Is This Solicitation?

[Andronicus]

I have the following paragraph on one of my cache pages. I would like to hear some opinions if people think that this is too close to the solicitation rule.

 

Please keep in mind that this cache is very difficult to maintain. Of course, if needed, I can make this hike again. But I have enough other hikes on my to do list that I really would rather not. Please bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance when you are up there. (e.g. log book, pencil, maybe even a small cache container; believe me, if you read the hint and can't find this one, it is missing) If the cache container is missing, feel free to replace it and log the find.

 

And yes, there is a cache container there. If you are thinking that I am trying to get the FTF to place a cache for me, that is not the case.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Andronicus

[+briansnat]

I think that placing a cache with the expectation that others will maintain it for you is wrong. While it's common for the geocaching community to assist cache owners I don't think you should place caches that you would rather not maintain.

 

I don't think that it would violate the solicitation guideline, but it will probably violate the cache maintenance guideline.

Edited February 19, 2010 by briansnat

[knowschad]

I would soften the tone a bit by changing it to something like, "Due to the distance to this cache, any voluntary cache where needed would be greatly appreciated." and leave it at that. I hope the container is an ammo box, though.

[Andronicus]

I think that placing a cache with the expectation that others will maintain it for you is wrong. While it's common for the geocaching community to assist cache owners I don't think you should place caches that you would rather not maintain.

 

I don't think that it would violate the solicitation guideline, but it will probably violate the cache maintenance guideline.

 

If your statment is generaly exepted by the community, how are mountain top caches handled? Lets face it, most people do not want to do a day hike up a mountain just to replace a log book etc.

[+sbell111]

I suspect that the verbiage is fine. Run it by your reviewer and see what he thinks.

[Andronicus]

I suspect that the verbiage is fine. Run it by your reviewer and see what he thinks.

 

I changed the wording after it was approved (not being sneeky, just thought of it after). Good call on that one.

[+briansnat]

I suspect that the verbiage is fine. Run it by your reviewer and see what he thinks.

 

I changed the wording after it was approved (not being sneeky, just thought of it after). Good call on that one.

 

Your reviewer will not be pleased if he finds out. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been published the way you have it re-written. You could ask him if it's OK but that doesn't change the fact that you placed a cache that you admittedly would rather not have to deal with.

 

If your statment is generaly exepted by the community, how are mountain top caches handled? Lets face it, most people do not want to do a day hike up a mountain just to replace a log book etc.

 

It's part of cache ownership. You should be the primary maintainer. It's one thing to say "Hey Bob, I see you're going after my cache on Mt Tall next weekend. Could you do me a favor and swap in a new log book while you are there?".

 

But to place a cache with the expectation that the community will take care of it for you is presumptuous.

[+sbell111]

I suspect that the verbiage is fine. Run it by your reviewer and see what he thinks.

I changed the wording after it was approved (not being sneeky, just thought of it after). Good call on that one.

Your reviewer will not be pleased if he finds out. I'm fairly certain it wouldn't have been published the way you have it re-written. You could ask him if it's OK but that doesn't change the fact that you placed a cache that you admittedly would rather not have to deal with.

I rather doubt that the reviewer is going to be upset if the OP sends him the following email:

I changed the verbiage in my cache page. Would you mind looking at it to ensure that it still meets the guidelines. If not, I would be happy to tweak it to ensure compliance.

 

Thanks

If your statment is generaly exepted by the community, how are mountain top caches handled? Lets face it, most people do not want to do a day hike up a mountain just to replace a log book etc.

It's part of cache ownership. You should be the primary maintainer. It's one thing to say "Hey Bob, I see you're going after my cache on Mt Tall next weekend. Could you do me a favor and swap in a new log book while you are there?".

 

But to place a cache with the expectation that the community will take care of it for you is presumptuous.

He clearly stated that he would return to the site to do any required maintenance. Therefore, he hasn't "placed a cache with the expectation that the community will take care of it".

 

Reading is fundamental.

Edited February 19, 2010 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

I would soften the tone a bit by changing it to something like, "Due to the distance to this cache, any voluntary cache where needed would be greatly appreciated." and leave it at that. I hope the container is an ammo box, though.

 

Good advice.

[NeecesandNephews]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

[+Castle Mischief]

I would soften the tone a bit by changing it to something like, "Due to the distance to this cache, any voluntary cache where needed would be greatly appreciated." and leave it at that. I hope the container is an ammo box, though.

 

Good advice.

