Jump to content

Limiting new cache creation rights to cachers with more than 100 finds


binaryflow

Recommended Posts

I've been giving a lot of thought to issues related to caches put out by brand new cachers. There can be (obviously not always) problems with coordinates being wrong, containers being the wrong size and the terrain/difficulty numbers being way too high. I've proposed an idea to several of my caching friends that Groundspeak consider limiting the ability to hide new caches to cachers that have found more than 100 hides. Since they have universally said they thought it was a good idea I thought I would bring it up here. This is in no means a slap at brand new cachers. I just think we need to afford them the time to familiarize themselves with different hide styles, containers and various terrain/difficulty numbers before putting out new caches. I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule and this is just my opinion based on my experiences in the field. As as more experienced cacher I have made my fair share of mistakes when posting new caches. I do wonder though what kind of affect this would have on the game. Perhaps the 100 cache milestone (or some other arbitrary number) shows a dedication to the game that would ensure long term cache maintenance? Thoughts?

Link to comment

I think it's a rule that doesn't take into account that people have families, can't geocache every weekend, or are disabled.

 

I likely will not reach 100 caches until I've been here a year or longer. I cannot winter cache due to disabilities so when November hits and it gets cold I'm likely done caching until Spring.

 

The idea that I would not be able to hide a cache until I had 100, which I cannot do because of my physical limits is appalling.

Link to comment

You aren't the first one to suggest this.

 

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. A person who really wants to place a cache will just go out and find 100 1.5/1.5 skirtlifters. They won't learn anything by doing that, but it will get them up to the artificial and arbitrary find count so they can place their hide.

 

Experienced cachers don't have a monopoly on good ideas. Newbies don't have a monopoly on poorly thought-out or poorly-maintained caches.

Link to comment

I wonder how many armchair finds this will create because somebody just wants to hide caches and not really find them.

 

We want to hide a cache, but weve decided to wait until around 100 find first. Not because of how bad caches placed by new cachers are. But because we want to get good ideas by example.

Link to comment

More rules. That's what we need in Geocaching. You tell a young kid with a good idea, "Wait, you have to get 100 caches first before you hide a box of toys." Just enjoy the activity, don't dissect it. Some caches are better than others. That's one of the interesting parts. Check the profile and if the owner of a cache has less than 100, you have the CHOICE to seek it out or not. But don't make a limit as a rule. People learn as they go along. Geocaching was started by a person with less than 100; that would be zero.

Link to comment

I've been giving a lot of thought to issues related to caches put out by brand new cachers. There can be (obviously not always) problems with coordinates being wrong, containers being the wrong size and the terrain/difficulty numbers being way too high. I've proposed an idea to several of my caching friends that Groundspeak consider limiting the ability to hide new caches to cachers that have found more than 100 hides. Since they have universally said they thought it was a good idea I thought I would bring it up here. This is in no means a slap at brand new cachers. I just think we need to afford them the time to familiarize themselves with different hide styles, containers and various terrain/difficulty numbers before putting out new caches. I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule and this is just my opinion based on my experiences in the field. As as more experienced cacher I have made my fair share of mistakes when posting new caches. I do wonder though what kind of affect this would have on the game. Perhaps the 100 cache milestone (or some other arbitrary number) shows a dedication to the game that would ensure long term cache maintenance? Thoughts?

 

I think before any one can propose an idea on the forums they need to post at least 250 well reasoned comments first.

Link to comment

Oh no... here we go again. :rolleyes:

 

I have to say that as one of those people who was disabled when I started caching, and also was not very financially stable back then, it took us a REALLY long time to find 100 caches. Then after I started working again I worked 70+ hours a week (and still work almost that much). Although I have the privilege of having a flexible schedule, and the privilege of good health, and the privilege of having enough money to pay for gas, I know that this is not true for others.

 

Also, I am not blessed with children, but I imagine that when you have small ones that doing a ton of caches becomes not as easy.

 

Not to mention, there are people who are quite choosy about the caches they find, and so they cache discerningly.

 

There are just too many variations to make this feasible, too many exceptions to the rule. One of the best caches I've ever found was hidden by someone with only 7 finds. I've found fairly lame hides from cachers with thousands of finds and many hides. We have a hider in our area who has several thousand finds and over 800 hides who doesn't maintain a lot of them. It's just too hard to tell.

