT abandoned. The owners may be long gone but the cache is cared for. This was a note on a cache we found this weekend. The writer of the note spoke the truth; it was well cared for. I am against the idea. I am curious, however, what does TotemLake think about it? I think I made my thoughts pretty clear There are tools in place to archive caches that need to be archived. To simply archive (excuse me) expire them for the sake of allowing another cache to be put there is simply bogus. Caches are cared for by the hider's peers whether the owner is active or not. It's only been in the last 18 months or so this has started giving way to the entitlement crowd with the "It's the owner's responsibility... not mine" attitude when this entire game's premise was built on common courtesy to do the right thing which also, btw, melded in really well with Cache In Trash Out. That was the attraction to land managers. It is our responsibility to announce when a visited cache needs to be archived or maintained. It is also a courteous thing to provide a little TLC when needed and there is no problem with announcing on the log you did this. This idea only smacks of the sound of being good when we fail to be 1) responsible to make the appropriate announcements to the owner and the reviewers and 2) lose our common courtesy. This idea produces more problems than it solves because not every area is the same and it has to be accounted for before implemting a heavy handed method. -=-=editing to add one more thing=-=- Auto-expiration archiving takes away the physical inspection a cache receives on each visit and has no justification what-so-ever for any other reason than to open a location for placing a new cache there. I'd rather have the physical visit tell me an SBA is needed rather than some auto-whateveryouwannacallit mechanism force a great cache to be lost. I've been to cruddy caches and I've retrieved one or two of them myself upon request and need for repair as well as have posted needs maintenance and SBA logs. There's nothing wrong with this system because it shows a proactive and physical response to a need. It's the mindset of a handful that thinks there is. Edited July 25, 2008 by TotemLake Link to comment
sdarken Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) sdarken, I agree with your point that it might not be a bad thing if some mediocre, orphaned caches were archived and cleaned out. But the OP's proposal would leave them behind as geo-trash, and would threaten the survival of many fine, old backcountry caches. Thanks for your response Mule Ears. I agree that any kind of auto-archiving needs to be supported by people willing to go out and collect archived caches so as not to leave geo-trash behind. I'd volunteer for that kind of job in my area. I'd rather collect an archived film can than replace a moldy log in the same film can and encourage it's survival. I wouldn't agree with the OP's suggestion to archive caches based on lack of visits as that will directly affect the kinds of caches probably need the least attention (ie: they are most likely out-of-the-way caches that probably aren't rusting altoids tins in a Walmart parking lot light pole). Rarely visited caches are generally among my favorites. Perhaps the auto-archiving process could be preceeded with a "Candidate for archiving" log entry that could be broadcast to interested cachers who would then have the opportunity to adopt an orphaned cache before it was archived. I have the philosophy that not all caches have equal worth in the game and I'd love to see changes that affect the game in what I consider to be a positive way ie: promote quality over quantity. Define quality. A quality cache would be any cache that someone would be willing to adopt to save it from being archived. Edited July 25, 2008 by sdarken Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I vote NO to auto-archiving caches. There was an idea I posed (I think) a while back, but a brief search didn't bring it up. It was a "gift cache" where you weren't expected to trade, simply take, trinkets. When the last trinket was gone the finder took the container, left a piece of biodegradable ribbon provided by the owner, and returned the log to the owner. If it were a good cache and seekers didn't want it archived they'd leave trinkets to keep it alive. Making it a "gift cache" would be completely voluntary. Instead of time-limited auto-archiving, one idea is a cache has to have a certain number of recommendations during it's first, say, 20 finds in order to stay listed. The theory would be only the better caches would survive. Problem is it would be subject to abuse on many different levels. But many very remote caches would never have to worry about it. Any solution with auto-archiving is the problem of geolitter. The problem is determining geolitter. This site would have to change how it operates and let folks know that any cache archived is considered geolitter unless a note is written on the cache page letting folks know it is still active on some other site or hosted privately. Only then could this site impose any kind of restrictions based on automatically archiving--whether it is time-based, number of finds based, or ratings based--and not run the risk of causing geolitter at the same time of stepping on owners' toes. Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 No, you didn't come right out and say it. But let's be very clear abou tthis. You are only basing your experience on your local problem and considering it to be a good idea. If implemented, it satisfies your local problem, but creates great big global problems. As for your other comment. When the majority calls it a bad idea, then it's time to lick your wounds and agree it probably isn't a good idea after all. You are defending a lost cause. As for change, I'm all for it, but it still has to have merit to be workable. This does not have merit as it stands. The majority says? Where does it "say"? You only see a small cross section on this forum and only those that seem to really care. Like I said and you seem to be leaping over every time, the system can be tweaked. I don't believe all caches should be archived. The system can be worked on. Stop using your "opinion" as fact. As to you saying "but creates great big global problems". I ask HOW? A system that keeps the game fresh from cache owners that no longer care for their caches and have moved on from the sport. They call that Geojunk once its just left to rot. This isn't just a small problem. The same issue you jump on my back about seems to be the same one you have. I'm not saying the proposed method was the best option, it needs tweaked, you have to start somewhere and this is what was being brought out. I traded emails with a buddy that is into caching on the east coast. I forwarded him this discussion, he says they have the same problem in that part of the country. He said he liked the idea, but it needed some tweaking. Talking with a fellow cacher just an hour ago, he agreed that something would need to be done sooner rather then later and the current method didn't work. When I told him about the expiring cache idea further he said he thought it was a great idea. But he is also a responsible cache owner who usually pulls his caches after he feels they have gone their course. I believe if you took a larger cross sample from the hobby (unlike this small forum) you will see that more people like the idea. Personally, I don't mind my caches expiring, if I can keep them going, which has been mentioned. You can keep them up. What I have made mention to in lack of places to hide caches will become more the norm as time progresses. No need to lick wounds as you say. Link to comment
+guinea gal Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Whats a quality cache, whats geotrash, whats a etc. etc.? Is it the same to everyone? Who gets to draw the line? To impose your style of caching and your views ( thats a general you, not singling you personally out) on how to play this game, of quality and/or trash, on all comes across as selfishness for various reasonings. Play this game the way you want to but don't force it on everyone. This site has done a great job of doing that. Whats right for your area isnt right for everywhere. Others who have disagreed started there own site and we see how well they are doing. Back at ya Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I'm thinking this thread really illistrates that some folks would like to auto archive certain cache owners as the best way to keep quality up. Link to comment
Dj Storm Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I don't want an automatic archive to caches after a period of time, or after the owner went missing. If a cache needs archiving, the current method, using the NA log, works better. Just one question for the nay-sayers. What will you do when you've found all the caches within your normal areas of reach? Not all areas have unlimited hiding spots and not everyone will or can travel 100 miles or more to cache! Two years ago, when I started geocaching, there were 44 caches in my country. Now there are 238 on this site, many of them being published a month ago, cross-listed from a site I didn't know about. The closest cache to my home is 100+ km (60+ miles) away, the round-trip is something like 250 miles. Didn't found it yet, planning to seek it this autumn. Two months ago I hiked to a mountain peak, with an elevation gain of 2400+ feet. A month ago a cache was published on that location. I went back and found it last week. The cache is 290 km (180 miles) from my home, the round trip was something like 600 miles. I was in the vicinity on a business trip, vicinity meaning 20+ miles away from the cache. Last year I found the first cache placed in my country, 200+ km (125 miles) away, round trip 430 miles. The owner is missing, I performed some maintenance on the cache, probably the first time since it's placement in 2001. I will go back next month to add a new logbook, and will go back ti it in the future, too. Will I travel 100 miles to cache? Sure, all my finds are farther than that. Will I revisit a cache 100+ miles away? Of course, if it's a great place. Maybe I experience geocaching like it was back in 2001, and I like it this way. I'm not very proud of urban hides, walked away from 4 of them without searching, and found one (which was very well thought, in a scenic park, could be retrieved any time, no matter how many muggles around). I think urban micros placed on sidewalks and in parking lots degrade the spirit of geocaching as it was intended 8 years ago. The game 'evolved' since than, much as quantity, not so much as quality. In a few years, probably my country will be micro spewed, and the good caches fill fall off the first page in searches. To answer further the questions asked: I prefer fewer hides in great locations (and these don't need to be archived), and I'm not bothered by not having a cache to find every day/week/month. Link to comment
