Placing a cache that you cannot maintain

[Levein]

Hi all,

 

While geocaching, I can't help but think of all the great potential cache locations I have encountered during my travels when I was not yet familiar with geocaching. For example, I was hiking in the Caucasus mountains of Georgia last summer, and would have loved it if, after several days of walking through virtually uninhabited terrain that is only accessible for a few months every year, I could have found and logged a cache then and there. You'd be one of the few and the location would make it incredibly special.

 

But... If I understand the guidelines correctly, this is not possible. You need to convince the reviewers that you or someone else will actively maintain the cache, meaning you need to keep them close to your home. Honestly, I was quite disappointed.

 

Keeping caches close to home seems like a limit that directly opposes that which geocaching is, to me. A global game. I'm kind of sad to think that if I put out a travelbug, or a geocoin, it will never make its way to the Georgian mountains, because there would not be anyone there to maintain a cache. I'm kind of sad to think that, on my next hike, I'm not very likely to encounter any caches because there would not be anyone there to maintain a cache.

 

Can't a cache be maintained by visitors? Other cachers are always posting about a cache being wet, or a logbook being full... Can't (and wouldn't) the next cacher take the hint and replace the logbook, or dry and seal the cache? What are the chances of a cache, out in the middle of nowhere, maintained only by visiting cachers, to be accepted?

[+StarBrand]

Maybe a cacher local to that area has already placed a cache there. Perhaps there are rules and restrictions to prohibit placing a cache there.

 

It is important that the caches we place not be perceived as being abondoned property. We as cache owners need to take a direct responibility for our caches. Not hope somebody else can or will take care of serious issues.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Before I got all depressed about it, I would do a search of any area you love to frequent. Chances are, there is a cache there or nearby. Trust me on this.

In my opinion... placing a new cache, locally or after you convinced the Reviewer you had a maintenance plan in place, and then expecting other cachers to maintain it for you is in very bad form.

Many, if not most, cachers will do minor maintenance to others caches out of kindness, but to expect it of them is asking too much. The most I would expect them to do is to log a "needs maintenance"

[Levein]

Maybe a cacher local to that area has already placed a cache there. Perhaps there are rules and restrictions to prohibit placing a cache there.

 

It is important that the caches we place not be perceived as being abondoned property. We as cache owners need to take a direct responibility for our caches. Not hope somebody else can or will take care of serious issues.

 

I haven't attempted to place any (such) caches yet.

 

What is a serious issue, though? Perhaps the cache is damaged, lost, or full. Is not having a cache at all preferable to a cache that eventually gets destroyed?

 

I'm just asking. I'd like to know how other geocachers feel about this, or what a valid strategy is for placing 'wild' caches. I like geocaching so far, but I think nothing would beat a true find out in the wild. No paths to go by, no footsteps to follow, not even a place to park your car within a hundred miles.

[+dfx]

But... If I understand the guidelines correctly, this is not possible. You need to convince the reviewers that you or someone else will actively maintain the cache, meaning you need to keep them close to your home.

 

They don't necessary need to be close to home. If you can demonstrate that it's an area that you frequently and reliably visit, then it should be no problem to place a cache there, even if it's far from home.

[Levein]

But... If I understand the guidelines correctly, this is not possible. You need to convince the reviewers that you or someone else will actively maintain the cache, meaning you need to keep them close to your home.

 

They don't necessary need to be close to home. If you can demonstrate that it's an area that you frequently and reliably visit, then it should be no problem to place a cache there, even if it's far from home.

 

Well, how many people would frequently visit the Mt. Everest base camp? Most people would visit once in their lives, if at all. There is a cache there now, which is wonderful and amazing, and I am thankful that there apparently is someone who can maintain this cache, but what if there wasn't?

 

Would we all be denied such a special cache simply because nobody frequently and reliably visits, even though thousands of people visit there separately? Hundreds of cachers who would love to log a visit to Mt. Everest and would love to help with maintenance in return, but who wouldn't get the chance because there is not one single individual who can be held responsible for the cache's maintenance?

