"We need a 6 month ban..." revisited.

[+The Blorenges]

Four years ago, January 2006, one of the UK's longest established geocachers started a rather controversial topic in this forum: 6 Month Ban.

 

"This probably wont be popular, but i feel that the Uk needs a 6 month placing ban on caches.

There are too many in the uk. We only have a small landmass, yet we average 8 new caches a day. We dont have room for all these new caches."

 

It's QI to look back over the responses that lathama received at that time.

 

I'm not suggesting that the UK has now reached a saturation point with geocaches (although I know that some area are crammed tight) but as it's fairly quiet, the snow is falling prettily and not so much geocaching is being done, I thought it might be worth re-visiting this topic four years on just to find out what your opinions are regarding cache saturation in your local area.

 

How difficult is it to find good spots for caches near you?

 

Do we need so many geocaches to keep us all happy?

 

What would you feel if there was an announcement on this forum saying

 

"As from 1st February 2010 there will be a 6 month moratorium on placing geocaches within the U.K. and Ireland."

 

 

 

 

 

Discuss.

 

MrsB

Edited January 5, 2010 by The Blorenges

[+Munkeh]

I'd assault MrsB with her extra large wooden spoon

[The Hearse]

What nonsense. A moratorium on placing caches is pointless unless it is used to buy time to do something else. You have already said you are powerless to monitor the quality of caches. You have also said that you are powerless to impose criteria before someone is permitted to register a cache. You have also said that you are powerless to arbitrate on the minimum distance rule when using common sense and relaxing the rule is some instances would improve the quality of caching. I think before this debate goes much further you must state what is the aim of the moratorium and describe the path you hope to get us there. In the meantime I will try and work within the rules to set exciting well thought through caches that people want to hunt and if there is a moratorium then they will sit and wait for the moment it is lifted.

 

...and that brings me to another point if you are not registering caches how will you sort out the avalanche when it is lifted particulalry arbitrating who got their first when deciding on separation?

[+rutson]

MrsB: This link is better:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=118180

[IainLee]

Wouldn't this lessen our chances of placing that 1000000th cache.

[+The Blorenges]

MrsB: This link is better:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=118180

 

Why?

 

It goes to exactly the same topic and mine's more colourful

 

MrsB

 

Edited to add: Ahhhhhh, OK... I see what you mean. I'll edit mine

Edited January 5, 2010 by The Blorenges

[+The Blorenges]

What nonsense. A moratorium on placing caches is pointless unless it is used to buy time to do something else. You have already said you are powerless to monitor the quality of caches. You have also said that you are powerless to impose criteria before someone is permitted to register a cache. You have also said that you are powerless to arbitrate on the minimum distance rule when using common sense and relaxing the rule is some instances would improve the quality of caching. I think before this debate goes much further you must state what is the aim of the moratorium and describe the path you hope to get us there. In the meantime I will try and work within the rules to set exciting well thought through caches that people want to hunt and if there is a moratorium then they will sit and wait for the moment it is lifted.

 

...and that brings me to another point if you are not registering caches how will you sort out the avalanche when it is lifted particulalry arbitrating who got their first when deciding on separation?

 

(My bolding added)

 

 

Who are you addressing with all these "yous"?

 

If it's me, then please be aware that I have merely revived a "classic topic" from some years back to gauge how present-day cachers would view it in 2010. I have no magical powers over what caches are submitted or published!

 

But by all means give your answers to the three questions I've put into my first post.

 

MrsB

Edited January 5, 2010 by The Blorenges

[+*mouse*]

Nope!

 

I have a very exciting cache series planned - nice big tubs, nice walks and decent cache trades included. Shame to ruin all my planning with a ban!

[+keehotee]

Wouldn't this lessen our chances of placing that 1000000th cache.

 

1000000th cache has been and gone - long ago *

 

And no, there's no shortage of decent hidey places left - and as long as the micro hiders stay within 100 metres of their cars, there won't be a shortage of decent spots for years to come either :D

 

*(And yes - I know there aren't 1000000 active caches at the moment - who's going to know which one's going to tip the balance??)

[+uk89camaro]

Whadayer mean....look at all those white bits....

