Remove this Geocache

[tivopro]

It never use to be so serious but now....

 

Geocache blown up which looked like a pipe bomb.

 

Will they be changing the rules of what a cache can look like now?

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

The media report says it was in the parking lot of a school. Waaaayyyyyyyy to close!

[+t4e]

what exactly is it that i am supposed to see in that picture from the article?

 

looks like a squished bat lol

[+Taoiseach]

Because nothing says awesome, like a cliffy tube in an elementary school parking lot...

 

[knowschad]

Because nothing says awesome, like a cliffy tube in an elementary school parking lot...

 

*IF* that is true, I'm surprised that it got past the reviewer. However, we've seen time after time on these reports how fast and loose the reporters play with the facts.

[+jeffbouldin]

Here is the cache page.

 

http://coord.info/GC2E9YC

 

The cache owner claims it was not on school grounds, but if you switch the map above the comments to satellite and zoom in you'll see that if it is not on school grounds it is in someones backyard. I agree that this should not have gotten past the reviewer. I was talking to one of our local reviewers last night and he stated that to have a cache on school property he needs to verify explicit permission to hide and seek the cache from the principle. He said they need to verify both because once a principle gave permission to hide but then freaked out when people started showing up to seek the cache.

[+JohnnyVegas]

So here we have a cacher with very little experiance, who has not read the guidlines for placing a new cache. That was an illegal placement. Form the guidlines for those who have not read them regarding what is not allowed

 

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports

 

Then we have cachers that log the find but do not take the trouble to report that the cache is illegal. I have seen stories like this time and time again. Then again if someone reports a cache that violates the guidlines for placing a cache the local cachers in the area jump on them for being a cache cop.

 

May two years ago I found a cache in Sacramento that was on school property, but the cache owner posted the coordinates as being 60 feet away. The only reason I found the cache is because a local home owner pointed out the real location. I reported the cache I was attacked by several locals for doing so. The cache owner even sent me an e-mail claiming I was picking on her because she had disabled kids. It was not her only illegal. As a result she quit caching. On well, she is no loss to the community

[+JohnnyVegas]

Here is the cache page.

 

http://coord.info/GC2E9YC

 

The cache owner claims it was not on school grounds, but if you switch the map above the comments to satellite and zoom in you'll see that if it is not on school grounds it is in someones backyard. I agree that this should not have gotten past the reviewer. I was talking to one of our local reviewers last night and he stated that to have a cache on school property he needs to verify explicit permission to hide and seek the cache from the principle. He said they need to verify both because once a principle gave permission to hide but then freaked out when people started showing up to seek the cache.

The tree is hanging over school grounds, it the cache is hanging above school grounds that palces it on school grounds, the cache owner at best did not think this out. Anyone that places a cache the reqiures another cacher to walk onto school property in oreder to find the cache is an idiot

[+Ecylram]

So here we have a cacher with very little experiance, who has not read the guidlines for placing a new cache. That was an illegal placement. Form the guidlines for those who have not read them regarding what is not allowed

 

Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports

 

Then we have cachers that log the find but do not take the trouble to report that the cache is illegal. I have seen stories like this time and time again. Then again if someone reports a cache that violates the guidlines for placing a cache the local cachers in the area jump on them for being a cache cop.

 

May two years ago I found a cache in Sacramento that was on school property, but the cache owner posted the coordinates as being 60 feet away. The only reason I found the cache is because a local home owner pointed out the real location. I reported the cache I was attacked by several locals for doing so. The cache owner even sent me an e-mail claiming I was picking on her because she had disabled kids. It was not her only illegal. As a result she quit caching. On well, she is no loss to the community

A while back I posted on one of the boards here about a cache I NA'd because it was on school grounds a few yards from a classroom. Some felt I shouldn't have because it MIGHT have been placed with permission. (Which is a grey area in the guidelines.)

 

In my opinion caches should NEVER be placed on school grounds, even with permission because of situations like this.... Suspicious item is reported to the police and they call the bomb squad ASAP. Nobody called around to see is SOMEBODY gave permission for the 'suspicious device' - that would be silly.

 

BTW, cache was archived. It was placed by newbies and they haven't logged on in months. Before you blame the reviewer, as it was a more obvious issue in person than if you glanced at a map. Reviewers can't catch everything.