 

Seconded.

[+L0ne.R]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

 

And I think that the statement encourages "throw downs" (if it's not there, place your own cache and call it a find).

[+sbell111]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

 

And I think that the statement encourages "throw downs" (if it's not there, place your own cache and call it a find).

It specifically allows them.

[NeecesandNephews]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

 

And I think that the statement encourages "throw downs" (if it's not there, place your own cache and call it a find).

 

 

Huh???? where did that come from??? You can't log a find, even on a "throwdown" when its not a listed cache. The topic (I thought) was asking opinion on whether or not asking cachers to maintain your cache (or help you maintain it) was accepted or considered solicitation. Who said anything about a throwdown??? You will have to explain the logic you used to come to that conclusion to me sometime, because I can't connect the two.

My response to the OP was slanted to the effect that it might be a cache he might reconsider, due to the high maintenance aspect of it.

Edited February 19, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+sbell111]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

And I think that the statement encourages "throw downs" (if it's not there, place your own cache and call it a find).

Huh???? where did that come from??? You can't log a find, even on a "throwdown" when its not a listed cache. The topic (I thought) was asking opinion on whether or not asking cachers to maintain your cache (or help you maintain it) was accepted or considered solicitation. Who said anything about a throwdown??? You will have to explain the logic you used to come to that conclusion to me sometime, because I can't connect the two.

My response to the OP was slanted to the effect that it might be a cache he might reconsider, due to the high maintenance aspect of it.

You are each referring to different things. Lone R was discussing the issue of someone looking for a listed cache, not finding it, and tossing down a geocache to replace the missing one. The OP specifically allows for this, but several forum denizens get all gnashy about the issue. Edited February 19, 2010 by sbell111

[NeecesandNephews]

Thank you Sbell ,I reread that again. I thought his response was to the statement I posted, not the OP's. Him quoting me was what led me to that misunderstanding. In the context you have pointed out, I agree with You and Lone R, it could open the door to that.

 

 

I have , several times, hit the wrong "reply" button and quoted someone I didn't intend to. sorry for the misunderstanding!!

Edited February 19, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+tozainamboku]

A few weeks ago, we read about a cache that was archived because the owner asked for donations to cover the cost of placing caches. At the time I wondered what the difference was between that and a cache owner asking for people to "bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance"

 

I personally find nothing objectionable about the owner of a remote cache letting people know that any help on maintenance would be appreciated. I don't even mind that the cache owner is saying that if you can't find the cache, it would be OK to leave a replacement.

 

But I don't know where Groundspeak or the reviewers want to draw the line and say you are soliciting. It sounds like a "Wow" requirement to me (i.e. totally subjective).

Edited February 19, 2010 by tozainamboku

[Andronicus]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

 

And I think that the statement encourages "throw downs" (if it's not there, place your own cache and call it a find).

Realy, that is what I am suggesting. It is super easy to find especialy with the hint. If someone can't find it it has been muggled by a bear or something, so a throw down would be CO authorised maintanence.

[NeecesandNephews]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

 

And I think that the statement encourages "throw downs" (if it's not there, place your own cache and call it a find).

Realy, that is what I am suggesting. It is super easy to find especialy with the hint. If someone can't find it it has been muggled by a bear or something, so a throw down would be CO authorised maintanence.

 

 

Andronicus let me clarify, I hope I wasn't misunderstood in my response. I have yet to hide any caches due to weather and job related issues. I want to set aside as much time to hunt as I can, and don't want the responsibility of maintenance to take away from that at this time.

 

One of the first things we did was get a pack together to do upkeep on caches we found that needed it. Just as simple courtesy. I haven't yet experienced a missing cache, so don't know if I would feel right about replacing one. Right now, I can say I wouldn't do it, even if I was sure it was missing. I would however contact the owner and offer to do it if we were in the area, and it was more convenient for us than him/her. But only after I had consulted them. There are some strong emotions on that topic, as other threads have shown. I think contacting the owner is the first course of action.

 

I see nothing wrong with asking. It seems to me that you have clearly stated in your response that demanding or expecting was not the intended tone of your question. My response was directed to the original post, and it seemed somewhat demanding to me. That is what I found tacky.

 

Hey I can ask my neighbor to mow my grass if I was out of town or couldn't do it.. He might not do it, but I didn't lose anything by asking!!