[+Brooklyn51]

 

What is a serious issue, though? Perhaps the cache is damaged, lost, or full. Is not having a cache at all preferable to a cache that eventually gets destroyed?

 

 

Perhaps. It largely depends on the area and the type of cache. An unmaintained cached will degrade and eventually be just so much trash in this otherwise pristine area you enjoyed so much. Echoing those above, it would be too much to ask those following to perform any sort of signifcant maintenance even if they could possibly know beforehand what supplies they would need to port in.

[+Zander87]

Well, it I guess it's really how far away from your home the cache is. If you know another cacher in the area then you can ask them to take care of the cache...

 

 

-Zander87-

[+StarBrand]

Maybe a cacher local to that area has already placed a cache there. Perhaps there are rules and restrictions to prohibit placing a cache there.

 

It is important that the caches we place not be perceived as being abondoned property. We as cache owners need to take a direct responibility for our caches. Not hope somebody else can or will take care of serious issues.

 

I haven't attempted to place any (such) caches yet.

 

What is a serious issue, though? Perhaps the cache is damaged, lost, or full. Is not having a cache at all preferable to a cache that eventually gets destroyed?

 

I'm just asking. I'd like to know how other geocachers feel about this, or what a valid strategy is for placing 'wild' caches. I like geocaching so far, but I think nothing would beat a true find out in the wild. No paths to go by, no footsteps to follow, not even a place to park your car within a hundred miles.

 

There are lots of 'wild' caches out there. I've placed a few.

 

Serious issues include (but are not limited to): Wet contents, Animal has chewed on/moved, causing damage to historic/sensitive areas, Land manager no longer desires caches, spilled/exploded swag, hide area has dramatic change, missing, landslides - etc....

 

It isn't fair to expect others to clean up after you.

 

My best advice, find somebody that lives nearby and is willing to go check on things when issues are reported.

[+dfx]

A common problem with such setups is DNFs. If a cacher can't find a cache, the result would usually be a DNF, but with "community maintenance" a possible result would be a new cache placed by the visitor. But there's no guarantee that the cache was actually missing, so now there might be two caches there, in different spots, with different contents and logbooks. This can become very confusing.

 

I also find it a shame that such vacation caches aren't allowed any more, but I do acknowledge the potential problems they may bring.

[Levein]

 

There are lots of 'wild' caches out there. I've placed a few.

 

Serious issues include (but are not limited to): Wet contents, Animal has chewed on/moved, causing damage to historic/sensitive areas, Land manager no longer desires caches, spilled/exploded swag, hide area has dramatic change, missing, landslides - etc....

 

It isn't fair to expect others to clean up after you.

 

My best advice, find somebody that lives nearby and is willing to go check on things when issues are reported.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=42.39557261051849&lng=45.498504638671875&zm=11&mt=h

 

Nearest caches are in Tbilisi, a couple hundred kilometres away. In winter, no-one lives here. In summer, there are hikers, and a few residents from villages at the foot of the mountains that move up to herd sheep and such. There is one village that is accessible by 4WD. Other than that, it's all walking or on horseback. Hikers are not that rare in this area (a few per day), but permanent residents are. There is no internet, and hardly any english spoken. I doubt I would have found anyone who could and would maintain a cache.

 

If I placed a cache there, I wouldn't expect anyone to maintain it for me. I wouldn't ever see the cache again probably. However, the next cachers would expect the cache to be there and in good shape. If you can agree on such a cache being a 'community cache', I don't see a problem or any unfairness. It could even be an interesting thing to do on such a trip. "Let's make a detour here because at the foot of that mountain there's a cache that needs a new logbook and I brought one". I mean, responsibility seems to be a pretty big thing in geocaching land what with the excellent ideas of CITO and travelbugs / coins, I am sure there would be more than a few cachers willing to maintain a cache they just visited, knowing the conditions and locations of the cache require it.

 

But maybe not, and it's just me?