 

 

A quiz topic answer to the question "how many caches could we place in the UK, observing the 0.10 mile rule"

 

"That depends on -

 

a) Your reference source (Answers.com gives 50,337 sq miles; europa.com gives 50,351 sq miles and kidport.com gives 50,356 sq miles (plus other answers)) and

 

Are we assuming it can be displayed with only 90 degree corners, instead of gently sweeping bays and craggy cliffs.

 

If so, then assuming a 0.1 mile gc.com standard separation, you get 100 caches to the square mile (or 121 if it's a exactly a one square mile island not abutting any other one square mile, etc, etc).....

 

You would then get either 5,033,700, 5,035,100 or 5,035,600 caches. Average out to get 5,034,800 caches.

 

Allowing a 1% margin of error allows you to round it down to 5 million."

 

so only about 1% of the total available caches have actually been placed.

 

I rest my statistical case.

[+agentmancuso]

"As from 1st February 2010 there will be a 6 month moratorium on placing geocaches within the U.K. and Ireland."

 

Then anyone so inclined would just list new caches on another site. Which might well be a good thing anyway.

[+Mad H@ter]

But what would I do without 8 new caches a day to review?

 

OMG, how things have moved on

 

Now we wouldn't want our reviewers to get bored with nothing to do for 6 months would we

[+Barberanne]

Do you want to kill the game before it's really begun by putting a moratorium on new caches?

 

I would be really inclined to do a large violence on someone if a moratorium were to be brought into force. That would be yet another restriction to an already fairly tightly controlled pastime.

 

If we're voting on this thread, mine would be an emphatic no thanks.

[+keehotee]

Do you want to kill the game before it's really begun by putting a moratorium on new caches?

 

 

Ten years is hardly "before it's really begun"...... give it another couple of years and we could lobby to get it in the Olympics

 

Now we wouldn't want our reviewers to get bored with nothing to do for 6 months would we

 

And bear in mind MrsB's answer and reasons may not be the same as everybody elses.... :D

[Neath Worthies]

Do you want to kill the game before it's really begun........?

 

Surely it's nearly nine years since it started?

 

In any case, as agentmancuso said, it would just be a big boost for other sites such as opencaching UK

[+keehotee]

Do you want to kill the game before it's really begun........?

 

Surely it's nearly nine years since it started?

 

 

I was rounding up the size - it seems it's the done thing nowadays...

 

[+Stuey]

Still plenty of room for more.

 

What we could do with is more honest logs that state if people didn't enjoy certain types of cache. This might lead to archival of some unpopular ones, freeing up even more room for new ones.

[+fat bloke]

BAN MICROS

[+agentmancuso]

BAN MICROS

 

Ha yes, that's a lot more like it

[+goldpot]

 

"As from 1st February 2010 there will be a 6 month moratorium on placing geocaches within the U.K. and Ireland."

 

No need. It has just been forecasted that this freezing spell will last for 6 months...freezing the placement of geocaches too!

 

Just think, the UKmega in snow!

[The Hearse]

Edited January 6, 2010 by The Hearse

[The Hearse]

I have merely revived a "classic topic" from some years back to gauge how present-day cachers would view it in 2010. I have no magical powers over what caches are submitted or published!

 

But by all means give your answers to the three questions I've put into my first post.

 

MrsB

 

By resurrecting a previous thread in such a way you are implicitly adopting it as your own. I am picking up on your past replies to other threads. There is no criticism here just a recognition that the interpretation of the rules as they currently stand perpetuate this problem and a moratorium of however long would not achieve anything other than create dissatisfaction and an administrative nightmare when it came to an end. There are too many caches but how would a moratorium help if it wasn’t to buy time to find a permanent solutions? These solutions would require changes to the rules and greater discipline. Some of the changes I would consider are: being able to declare a cache of insufficient quality but who would make that decision and would the owner recover caches that failed to meet the standard. Micros have their place but great areas are now deserts of micros and in such situations full size caches should be permitted. This one is easy to work, for example the minimum distance between caches could be x metres unless the distance between it and another full size cache exceeds y metres when a full size cache could be set. I am looking with friends at what makes a good cache to satisfy all interests from a pleasant approach walk with a fun, interesting hide; to advertising great places to visit which might not otherwise be found; to drive pasts; to caches to meet the requirements of those who wish to maximize their find tally. We would then set caches meeting the quality criteria in the local area and indicate why they were set and that they have met the quality criteria in the write-up possibly in the title. We are also considering working with those that have set caches in a desirable spot that are less than perfect to see whether we the owner would like assistance in improving them.

