New Type: Cache-in-a-cache?

[Team CDCB]

This was an idea that hit me last night. I'm looking for some honest opinion on this... do you think this is a good idea? Bad idea? What, in your opinion, is wrong with the idea. What will make it work? Please try to add some constructive criticism here. Don't just say: "That's stupid." Or "neat idea!" Tell me why you feel what you do.

 

Okay, here's the idea. This would be a new type of cache, so obviously it would need to be approved by TPTB, and even if we all think it's a fantastic idea (which it is of course!) if they don't like it, oh well, ain't gonna happen. The cache type is one-part cache, one-part travel bug, adopting elements of both.

 

First, it would be a true cache in the sense that it would it would show up in a cache list if it was in the area in which you searched. It would be logable as a cache. It would show up in cache stats. It would, of course, need to be a container (though not a very big one) with a log book, and maybe even some swag.

 

Second, it would a travel bug in the sense that it would have a unique identifying number assigned to it. This number would be required in order to log the cache. The idea would also be that it would travel from cache to cache, in this sense it would need to be a relatively small container so that it could fit inside other caches.

 

So that's the idea. Here's some of the thoughts on this idea:

 

PROS:

1. It's in incorporates the idea of a travel bug, but it has certain advantages: It's a separate container so it can have more detail in it on what it wants to do, where it wants to go. Specific instructions can be included inside the container.
   
2. Adds a new element, a new twist, and a reason to revisit a cache you've already done. Once I find a cache, I don't have a lot of interest in re-finding it unless I'm going out with someone else and showing them how to geocache, and then I still usually pick a new cache rather than one I've done. Even travel bugs rarely draw me specifically to a cache. (Coins sometimes do.) But if I can log another cache by visiting a cache again, I'm much more tempted to do so.
   
3. I think this would encourage more, new caches as these caches wouldn't require as much work to place. (ie, finding a location, finding a land owner, getting permission, scouting coordinates)
   
4. On a personal note, I think this would encourage "normal" caches to be of larger size as micros obviously couldn't fit a travel cache inside of it. (I, personally, like bigger caches rather than micros.)
   

CONS:

1. It isn't strictly needed of course. It isn't THAT different from a travel bug in a lot of respects, so the benefits could be questionable.
   
2. It would require a LOT of effort on groundspeaks part to setup:
   • Develop a new way to log these caches that would require input of code like travel bugs, but still work like a cache.
     
   • Develop a method to have the coordinates of the cache change based on where it is currently located so it shows up in lists.
     

[*]It would depend on the kindness of strangers to keep it maintained. I'm not so worried about this. I think there are enough people out there who would help with this, but it does add a new wrinkle.

[*]It would be easy for these to go 'missing' like travel bugs do, so they would need to be archived. However, it's also possible that they could be 'found' later, which means there needs to be a way for them to be unarchived.

[*]There really isn't anyway to verify that a person actually logged this cache other than that they would need to code (like a travel bug), so it may lead to inflated cache finds.

[*]It make lead to micro-travel-spew. For those who are against micro-spew (the concept of simple throwing out as many micros as possible just to put out caches without thought to location or hid or finders experience) this could bring out a whole new level of spewage. This could be mitigated two ways: A requirement on a certain size for the travel cache, and a low fee to purchase a travel cache plate (like a travel bug dog tag) that has the unique code on it. People aren't going to spew if they have to pay a fee for it.

Okay, sorry for the long post. There's my thoughts. I'd love to hear yours.

[GOF and Bacall]

I doubt that you'll get it published. Traveling caches are no longer published on GC.com.

[Keystone]

This would work fine as a travel bug, so you should focus on that.

 

Caches like this were published from 2000 to 2003 and then prohibited because of the many problems which occurred. For your reference, here is the relevant text from the Cache Permanence section of the Listing Guidelines:

 

Cache Permanence

 

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published.

[knowschad]

While I can appreciate your creativity, I think your CONS list is very complete and honest, and honestly, the more correct of the two lists. I have to concur with every one of those thoughts, and felt that they far outweighted any of those on the PRO side.

 

But that said, TPTB have already nixed pocket caches and travelling caches. I somehow can't see them even going so far as to read through your entire thread before dismissing it.

[+Xaa]

You forget one detail...