[+UtChaz & Family]

Good morning everyone,

 

I agree we should be more careful but with those guidelines being interoperated like that we might as well pack up the game and end it now.

Just like in the article they said it looked like a pipe bomb but the container wasn't, it was deemed that due to the safety requirements by the USAF.

If it looks like an explosive don't bother risking life/limb; destroy it and determine the contents afterwards...

Those are "battle field" requirements and someone quoted someone else out of text.

As far as the location, it wasn't on school grounds.

If you were to classify on or near and used the Cal Gov definition used for sexual offenders you could Never place a cache in a city/town; 5000 ft is considered near...

 

What needs to be done is local organizations should take a proactive approach.

They should contact all the local police organizations, governmental and private, and educate them on how to do a simple search on the internet access to find out the possibility of such devices being caches "before" they jump the gun.

Just this simple search of geocaching.com could give them much needed intelligence on each and every possible "pipe bomb".

 

We ran in to this same thing in Wheatland right before our Woodstock.

RCGDS and myself spoke with the police chief and bettered every situation after that.

The police of Wheatland now have unfettered access to locations of all caches available to them at the touch of a keyboard.

 

This is what we need to do; not jump to place blame and run ourselves into the ground.

Claiming someone is responsible for this to that will eventually force everyone into guidelines that are so severe we have to register caches like hand guns...

 

Chaz

[+stephs69camaro]

I have logged this cache. It was on a tree by the sidewalk in front of the parking lot in front of a school. It was a pvc tube painted brown with leaves on it hanging 5 feet up. It was clearly labeled "GEOCACHE". I have seen several homemade containers like this in the last few months and never once thought they looked like a bomb of any sort. I've actually wished I was handy enough to make my own containers but alas I am NOT crafty so I have to stick with internet store ones.

 

I do know the person that is the owner of this geocache (he even made my son a container that was painted similar but not the same shape). I also know that the new member that made this is using the iphone application and not a computer. We have to keep in mind that using the iphone app its hard to learn the ropes and the rules. The cache description clearly said dont come around when kids are there and several people in logs mentioned school. I too assumed this was an ok spot being that I have always been told that parking lots are public property and geocaches can be placed on public property. I understood the rule as not on campus and have been to several caches with similar containers so again, I saw no reason for worry or alarm. From speaking with him this cache was made for his daughter and she chose the location and the swag and even the name of the cache. It was simply inexperience and eagerness to play the game with no harm meant whatsoever.

 

I def. think that it is a public awareness type issue that is needed. I also think this was blown so far out of proportion that it isnt even funny. HAM radio "foxes" are much scarier looking and have circuit boards, wires and batteries inside!!!! I have had the Vacaville police show up multiple times while geocaching with my kids. Twice now trying to find the "Caching karma" one behind Burlington Coat factory and every time I've spent 10+ minutes explaining what geocaching is and showing them my phone and gps while they look at me like I'm crazy. I've gotten used to it though and I actually carry a geocache in my car with a log in it and little swag so I can show them it. I've tried getting them to help me find caching karma one since I cant but they never seem to be too amused with my offer. hahaha it was worth a shot. Been at that one soooo many times and still havent found it!

 

Anyhow, I say we figure out what the above poster said, how to make the police more aware of geocaching.... and to help guide the unexperienced cachers, and hope we can all live in harmony.

[+Ike 13]

It was on a tree by the sidewalk in front of the parking lot in front of a school. It was a pvc tube painted brown with leaves on it hanging 5 feet up. It was clearly labeled "GEOCACHE".

 

I do know the person that is the owner of this geocache. I also know that the new member that made this is using the iphone application and not a computer. We have to keep in mind that using the iphone app its hard to learn the ropes and the rules. The cache description clearly said dont come around when kids are there and several people in logs mentioned school. I too assumed this was an ok spot being that I have always been told that parking lots are public property and geocaches can be placed on public property. I understood the rule as not on campus and have been to several caches with similar containers so again, I saw no reason for worry or alarm.

 

Using an iphone is not an excuse. Every time you submit a cache listing you must click that you read and followed the cache listing guidelines. They clearly spell out no cache on school property. A school is a public place, therefore the parking lot is a public place, but it is still not allowed for this very reason. PVC in an open area is a bad idea every time.

