1 for 1 TB exchange policies

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The fact that it's Premium Members Only simply helps ensure that the cachers that find my cache are those of the quality variety.

Just a heads up. There are PMs (Premium Members) and there are PMs (Paying Maggots).

Be careful there!

 

There are also another kind of PMs (Past Members)

[+BlueDeuce]

Too many rules, regulations, and big headed opinions will make geocaching not fun for a lot of people, and I have no intention of being a part of that problem.

 

Good, then lose the cache rule. Not every cacher understands that your trade restrictions can be ignored. They don't want to rock the boat or get looked down on so they abide by your rule,

 

Try to get away from managing the bugs and coins and everyone will be happier.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

 

I'm sorry, but I think you've misconstrued the intent of my question. Feels so strongly? I asked a question. Overreact much?

 

My cache has a request on it. Logs that don't follow that request don't get deleted. No nasty emails sent. I simply put another GC in there. No biggie. The fact that it's Premium Members Only simply helps ensure that the cachers that find my cache are those of the quality variety. Too many people not willing to support the Groundspeak sites lose TBs, and/or get caches muggled in my area.

 

However, you're welcome to think as you like. Quite honestly, I don't care. Too many rules, regulations, and big headed opinions will make geocaching not fun for a lot of people, and I have no intention of being a part of that problem.

 

If you think that adding too many rules will make geocaching not fun for a lot of people why are you adding rules to your caches?

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Just a heads up for those in PDX and SW WA, and those around DSM to FOD- I'll be raiding TB hotel/prisons in May.

Free the TB!

[+Castle Mischief]

Just a heads up for those in PDX and SW WA, and those around DSM to FOD- I'll be raiding TB hotel/prisons in May.

Free the TB!

 

W3RD.

[+Vater_Araignee]

The fact that it's Premium Members Only simply helps ensure that the cachers that find my cache are those of the quality variety.

Just a heads up. There are PMs (Premium Members) and there are PMs (Paying Maggots).

Be careful there!

 

There are also another kind of PMs (Past Members)

Ah, but the common thread my PMs have that yours does not is an active premium account.

Premium Members are to Paying Maggots as Past Members are to Potential Members.

[+Scubasonic]

If I find a TB Hotel with that kind of restriction I will go out of my way to find it and stage a Prison Break of all Trackables that are in there. The cache owner owns the Cache but not the Trackables.

 

Scubasonic

[+Avernar]

I seriously doubt any TB prison wardens have ill intent, and are looking to insure that every visitor has a TB to move.

But every visitor doesn't have the opportunity to move a TB. The people that don't already have a TB aren't allowed to move one. The ones that have a TB already had "the experience of finding a TB in a cache", so what's the point of the restriction?

 

I think in most cases it's just the CO trying to compensate for a poorly located TB Hotel.

[+Too Tall John]

I am not speaking for other reviewers...

 

If I see the requirement, it is an ALR, and against the spirit of a trackable. I will ask that it be removed before I publish it. In essence if they threaten to delete your log, or logs on other caches because you took 2-3 trackables without leaving any, it is an ALR.

 

They may say "Please trade fair" or similar terms, they can't require it.

 

If someone adds an ALR after I publish it, and I have asked them not to include it, I most likely will archive it immediately.

I agree with my esteemed colleague from Utah. Travel bug prisons are ALR's in Ohio and Pennsylvania, too. I won't publish any new ones. If someone brings a complaint to my attention about an old one (like "my log got deleted"), I would ask the owner to remove the impermissible additional logging requirement. If they do not edit the listing within a reasonable time to comply with the guidelines, I would archive the listing.

 

For reference, here is the "No Additional Logging Requirements" guideline: Logging of All Physical Caches.

While I agree with the spirit of what you two are saying, I have to wonder what would happen if the CO were to argue that, since TBs are geocaching related, the cache was actually a Challenge Cache.

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Too many rules, regulations, and big headed opinions will make geocaching not fun for a lot of people, and I have no intention of being a part of that problem.

 

 

So will too few.

[+Prime Suspect]

I seriously doubt any TB prison wardens have ill intent, and are looking to insure that every visitor has a TB to move.