 

What I think instead is a good solution, is to step up the amount of Geocaching 101 events, and group caching education trips, so then new folks can *decide* if they want to learn more about placing quality hides, rather than be *forced* to find 100 caches (which honestly, if those 100 finds are all LPCs... how would that mean anything?) first.

 

Geocaching has enough rules. If a rule is necessary, sure, that's one thing, but I don't think this is necessary.

 

Edited to add some more:

 

Besides, what constitutes a quality hide is subjective. What you may think is the "wrong" container, someone else may love.

 

Also, I think this makes caching more exclusive to those folks with more money, time and health; which is not fair. Caching should be open to everyone. Not all of us are IT directors who have the privilege of finding 1400 caches in our first year. Just think about that... if anything this sport/game/hobby needs less elitism and competition, and this will inspire more.

Edited by nymphnsatyr
Link to comment

Some of the most boring caches I find are from experienced cachers. Some of the most innovative caches I've found were from complete n00bs with 10 finds or less. No thanks.

 

Instead of trying to force a limit, i think that those concerned with cache hide quality can best see improvement in 2 ways:

 

1. hide higher quality caches so, perhaps, n00bs will be inspired to hide higher quality caches also.

 

2. mentor new cachers in good finding and hiding practices.

Link to comment

Yeah, I anticipate that new cachers would get up to 100 very fast by groping every lamp post in town to get those smileys. :rolleyes:

 

Personally, I chose to wait until I had 100 caches under my belt before I hid one, though I did adopt someone else's early on. I wanted to have the opportunity to see different types of hides, and to get a better sense of what the various difficulty and terrain values look like before I tried to rate my own caches. However, I would tend to view someone who had found 100 caches that included a lot of very challenging caches and a wide variety of cache types as more "experienced" than I would someone who had 100 1.5 difficulty/terrain Wal-Mart lamp skirt hides. Also, cachers who have experience in similar hobbies, such as letterboxing or orienteering, might need less experience geocaching before being prepared to start hiding caches.

 

There's certainly nothing wrong with encouraging new cachers (me still relatively being one myself) to gain some experience and caches under their belts before hiding their own, but I hate the idea of making it mandatory and set with some kind of arbitrary number. I would also suggest that new cachers try out their hand at different kinds of caches before hiding their own. A long hike with an ammo can at the end is going to be different to hide than a nano in a haystack.

Edited by e-bird67
Link to comment

Besides, what constitutes a quality hide is subjective. What you may think is the "wrong" container, someone else may love.

 

Some points of quality can be subjective. But I think we can all agree that a cache 70 feet off coordinates on private property in a zip lock bag is bad.

 

I'm not saying all bad caches are created by cachers with under 100 finds. But the correlation is there. That being said I don't like the idea of a minimum find number. On the Get Sat thread someone mentioned doing a time limit of a couple months or x finds whichever comes first. I like this idea because it keeps someone from creating an account today, hiding a cache tomorrow, and then disappearing the next day. Again this is not perfect, and I know some brand new cachers can create quality hides right away with spot on coordinates and good containers.

Link to comment

There was recently a thread on this very subject in the UK forums which got to 3 pages long and a lot of opinions on both sides were aired.

 

Might make interesting reading and save all the same arguments being had over again here.

 

What fun would that be? :rolleyes:

 

One of the Great Problems of geocaching has always been what to do about "bad" caches - particularly unmaintained caches. Often caches are placed and never thought about again. Eventually the cache needs maintenance or goes missing and the owner just ignores the cache. Sometimes, it appears that the cache owner has disappeared - perhaps has stopped caching altogether and no longer has the email they used when they signed up for a Geocaching.com account. Sometimes it appears that the owner went caching a few times, thought it would be fun to hide a cache, and then found something else to do with their time.

 

It is all to common for some cachers to want to solve this Great Problem. A common solution is to require a certain number of finds before you can hide a cache. I have two questions:

  1. Would this solve the problem?
  2. What other problems would this cause?

It isn't clear to me that this solves the problem. Sure there is a certain attrition rate among new cachers that falls off rapidly after some time. I have no doubt that a cache placed by a newbie may have a slightly higher problem of not being maintained than one placed by an experienced cacher. But I doubt this is the primary cause. I've seen many cases where a long time cacher stops caching, either because of burn out, or some event in their life has made caching much less important. These cachers may not always continue to take care of their caches or adopt them out. If they were a proflic hider, they could leave hundreds of caches that eventually will need maintenance - not one cache left by someone who only cached one weekend. I've even seen cachers who move to a new city where they remain active cachers and they simply abandon the caches they hid in their old city. Even worse are the prolific, active cachers, who somehow ignore needs maintenance and DNF and let the reviewers deal with their caches. Perhaps a better new rule would be to not allow someone to place a cache if there is an active Needs Maintenance on any cache. (Though I expect that this will just get these people to either post an owner maintence to remove the attribute, or to the archive caches with needs maintenance when they are going to place a new one).