 

FYI once the bomb squad is called it's going to be blown up no matter how clearly labeled, no matter how many cops on scene know about Geocaching, etc. Hang around the forums long enough and you'll see it. The bomb squad blows up lots of suspicious stuff. Geocaching just makes the headline more catchy IMHO.

[+stephs69camaro]

not making an excuse. I'm simply saying I too use the iphone AND the computer and no way in heck would I try to read all that stuff on the tiny little screen if someone that I trusted already told me the "rules" and I thought I had it down. Believe me when said and done I'm sure an important lesson will be learned and hopefully this will be a lesson to all about thinking caches through more.

 

That said I know Im pulling my large geocache tonight. It was sold at turtle bay and has the huge geocache label (large container) and isnt near any major buildings or in a parking lot but it aint worth it anymore to me. I'm sticking to finding.

[+u.rusty]

...What needs to be done is local organizations should take a proactive approach.

They should contact all the local police organizations, governmental and private, and educate them on how to do a simple search on the internet access to find out the possibility of such devices being caches "before" they jump the gun.

Just this simple search of geocaching.com could give them much needed intelligence on each and every possible "pipe bomb"...

 

Looking it up on geocaching.com would provide law enforcement with the information, in this case, that it is most probably just a geocache. But, that doesn't change the fact that they will, and should, render what may be a bomb harmless by the safest means avalible to them.

 

Bottom line - Never place a geocache on or near a school!

[+Team_Searchgeo]

This should be mandatory watching for anyone who is new planning to hide a geocache. Really it's just common sense more than anything. If it's a round tube that is of any size the immediate thought is bomb by people who don't play the game. I know before I knew about geocaching if I would have saw something like this I probably would have thought it was a bomb.

[+UtChaz & Family]

...What needs to be done is local organizations should take a proactive approach.

They should contact all the local police organizations, governmental and private, and educate them on how to do a simple search on the internet access to find out the possibility of such devices being caches "before" they jump the gun.

Just this simple search of geocaching.com could give them much needed intelligence on each and every possible "pipe bomb"...

 

Looking it up on geocaching.com would provide law enforcement with the information, in this case, that it is most probably just a geocache. But, that doesn't change the fact that they will, and should, render what may be a bomb harmless by the safest means avalible to them.

 

Bottom line - Never place a geocache on or near a school!

 

With a school in the middle of this mess I agree; I would stay away from doing that as well. But the guidelines/rules say any place considered to be a terrorist target, this means anywhere the police don't know what is already there; hence the attempt to try and educate them as to our "law abiding" hobby/game.

We've all seen how the local, state, and federal law enforcement departments would rather just blow something up than bother to pay attention to what is happening around them; it is the easiest thing to do (not much work to speak of, especially when using the new techy robots they love to play with).

If someone called in a suspicious object in a tree at the local park they'll blow it up, it’s happened time and again. My point being the fact that this was near a school (it wasn't on school grounds) is a technicality we (Geocachers in general) are worried about not the police; they will blow up ANY and ALL suspicious items no matter where they are found.

If the caching community wants to scream bloody murder then simply lobby to have GC re-educate the moderators, after all they are the "Stop Gap" that is in place to avoid these things. Am I wrong on that point? The inexperienced cachers, and quite frankly the whole community, depends on them to do their duties in a manner that will prevent this outcome.

[+u.rusty]

...If the caching community wants to scream bloody murder then simply lobby to have GC re-educate the moderators, after all they are the "Stop Gap" that is in place to avoid these things. Am I wrong on that point? The inexperienced cachers, and quite frankly the whole community, depends on them to do their duties in a manner that will prevent this outcome.

 

By moderators, do you mean the cache reviewers?

 

The way I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are more or less a self regulating community. The cache owner is responsible for placing and maintaining the cache properly. The cache reviewers are members of the geocaching community, most of which if not all are volunteers, are responsible for checking proposed caches to be sure that they are up to the guidelines. Also, as geocachers it is our responsibility to report caches that are not up to the guidelines. Reporting a geocache might mean sending a email to the cache owner, notifying the cache reviewer, or even calling local law enforcement depending upon the nature of the inappropriate cache. (As an example: If I found a firearm in a cache, I would notify law enforcement.)