 

These caches will not stay in caches, but will end up in someone's collection who will use them to draw attention on events etc by having such a hitchhiker in his inventory. It happens to most of the Hitchhikers in my country

[Keystone]

I somehow can't see them even going so far as to read through your entire thread before dismissing it.

I'll admit to not reading the entire post before I replied, but your post made me go back and do that.

 

The OP omits two key "CONS" to moving caches, which directly contributed to the adoption of the current guideline:

 

1. Moving caches got placed, often by people from outside the area, in a location where geocaching is banned or regulated by the land manager, or in some other spot that violated the listing guidelines. The new location would not have the benefit of the cache review process.

 

2. Someone would take the moving cache, but would not log that fact for awhile, and then others would search for it in vain, wasting a trip and possibly causing damage to the landscape. This happened in May of this year with a grandfathered moving cache in my review territory.

[knowschad]

I somehow can't see them even going so far as to read through your entire thread before dismissing it.

I'll admit to not reading the entire post before I replied, but your post made me go back and do that.

 

Shoot! I don't think of YOU when I think of "TPTB", Keystone! You're just that quiet, pipe-smoking guy in the lab coat, calmly dispensing common sense and wisdom.

[Team CDCB]

This would work fine as a travel bug, so you should focus on that.

I do plan on that, actually. I'm going to try to do a bit of a complex travel bug with a large number of goals so I figured I would make it a container which could have the details inside of it. (And no, I'm not really expecting that it will be wildly successful with it having a complex task.) Thinking about this is obviously what make me think about a travel cache.

Caches like this were published from 2000 to 2003 and then prohibited because of the many problems which occurred.

I did not know that! Ya learn something new every day! Can you expound on the many problems at all? I'm, just curious...

When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches"), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) most likely will not be published.

I can completely understand this, but I'm not sure if this would be that big of an issue with a travel cache. First of all, the fact that it would be listed as a travel cache in listings would let people know that this is a temporary thing... get it now or it'll be gone. (It would have it's own icon in the cache list). Second, a travel cache would never be allowed to be just placed somewhere. It would always be place INSIDE of an existing, normal cache. This would eliminate the "DNF, was I in the right area and someone else grabbed it first, or was I completely in the wrong area?" If you find the 'host' cache, and the travel cache isn't in it, well then, someone else got it first. If you can't find the host cache, then you're in the wrong area. In otherwords, there will always be something there to find even if the travel cache is already gone.

 

BTW, based on the first initial responses, I'm not expecting this to become the next great thing in geocaching, but I hope it's at least an interesting debate.

[Keystone]

It would always be place INSIDE of an existing, normal cache. This would eliminate the "DNF, was I in the right area and someone else grabbed it first, or was I completely in the wrong area?" If you find the 'host' cache, and the travel cache isn't in it, well then, someone else got it first. If you can't find the host cache, then you're in the wrong area. In otherwords, there will always be something there to find even if the travel cache is already gone.

There are land managers which strictly limit the number of caches that are allowed in the areas they control, like "one per park per year." There are land managers who only allow caches hidden by their own account. Those land managers monitor Geocaching.com listings very closely. Suddenly, there is a second cache in a park where only one is allowed, and it isn't hidden by the park. Park manager sends complaint message to Groundspeak and/or the local reviewer who "allowed this violation."

 

I don't much miss traveling caches. With there being fewer of them now due to attrition, the problems like this are fewer and farther between. I am only monitoring one problem right now in my review territory.

[Team CDCB]

BTW, I think the biggest hurdle to overcome here would be to distinguish a travel cache from a travel bug. Both would need to be logged with a tag number, both would need to be 'housed' in an existing cache. Both would get picked up by cachers and moved to new caches. So what's the difference?

 

Here's my opinion:

 

1. A travel cache would not have a goal or tasks. The only idea is for it to move. Of course, this would likely be short lived as people would assign goals to their caches unless there where REALLY strict guidelines, which makes a lot more work for reviewers and then you start getting "cache police" who tattle on people who make their travel cache sound like it has a goal and people nitpick on what exactly a goal is or isn't. (Don't believe me? Ever read a thread on what a 'pointy object' is??) So this is pretty weak.

 

2. A travel cache has it's own separate log book. Of course, a travel bug has a separate log page online, so, what's the big diff?? Okay, so this is pretty weak too.