 

Implementing a rule requiring a minimum number of hides is fraught with problems. Some people are natural hiders. They have lots of great ideas for hiding caches and they may enjoy hiding caches to finding them. Why discourage these people by forcing them to find caches in order to become hiders. As pointed out, some people just don't have the time to rack up 100 finds quickly. You could be putting hiding out of reach of these people. And you will get more hides by people who like the quick and easy urban finds (where you can rack up the numbers) and fewer multis, puzzles, and caches that require a hike to get to.

Link to comment

This is my reply to the same question from another thread:

 

"I understand your thought process on this and agree in part. But, I am a weekend cacher with a limited range and time limit because where I go my wife and kids go. I usually get little or no ME time outside of the house. Thus, I have very few finds. Most of the time behind the computer when not working I am educating myself by reading and interacting in the forums or researching a hide or two within my area, working up the html code for the cache page, prepping the containers and swag, and then determining when I can place when it coincides with my schedule.

 

But also, that's me...

 

If there had been a restriction on hides when I started a little over a year ago I probably would have lost interest. but then, again, I have a semi-unique situation. </my 2 cents>"

Link to comment

meh I have under 50 finds and 2 hides out there that seem pretty well received

 

none of my finds are lampshade ones

I have a couple of guarderails but those were by accident and hey like my old karate instructor used to say, "learn from everything even if its what not to do".

 

My point is I could go on a power trail and score 100 finds but I don't wanna and you can't make me

 

so there

Link to comment

With the advent of cell phone apps with GPS devices we're seeing more and more people trying out geocaching. Many newbies want to jump right into the game by hiding, some without finding a single cache. I favor a small number of cache finds, something achievable by most cachers globally, with a few exceptions for cache-minimal countries/areas, perhaps 15 caches. But I'd also, and more importantly, like to see some commitment to the game. A cacher needs to show some interest and staying power, perhaps 3 months and 15 cache finds. If a cacher can't wait 3 months to hide their first cache are they committed to the long term responsibility of cache ownership?

 

The other thought I had was perhaps allowing everyone one initial hide in the first 3 months after registration. Something to practice with. Try it on, see how it fits, learn from any mistakes.

 

Someone else in another discussion suggested that new COs get a "welcome to cache ownership" message with a link to their local geocaching association and any upcoming local events. I suggested that if a welcome message is implemented I'd like to see a link to the Knowledge Books: Cache Ownership: A Long Term Relationship section.

Link to comment

Oh no... here we go again. :rolleyes:

 

I have to say that as one of those people who was disabled when I started caching, and also was not very financially stable back then, it took us a REALLY long time to find 100 caches. Then after I started working again I worked 70+ hours a week (and still work almost that much). Although I have the privilege of having a flexible schedule, and the privilege of good health, and the privilege of having enough money to pay for gas, I know that this is not true for others.

 

Also, I am not blessed with children, but I imagine that when you have small ones that doing a ton of caches becomes not as easy.

 

Not to mention, there are people who are quite choosy about the caches they find, and so they cache discerningly.

 

There are just too many variations to make this feasible, too many exceptions to the rule. One of the best caches I've ever found was hidden by someone with only 7 finds. I've found fairly lame hides from cachers with thousands of finds and many hides. We have a hider in our area who has several thousand finds and over 800 hides who doesn't maintain a lot of them. It's just too hard to tell.

 

What I think instead is a good solution, is to step up the amount of Geocaching 101 events, and group caching education trips, so then new folks can *decide* if they want to learn more about placing quality hides, rather than be *forced* to find 100 caches (which honestly, if those 100 finds are all LPCs... how would that mean anything?) first.

 

Geocaching has enough rules. If a rule is necessary, sure, that's one thing, but I don't think this is necessary.