[+sbell111]

A few weeks ago, we read about a cache that was archived because the owner asked for donations to cover the cost of placing caches. At the time I wondered what the difference was between that and a cache owner asking for people to "bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance"

 

I personally find nothing objectionable about the owner of a remote cache letting people know that any help on maintenance would be appreciated. I don't even mind that the cache owner is saying that if you can't find the cache, it would be OK to leave a replacement.

 

But I don't know where Groundspeak or the reviewers want to draw the line and say you are soliciting. It sounds like a "Wow" requirement to me (i.e. totally subjective).

Agreed.

 

The reason that I think that this one was passable is that he basically said that he will do maintenance visits as required, but if someone can fix any problames that they find that it would be appreciated.

 

Heck, isn't that how most of us feel about our caches?

[knowschad]

Solicitation??? Doesn't really seem like it to me.

 

Tacky??? In my opinion, yes. First thought that runs through my mind when I read that is...why are you placing a cache that is "difficult to maintain" if you have to have help to maintain it? I realize you stated you "could" if you "had" to, which leads me to the tacky part. IMHO I would think a cache that was that much of a problem for you, would be one better left unlisted. I believe thats why Groundspeak expects you to place them within a reasonable distance of your location, for a maintenance standpoint

And I think that the statement encourages "throw downs" (if it's not there, place your own cache and call it a find).

Realy, that is what I am suggesting. It is super easy to find especialy with the hint. If someone can't find it it has been muggled by a bear or something, so a throw down would be CO authorised maintanence.

Never heard the old "Rehid better than found" routine, huh? Just because it was super easy when you hid it, does not mean that it will always be super easy to find. They get camo'd better, they migrate, natural conditions change over time... lots of things besides bears can affect how easily a cache can be found.

[+Castle Mischief]

A few weeks ago, we read about a cache that was archived because the owner asked for donations to cover the cost of placing caches. At the time I wondered what the difference was between that and a cache owner asking for people to "bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance"

 

I personally find nothing objectionable about the owner of a remote cache letting people know that any help on maintenance would be appreciated. I don't even mind that the cache owner is saying that if you can't find the cache, it would be OK to leave a replacement.

 

But I don't know where Groundspeak or the reviewers want to draw the line and say you are soliciting. It sounds like a "Wow" requirement to me (i.e. totally subjective).

Agreed.

 

The reason that I think that this one was passable is that he basically said that he will do maintenance visits as required, but if someone can fix any problems that they find that it would be appreciated.

 

Heck, isn't that how most of us feel about our caches?

 

You're free to interpret it as you see it, but I've read it a few times and the tone comes across to me differently.

 

Please keep in mind that this cache is very difficult to maintain. Of course, if needed,

I can make this hike again

. But I have enough other hikes on my to do list that

I really would rather not

. Please

bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance

when you are up there. (e.g. log book, pencil, maybe even a small cache container; believe me, if you read the hint and can't find this one, it is missing) If the cache container is missing, feel free to replace it and log the find.

 

The highlighted portions stand out when I read it. They actually, when tied together, sum up what I'm getting from the paragraph: "I can make this hike again, I really would rather not, bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance." That doesn't carry the feel of "hey, if you have time and can manage it a little cache TLC would be cool."

 

I don't think this was his intention, but the original version has no mention of the "appreciation" that you're reading. To my eyes, at least.

[+briansnat]

A few weeks ago, we read about a cache that was archived because the owner asked for donations to cover the cost of placing caches. At the time I wondered what the difference was between that and a cache owner asking for people to "bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance"

 

I personally find nothing objectionable about the owner of a remote cache letting people know that any help on maintenance would be appreciated. I don't even mind that the cache owner is saying that if you can't find the cache, it would be OK to leave a replacement.

 

But I don't know where Groundspeak or the reviewers want to draw the line and say you are soliciting. It sounds like a "Wow" requirement to me (i.e. totally subjective).

 

As with nearly any guideline there is some subjectivity involved.

 

The solicitation guideline is largely target toward soliciting for charities, causes and businesses. It's why it's generally OK to solicit help with caches. When I was laid up for a few months I solicited help with maintenance in the regional forum and on one cache page. Another local cacher was relocating to the west coast and solicited assistance with the removal of his caches. Though technically solicitations they were allowable because the spirit of the solicitation guideline (for caches and in the forums) was not meant to cover those situations.

 

If the OP's cache showed up in the review queue with that statement it probably wouldn't have been the solicitation that caught the eye of the reviewer, it would have been his admitted reluctance to maintain it.