+JacobBarlow Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I think the SBA logs are good enough to get rid of the problem caches, I personally look at it in a way where every cache is a potential "Historic cache" and I look forward to years and years from now when some of the better caches I'm hiding now will be looked at as historic by others. Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Because every state is different in allowing placements. Not as far as GC is concerned. For the most part, even the states are pretty much in line with each other with a few very isolated exceptions. Your state for instance is no different from the states immediately surrounding it. Around here there are fewer locations allowing you to place caches. City parks, Cemeteries and public wildlife lands and that is about it. While I have not cached it a lot, I am there on business a lot so I looked on the maps. There are many wide open areas, probably more than DuPage or Cook counties in Illinois, and even there there are lots of places and the cemeteries are somewhat more restricted. You can seek out private land owners, but they are getting sticky about it. Same as it has always been. You can seek out private business, but they too seem to be getting worse. Same as it has always been. Also, GC tends to frown on commercialization of caching in this manner anyway. You can get a DNR permit with a 1 year max, but that is jumping through hoops. Not that many hoops and there are plenty of other opportunities for hides. A system that keeps the game fresh from cache owners that no longer care for their caches and have moved on from the sport. They call that Geojunk once its just left to rot. What I have made mention to in lack of places to hide caches will become more the norm as time progresses. This only sounds like a solution geared toward people who are all about the numbers. If all the great places were truly taken (they are not) then what is the point of archiving a cache already there and putting in a new one since I have visited and know the location already if it is not just to get another smiley. a system that allows you to keep renewing your cache would work. If you no longer participate in the hobby the system would see this and knock down your caches. Unless someone adopts them. Because there are many caches that either have been able to remain in good standing on auto-pilot or the community has decided to maintain it after the owners have left. The only thing with maintaining someone elses cache is if you are about numbers, you do not get credit. That is of course if you live in the area and are looking for easy numbers seeking caches. We have a cache down the road that has been replaced 3 times now by different people. It keeps getting muggled and my last check I wasn't able to locate it on a quick search (I will return in a few days and make my final judgement if its gone AGAIN) the owner is long out of the hobby. But no one will pull this cache under the current system. Even after it sat 3 months with no maintenance. Sounds like to a point, other cachers decided it was worth maintaining, now for some reason they have decided it is not worth it. Good thing we have the SBA option. But he is also a responsible cache owner who usually pulls his caches after he feels they have gone their course. I am sure glad he does not own this cache or any of these.. Thank the Almighty that there are so many irresponsible cachers. Aside from the fact that auto-expiring caches will just increase the "geo-junk", this is a solution for only one segment of the hobby, number hunters. While I will agree that this is a growing segment, it was neither Dave Ulmer's, Jeremy or GC.com intent based on what they have written or posted so I can't see them accommodating them. From my perspective, they're right on track. Go out, see some new areas. Experience the world. Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Just one question for the nay-sayers. What will you do when you've found all the caches within your normal areas of reach? Keep in mind that small communities outnumber large metropolitan areas by far, hence the possibility of that circumstance is far greater for them. And even potentially affects far more geocachers. Granted I do live in a large metro area for this state, and a medium nationally, so that colors my opinions. I'm a pretty active cacher, yet my nearest unfound 500 pulled from a PQ used to reach out almost 30 miles a little more than a year ago, and now is down to about 16 miles. And that is excluding the 5* terrain hides to eliminate the canoe/kayak caches that have sprouted like lake weeds around here. So I don't feel I'm ever going to run out of caches to seek. I know one cacher at the other end of the state who hides more than he finds, just to satisfy his caching urges. I routinely drive an hour or two just to get out of my local area for a change of scenery as it is. Nope, plenty of caches to seek, and plenty of places to hide new ones as it is already. The only caches that should be archived after a set time are Disabled ones. Not automated of course but after your Disabled, in need of maintenance, cache has been sitting there for a year you better be responding to reviewers when they warn you of the coming archive. Ya snooze ya lose. Agree 100%. Some of the reviewers do sweeps of disabled caches just to help this cause. It also would free up 'taken space' if people weren't afraid to punch the SBA button on a cache that has multiple DNF's and an apparently absent owner. But considering all factors I think this is a very poor concept and cannot support anything that involves auto archiving or timed caches. There is plenty of room out there for new and creative hides of all sorts and sizes. There is no reason to archive a perfectly good cache simply because time is up. Edited July 25, 2008 by wimseyguy Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 So according to you Baalo, I can walk into a field or woods and place a cache in Indiana? According to your logic I can. but you are wrong. There are many cache owners that have pulled caches due to DNR requirements now. I personally don't live within an area that has a DNR property so it doesn't concern me. Like I said, there are only a handful of spots we can legally place a cache without issue. Cemeteries, city parks and open lands (wildlife areas). In most cases those have been taken up and are well used. The case of .1 mile doesn't make much room in some parks. A creative fun cache isn't a guardrail find along a state road, nor is it a sign cache of a 35mm film can at a stop sign! Each spot is different and it shows in the placement of caches. Doesn't take much to see that! Some live in areas that allow more. Western states for example. But hey, if you hate some idea you will find any way to rail on it, as so many have. I find it funny that when the Op mentioned this mostly older cachers have railed and jumped on the anti change bandwagon. but hey, that is how it is. Oh well. Cache on.! Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Aside from the fact that auto-expiring caches will just increase the "geo-junk", this is a solution for only one segment of the hobby, number hunters. While I will agree that this is a growing segment, it was neither Dave Ulmer's, Jeremy or GC.com intent based on what they have written or posted so I can't see them accommodating them. From my perspective, they're right on track. Go out, see some new areas. Experience the world. Thanks for showing us that you haven't read the entire posting. You obviously took one post and ran with it. Nice to see, because YOU MISSED THE WHOLE POINT. What if one is disabled and can't "Go out, see some new areas. Experience the world." as you say...? Did you read the correction that have been suggested about Auto Expiring caches? Obviously you haven't and missed the ideas that have been suggested. No one is saying that just because the 2 years are up that a cache just get pulled, but you have made the nice ASSUMPTION that it would be the case. If a owner goes AWOL, and the cache is no longer maintained, and its not adopted, then the cache would be set aside and taken care of. This would allow a cacher to place a new cache in the general 528' that was previously taken. Our reviewer has slowly been looking after many caches, but when the owner is gone and you post need maintained logs or SBA's and it doesn't get taken care of........what then? If the current system worked as well as some claimed then perhaps, but it doesn't, not around here. Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 But considering all factors I think this is a very poor concept and cannot support anything that involves auto archiving or timed caches. There is plenty of room out there for new and creative hides of all sorts and sizes. There is no reason to archive a perfectly good cache simply because time is up. Wimsey, that isn't what this has turned to be. Its turned into a idea of pulling caches that have issues and absent owners. It wouldn't pull a good cache that is currently owned, or that is being watched over. It would deal with AWOL cache owners, those that haven't been kept up and those that have multiple DNF's and no one checking it. The idea needs much review I agree with that, but some just jump it without much thought. Its an idea, that is how things happen, and idea, tweaking, then reality. Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 No one is saying that just because the 2 years are up that a cache just get pulled, but you have made the nice ASSUMPTION that it would be the case. If a owner goes AWOL, and the cache is no longer maintained, and its not adopted, then the cache would be set aside and taken care of. This would allow a cacher to place a new cache in the general 528' that was previously taken. I'll keep this short since you are not reading responses of any length, mine included. How exactly are you going to get the auto-archive of any type to work if not being based somehow on the original owner being inactive? As I put in the previously unread post, often these "abandoned" caches are unofficially adopted by the community, still showing as owned by the absent owner or they are low maintenance. In addition, if one reads about the different options, a "Needs Maintenance" log goes to the owner as well as being posted publicly. Periodically reviewers scan for needs maintenance logs that have been unanswered for a while, as the ones in both my area and yours do. A SBA log goes to the reviewer and is handled as time permits by the volunteer reviewer. Understanding the current system is key to making it work. Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 But considering all factors I think this is a very poor concept and cannot support anything that involves auto archiving or timed caches. There is plenty of room out there for new and creative hides of all sorts and sizes. There is no reason to archive a perfectly good cache simply because time is up. Wimsey, that isn't what this has turned to be. Its turned into a idea of pulling caches that have issues and absent owners. It wouldn't pull a good cache that is currently owned, or that is being watched over. It would deal with AWOL cache owners, those that haven't been kept up and those that have multiple DNF's and no one checking it. The idea needs much review I agree with that, but some just jump it without much thought. Its an idea, that is how things happen, and idea, tweaking, then reality. But we already have a perfectly good mechanism for this problem. Post SBA/NA logs. If people feel this is too drastic, post a NM log, and follow it up with an SBA/NA log. If you don't have the courage for that-email your reviewer and explain the issues back channels. The system works, if only the users use the tools at their disposal. Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Thanks for your response Mule Ears. I agree that any kind of auto-archiving needs to be supported by people willing to go out and collect archived caches so as not to leave geo-trash behind. I'd volunteer for that kind of job in my area. I'd rather collect an archived film can than replace a moldy log in the same film can and encourage it's survival. But I keep hearing the plaintiff cry "They may be registered on another site!" I've gone on a few TB rescue missions. Three multis, with the first stage missing. One was muggled. On two the final was still in place. No signatures in the last year. Rescued TB, and retrieved geolitter. Not sure how to answer the plaintiff cry "They may be listed on another site". Removig geolitter seems a good idea to me. Link to comment