 

3. Biggest difference: A travel cache, when it was moved into an area, would show up in a person's cache list if you looked at what caches where in a specific area. This, I think, would get people to revisit old caches. Right now I have virtually no reason to go visit a cache that I've already been too unless there is a specific travel bug that I want that is in that cache, and that is exceedingly rare. Once I find a cache, it's done for me. I just don't see a need to really go back and visit. BUT, if there was another cache in a cache I already did, then I'd be very motivated to visit again because now I can get another find.

 

I guess that's one of the reasons this appeals to me. I just feel that right now caches are a one shot deal. After I've done it, I don't have reason to revisit. This would give me a reason.

[Team CDCB]

There are land managers which strictly limit the number of caches that are allowed in the areas they control, like "one per park per year." There are land managers who only allow caches hidden by their own account. Those land managers monitor Geocaching.com listings very closely. Suddenly, there is a second cache in a park where only one is allowed, and it isn't hidden by the park. Park manager sends complaint message to Groundspeak and/or the local reviewer who "allowed this violation."

I can see this being a problem. I think some education on the part of the land owners should solve 95% of the problems here, but I also realize that the more complicated a situation becomes, the more likely a land owner is just going to say: "No."

 

Reviewer: "Okay, so we're in agreement that only one cache per park. No problem. Oh, but well, there might be two sometimes cause someone might place a travel cache with the regular cache."

 

LO: "Well, I don't want that. Just one cache please."

 

Reviewer: "Oh, no, it'll only be one cache, the other will be inside of the first."

 

LO: "I don't understand. I thought there were limits on how close caches could be?"

 

Reviewer: "Yeah, there are, but this is a special kind of cache."

 

LO: "I'm not sure I want a bunch of "special" caches here. Can't you just say no special caches in my park?"

 

Reviewers: "Well, no not exactly, cause I can't monitor what everyone does, but it really won't be a problem see, but cause it'll be totally inside of the other cache."

 

LO: "Yeah, ya know what? Let's just say no caches in my park, okay?"

 

I don't much miss traveling caches. With there being fewer of them now due to attrition, the problems like this are fewer and farther between. I am only monitoring one problem right now in my review territory.

I can see that totally. And if this new type of cache would end up causing more issues that it's worth, I certainly won't want to force it out there. I appreciate all the time that volunteers put into this game and I don't want to make your burden greater, that's for sure. I'm looking for the name "Team CDCB" to be praised for it's creativity and contributions to the game, not for moderators to start using CDCB as a swear word!!

[Keystone]

I appreciate all the time that volunteers put into this game and I don't want to make your burden greater, that's for sure. I'm looking for the name "Team CDCB" to be praised for it's creativity and contributions to the game, not for moderators to start using CDCB as a swear word!!

Thank you for your kind words, and no, it is totally fine to ask questions as you've done. Often you will find that there is prior thinking about the same subject, and new geocachers need to learn that history.

 

All that being said, your horsie is looking pretty lethargic, and there are clear signs of bruising.

[knowschad]

We have enough issues with travel bugs and geocoins going missing... how long would one of these new cache types have to sit on somebody's computer desk before the cache owner would archive it?

 

Even if all other obstacles were successfully dealt with, this new type that you proposed would require considerable time and expense in programming just to make it possible. And for what? Essentially a travel bug containing a log (which is already being done).

[Team CDCB]

And for what? Essentially a travel bug containing a log (which is already being done).

The "for what?" in my opinion is to draw new interest to existing cachers to revisit existing caches.

 

There's a cache in a park not too far from where I live. One of the first I did as a geocacher. I've never visited the cache again. I've got a cache that's right by my house, one of the first I hid. I got a lot of new finds when it was first placed. Now it get's hit maybe once a month if I'm lucky. There just isn't a reason to visit old caches. There isn't a draw for a cacher to revisit unless he or she is specifically looking for a specific travel item, and that just doesn't happen all that often. There just isn't a reason to do it. But if I see a new cache pop up near my location, I much more motivated to go visit it if I can log a new find. That's the reason for a travel cache.

 

Now, all that said, I've learned a lot here and I realize that even if there is some good PROs for this type of cache (in my ever so humble opinion), the CONs that it would introduce really do out weigh the PROs. It's just an idea that I wanted to explore, and it seems to be one that just doesn't make sense when everything is considered.

[+J-Way]

I'm looking for the name "Team CDCB" to be praised for it's creativity and contributions to the game, not for moderators to start using CDCB as a swear word!!