 

It seems to me:

 

1) The cache owner failed to place the cache within guidelines.

2) The cache reviewer failed to notice the cache was near a school.

3) The geocachers that logged a find at the cache failed to take into account that it was too close to a school and take corrective action by reporting the fact.

4) Groundspeak may want to review the guidelines for geocachers that want to become cache reviewers and/or address the situation if there don't seem to be enough cache reviewers.

5) The geocachers that are following this thread should take note. How can this be prevented from happening again. What can we learn from the mistakes here.

 

So, I have to agree that the cache reviewer should not have approved this cache, but the reviewer is not the only one to blame. It appears that the cache owner and the geocachers that logged the cache near a school as a find would also benefit from some geocaching re-education.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think your idea of keeping law enforcement in the loop and informed about geocaching is a good idea. I don't know how much difference that would have made in this situation, but it's still a good idea. I just think that we need to keep in mind that we are a community and that we have to work together to help keep the game fun and safe.

[mtbikernate]

I'd just like to point out that ANY container can "look like a bomb", especially one that is made of anything round and tubular.

 

The camo obviously was not good enough if someone saw it and thought it was a bomb. But that's beside the point. Indeed, clearly too close to the school.

 

To the poster who questions the definition of "close" to a school, have some common sense. According to the map on the cache page, the tree it was in sits right on the property line. As we all know, the accuracy of the GPS the hider used means it could have been anywhere in the tree (for all us armchair critics can tell). So yeah, it may well have been on a branch hanging over the school property. It probably would have been fine had it been on the other side of the houses. In this case, "close" could probably be further defined as "adjacent to". Across the street might be close to the line, but considering what else was over there (and whether finders might attract suspicious attention) it may be okay or not. Case-by-case, I think.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Then again if someone reports a cache that violates the guidlines for placing a cache the local cachers in the area jump on them for being a cache cop.

 

That's why I just send an email direct to the reviewer, and then let him deal with the CO.

[+Don_J]

Then again if someone reports a cache that violates the guidlines for placing a cache the local cachers in the area jump on them for being a cache cop.

 

That's why I just send an email direct to the reviewer, and then let him deal with the CO.

 

That's what I do. I know if I followed my GPS into a parking lot of a local school, I wouldn't even stop. I would immediately send a private email to the reviewer that published it.

 

Side note: to the poster that said that California's sex offenders law defines "close as 5000', check again. It's 1000'. We had a bottomless strip club open up 1050' from our Chapel and there was nothing we could do about it.

[duffmcgruff]

hahahahahahaha, wow this is interesting. i cant believe that caches can not look like bombs.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I too assumed this was an ok spot being that I have always been told that parking lots are public property and geocaches can be placed on public property.

 

Parking lots are not necessarily public property, especially those of private establishments (apartment complexes, malls, strip malls, etc).

 

Also, truly public places (such as state parks, management areas, city parks, etc) may have rules and regulations that specifically govern placing of geocaches. Some states require permits be obtained and the hidelocation reviewed prior to placement.

 

Hiders need to check the local rules before hiding.

[+dbrierley]

The Vacaville Police Department's press release (PDF) on the matter has been posted.

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

The Vacaville Police Department's press release (PDF) on the matter has been posted.

 

I like how it says (paragraph 3, line 4):

"Investigation showed the devices was constructed to look like a pipe bomb..."

 

Maybe a geocache shouldn't be constructed like that.

[+stephs69camaro]

The Vacaville Police Department's press release (PDF) on the matter has been posted.

 

I like how it says (paragraph 3, line 4):

"Investigation showed the devices was constructed to look like a pipe bomb..."

 

Maybe a geocache shouldn't be constructed like that.

 

I completely agree. But the builder of this particular cache was my ex and I saw it... him and his young daughter built it and painted it. It didnt look anything like a pipe bomb *shrugs*

 

The police were far more laid back about it in person than the news implied. They had a different concern seeing if it was related to something else... which is wasnt.