[+kunarion]

I mean, responsibility seems to be a pretty big thing in geocaching land what with the excellent ideas of CITO and travelbugs / coins, I am sure there would be more than a few cachers willing to maintain a cache they just visited, knowing the conditions and locations of the cache require it.

 

Whatever you place, it will need to be well thought out, rock-solid, maintenance-free, and have a great big honkin thick logbook that won’t need to be changed in a while. You mentioned Georgia mountains, and one issue is forest management – basically, forests get underbrush burned on a schedule, and this has gotten some otherwise great caches archived. Then there are considerations for falling trees, rock slides, floods, ice, you name it. The cache may have been great last year, and now is really hazardous, which the cachers won’t know until they go there. If it proves to be in a just plain bad spot (making maintenance an urgent chronic need), will the community cachers move it to a better place for you?

 

If you visit once in your lifetime, are you planning to place the container, then return home on the hope of getting it approved?

 

I’ve done some maintenance on “community caches”, and some of the main issues are them being placed in a not-so-hot spot, or being high-maintenance due to design. There are many remote caches, but lots of those get visited by the COs. So it’s possible to do them (and seems like a pretty cool idea generally), though you can’t expect to get a non-maintenance cache approved here.

[+briansnat]

Not really a getting started issue. Moving to the general forum.

[+Chokecherry]

I live somewhere where people decide that vacation caches are a great idea. In reality it's not. What we ended up having are a bunch of caches that often times need a constant dose of love and who ends up giving that love is everyone but the cache owner. And then it's even better when the container gets destroyed or goes missing. It ends up being trash that the local community has to clean up.

 

And really I can see how people justify it that they visit a few times a year or whatever. But then the next step people forget to take is are they willing to actually take time outo f their vacation plans those few times a year to monitor those caches. Doesn't happen.

 

I equate caches to puppies. You don't buy a puppy so someone else can take care of it for you because it's neat or cute to have. You buy one so you can take care of it. If you can't take care of it you have no business having one.

[+Borst68]

 

I equate caches to puppies. You don't buy a puppy so someone else can take care of it for you because it's neat or cute to have. You buy one so you can take care of it. If you can't take care of it you have no business having one.

+1

[+narcissa]

 

I equate caches to puppies. You don't buy a puppy so someone else can take care of it for you because it's neat or cute to have. You buy one so you can take care of it. If you can't take care of it you have no business having one.

+1

 

+100

[Levein]

I live somewhere where people decide that vacation caches are a great idea. In reality it's not. What we ended up having are a bunch of caches that often times need a constant dose of love and who ends up giving that love is everyone but the cache owner. And then it's even better when the container gets destroyed or goes missing. It ends up being trash that the local community has to clean up.

 

And really I can see how people justify it that they visit a few times a year or whatever. But then the next step people forget to take is are they willing to actually take time outo f their vacation plans those few times a year to monitor those caches. Doesn't happen.

 

I equate caches to puppies. You don't buy a puppy so someone else can take care of it for you because it's neat or cute to have. You buy one so you can take care of it. If you can't take care of it you have no business having one.

 

Yet, if you buy a puppy, you are the one that enjoys it the most. If you place a cache, it's there for all other cachers to enjoy.

 

I get the idea from the posts above that "having a cache" is all for and about the cache owner, yet in my perspective, I wouldn't enjoy having a cache if there was no-one else enjoying my cache. Shouldn't your cache be fun for others, too. Why geocache, otherwise? This whole thing is so dependent on the community (and thrives because of it!) that I don't really get why it would be such a strange thing to have 'community caches' much as there are traditional, multi, and mystery caches. Apart from just concerns about sturdiness and permanence of your cache and items, as mentioned above. You'd have to do some good work placing such a cache, but there are so many things of relative permanence out there in the wild - there is really no reason why you couldn't build a rock-solid cache somewhere out there.

 

As for a cache ending up as trash: if visiting cachers diligently follow CITO, then you might actually end up with less trash...