 

In summary the quality of Geocaching in the UK is on the slide and with it its reputation and this is indicated by official reaction and the increasing number of comments about it no longer being an outdoor pursuit. The rules as they currently stand will not allow organized improvement of the quality of Geocaching in the United Kingdom and we must therefore work on a self-help basis to do so ourselves. A moratorium may be useful to enable the implementation of a grand strategy but of itself will achieve nothing. Moreover implementing a moratorium would be a baronial measure inconsistent with the free to do as you wish environment that currently exists.

 

Now, as you requested, to address your three points:

 

How difficult is it to find good spots for caches near you? Very difficult but more importantly, sites that demand good quality hides have poorly constructed caches. A moratorium would not help.

 

Do we need so many geocaches to keep us all happy? No we don’t but a moratorium would not help in the long term. It requires a more radical thought through plan.

 

What would you feel if there was an announcement on this forum saying... - Draconian and unfair. Moreover it would breach the spirit of the rules which protect Geocachers right to do what they think best. The time may have come to impose greater control but any changes must be introduced properly.

[+Woodbury Walker]

We love walks to nice country caches, whether traditional or multi’s, we even don’t mind a few in city centres but what we dislike is lay-by caches amongst all the rubbish.

 

Our vote on balance is for a 6 month ban

[+mcwomble]

We love walks to nice country caches, whether traditional or multi’s, we even don’t mind a few in city centres but what we dislike is lay-by caches amongst all the rubbish.

 

Our vote on balance is for a 6 month ban

 

A 6 month moratorium between finding your first and placing a cache and/or a minimum cache find before placing would be much more appropriate IMHO.

[+Von-Horst]

...what we dislike is lay-by caches amongst all the rubbish.

 

 

How would a six month ban on new caches change this?

[+Amberel]

It's not the NUMBER of caches that's the problem; if there is a problem it is the QUALITY of caches. A simple moratorium is not going to improve the quality.

 

The Hearse makes the point pretty well.

 

If people are looking for better quality, then at present I would say that the "alternative" sites such as OpenCaching provide a better average quality than Groundspeak caches. That's not to say that there are fewer good caches on Groundspeak, but there are fewer poor ones on OpenCaching. The downside is that there are very few caches indeed - the opposite problem to Groundspeak. I think the reason why the caches tend to be better there is because the great majority of users are very experienced cachers. If OpenCaching became as popular as Groundspeak there is no reason why it would not suffer from exactly the same quality issues.

 

Rgds, Andy

[Pajaholic]

What would you feel if there was an announcement on this forum saying "As from 1st February 2010 there will be a 6 month moratorium on placing geocaches within the U.K. and Ireland."

I'd feel pretty miffed TBH, and I'd probably submit caches anyway and appeal to GS hoping TPTB would override a local moratorium. The reason is that within a five mile radius by road of where I live there are only four caches right now, and three of them are mine. Expanding that radius to ten miles adds about half a dozen. One part of the country being riddled with soggy micros doesn't mean the whole of UK is like that. So I feel that a country-wide moratorium would be inappropriate.

 

Geoff

[Deceangi]

Sorry but several who have posted to this Topic, are laying blame on Geocaching.com and the Volunteer Reviewers. I'd suggest that they step back and take off the rose coloured glasses!

 

Every listing site in the period when there are few caches listed, has a track record of higher quality, or should I say a perception of that. Geocaching.com was exactly the same at first.

 

You wish to know what is causing the downfall of standards on here? Simple the community is! Try making a couple of Needs Arching Logs, and see how long it takes for you to receive abuse over them. The community have taken on board a mind set of, if someone makes a Genuine Needs Archiving Log they are the cache police! And as such are not acceptable, yet those same people making the abuse, will be amongst those moaning about the standards of caches listed here.

 

Here's a suggestion, instead of moaning and pointing to other listing sites for quality caches [which they only have because they do not list more than a tiny fraction of the caches listed on here]. Actively try to promote quality, by making Needs Archiving, Needs Maintenance logs, posting DNF's. And by actively Mentoring those whose caches you perceive to be of poor quality, by contacting them and explaining why the cache is considered to be poor quality.