 

Edited to add some more:

 

Besides, what constitutes a quality hide is subjective. What you may think is the "wrong" container, someone else may love.

 

Also, I think this makes caching more exclusive to those folks with more money, time and health; which is not fair. Caching should be open to everyone. Not all of us are IT directors who have the privilege of finding 1400 caches in our first year. Just think about that... if anything this sport/game/hobby needs less elitism and competition, and this will inspire more.

 

:rolleyes:

 

so what about people who aren't maintaining their caches? I've emailed an owner twice after 2 DNFs on his cache with no response. really bugs me. I'm not the only DNF recently, just THE most recent. I'm new & all but I'm thinking he should either check it or archive it. verdict?

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Thoughts?

I think, as a general idea, it's a great one, as, for the most part, it would have the desired results. This is something I suggest to new players who ask my advice. I believe that experience is the greatest teacher, for those willing to be taught. Those folks who are truly committed to the game will wait, acquiring skills along the way, which will lead, in the long term, to better overall hides. Those who jump in here, get all excited, then wander off to the next fad, won't leave junk behind for someone else to clean up.

 

However, as a "Rule", I think it's terrible, and I would argue vehemently against it.

 

We've got enough rules. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I waited till had found 100 caches before I placed my first. I think the experience I gained in that time was very valuable and I'd recommend the same approach to other new cachers but Groundspeak has already said that they wont support/implement this kind of rule.

 

My main reason for wanting this kind of rule has very little to do with the quality of the hide but rather it demonstrates a commitment to the game. Such a large number of people find 20 or 30, hide 1 and drop out. I don't think that most caches deserve to survive forever if the owner has dropped out of the game. (The logistics of how caches would/could be terminated is a whole other discussion).

Link to comment

so what about people who aren't maintaining their caches? I've emailed an owner twice after 2 DNFs on his cache with no response. really bugs me. I'm not the only DNF recently, just THE most recent. I'm new & all but I'm thinking he should either check it or archive it. verdict?

:rolleyes:

I must have misheard - I thought you said there had been 2 DNFs and you've emailed the owner twice & want him to check or archive. Must get my hearing checked. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

So, new cachers would run out and find the first 100 easiest caches. Next, they would hide their own, and be influenced by what they had found... No thanks. :P

 

What they really should do to prevent issues, is to ask for ID to hide a cache. Not to find one, but to hide one. Currently, all you need for an account is a disposable e-mail address. I suspect that quite a few cachers do not care about property ownership issues, or damage, or whatever what may happen because they can just duck out of it and leave. Whoops! See ya! <_< Being responsible means that they are willing to stand up for what they hid.

Link to comment

 

What I think instead is a good solution, is to step up the amount of Geocaching 101 events, and group caching education trips, so then new folks can *decide* if they want to learn more about placing quality hides, rather than be *forced* to find 100 caches (which honestly, if those 100 finds are all LPCs... how would that mean anything?) first.

 

 

I like this solution quite a bit... I probably would have attended such an event when I first started (and probably still would, since I've only been caching for a few months). Educating new cachers rather than putting restrictions on them seems like a feasible way not only to improve hide quality, but also to promote CITO and responsible caching (i.e. not destroying the area around a cache to make the find, or not hunting at night for a cache that is listed as being available only from dawn to dusk).

Link to comment

I agree to what the previous posters have said - don't think this is a good idea, and honestly speaking, I DO think that this idea is a slap at all the newbies out there and something that might really discourage them.

 

I have been a geocacher for just about a year now, with 60 finds and one hide. My geocaching activities usually take place during the weekends or when I'm on vacation, so it is not very likely that I will make it to 100 caches anytime soon. I hid my first cache after about 50 finds, and I don't think I would have wasted any more thoughts on hiding a cache if there had been a restriction to a minimum of 100 (or "x") finds. Instead, I just went for it, thinking that IF I had done something wrong (coordinates, container size, terrain rating...) one of the finders would log a hint eventually. I was just so happy I had found a great hiding place and was eager to know how it would be received. Who says it all has to be perfect from the first second? For many of us, this is about the pure fun of being outdoors, not about statistics, and then I think there should always be room for improvement. If I came across a cache that was not properly listed, I'd drop the owner a note and trust that they would take care of it.

 

Like many of those who have posted here before me, I have experienced that the most creative caches have been placed by people with a low level of experience.

 

Generally, I think there shouldn't be more rules to this game than absolutely necessary just so that everyone has a chance to play it according to their own abilities and requirements.