[+Wadcutter]

People say "Didn't look like a bomb." So what's a bomb look like? They can look like anything. I've seen them in paint cans, small portable TVs, microwave, standard size envelopes, ink pens, camera, books, soda and water bottles. Any one of those items fully capable of easily killing one or more people. People think a bomb is going to look like something they saw on cartoons as kids. The bomb makers don't make bombs to look like 3 red sticks taped together, wire, a clock, and a battery. They make them look like everyday items that everyone handles.

What people don't realize that on average for every bomb that is actually found the maker had made 10 previous tests trying to get his build to work. That usually means the maker went to some remote location to test his devices. If they didn't go off then usually they won't approach them but just leave them. People don't understand why bomb squads react a particular way to an item in a remote location. They ask "Why would a bomber place a bomb in a remote location? Who are they trying to harm in the middle of no where?" It's because these remote locations are the test areas and it's where we find many of the builders practice devices.

[knowschad]

People say "Didn't look like a bomb." So what's a bomb look like? They can look like anything. I've seen them in paint cans, small portable TVs, microwave, standard size envelopes, ink pens, camera, books, soda and water bottles. Any one of those items fully capable of easily killing one or more people. People think a bomb is going to look like something they saw on cartoons as kids. The bomb makers don't make bombs to look like 3 red sticks taped together, wire, a clock, and a battery. They make them look like everyday items that everyone handles.

What people don't realize that on average for every bomb that is actually found the maker had made 10 previous tests trying to get his build to work. That usually means the maker went to some remote location to test his devices. If they didn't go off then usually they won't approach them but just leave them. People don't understand why bomb squads react a particular way to an item in a remote location. They ask "Why would a bomber place a bomb in a remote location? Who are they trying to harm in the middle of no where?" It's because these remote locations are the test areas and it's where we find many of the builders practice devices.

Fair enough, but the converse is when the LEOs say "It looked like a bomb to us" and so they blow it up. Apparently they have preconceptions of what a bomb looks like.

[+Wadcutter]

Fair enough, but the converse is when the LEOs say "It looked like a bomb to us" and so they blow it up. Apparently they have preconceptions of what a bomb looks like.

When a LEO or an EOD type says "It looks like it could be a bomb" that means more than what the device actually looks like. There's more to what "looks" like than appearance. We look at the totality of the situation which translates to what "looks like it could be a bomb."

Edited December 4, 2010 by Wadcutter

[+Korichnovui]

Would it be okay to "multi-cache" someone onto school grounds, then off again, to find a cache that is unmistakably off of school grounds but not too far away?

[Keystone]

1 minute ago, Korichnovui said:

Would it be okay to "multi-cache" someone onto school grounds, then off again, to find a cache that is unmistakably off of school grounds but not too far away?

All local laws apply.

[WiltshireWombler]

I'd personally avoid any cache on school property, too many people a quick at accusing people of being child predators these days

[+stefanwilkens]

On 15-4-2018 at 9:02 PM, Korichnovui said:

Would it be okay to "multi-cache" someone onto school grounds, then off again, to find a cache that is unmistakably off of school grounds but not too far away?

A bunch of mature people walking around the school grounds who seemingly have no goal to be there is just not right, school grounds should be avoided completely in my opinion. Why make the teachers, parents or even the kids uncomfortable.

Even caches close to school grounds just shouldn't be done.

My 2ct.

Edited April 17, 2018 by stefanwilkens

[+Team Microdot]

On 15/04/2018 at 8:02 PM, Korichnovui said:

Would it be okay to "multi-cache" someone onto school grounds, then off again, to find a cache that is unmistakably off of school grounds but not too far away?

No.

Apply some common sense.

No parent wants suspicious looking strangers prowling around their kid's school.

[+Bigmada]

On 4/17/2018 at 6:55 AM, Team Microdot said:

No.

Apply some common sense.

No parent wants suspicious looking strangers prowling around their kid's school.

I've found caches on school property that were placed by the school's geocaching club.

[+Korichnovui]

(wrong thread!)

Edited April 23, 2018 by Korichnovui

[Keystone]

School grounds were off limits well before 2010.  There was no recent rule change relevant to the cache that started this thread.

Source: I recommended the adoption of the "no schools" guideline after two of my caching friends had a law enforcement interaction after finding a cache near a school.