 

Instead of moaning about the standards of caches listed on here, but then running off to another listing site! Try staying and actively fighting to improve quality, by changing the unacceptable mind set some within the community have, and so start a process of improving quality. If your not prepared to do so, then please do not try blaming Geocaching.com and the Site Volunteers. I'm aware that there are those within the UK community who blame Groundspeak of restricting caching with their Rules and regulations. But again I'd suggest those people take of their rose coloured glasses, or drop their personal agendas. And actively reread the Guidelines. The UK Reviewers have applied more restrictions than Groundspeak, why because we have had to react to the Requests of the Authorities or Landowners. Something which several seem to deliberately ignore !

 

Deci

Edited January 6, 2010 by Deceangi

[+Happy Humphrey]

This is a very silly thread. There is no chance of a 6-month moratorium. Even if there was, it wouldn't make any difference to the "quality" of caches anyway. As for "quality"; ifferent people have different ideas of a "poor quality" cache, so if self-appointed Cache Police post SBAs because they thought that a micro in a layby isn't of the standard that they expect then it will simply wind up the cache placers involved and cause friction.

 

Having said that, I support the concept of giving your opinion of a cache in the log (explaining why you didn't enjoy it). If you start getting too many such logs, you'd probably rethink the cache and either improve or remove it. Politeness is the enemy of cache quality (to some extent).

But in the end, it's only a cache so I can understand if people don't want to get involved with this sort of hassle.

[+The Blorenges]

I thought this was worth noting, from the original topic, post #27...

 

 

The UK has a total land area of 241,590 square KM , and a coastline of 12,429KM, at the time of wiriting this there are some 8620 caches......

 

Stuart

 

Today, current UK listings = 53,879 (this statistic is brought to you courtesy of http://www.icache.co.uk/ )

 

We're all still here, playing this game, plus hundreds of newer UK cachers. Lathama is still hiding and finding caches. No moratorium on placing caches has occurred. The sky has not fallen in.

 

After some posts of "shock, horror" that original topic developed into considerations of 'How to improve the general "quality" of caches' and Should caches be automatically archived after x years?' etc. I suspect many would post similar contributions today... or maybe their views have changed?

 

MrsB

Edited January 6, 2010 by The Blorenges

[+Simply Paul]

Addressing the questions, as posed:

 

How difficult is it to find good spots for caches near you?

I've stopped trying, for reasons beyond it's hard to find Grade A locations. I could replace some old caches of mine which were at interesting spots (anyone remember Military Intelligence?) but I'm disinclined to; I'll leave places for other setters to populate.

 

Do we need so many geocaches to keep us all happy?

Yes/No/Don't Know, depending on who you ask. I'm always happy with quality over quantity myself. Give me one cracking cache at a spot I'd 'never have discovered without geocaching' over any number of 'it's just about the numbers' caches (damp micro in a bush... You know the sort of thing by now!)

 

What would you feel if there was an announcement on this forum saying, "As from 1st February 2010 there will be a 6 month moratorium on placing geocaches within the U.K. and Ireland."

I'd be cheesed off as I've a couple of exciting hides planned -including my first EarthCache when that's up and running again- between now and August. It would be better to suggest a 'caching spring clean' to get rid of some poorer, tired and damaged caches by either replacing or retiring them.

[+smstext]

we are nowhere near satuation, i have 4 different routes ive been looking at to make up a circular cache walk near me (on the oxfordshire/berkshire border). Ok some areas are probably reaching satuation, but i bet if they looked 5 miles down the road then there probably be room to place a nice trail.

[+keehotee]

we are nowhere near satuation, i have 4 different routes ive been looking at to make up a circular cache walk near me (on the oxfordshire/berkshire border). Ok some areas are probably reaching satuation, but i bet if they looked 5 miles down the road then there probably be room to place a nice trail.

 

Just put of curiosity - and not trail bashing (this time) - but why do you feel the need to put out a trail, rather than a good single cache? Surely if the place you're taking people is pleasant enough to warrant a visit, a solitary cache will get them there just as much as a trail will....and will also let them pick their own route?

 

And why do you assume that somebody else, whether they looked 5 miles down the road or not, would also only be interested in putting out a trail?

Edited January 6, 2010 by keehotee

[markandlynn]

we are nowhere near satuation, i have 4 different routes ive been looking at to make up a circular cache walk near me (on the oxfordshire/berkshire border). Ok some areas are probably reaching satuation, but i bet if they looked 5 miles down the road then there probably be room to place a nice trail.