[+StarBrand]

I live somewhere where people decide that vacation caches are a great idea. In reality it's not. What we ended up having are a bunch of caches that often times need a constant dose of love and who ends up giving that love is everyone but the cache owner. And then it's even better when the container gets destroyed or goes missing. It ends up being trash that the local community has to clean up.

 

And really I can see how people justify it that they visit a few times a year or whatever. But then the next step people forget to take is are they willing to actually take time outo f their vacation plans those few times a year to monitor those caches. Doesn't happen.

 

I equate caches to puppies. You don't buy a puppy so someone else can take care of it for you because it's neat or cute to have. You buy one so you can take care of it. If you can't take care of it you have no business having one.

 

Yet, if you buy a puppy, you are the one that enjoys it the most. If you place a cache, it's there for all other cachers to enjoy.

 

I get the idea from the posts above that "having a cache" is all for and about the cache owner, yet in my perspective, I wouldn't enjoy having a cache if there was no-one else enjoying my cache. Shouldn't your cache be fun for others, too. Why geocache, otherwise? This whole thing is so dependent on the community (and thrives because of it!) that I don't really get why it would be such a strange thing to have 'community caches' much as there are traditional, multi, and mystery caches. Apart from just concerns about sturdiness and permanence of your cache and items, as mentioned above. You'd have to do some good work placing such a cache, but there are so many things of relative permanence out there in the wild - there is really no reason why you couldn't build a rock-solid cache somewhere out there.

 

As for a cache ending up as trash: if visiting cachers diligently follow CITO, then you might actually end up with less trash...

I don't doubt that it could work that way - in theory.

 

However, I've been around this long enough to know that the vast majority of vacation caches just end up as unmaintained junk and somebody else's problem. I know this because vacation caches were allowed when I started and the problems with them mounted quickly. Thus the guideline change to prohibit them.

Edited February 15, 2011 by StarBrand

[+kunarion]

I don't really get why it would be such a strange thing to have 'community caches' much as there are traditional, multi, and mystery caches.

When you discover a really cool spot, consider posting the coords in a regional forum. Someone may live close enough to place a cache and maintain it, or may hike through there often enough to do that. Even if a cache can't go there, at least someone will get to visit your spot.

 

The "community caches" I've seen were unofficially adopted by cachers. The original Cache Owner never posted "placed this thing, won't be back, buh-bye!!", but it almost seems to have ended up that way. So they do exist, but they seem kinda obnoxious to me.

Edited February 15, 2011 by kunarion

[+jmw61]

I've done a few caches down in the keys that were placed by folks that are from more northern latitudes. Could be that things were more relaxed back then, but I would agree that if the rules allow a cache under just about every third lamp post skirt, they should be allowed in wild and more infrequently travelled areas too.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

With virtuals possibly coming back, I would think this will solve your dilemma. There is no physical maintenance required and you can follow the logs of those who visited the same spot you have enjoyed. Stay tuned.

[+SwineFlew]

Oh boy, vacation caches are really a pain to have around. Every time I go out to the coast to cache, I run into those alot. I am quick to hit the need archived button if I find the container in bad shape and the CO isn't caching anymore. The coastal people that live out there do take care of their own caches alot better and I search for their more if I can help it.

 

We do have a cache deep in the mountain and its a 14ish miles round trip from the nearest trailhead and only see around 2-4 cachers a year or less and some years, zero. When I went back there last fall to find it, I took maintenance supplies with me. Its an ammo can so its low maintenance in that case. I clean it up and the seals so its good to go for a couple more years. The CO isn't around anymore and the cache taken care of by the cachers that go back there. With this cache, I am ok if the community take care of it but not a cache in a high vacation spot.

[+GoingBald]

Hopefully you took a few good pictures of your visit. Possibly even several hundred.