4x4van Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 (edited) Every time this idea comes up, I read/listen to all the arguments for a system to do this, and I come to the same conclusion: NO!! There are already mechanisms in place to accomplish the "thinning out" of caches that are no longer viable. If a cache is in bad shape, then post a NM. If it doesn't get taken care of either by the owner or another cacher, then subsequent finders should post a SBA. If the issue still isn't taken care of (again, by the owner or another cacher), the the approver archives it...problem solved. If either the owner or another cacher takes care of the problem, then...problem solved. Whether the owner of a cache is still involved and actively maintaining his caches is irrelevent; the only issue is whether the cache is viable (and the fact that you and most of your friends have already found it doesn't make it non-viable). There is no need to "clear out" a viable cache simply because it's been there for a long time, or the cache owner is MIA, or most of the cachers in the area have found it. What about new cachers just entering the sport? Or cachers traveling through the area? Just because you have found all the caches in your area, doesn't mean that other cachers have. I have a cache that gets very little traffic; Fuller Falls. It's been in existence for nearly 6 1/2 years, with only about 20 finds in all that time. Some years, it only got 2-3 logs. It hasn't been found in nearly 18 months. Should it be archived? No way! While it's a short hike, it's a strenuous one, and by reading the logs you can see that its' lack of visitors have nothing to do with the quality or viability of the cache; not a single "TFTC"-only log, nor complaint, nor NM, nor SBA. Instead, there are long logs raving about the hike, the location, the cache, the view, and many finders have posted pictures, etc. I check it occasionally, but even if I dropped off the planet, as long as it is in good shape, why archive it and deprive new cachers of the experience? If a cache is no longer viable, then post a log stating the reasons why. NM & SBA logs are not ignored by approvers; although it may not happen quickly enough for your liking, the problem eventually gets taken care of, either by archiving or repairing. If you can't make the case for having it archived, then I have to believe that it's still viable and you are just wanting to clear the area for your own selfish reasons. And I have a hard time believing that all the Open Lands (Wildlife Areas) in Indiana are "taken up and well used". Sorry, but till I see a map showing caches scattered evenly all across the state's wilderness areas, I don't buy it. Edited July 26, 2008 by 4x4van Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I haven't read the entire thread, but I'll start by saying this sounds like a good way to get a lot of automatic geolitter. Far too many caches are abandoned and never removed by the owners, why make this an automatic process? Certainly few caches will become one of the 'Must Do's in an area, but who can say for sure which ones they might be. I'd say it's up to the owner to say that interest has waned and it's time to archive. Yeah, you're right, MINGO has been there long enough...time to automatically archive it. That one last, lonely APE cache in Brazil? Sayonara! Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I'll keep this short since you are not reading responses of any length, mine included. Not responding because you obviously haven't read any of the threads on this and just jumped in. I have read each thread. I've already answered the question along with 2 other posters. Do us all a favor and stop trolling on a thread you don't want to read. Or reread all the threads and debate them. You obviously haven't as its already been answered. Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 I've discussed this with various people. Many seem to hate the idea, but I really like it. ChiliHead... Yer a rascal. Post once and run like heck to watch the thread burst into flames from a distance. Link to comment
+PJPeters Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Add me to the list of people that are vehemently opposed to the idea of auto-archiving. We police ourselves pretty well. If we start something like this, we'll have a bunch of geo-litter. The local geocaching group has a rescue mission that strives to retrieve geo-litter. With an auto-archiving program, it'll be hard to keep up, and the land managers will be much harder to persuade to let us place caches when we don't pick up after ourselves. While some people don't like the idea, it keeps land managers pretty happy that we'll go do our own clean up of a cache site. ... Example, this cache GC14X6X The location is GONE, it was removed to build a roadway. Multiple DNF's and calls for maintenance have gone unanswered. There is a new location for a cache located under 500' from said location too, that is new and would be a great first hiding spot of someone new. Want it archived? Just post a SBA. That's about the only way a reviewer will see that there's an issue. See? We can