 

Just put of curiosity - and not trail bashing (this time) - but why do you feel the need to put out a trail, rather than a good single cache?

 

And why do you assume that somebody else, whether they looked 5 miles down the road or not, would also only be interested in putting out a trail?

 

Or a multi cache

[+keehotee]

we are nowhere near satuation, i have 4 different routes ive been looking at to make up a circular cache walk near me (on the oxfordshire/berkshire border). Ok some areas are probably reaching satuation, but i bet if they looked 5 miles down the road then there probably be room to place a nice trail.

 

Just put of curiosity - and not trail bashing (this time) - but why do you feel the need to put out a trail, rather than a good single cache?

 

And why do you assume that somebody else, whether they looked 5 miles down the road or not, would also only be interested in putting out a trail?

 

And this time with my trail bashing hat on ( )

 

I think you've partly hit the nail on the head.

 

Let's say - for the sake of argument - that there's a rather attractive - and reasonably large - piece of woodland near me, completely devoid of caches, and with carte blanche permission to hide caches from the landowner.

I happen to particularly like a stone circle near the centre - so decide to take people there by hiding a cache.

 

Should I hide a single traditional cache and leave the rest of the woods (minus a 1/10th mile radius) free for other people to hide their own?

Or do I assume that they have no hope of using common sense to get to the cache - and instead hide a film pot at every stile, path crossing, ford, hedge and interesting telegraph pole on the way - incidentally raising the proximity boundary from 1/10th of a mile to almost the size of the entire wood? :D

 

I suppose it'd keep the number chasers happy, if nothing else.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I happen to particularly like a stone circle near the centre - so decide to take people there by hiding a cache.

 

Should I hide a single traditional cache and leave the rest of the woods (minus a 1/10th mile radius) free for other people to hide their own?

Or do I assume that they have no hope of using common sense to get to the cache - and instead hide a film pot at every stile, path crossing, ford, hedge and interesting telegraph pole on the way - incidentally raising the proximity boundary from 1/10th of a mile to almost the size of the entire wood?

 

I suppose it'd keep the number chasers happy, if nothing else.

In a way, you've answered your own question there. So you hide a nice cache near to the stone circle (perhaps make it a multi so that people actually get to study the circle and answer a question on it rather than just make a beeline for the cache).

Then you leave the rest of the woods available, and others hide film pots at every stile, path crossing, ford, hedge and interesting telegraph pole on the way. It's not "either/or"; you can have both.

 

If it was me, I'd also hide those other caches myself so that the cache listings and containers are guaranteed to be varied and interesting and so that the placements are of interest to those that prefer a bit of a walk with several caches to find. Unless I'm confident that other local cachers will do a good job and I can leave them to it.

 

Final result; a nice cache trail with plenty to tick off along the way, plus an interesting multicache. Everyone wins!

[+keehotee]

I happen to particularly like a stone circle near the centre - so decide to take people there by hiding a cache.

 

Should I hide a single traditional cache and leave the rest of the woods (minus a 1/10th mile radius) free for other people to hide their own?

Or do I assume that they have no hope of using common sense to get to the cache - and instead hide a film pot at every stile, path crossing, ford, hedge and interesting telegraph pole on the way - incidentally raising the proximity boundary from 1/10th of a mile to almost the size of the entire wood?

 

I suppose it'd keep the number chasers happy, if nothing else.

 

If it was me, I'd also hide those other caches myself so that the cache listings and containers are guaranteed to be varied and interesting

 

But unfortunately that's so often NOT the case

[+smstext]

 

If people are looking for better quality, then at present I would say that the "alternative" sites such as OpenCaching provide a better average quality than Groundspeak caches.

Rgds, Andy

 

All my caches start off with quality stuff including one premium member cache called icache which has only been out there a few months and when i did a maintenance check last weekend found it had been cleared out but a few items that i had put in and nothing swapped. the stuff i had put in included, ipod and phone cases, car chargers, usb leads. ok didnt cost me much to what rrp is on them but its not the point, i thought premium members were a bit more honest, obviously not and that is why people imho are not putting out quality in their caches due to the dishonest few taking and not swapping.