 

Some of those shots are no doubt unique shots that require the viewer to be in a unique location. Now, if you had the approximate coordinates you could create a virtual cache and require finders to email you first describing what they saw before posting a find. If they are correct, then you give your blessing just asking they don't describe what they saw so the cache is not spoiled for the next visitor. While not as satisfying perhaps as a traditional cache, it does feel good when someone emails you to let you know they've now seen what you originally saw.

[aniyn]

At least you read the guidelines. In a perfect world this shouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. Even under current rules there are far too many unmaintained caches. Not to be patronizing, but once you've been doing this for a while longer you'll understand why the rules are what they are: Finding caches that are full of water, have moldy/gooey contents, or have inaccurate coordinates is not fun. It just ends up being a headache for everyone else to deal with, and makes the overall experience worse for everyone. How many people would keep caching if their first 2 finds had an inch of putrid water in each?

 

And to be honest the "Can't someone else do it?" attitude is very depressing. It's your cache, and you can't reasonably expect other people to look after it for you.

Can't (and wouldn't) the next cacher take the hint and replace the logbook, or dry and seal the cache?

Replacing a wet log is pointless; Unless you address the issue of a non-watertight container first nothing will change. But why should someone else have to spent the money required to do this? I wouldn't do much geocaching at $7 a find.

I think nothing would beat a true find out in the wild. No paths to go by, no footsteps to follow, not even a place to park your car within a hundred miles.

At this point you're just romanticizing a concept. Imagine if you went through all that: Packing a 70 pound pack for 4 days through broken, wet, bug infested terrain. After all that, you discover that the guy who hid that cache goofed on the coordinates and you can't find anything. Or that you do get there and discover half of a tupperware container full of water and nothing else - because 2 years earlier the container lid had cracked and no one was there to do anything about it. Groundspeak already has rules about this sort of thing, as a few overzealous helicopter pilots have made it necessary.

 

If you aren't willing to maintain a geocache, try leaving a waymark instead.

[+paleolith]

Can't a cache be maintained by visitors?

Can it be? Yes. Will it be? No. You will understand this when you have more experience. Ask again when you've found a couple of hundred.

 

People who think this might work tend to have little experience with the level of work needed to maintain a cache even locally, or with the general level of willingness of cachers to maintain even their own hides.

 

You do have alternatives.

 

Edward

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Ask the folks out in Hawaii what they think of vacation caches. (Hint: It isn't a very positive view)

[+StarBrand]

With virtuals possibly coming back, I would think this will solve your dilemma. There is no physical maintenance required and you can follow the logs of those who visited the same spot you have enjoyed. Stay tuned.

Sounds right but is wrong- even virtual caches fallunder the vacation cache rulesand maintenance rules. It is a fast paced world we live in and things change. Access routes, hours, signs come and go, markers come and go, housing developments come, new roads, etc...... You need to be able to verify that things have not changed at GZ.

[+Don_J]

I equate caches to puppies. You don't buy a puppy so someone else can take care of it for you because it's neat or cute to have. You buy one so you can take care of it. If you can't take care of it you have no business having one.

 

Yet, if you buy a puppy, you are the one that enjoys it the most. If you place a cache, it's there for all other cachers to enjoy.

 

 

Not if it turns into a rotten pile of garbage.

Groundspeak requires us to maintain our caches for a reason. Placing a cache in a remote spot that you never intend on ever visiting again, with no alternate maintenance plan simply does meet the guidelines, and in the end, turns out being bad for the sport.

[+luvvinbird]

I'll be vacationing in Varadero, Cuba next month and I had hoped to visit all the caches in that area. It is true that cache owners need to be responsible for their hides but couldn't we standardize "vacation" caches? For example: micro with log only. So the fun of locating a cache in a foreign country is realized but maintenance and pollution is kept to a bare minimum. I've added extra log paper more than once to caches I've found locally. If a "vacation" log becomes too big for the micro, I'm sure the one who replaces it wouldn't mind taking a photo of the original and e-mailing it to the owner. Simple maintenance for these types of caches could then be the responsibility of the finder.

[+Student Camper]

Some of you seem to have missed the point.