Some CDCB brought up traveling caches in the forum AGAIN??? What's the CDCB'ng deal? Don't they CDCB'ng screen these CDCBers?

 

Nah, just doesn't flow...

 

Edit: Just to be clear, I see nothing wrong with asking about this issue in the OP.

Edited July 2, 2009 by J-Way

[knowschad]

 

Some CDCB brought up traveling caches in the forum AGAIN??? What's the CDCB'ng deal? Don't they CDCB'ng screen these CDCBers?

 

Nah, just doesn't flow...

 

Hey, at least its a four letter word.

Edited July 2, 2009 by knowschad

[+Renegade Knight]

...

...Cache-in-a-cache?...

 

At it's simplest this is a special case (it's a container) of a travel bug.

 

In essence you are proposing that container TB's get cache status instead of TB status.

 

The larger idea of moving caches has merit, but also has a list of problems longer than your short list for those that would move from cache to cache.

[+uxorious]

I just feel that right now caches are a one shot deal. After I've done it, I don't have reason to revisit. This would give me a reason.

 

Travel bugs will do the same thing. Those who are into them can revisit a cache to get a travel bug if one is listed there.

 

I guess I'm having a little trouble figuring out the difference between a travel bug someone would put a log book in, and what you are proposing here.

 

As an added note, I have revisited several caches I thought were great. When I take a friend, or relative out caching, we will often show each other great caches we have found when caching alone. Of course you do not log that as a find, nor will you get credit for the later finds, but you do get the thrill of someone else enjoying a cache you liked.

[+Zolgar]

 

I guess I'm having a little trouble figuring out the difference between a travel bug someone would put a log book in, and what you are proposing here.

 

 

Numbers.

 

TB: Doesn't add to your smiley count.

Proposed TB Cachethingy: Is a Geocache and therefor will add to your smiley count.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Zolgar

[knowschad]

I just feel that right now caches are a one shot deal. After I've done it, I don't have reason to revisit. This would give me a reason.

 

I guess if the cache's location were so uninteresting that I had no particular reason to go back there just to enjoy the place, then a single new smiley would probably not get me their, either, come to think of it.

Edited July 2, 2009 by knowschad

[+DanOCan]

I just feel that right now caches are a one shot deal. After I've done it, I don't have reason to revisit. This would give me a reason.

I guess if the cache's location were so uninteresting that I had no particular reason to go back there just to enjoy the place, then a single new smiley would probably not get me their, either, come to think of it.

Yeah, that was my first thought too. There are plenty of places caching has taken me that I return to visit on a regular basis, but that number pales in comparison to the number of places I never go again after doing the cache. In many cases "another smiley" won't motivate me to return unless the area has some merit on its own.

 

As for the original idea, we have some traveling caches remaining in our area and they are lots of fun. I totally understand why they were stopped, but I am glad the ones in place at the time were grandfathered in.

[+The Blorenges]

Just for your interest, here are two "grandfathered in" cuckoo caches from the U.K...

 

Cuckoo cache (Could be anywhere)

 

Cuckoo cache too.

 

MrsB

[+rixart]

Yet another wrinkle...I found a moving cache a while back, logged it and sent it on its way. Later when I wanted to make a cache map of all the places I had cached, using my "found" list, my map included California, a place I had never cached.

This was due to the traveling caches new location. Hard to make that work out well...I think.

 

I like the concept of the traveling cache, and even tried to make one myself,The baby bär cache (GCMHFQ)was supposed to be moved to a new location to welcome new cachers to the world, but alas the forums were filled with RAGE over the fact that I had tried to skirt the rules. I was unaware at the time of the moving cache prohibition. But I was educated very quickly!

 

I personally would rather see moving caches make a comeback than that those dreadful Wherigo things continue to exist.

 

Just my $.02

Happy Trails!

Rixart

[+3jaze]

Take a look at my Quache Quest Qualgary GCYWV3. It might be something like what you are looking for.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...&Submit6=Go

[Team CDCB]

Wow, that's a neat idea 3Js... might if I copy it?

[+PorscheSpyder]

This sounds suspiciously like a type of letterbox. Is this where you got the idea?

 

At any rate, I've read about a letterbox type that you're supposed to hide. Then another letterboxer finds it, takes it, and replants it elsewhere. At least, that's how I understand it to work. As for your idea, sounds interesting, but I don't think I'm that interested, if you know what I mean!