But every visitor doesn't have the opportunity to move a TB. The people that don't already have a TB aren't allowed to move one. The ones that have a TB already had "the experience of finding a TB in a cache", so what's the point of the restriction?

 

I think in most cases it's just the CO trying to compensate for a poorly located TB Hotel.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

"If a travel bug hotel is in a good spot for the quick and easy exchange of travel bugs, then an empty hotel won't stay empty long. People are always looking for a convenient place to drop bugs off. The owner of a well-placed hotel should actually be pleased if the hotel is occasionally empty, since it shows that the hotel is serving its purpose: to get bugs moving quickly. And if a hotel does stay empty for long periods of time without the cache owner continually raiding other caches to re-stock it, then it's not a good place for a travel bug hotel." - The Hermit Crabs, Dec 2 2005

[+Larry the pool guy]

I seriously doubt any TB prison wardens have ill intent, and are looking to insure that every visitor has a TB to move.

But every visitor doesn't have the opportunity to move a TB. The people that don't already have a TB aren't allowed to move one. The ones that have a TB already had "the experience of finding a TB in a cache", so what's the point of the restriction?

 

I think in most cases it's just the CO trying to compensate for a poorly located TB Hotel.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

"If a travel bug hotel is in a good spot for the quick and easy exchange of travel bugs, then an empty hotel won't stay empty long. People are always looking for a convenient place to drop bugs off. The owner of a well-placed hotel should actually be pleased if the hotel is occasionally empty, since it shows that the hotel is serving its purpose: to get bugs moving quickly. And if a hotel does stay empty for long periods of time without the cache owner continually raiding other caches to re-stock it, then it's not a good place for a travel bug hotel." - The Hermit Crabs, Dec 2 2005

[+Larry the pool guy]

Exactly how hard is it to simply trade evenly for another TB or GC? I can't even begin to imagine why such a basic request would be so hard to adhere to.

 

 

It's no wonder he feels so strongly.... He just happens to own a "TB Prison".

And not only is it a TB Prison, it's one that is available to Premium members only, even further restricting who can move a TB.

 

LOOK -->http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8d-129800dd5de0

 

I'm sorry, but I think you've misconstrued the intent of my question. Feels so strongly? I asked a question. Overreact much?

 

My cache has a request on it. Logs that don't follow that request don't get deleted. No nasty emails sent. I simply put another GC in there. No biggie. The fact that it's Premium Members Only simply helps ensure that the cachers that find my cache are those of the quality variety. Too many people not willing to support the Groundspeak sites lose TBs, and/or get caches muggled in my area.

 

However, you're welcome to think as you like. Quite honestly, I don't care. Too many rules, regulations, and big headed opinions will make geocaching not fun for a lot of people, and I have no intention of being a part of that problem.

[+Larry the pool guy]

I seriously doubt any TB prison wardens have ill intent, and are looking to insure that every visitor has a TB to move.

But every visitor doesn't have the opportunity to move a TB. The people that don't already have a TB aren't allowed to move one. The ones that have a TB already had "the experience of finding a TB in a cache", so what's the point of the restriction?

 

I think in most cases it's just the CO trying to compensate for a poorly located TB Hotel.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

"If a travel bug hotel is in a good spot for the quick and easy exchange of travel bugs, then an empty hotel won't stay empty long. People are always looking for a convenient place to drop bugs off. The owner of a well-placed hotel should actually be pleased if the hotel is occasionally empty, since it shows that the hotel is serving its purpose: to get bugs moving quickly. And if a hotel does stay empty for long periods of time without the cache owner continually raiding other caches to re-stock it, then it's not a good place for a travel bug hotel." - The Hermit Crabs, Dec 2 2005

[+two bison]

Find a bug? Take a bug.

Have a bug? Drop a bug.

 

Same day, same time, same place? Hardly ever.

 

The important word in travel bug is travel.

 

We appreciate it when folks place caches large enough to hold multiple trackables.

 

What we'd really appreciate is if the owners of the caches would check the inventory regularly and mark-as-missing any bugs that aren't there. Worse than a travel bug hotel with no bugs in residence is a travel bug hotel with a long list of travel bugs in the inventory and no bugs in residence.