You, as the CO of record own the cache, no one else can do anything with it except get it archived, You, as the owner, are responsible for its upkeep and wefare, You, as the owner, are expected maintain it and if it goes bad in some manner, you, as the owner, are expected repair it, de-list or archive it.

There are way too many caches out there that have been abandoned by their owners but are still active because of the support of ghost owners.

If you can visit or make arraingements for maintenance at least a couple of times a year or whenever needed, then by all means, go ahead and place the cache, but dont throw that thing out there hoping someone else will keep it from becoming trash.

You, as the owner, are just as responsible for that cache as you would be for the puppy.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I'll be vacationing in Varadero, Cuba next month and I had hoped to visit all the caches in that area. It is true that cache owners need to be responsible for their hides but couldn't we standardize "vacation" caches? For example: micro with log only. So the fun of locating a cache in a foreign country is realized but maintenance and pollution is kept to a bare minimum. I've added extra log paper more than once to caches I've found locally. If a "vacation" log becomes too big for the micro, I'm sure the one who replaces it wouldn't mind taking a photo of the original and e-mailing it to the owner. Simple maintenance for these types of caches could then be the responsibility of the finder.

 

Bad idea.

 

As mentioned above, a vacationer may not be aware of local laws, rules or regulations for cache placement (i.e. permits required in state parks).

[+luvvinbird]

Now that we're talking about bad ideas, I'm still seeing recently published caches located in cemeteries. One such cache, near me, is not 40 feet from the front doors of the cemetery administration office. Wanting to be the FTF, I got a really nasty look from an employee showing and discussing plots to grieving family members. Now I'm starting to see signs put up at some cemeteries advising geocachers to keep out.

[4wheelin_fool]

Now that we're talking about bad ideas, I'm still seeing recently published caches located in cemeteries. One such cache, near me, is not 40 feet from the front doors of the cemetery administration office. Wanting to be the FTF, I got a really nasty look from an employee showing and discussing plots to grieving family members. Now I'm starting to see signs put up at some cemeteries advising geocachers to keep out.

 

Well, there goes the idea about allowing ghost cachers to maintain caches.

[+Team Bubble Tea]

Hi, we had this cache rejected on "The road-to-nowhere" in the Tarkine wilderness area of Tasmania. It's 252.8km (157 mi)from our home location.

This is our explanation of why we thought it could be OK.

 

"Hi and thanks for your message.

 

Yes, we are aware of the "Holiday Cache" guidelines. This wasn't a "What a great view, let's put a cache here" idea. We planned it and considered the issues before going on our trip.

 

Here's a link (http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=-41.369594747562275&lng=145.12939453125&zm=10&mt=m) showing the vast cacheless area that is the Arthur-Pieman Tarkine Conservation area.

 

There is a single road through this area called the Western Explorer (http://www.realtasmania.com/topic/268-western-explorer/), at around 100km long it takes 2 hours to travel by car. The road starts in the middle of no-where and ends up near Corinna (pop 5). There is no fuel, no mobile phone, no public phonebox, and basically nothing except wilderness. And no caches.

 

Maintenance is the problem. It's simply not possible to do "a quick response to reported problems". We've done our best to ensure that very little maintenance will be needed. The cache is in a dry tree hollow, in a water-proof container. The log-book is in a ziplock bag with 2 desiccant gel packets. The tree is surrounded by low scrubby heath and has survived several bush-fires. It's about 30m from the road and of course it's in a conservation area. It's unlikely that the log book will fill up any time soon, we saw a single vehicle when we drove down the road.

 

It's at least a four hour return drive from any civilised spot, so we don't fell happy asking anyone to maintain the cache for us.

 

The Western Explorer is one of the great Australian road trips and been around for more than 10 years. It hasn't got a single cache on it, and might not ever, because it is remote, and difficult and maintenance could take months not weeks.