 

Anyway, just my thoughts <_<

Link to comment

I've been giving a lot of thought to issues related to caches put out by brand new cachers. There can be (obviously not always) problems with coordinates being wrong, containers being the wrong size and the terrain/difficulty numbers being way too high. I've proposed an idea to several of my caching friends that Groundspeak consider limiting the ability to hide new caches to cachers that have found more than 100 hides. Since they have universally said they thought it was a good idea I thought I would bring it up here. This is in no means a slap at brand new cachers. I just think we need to afford them the time to familiarize themselves with different hide styles, containers and various terrain/difficulty numbers before putting out new caches. I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule and this is just my opinion based on my experiences in the field. As as more experienced cacher I have made my fair share of mistakes when posting new caches. I do wonder though what kind of affect this would have on the game. Perhaps the 100 cache milestone (or some other arbitrary number) shows a dedication to the game that would ensure long term cache maintenance? Thoughts?

 

I argue against this concept every time it comes up. No need for any silly ratio. One find, 359 hides

 

New cachers who place geocaches with little or no experience (Sept 8th 2006)

 

When Should You Place Your 1st Cache? (Jun 27 2006, 07)

 

Cacher's stats are only one hidden

 

Cache Placing Limitations?, Look at what has happened in two years. (Dec 19 2004)

Link to comment

I don't think there's any need for making any hard and fast rules (or guidelines) that are universal.

 

Personally, I make my own guidelines/filters - when I get a notification of a new cache and I don't recognize the name, I check their profile. Newbie with very few finds, joined three days ago, first hide - I let the FTF hounds go get it first!! And then sit and wait for the new notifications to come in for the change of co-ordinates/archive etc. <_<

 

Out of three newbies in the past month with first time placements one was off by about 4 miles (it got archived in a hurry, 20' from an existing cache), one had to disable it until the co-ordinates could be gotten properly and the other one had to be changed by 120'.

 

I let someone else waste their time and gas...FTF is soooo not that important to me.

Link to comment

Out of three newbies in the past month with first time placements one was off by about 4 miles (it got archived in a hurry, 20' from an existing cache), one had to disable it until the co-ordinates could be gotten properly and the other one had to be changed by 120'.

 

I let someone else waste their time and gas...FTF is soooo not that important to me.

 

But someone has to be FTF.

 

I'm not an FTFer but have experienced the frustration. Driving 20 minutes out of my way in the wrong direction (just squeezing in another cache before heading home - late for dinner) only to end up in the middle of a road with a clue about it being in a tree. Checking 15 trees before calling it quits. No logs in my cacheberry entry because the cache is a couple of days old and I downloaded the new cache before any finds were posted.

 

Get home to find that someone actually met the owner who took them to the box which was 200 meters (600') away down a cottage road. My guess, the CO used google maps to get a coordinate for the nearest main road. The new CO, who had never found a cache and hid this one in the first week that she signed up, never changed the coordinates and she didn't contact the reviewer to have it changed even though the reviewer left a message asking the CO to contact him. The reviewer ended up archiving the cache.

 

I started back in 2001. There were occassional problems - mostly COs that transposed numbers in the coords, but those were quickly resolved with prefuse apologies. These days it seems that many COs do nothing, or wait days, sometimes weeks, sometimes never to update their fuzzy or wrong coordinates.

Link to comment

I vote a loud 'NO'.

 

I placed a cache after just 1 find and it is still out and available after almost 9 years. Some cachers with 3000 or more hides and 6 years of experience go and place crappie caches with terrible coordinates.

 

There are only 40 caches within 20 miles of my hometown - it would take a new cacher a very long time and much travel to get 100. A new cacher in most urban areas can get out and find 100 caches pretty easily in a weekend these days. Of course all they would learn about is film cans tossed in a bush.

 

I once proposed that cachers need to pass a basic guidelines test before placing caches and I still think that is a good idea but any number of finds would be too arbitrary.

Link to comment

I disagree with the given idea. I have less than 100 finds, due to my area lacking in maintained GCs and I'm also a full time student, which limits my time to search to the weekends. Creating a lower limit would be something I'd support.

 

I found reading these threads to be a big help in creating caches everyone enjoys. Some incredible ideas come through these pages! When I started hiding, my main focus was numbers. Get my numbers up by placing 35mm canisters all over the place, but as I've read through the forums I've changed to make better quality hides.