[+MBFace]

that is why people imho are not putting out quality in their caches due to the dishonest few taking and not swapping.

 

To us quality is about the location, hide, cache page, etc. rather than what's in the box .

[+Amberel]

... Here's a suggestion, instead of moaning and pointing to other listing sites for quality caches [which they only have because they do not list more than a tiny fraction of the caches listed on here] ... Instead of moaning about the standards of caches listed on here, but then running off to another listing site! Try staying and actively fighting to improve quality

Hi Deci, was that aimed at me, because I mentioned OpenCaching? If it was, I think that maybe your post was a bit of an over-reaction - my posting was balanced and did make the point that if OpenCaching was as big as Groundspeak it would suffer from exactly the same problems.

 

As far as "moaning here and running off to another site" is concerned, I'm not "running off" to another site, most of the caches I find are listed on Groundspeak but I've also used several other sites for a long time and believe they should be able to co-exist peacefully. I'm a geocacher first, a Groundspeaker or an OpenCacher, or whatever, second.

 

As far as your point about working constructively to improve quality is concerned, it really isn't as easy as you seem to think. Probably more than many I often try to offer constructive criticism of a poor cache, but many hiders are entirely unreceptive to any such comments, some become aggresive or very defensive, and only a few do anything about it.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Simply Paul]

...i thought premium members were a bit more honest, obviously not...

I've never understood why folks imagine this is the case, but it does seem to be the 'accepted wisdom'. There's no evidence for it, just the assumptions that i) PMO caches get muggled less often and ii) Cachers paying to play (by being PMs) are 'better people' than the rest of us. Sorry, off topic

Anyway, I sympathise smstext, and hope it doesn't put you off putting out the sorts of well-stocked caches you'd like to find.

[+agentmancuso]

we must therefore work on a self-help basis to do so ourselves.

 

That's simple enough. If you don't like the look of a cache, ignore it. If you find a cache that's had little thought put into it, don't log it.

[Pajaholic]

that is why people imho are not putting out quality in their caches due to the dishonest few taking and not swapping.

 

To us quality is about the location, hide, cache page, etc. rather than what's in the box .

Us too. We cache so that people can take us to places they find interesting, and I'd rather a nano with a superb view than a regular or larger in an alley with no history to speak of. FWIW, we're not into swag and don't carry anything valuable enough to trade fairly for the sort "quality" stuff that smstext mentioned.

 

Geoff

[+agentmancuso]

what we dislike is lay-by caches amongst all the rubbish.

 

So don't look for them, or don't log them as found.

[+agentmancuso]

To us quality is about the location, hide, cache page, etc. rather than what's in the box .

 

Agreed.

[+smstext]

we are nowhere near satuation, i have 4 different routes ive been looking at to make up a circular cache walk near me (on the oxfordshire/berkshire border). Ok some areas are probably reaching satuation, but i bet if they looked 5 miles down the road then there probably be room to place a nice trail.

 

Just put of curiosity - and not trail bashing (this time) - but why do you feel the need to put out a trail, rather than a good single cache? Surely if the place you're taking people is pleasant enough to warrant a visit, a solitary cache will get them there just as much as a trail will....and will also let them pick their own route?

 

And why do you assume that somebody else, whether they looked 5 miles down the road or not, would also only be interested in putting out a trail?

 

yes a good reply, but ive found by placing one in the middle of no where wont really get many visits, however make a trail (my recent one was 10 on a 6 mile walk) it gives the cacher a nice walk to do and in theory keeps them on an intended route.

 

If a trail is done one way, you then have the ones who wont do it as they got to get back some how to where they have parked. This is why i try and do circular walk ones, ones that i can link to other circular walks or link up with other caches to make a bigger walk which i personally feel is more attractive.

 

@simply paul

 

It is disheartening yes, but it hasnt stopped me putting caches out, just means i wont be putting too much into future caches for it to be pilfered.

 

We could also move on to the topic of those who dont sign the log but sign on the website to say they have been as well, but back on to topic.....

 

How would a six month ban be enforced? surely local groups would take their caches underground and email local cachers they know the co ords so when the drought/ban period is over and they can submit their cache the ones who have visited it during the ban will then end up logging them... just another idea

[+uk89camaro]

Instead of moaning about the standards of caches listed on here, but then running off to another listing site! Try staying and actively fighting to improve quality, by changing the unacceptable mind set some within the community have, and so start a process of improving quality.