 

Thanks again

Jon TBT"

 

Opinions? We reckon there's a huge differences between "remote location caches" and "Holiday caches" like some-one mentioned in Hawaii.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Team Bubble Tea

[+Ecylram]

Hi, we had this cache rejected on "The road-to-nowhere" in the Tarkine wilderness area of Tasmania. It's 252.8km (157 mi)from our home location.

This is our explanation of why we thought it could be OK.

 

"Hi and thanks for your message.

 

Yes, we are aware of the "Holiday Cache" guidelines. This wasn't a "What a great view, let's put a cache here" idea. We planned it and considered the issues before going on our trip.

 

Here's a link (http://www.geocachin...3125&zm=10&mt=m) showing the vast cacheless area that is the Arthur-Pieman Tarkine Conservation area.

 

There is a single road through this area called the Western Explorer (http://www.realtasma...stern-explorer/), at around 100km long it takes 2 hours to travel by car. The road starts in the middle of no-where and ends up near Corinna (pop 5). There is no fuel, no mobile phone, no public phonebox, and basically nothing except wilderness. And no caches.

 

Maintenance is the problem. It's simply not possible to do "a quick response to reported problems". We've done our best to ensure that very little maintenance will be needed. The cache is in a dry tree hollow, in a water-proof container. The log-book is in a ziplock bag with 2 desiccant gel packets. The tree is surrounded by low scrubby heath and has survived several bush-fires. It's about 30m from the road and of course it's in a conservation area. It's unlikely that the log book will fill up any time soon, we saw a single vehicle when we drove down the road.

 

It's at least a four hour return drive from any civilised spot, so we don't fell happy asking anyone to maintain the cache for us.

 

The Western Explorer is one of the great Australian road trips and been around for more than 10 years. It hasn't got a single cache on it, and might not ever, because it is remote, and difficult and maintenance could take months not weeks.

 

Thanks again

Jon TBT"

 

Opinions? We reckon there's a huge differences between "remote location caches" and "Holiday caches" like some-one mentioned in Hawaii.

 

157 miles away in a barren area? You might have a small chance of success on appeal. I'd focus on what maintenance you are capable of doing in addition to the comments on what you've done to reduce maintenance needs.

[+caccbag]

Itoo have been many places (in the mountains, out of the country, while on trail races, etc.) taht I think "Wow! What a great place for a cache!" But I can't drop one because who knows when I can get back there. And I agree that I shouldn't drop one. We take great pride in our caches that we place and we try and get out immediately to fix a problem or replace a log or search to see if a cache has been muggled. If we were too far away or take months to address an issue or just decide to archive a cache rather than maintaining it - to me that lacks a pride in a cache. Plus it is a disservice to other cachers. The one exception I agree with is if you absolutely love a place and want to leave a cache, then find a local cacher that agrees to maintain it for you between your own visits. I get to Scotland on business a few times a year and I love the city I visit so much I wanted to contribute to the cache community. So I hid two caches and my co-worker and his wife (who I introduced to geocaching) have agreed to maintain it between my visits. I left them a supply of cache containers and fresh logs and alert him if I hear anything my be wrong. That is an exception I agree with as the cache is maintained.

[+caccbag]

Hi, we had this cache rejected on "The road-to-nowhere" in the Tarkine wilderness area of Tasmania. It's 252.8km (157 mi)from our home location.

This is our explanation of why we thought it could be OK.

 

"Hi and thanks for your message.

 

Yes, we are aware of the "Holiday Cache" guidelines. This wasn't a "What a great view, let's put a cache here" idea. We planned it and considered the issues before going on our trip.

 

Here's a link (http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?lat=-41.369594747562275&lng=145.12939453125&zm=10&mt=m) showing the vast cacheless area that is the Arthur-Pieman Tarkine Conservation area.

 

There is a single road through this area called the Western Explorer (http://www.realtasmania.com/topic/268-western-explorer/), at around 100km long it takes 2 hours to travel by car. The road starts in the middle of no-where and ends up near Corinna (pop 5). There is no fuel, no mobile phone, no public phonebox, and basically nothing except wilderness. And no caches.