Link to comment

You aren't the first one to suggest this.

 

Personally, I think it's a bad idea. A person who really wants to place a cache will just go out and find 100 1.5/1.5 skirtlifters. They won't learn anything by doing that, but it will get them up to the artificial and arbitrary find count so they can place their hide.

 

Experienced cachers don't have a monopoly on good ideas. Newbies don't have a monopoly on poorly thought-out or poorly-maintained caches.

 

I agree. I've seen some great caches placed by new cachers and some real clunkers placed by cachers with thousands of finds.

Link to comment

I'm still waiting on a universally accepted definition of a 'good' or 'bad' cache.

 

Good = Ammo can hidden at the base of a waterfall, with decent swag, a clever hide technique and an intelligent write up.

 

Bad = A film can with a soggy Starbucks receipt as the log, tossed into the shrubbery at Burger King, with an 8 word, poorly spelled write up.

 

Thus speaketh Me! (so it must be true!) <_<:P:)

Link to comment

Good = Ammo can hidden at the base of a waterfall, with decent swag, a clever hide technique and an intelligent write up.

 

Bad = A film can with a soggy Starbucks receipt as the log, tossed into the shrubbery at Burger King, with an 8 word, poorly spelled write up.

 

Thus speaketh Me! (so it must be true!) <_<:P:)

I can certainly agree on the bad. The good was a bit of a shocker. I figured a good would be a two mile slog through an alligator invested swap with at least half of it in nipple deep water. The other shocker was I did not realize that Florida had waterfalls. :) Of course your definition of waterfall might be different than mine. :)

Link to comment
binaryflow

 

Premium Member

 

Group: Premium Members

Posts: 1

Joined: 1-May 09

From: Holly Springs, NC

 

I think forum members should be required to participate in 10 threads about micros, 20 threads about bringing back virtuals, no less than 15 about "signed = found" and 23 about missing travel bugs before suggesting a change to the guidelines.

 

I mean, if we're going to throw out arbitrary numbers...

Link to comment
binaryflow

 

Premium Member

 

Group: Premium Members

Posts: 1

Joined: 1-May 09

From: Holly Springs, NC

 

I think forum members should be required to participate in 10 threads about micros, 20 threads about bringing back virtuals, no less than 15 about "signed = found" and 23 about missing travel bugs before suggesting a change to the guidelines.

 

I mean, if we're going to throw out arbitrary numbers...

 

No need to get snarky with the OP. It was a well-reasoned, coherent suggestion. One I disagree with, but that's why people come to the forums, to DISCUSS things. Just because somebody doesn't regularly participate in the forums, doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to have opinions, and aren't allowed to express them. No wonder some people think that the forums are hostile. <_<

Link to comment

Good = Ammo can hidden at the base of a waterfall, with decent swag, a clever hide technique and an intelligent write up.

 

Bad = A film can with a soggy Starbucks receipt as the log, tossed into the shrubbery at Burger King, with an 8 word, poorly spelled write up.

 

Thus speaketh Me! (so it must be true!) <_<:P:)

I can certainly agree on the bad. The good was a bit of a shocker. I figured a good would be a two mile slog through an alligator invested swap with at least half of it in nipple deep water. The other shocker was I did not realize that Florida had waterfalls. :) Of course your definition of waterfall might be different than mine. :)

 

polynesian_pool.jpg

Link to comment

I started to place caches well before I had 100 finds, now over 1100. I made a few mistakes and was corrected by the reviewer and fellow cachers. No one was hurt, but some were inconvenienced , I think anyone could and should place caches. That is why we do this silly sport. It's to get out there and find/place something.

 

Have fun with it!!! <_<

Link to comment

I've been giving a lot of thought to issues related to caches put out by brand new cachers. There can be (obviously not always) problems with coordinates being wrong, containers being the wrong size and the terrain/difficulty numbers being way too high. I've proposed an idea to several of my caching friends that Groundspeak consider limiting the ability to hide new caches to cachers that have found more than 100 hides. Since they have universally said they thought it was a good idea I thought I would bring it up here.

 

Dang! I hid my first cache after almost two months, and 60 finds. It's still there after six years. Do I have to go and archive it because I didn't have enough experience?!? It's about a mile hike with a few hundred feet of climb, and a spectacular view. I'd miss it. <_<

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...