[+Oxford Stone]

Time for a minimum number of finds or time as a member, before being allowed to hide caches. Nothing huge, say 100 finds / 6 months - but it would up the quality and reduce the noob horrors.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, Oxford Stone said:

Time for a minimum number of finds or time as a member, before being allowed to hide caches. Nothing huge, say 100 finds / 6 months - but it would up the quality and reduce the noob horrors.

I think a minimum number of finds is pointless, and would be counterproductive. But a waiting period after an account is first created could make sense. If the minimum time were 3 months, then that would demonstrate that the new CO has been able to stick around at least for the minimum time specified by the cache permanence guideline.

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

I think a minimum number of finds is pointless, and would be counterproductive. But a waiting period after an account is first created could make sense. If the minimum time were 3 months, then that would demonstrate that the new CO has been able to stick around at least for the minimum time specified by the cache permanence guideline.

So I register an account, forget about it for three months, six months, nine months...

I'm reminded about geocaching, remember that I have an account and decide that I'm going to having done zero caching.

Doesn't sound any less pointless to me than a minimum number of finds as far as a measure of experience goes.

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So I register an account, forget about it for three months, six months, nine months...

I'm reminded about geocaching, remember that I have an account and decide that I'm going to having done zero caching.

Doesn't sound any less pointless to me than a minimum number of finds as far as a measure of experience goes.

But at least this scenario doesn't make things any worse than the status quo, which a minimum number of finds would do.

If it stops a few "weekend and done" cachers from listing caches that will never be maintained, then it will help in some situations. The question is whether caches hidden by those "weekend and done" cachers are a big enough problem to justify the effort to implement a mandatory waiting period.

[+SwineFlew]

On 4/15/2018 at 1:28 PM, WiltshireWombler said:

I'd personally avoid any cache on school property, too many people a quick at accusing people of being child predators these days

I find caches in parks really annoying too... I always try to do them on rainy days or have a kid with me.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, niraD said:

17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So I register an account, forget about it for three months, six months, nine months...

I'm reminded about geocaching, remember that I have an account and decide that I'm going to having done zero caching.

Doesn't sound any less pointless to me than a minimum number of finds as far as a measure of experience goes.

But at least this scenario doesn't make things any worse than the status quo, which a minimum number of finds would do.

I don't follow.

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

But at least this scenario doesn't make things any worse than the status quo, which a minimum number of finds would do.

I don't follow.

Well, in the case of a minimum number of finds, there will be people who get the required find count trivially (e.g., on a numbers trail, or with fake logs), which is no worse than the status quo. And there will be people who live in cache-poor areas where getting the required find count requires a huge effort (and possibly international travel), which is much worse than the status quo in those cache-poor areas, where qualifying to hide more caches would be much more difficult.

But in the case of a waiting period, there will be cases like the one you presented where the waiting period has no effect, but those situations are no worse than the status quo. But in other cases, the situation will be improved. The "weekend and done" caches will not be published. And some newbies will be encouraged to think a bit about their first hide before listing it. I don't consider either of those a bad thing.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

Well, in the case of a minimum number of finds, there will be people who get the required find count trivially (e.g., on a numbers trail, or with fake logs), which is no worse than the status quo. And there will be people who live in cache-poor areas where getting the required find count requires a huge effort (and possibly international travel), which is much worse than the status quo in those cache-poor areas, where qualifying to hide more caches would be much more difficult.

But in the case of a waiting period, there will be cases like the one you presented where the waiting period has no effect, but those situations are no worse than the status quo. But in other cases, the situation will be improved. The "weekend and done" caches will not be published. And some newbies will be encouraged to think a bit about their first hide before listing it. I don't consider either of those a bad thing.

So really, you're comparing the worst possible potential of option A with the best possible potential of option B and claiming option B as the winner?

Hmmm.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

So really, you're comparing the worst possible potential of option A with the best possible potential of option B and claiming option B as the winner?

So what other outcomes do you see for option B that should be taken into account? I thought I was considering positive, negative, and neutral outcomes of both options.

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

So really, you're comparing the worst possible potential of option A with the best possible potential of option B and claiming option B as the winner?

Hmmm.

Well, not quite.

If we do nothing, then nothing changes.

If we implement a minimum number of finds, then either nothing changes or it negatively affects the game.