 

Maintenance is the problem. It's simply not possible to do "a quick response to reported problems". We've done our best to ensure that very little maintenance will be needed. The cache is in a dry tree hollow, in a water-proof container. The log-book is in a ziplock bag with 2 desiccant gel packets. The tree is surrounded by low scrubby heath and has survived several bush-fires. It's about 30m from the road and of course it's in a conservation area. It's unlikely that the log book will fill up any time soon, we saw a single vehicle when we drove down the road.

 

It's at least a four hour return drive from any civilised spot, so we don't fell happy asking anyone to maintain the cache for us.

 

The Western Explorer is one of the great Australian road trips and been around for more than 10 years. It hasn't got a single cache on it, and might not ever, because it is remote, and difficult and maintenance could take months not weeks.

 

Thanks again

Jon TBT"

 

Opinions? We reckon there's a huge differences between "remote location caches" and "Holiday caches" like some-one mentioned in Hawaii.

 

Can opener....grinding...lid pealing off...worms visible.

 

Again, I think that is a great example of a well reasoned and very logical explantaion to allow an exception to the rule. What is the alternative? You can place a cache there if you and your family move there? This hobby is just that - a hobby (yes, I know for many it is their entire life) but it is a hobby. Not a university study; not an Olympic sport; not even the world Spelling Bee. It is a hobby. And its own guidelines speak of community and families. I think inherent in that should be a certain flexability and reasonabless in guideline exceptions. Who would it hurt? Who is going to throw a fit? It will benefit the community.

 

We cachers don't walk on water. We are not infallible. We should try and expand the community and promote fun and embrace new/unique ideas. Or we can live by a iron-clad set of rules that dictate how we are told that we will be allowed to enjoy our hobby.

[+Max and 99]

What about those who place a power trail and state on the cache pages something along the lines of "I'm obviously not going to be able to maintain all these caches myself, so your help is appreciated."

[Dj Storm]

There's a difference between remote caches and vacation caches.

 

What I would like to find are caches placed by responsible owners.

A responsible owner would not place vacation caches, period. As for remote caches, the responsible owner always has a maintenance plan.

 

I call 'vacation caches' those where the placer visited the area once and has no plans to return. 'Remote caches' are those where the owner visited the area at least a few times, and plans to return if problems are reported with the cache.

For some geocachers, 50 miles from home puts the cache in the 'vacation area', for others 1000 miles is just a bit remote.

 

I would like to see more remote caches published. I want to be sure the caches are remote and not vacation, and have responsible owners - I assume the reviewers want the same thing. If you prove to the reviewer that you're responsible and have a maintenance plan, it's easy to get remote caches published. However, proving responsibility is quite difficult.

 

Placing caches and expecting others to do maintenance is a sign for lack of responsibility. Usually those caches consist of a makeshift container, with some scrap paper as a logbook, dropped in an unfamiliar area that the owner liked for some reason. The cache will be high maintenance. If the owner doesn't plan to return, he won't realize that maintenance is hard. I agree to dry out the containers, replace logbooks, even replace containers if the owner is temporarily unable to respond, but won't do that for vacation caches.

 

Imagine two scenarios:

1. A remote area. The owner visits the area at least once a year, and has finds on nearby caches to confirm this. He does maintenance on his other caches in a timely fashion, proving he is responsible. He picked up a sturdy container (ammo can) for his cache, put a reasonably sized logbook in it, and got permission from the land managers. I assume this cache will be published without much questioning.

2. A remote area. The owner visited the area for the first time. Doing quick maintenance on his other caches doesn't help getting a cache published here, but not doing maintenance is another big point against publishing.

 

Regarding the cache in Tasmania: I have caches placed 200+ km from home, the roundtrip takes 17 hours. I visit the area several times per year, and have finds nearby to prove it. I responded to possible problems (like two DNF's in a row) within a month, usually in less than two weeks. The owner should do the same, and I'm sure the reviewer will publish his cache.