[knowschad]

The highlighted portions stand out when I read it. They actually, when tied together, sum up what I'm getting from the paragraph: "I can make this hike again, I really would rather not, bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance." That doesn't carry the feel of "hey, if you have time and can manage it a little cache TLC would be cool."

 

I don't think this was his intention, but the original version has no mention of the "appreciation" that you're reading. To my eyes, at least.

I agree. The way it is worded, at least, it sounds almost like a vacation cache.

 

On the other hand, I must say that it looks like a very remote, probably cool spot in the mountains, judging by the arial pics. I was hoping for some gallery pictures, but alas... there are none yet. Cache was placed last July and hasn't had a log yet.

[Andronicus]

A few weeks ago, we read about a cache that was archived because the owner asked for donations to cover the cost of placing caches. At the time I wondered what the difference was between that and a cache owner asking for people to "bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance"

 

I personally find nothing objectionable about the owner of a remote cache letting people know that any help on maintenance would be appreciated. I don't even mind that the cache owner is saying that if you can't find the cache, it would be OK to leave a replacement.

 

But I don't know where Groundspeak or the reviewers want to draw the line and say you are soliciting. It sounds like a "Wow" requirement to me (i.e. totally subjective).

Agreed.

 

The reason that I think that this one was passable is that he basically said that he will do maintenance visits as required, but if someone can fix any problames that they find that it would be appreciated.

 

Heck, isn't that how most of us feel about our caches?

 

That earlyer conversation is exactly what got me thinking that maybe I was oversteping the bonds on this one.

 

I think that I will change the working to make it less demanding, and more "if it's not too much trouble" type request.

 

As knowschad said, it is rather remote. It is a 2.5h drive form the city, and a 4.5h hike (if you get permission from the land lease holder 7h+ if not). Just like many other remote/mountain top caches, the owner hopes to not have to make the trek again any time soon. Here is my log of a near by virtual with photos

Edited February 19, 2010 by Andronicus

[knowschad]

I think that I will change the working to make it less demanding, and more "if it's not too much trouble" type request.

Maybe something like, "if it's not too much trouble (sigh!!!),"

[+simpjkee]

If you're not willing to go maintain it, you shouldn't place it. Being responsible and maintaining your cache is part of what being a cache owner is all about.

 

I've got a "remote" cache like that and visited it last Summer to maintain it. I plan to visit it again here in 2 or 3 months even though there is nothing wrong with it.

 

Two days ago, I hiked to one of my caches for a well check, even though there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. An owner checking up on their cache......shocking, I know.

[+simpjkee]

You are each referring to different things. Lone R was discussing the issue of someone looking for a listed cache, not finding it, and tossing down a geocache to replace the missing one. The OP specifically allows for this, but several forum denizens get all gnashy about the issue.

 

Present! Encouraging throwdowns as acceptable cache maintanence because the owner doesnt want to actually maintain the cache is, well,

[+Renegade Knight]

...If your statment is generaly exepted by the community, how are mountain top caches handled? Lets face it, most people do not want to do a day hike up a mountain just to replace a log book etc.

 

They actually don't need much effort at all. Few visitors in a more relaxing environment with hardier containers seems to be a good fit.

 

The log book won't get filled short of several years. The trade goods can do what they will. If after several years it should happen that you need some help maintaining something. You can post a note to the cache page at that time, ask in your regional forums, or take the time you need to plan the hike. You don't need to say anthing at all in the cache page.

 

When others in this thread have been unable to maintain their own caches they have thought nothing of asking for the help they needed when they needed it.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Renegade Knight

[+Semper Questio]

I have the following paragraph on one of my cache pages. I would like to hear some opinions if people think that this is too close to the solicitation rule.

 

Please keep in mind that this cache is very difficult to maintain. Of course, if needed, I can make this hike again. But I have enough other hikes on my to do list that I really would rather not. Please bring some basic cache repair items with you and perform any necessary maintenance when you are up there. (e.g. log book, pencil, maybe even a small cache container; believe me, if you read the hint and can't find this one, it is missing) If the cache container is missing, feel free to replace it and log the find.

 

And yes, there is a cache container there. If you are thinking that I am trying to get the FTF to place a cache for me, that is not the case.

 

If you aren't willing to maintain it, don't hide it.

[AZcachemeister]

I think that placing a cache with the expectation that others will maintain it for you is wrong. While it's common for the geocaching community to assist cache owners I don't think you should place caches that you would rather not maintain.