If we implement a waiting period, then nothing changes or it positively affects the game.

niraD's arguing for the implementation where there's the possibility for improvement. If that improvement doesn't actually arise, then at least the game won't have been negatively impacted.

 

Cue a discussion of the semantics of the words "negatively", "positively", "improvement", and "the".

Edited April 23, 2018 by The A-Team

[+Team Microdot]

8 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Well, not quite.

If we do nothing, then nothing changes.

If we implement a minimum number of finds, then either nothing changes or it negatively affects the game.

If we implement a waiting period, then nothing changes or it positively affects the game.

niraD's arguing for the implementation where there's the possibility for improvement. If that improvement doesn't actually arise, then at least the game won't have been negatively impacted.

 

Cue a discussion of the semantics of the words "negatively", "positively", "improvement", and "the".

There's really no need to argue semantics here.

If a requiring a minimum number of finds is "pointless" then a minimum period of having an account is equally pointless.

 

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

If a requiring a minimum number of finds is "pointless" then a minimum period of having an account is equally pointless.

They're both pointless because TPTB aren't going to change it either way.  For the sake of discussion, though, lets take a closer look at both of these option.

It boils down to a simple question, at least in my mind - Which minimum is more likely to have a greater probability of making that potential CO's caches better - better containers, better maintenance, better hides, better for geocaching?

For me, it's the cacher who has put in the time rather than the cacher who has found their 100 in about a month.  3 months is a time commitment to a specific activity (which could include finds, time to meet other cachers, attend an event, and learn more about caching), while 100 finds is limited only by how much free time the new cacher has to go find caches. If that takes a day, a week, or a month, it only shows commitment to achieving finds and nothing else, really.  The possibility/probability is greater that a new cacher will be a better CO if they make a commitment to their time in the game rather than a cacher who makes a commitment to achieving a certain number of finds.  As with all things, there are certainly exceptions to the rule.  I just believe that someone who has stuck around for 3 months to hide a cache is more likely to stick around longer to maintain that cache.

Ideally, it's a combination of both ideas that would make it more likely to get newer cachers to be more responsible cachers, as it pertains to their hides.

[+Team Microdot]

8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

If a requiring a minimum number of finds is "pointless" then a minimum period of having an account is equally pointless.

They're both pointless because TPTB aren't going to change it either way.  For the sake of discussion, though, lets take a closer look at both of these option.

It boils down to a simple question, at least in my mind - Which minimum is more likely to have a greater probability of making that potential CO's caches better - better containers, better maintenance, better hides, better for geocaching?

For me, it's the cacher who has put in the time rather than the cacher who has found their 100 in about a month.  3 months is a time commitment to a specific activity (which could include finds, time to meet other cachers, attend an event, and learn more about caching), while 100 finds is limited only by how much free time the new cacher has to go find caches. If that takes a day, a week, or a month, it only shows commitment to achieving finds and nothing else, really.  The possibility/probability is greater that a new cacher will be a better CO if they make a commitment to their time in the game rather than a cacher who makes a commitment to achieving a certain number of finds.  As with all things, there are certainly exceptions to the rule.  I just believe that someone who has stuck around for 3 months to hide a cache is more likely to stick around longer to maintain that cache.

Ideally, it's a combination of both ideas that would make it more likely to get newer cachers to be more responsible cachers, as it pertains to their hides.

Glad to see someone finally got there.

Of course having an account for X period of time means nothing if the cacher isn't active.

At least if they are out finding they are exposed to the nature of caches placed by others and to what works / what doesn't work, what's fun/not fun - all the standard sort of stuff really.

A three month 'commitment' means zilch if that three months isn't spent learning - and a great way to learn is to get out finding.

I know, I'm going round in circles.

I've seen accounts which have been active for twelve months with zero finds and then, all of a sudden, finds start being made, as if the person remembered they'd set up a geocaching account and decided to actually put it to use and find out what it's all about.

Would that person have better equipped as a hider in the run up to that twelve month milestone - probably not hence why I class this particular yardstick in isolation as useless.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Team Microdot
term correction

[+badlands]

A much bigger problem than the 'one and done' are the long time active and inactive cachers who have hundreds or even thousands of hides without demonstrating the ability and/or desire to maintain them.