get caches archived if the cache is AWOL. ... What really would be nice is to allow someone other than the cache owner to post a "maintenence completed" note on the cache page after the cache owner has stopped logging onto the site after 90 days or so. As I understand it, the reviewers have the ability to remove a needs maintenance icon if the owners are missing. Which would only support the concept of community maintained caches. Ugh. No thanks. Why not? One of the oldest caches in the state came up missing earlier this year. With the owner not logging on in a year or two, I headed out to take a look. Found the container about 150' from it's original hiding spot, creating a completely different hide. I put it back where it belongs, and posted a note to let the world know the cache is back and in business. It's one of the nicest caches in the area - beautiful view, nice walk, etc. It deserved to be saved by the community. A while back, after spending a weekend finding a lot of fairly pointless caches, I wondered whether auto-archiving wouldn't be such a bad thing. Not because it would provide lots of new hiding places but rather so that some of the uninspired caches would disappear. I'd like to see the terms of use changed so that hiders wouldn't necessarily believe that new caches would automatically survive forever (unless the hider remained active or the community volunteered to maintain the cache if the hider stops playing). Old caches would be grandfathered. When someone finds a few caches, hides one and drops out of the cache. Why is it absolutely necessary that their contribution (their hide) survive forever.? I'm all for getting rid of some of those rusty altoids tins and film cannisters that have little value. I'd like new players to be excited by the game and there are currently an ever growing collection of caches that have little value and may survive for eternity. I have the philosophy that not all caches have equal worth in the game and I'd love to see changes that affect the game in what I consider to be a positive way ie: promote quality over quantity. This is my opinion and I understand that many people disagree. I agree with some of this post. Some of the geo-trash deserves to be archived. If I find stuff that needs maintenance in a major way, either I'll take care of it or post a NM and bookmark the cache. If nobody does maintenance, I'll post the SBA, or drop a line to a local reviewer. Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Not responding because you obviously haven't read any of the threads on this and just jumped in. I have read each thread. I've already answered the question along with 2 other posters. Do us all a favor and stop trolling on a thread you don't want to read. Or reread all the threads and debate them. You obviously haven't as its already been answered. My my, we struck a nerve that will not allow for a discussion allowing for opposing views. Please understand, we see this all the time. A new cacher comes in and feels the system can't possibly be working since they just joined and they can better evaluate the needs of a system in two months that took over 8 years to evolve to this point. You are not even close to finding a fraction of the caches in your area. How can you possibly already see a problem? Set aside the fact that if you do go and read this thread, as well as the one or two other ones that have been brought up, you will see the majority of cachers active in the forum, as well as at least one or two of the moderators, are against auto-archiving for many valid reasons. Those that are not active on the forum do not care enough about it to visit here and state their views. So go ahead and take your personal shots at me and anyone else trying to reason with you (might want to read the forum guidelines) and get yourself all frustrated. The rest of us are going to go caching. Link to comment
+wapahani Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Not responding because you obviously haven't read any of the threads on this and just jumped in. I have read each thread. I've already answered the question along with 2 other posters. Do us all a favor and stop trolling on a thread you don't want to read. Or reread all the threads and debate them. You obviously haven't as its already been answered. My my, we struck a nerve that will not allow for a discussion allowing for opposing views. Please understand, we see this all the time. A new cacher comes in and feels the system can't possibly be working since they just joined and they can better evaluate the needs of a system in two months that took over 8 years to evolve to this point. You are not even close to finding a fraction of the caches in your area. How can you possibly already see a problem? Set aside the fact that if you do go and read this thread, as well as the one or two other ones that have been brought up, you will see the majority of cachers active in the forum, as well as at least one or two of the moderators, are against auto-archiving for many valid reasons. Those that are not active on the forum do not care enough about it to visit here and state their views. So go ahead and take your personal shots at me and anyone else trying to reason with you (might want to read the forum guidelines) and get yourself all frustrated. The rest of us are going to go caching. Who is new? How do you know I am new??? LMAO, this is the family account. Nice try, but its a tired argument. I've been around long enough to see how this is heading. No, I don't want to argue. You came in VERY late to the game, didn't bother to read the entire thread and jumped in with your opinion and jumped my case because I was one of the last posters. Sorry it doesn't work that way. Link to comment
Recommended Posts