 

I don't think that it would violate the solicitation guideline, but it will probably violate the cache maintenance guideline.

 

If your statment is generaly exepted by the community, how are mountain top caches handled? Lets face it, most people do not want to do a day hike up a mountain just to replace a log book etc.

 

Don't place a cache at a location you wouldn't want to re-visit.

If it's a difficult place to get to, reduce the chances of a need for maintenance by using a substantial container, with a capacious logbook.

Seriously, if it's not worth maintaining, then why place it?

[4wheelin_fool]

Caches do not need maintenance if they are in ammo boxes or in safe, dry areas. Maintenance means you used a crappy container or muggles found it.

[+J the Goat]

We have a virtual in the area that requires, as part of the logging process, to do 30 mintues of trail maintainence on the way to a traditional cache that has information needed to log the virtual. There is no request about any sort of maintainence of the cache itself.

 

Thoughts?

[+briansnat]

Caches do not need maintenance if they are in ammo boxes or in safe, dry areas. Maintenance means you used a crappy container or muggles found it.

 

That is quite a generalization. Ammo boxes are not perfect. I have found wet ones. Seals fail. Finders fail to close them correctly or leave a plastic bag caught in the seal. Sometimes you place them in a safe area and finders leave them exposed.

 

Ammo boxes can certainly reduce the need for maintenance. It's why they are my preferred container for backcountry caches, but they do not eliminated the need.

[+sbell111]

Caches do not need maintenance if they are in ammo boxes or in safe, dry areas. Maintenance means you used a crappy container or muggles found it.

I bet that I've made three dozen maintenance visits to my ammo can cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

We have a virtual in the area that requires, as part of the logging process, to do 30 mintues of trail maintainence on the way to a traditional cache that has information needed to log the virtual. There is no request about any sort of maintainence of the cache itself.

 

Thoughts?

Additional Logging Requirements such as this are now verboten.

 

Announcing your non-guideline-conformant cache in the forums is a wonderful way to get it archived.

Edited February 21, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+tozainamboku]

We have a virtual in the area that requires, as part of the logging process, to do 30 mintues of trail maintainence on the way to a traditional cache that has information needed to log the virtual. There is no request about any sort of maintainence of the cache itself.

 

Thoughts?

Additional Logging Requirements such as this are now verboten.

 

Announcing your non-guideline-conformant cache in the forums is a wonderful way to get it archived.

It's not so clear. The ALR guideline applies to physical caches. This is a virtual. By there very nature virtual caches have ALRs.

Logging a virtual cache find requires compliance with the requirements stated by the owner, including answering the required questions by email to the owner, providing original photos if so requested, etc. Answers to questions, hints or clues should not be placed in the logs, even if encrypted.

It may be that a requirement to do trail maintenance work would run afoul of the no soliciting guidelines. Also it may be that there is no virtual to find here. It seems that this is a bonus smiley for the traditional. Find the traditional, you can log it without any ALR. But do 30 minutes of trail work and you can also log the virtual cache. Since there isn't an actual virtual cache to find it may be that this could be archived simply as there not being a unique virtual cache here. Funny thing is that there are no guidelines saying that you couldn't allow a bonus Found It log on the traditional for meeting the ALR, only that you cannot delete the Found It log for finding the cache.

[knowschad]

Caches do not need maintenance if they are in ammo boxes or in safe, dry areas. Maintenance means you used a crappy container or muggles found it.

Or an avalanche struck it, the mountain erupted, or other "act of God"

[Andronicus]

I would soften the tone a bit by changing it to something like, "Due to the distance to this cache, any voluntary cache where needed would be greatly appreciated." and leave it at that. I hope the container is an ammo box, though.

 

Just got around to actualy making the change. I replaced the paragraph with knowschad's sentence, but added in the word 'maintenance' after '...voluntary cache'

 

Due to the distance to this cache, any voluntary cache maintenance where needed would be greatly appreciated.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

If your statment is generaly exepted by the community, how are mountain top caches handled? Lets face it, most people do not want to do a day hike up a mountain just to replace a log book etc.

You're right...Most people wouldn't want to do that...there are a couple of ways around the problem.

 

1. Hide a Cache that will not need maintenance or a new logbook for many years.

2. Leave the hiding in those places to the very few who WOULD want to do that.

 

If you admit in your listing that you do not intend to revisit, and don't want to, that would make it the same as a vacation Cache. All of that aside, I don't think it's solicitation outright but it's getting close.