Deci

 

Agreed!

 

In our community when we see a couple of new cachers logging finds and talking about placing caches, we often "talk" to them about what makes a good/bad cache. AND that includes what can make a micro a good cache.

 

Instead of having an add on rating system (that is sometimes found on some cache listings), could you insist on a reviewer note that includes a tick list of what makes it a quality cache, before it is published.

 

Location general : Woodland, historic monument, lay by on the A38, Supermarket car park, etc.

Location specific : top of grassy knoll overlooking Snowdon, back of road sign, under rock by the river, etc.

Container size : usual pick, but unknown not allowed.

Container type : Magnetic nano, clever disguise as a plastic gnome, standard click lock, 35 mm film pot.

Distance from nearest parking : 1 metre, 2 miles, etc.

 

Give 'em all an automated score, and some will be "computer says no" = not published until it improvements made....not withstanding all other permissions and proximities.

 

not sure if was I just said was tounge in cheek or not.

[+drsolly]

What is a "quality cache"?

 

Obviously, it's a cache that *I* like.

 

Since there's quite a lot of "I"s around, that means there's a lot of different ideas about what makes a quality cache.

All different. All correct. All true.

 

So the problem isn't one of "improving quality", because that's undefinable, and in many cases, one person's quality improvement is anothers quality degradation - I'd rather have a trail of 25 micros than a six mile walk to one cache, because then I have the fun and excitement of the find more often, with perhaps some tree climbing, perhaps a couple of clever hides, perhaps some need for an implement. Other people prefer the opposite. Both are correct.

 

I think this issue is mostly resolvable with good labelling. You don't like salty food? Then avoid food that has a lot of salt. You don't like micros? They're easy to avoid.

 

I do think that Groundspeak could do more on labelling. For example, it's silly that there's no "nano" cache size, and they're either labelled as "micro" or "other", or even "not chosen".

 

Other labelling improvements could be:

 

Distinguish in the label between an offset multi and a many-stage multi (perhaps give the number of stages as part of the label; this is already on the cache page if you read all the way through it, but putting it on the label makes it easier).

 

An estimate of the distance needed to get the cache and return.

 

How many caches had the cache setter found when he set the cache?

 

Is this part of a trail or series? Is there a bonus to the series?

 

Notice - most of this info is actually available already if you read the entire cache page. What I'm suggesting is a "label", just like the cache size is a label for something that you could also get by reading the cache page. It means you can use filters to filter out caches you aren't interested in.

 

So, over to Groundspeak - please consider better cache labelling.

 

On the original question - I think a six month ban on new caches is about as effective as a six month ban on new cachers.

[+martlakes]

Unless there is some mechanism for giving feedback to cache owners, which is more specific than just writing a vague log, it will always be very difficult to improve the 'quality' of caches. Mostly cos there are so many different interpretations of what a quality cache is.

 

People like trails and circuits and close together sets of caches. Other people like more remote caches on longer walks. The usual tale of "find what you like" applies. For me that varies and the most important thing is usually the location, but I've done a few supermarket car parks while on holiday/shopping as well as 5hr walks in Scotland for one cache.

 

What would help would be to have a clearer way of finding the sort of caches you like amidst the 'sea of caches'.

 

Anyway, see Rating system for the answer to improving cache quality!

Back to the OP: a 6 month ban? Why - not sure what this would achieve if the dynamic of the system itself doesn't change.

Generally, geocaching will continue to expand and change until it reaches some sort of equilibrium. It's unlikely that this will feel like 'the early days' or even how it is now. Whether that's better or not, who knows. Sub-species of listings will grow, some will be returning to the 'underground' nature of the original, others will cater to specific versions of 'quality'. No doubt the growth will be similar to the growth of other systems, biological processes, economic models etc. Will it be 'good' or 'bad'- who knows. Always tricky to predict the future! Basically, get out there and enjoy the game how you like. If you get fed up, do something else.

[Neath Worthies]

Today, current UK listings = 53,879

With this number of caches spread throughout the UK you have to wonder if any more are needed for the game to flourish.

 

Maybe an idea would be to require the archiving of an unloved cache before a new one is published. That would ensure a healthy turnover in caches and maybe even an improvement in that elusive beast - "Quality"