+Confucius' Cat Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 This is a hypothetical situation: A person places a micro cache, which has only a log book consisting of a few sheets of paper and 'bring your own pencil instructions' in a small city park. Later another person discovers a truly unique hiding place for a full size cache, but the location is too close to the micro so it cannot be approved. Do you think it is appropriate to waive the rule for the regular cache so it can be allowed? Do you think there should be a special rule to allow a second cache in a small area if the first is a micro? GDAE, Dave Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 The quick answer is "No" Too close. The long answer is you might have a case to make with the admin. Especially if the micro owner agrees that they overlooked the spot. What you have here is one of them potential exceptions to the rules that will take time to work out. When the smoke clears the answer may still be "No" Too close. Wherever you go there you are. Link to comment
+IV_Warrior Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Sounds like a great spot for a multi cache. Initial leg(s) ARE far enough away from the micro for approval, final cache is in the spot in question. Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you. Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 What about contacting the micro owner and asking if they will archive theirs so you can put in a full blown cache? I have a few micros out and if some one came along with a good cache, I am sure we could work something out. logscaler. Link to comment
+Captain Morgan Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Poll results have disappeared during forum changes, so we all have to vote again... Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 The person who placed the cache first has dibs, whether it's a micro, or full sized cache. I would do with IV warrior advised. In fact in one instance I did. "An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 I had to vote NO, as well. Both are physical caches. Why would size matter? Or is it the trading issue? What's next, someone with a giant container can bump a large container, which can bump a regular container, which can bump a micro? Nah, I think once a physical goes in, it has the spot. CR Link to comment
+worldtraveler Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 If the newly-discoverd hiding place is just so good it begs to be used, why not contact the micro's owner and offer to supply the container, logbook, goodies, & upkeep if s/he will agree to change the cache description and coordinates to reflect the new location. They still get the credit for the cache, and you get the pleasure of having a cache in that great location. Worldtraveler [This message was edited by worldtraveler on March 28, 2003 at 08:27 AM.] Link to comment
+Zartimus Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 I think the location would settle it for me. I have seen very different terrain/cool features/natural landmarks very close to each other and seperated by a large hill/small mountain kinda deal. A cache is on one side, but no one knows about the other place and will most likely not stumble upon it unless a cache is there. And the place can easily acomodate two. Is there a hard and fast rule on distance? I've seen stuff like a mile or a kilometer bounced around, but I say it depends on the place in question. 800 meters up a hill might be only 200m away from another cache as the crow flies, but it's still a 1km hike uphill. SO I say evaluate on a case by case. And heck, micros are different, meant for urban areas for the most part I thought, and I prefer regular caches to them. I think a micro and a regular cache can co-exsist in the right situation. Link to comment
+SylvrStorm Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 I agree with others who suggested contacting the owner of the micro. What constitutes a 'good' cache location is too subjective for an admin to make a judgement call remotely, so it has to be up to the locals to decide. First cache has dibs of course, but contacting the owner can't hurt. I have only hidden one cache so far, and it's a micro, but I am planning more. I think I've chosen interesting hiding places where a bigger cache won't fit. (Though I admit I've already been surprised by a cacher who managed to fit something interesting into my small container.) Now, if somebody contacted me and said they had a great location for a regular cache close to my micro, I'd certainly be open to discussing it with them. There could be various options, including leaving mine as is, replacing mine with his, or combining them into a multi, where mine gives a clue to his. But on the other hand, I may have thought of a regular cache, but have very good reasons for only hiding a micro. For example, the micro I've hidden is indeed near some places that could be used to hide a larger cache. But the area is adjacent to two school yards and at certain times of the day is crawling with kids. I just know that a larger cache container would be plundered before long. Bottom line is, contact the original owner. If it's an older cache, he might be ready to give it up. If not, you might be able to work something out, or maybe he's thought of a good reason why a larger cache is not a good idea. *** Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and they laugh at you. *** Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 quote:Originally posted by SylvrStorm:I agree with others who suggested contacting the owner of the micro. What constitutes a 'good' cache location is too subjective for an admin to make a judgement call remotely, so it has to be up to the locals to decide. First cache has dibs of course, but contacting the owner can't hurt.... Excellent discourse. Much better thought out than most of my posts! I am coming to the conclusion that this approach is best overall and that 'log only' micros aint all that bad- even though the exclusivity rule disallows a 'better' cache in the same area. (OK, I can't define BETTER) My only real objection to them was the lack of trinkets. To me, as well as many others, the trinkets lend a little extra element of the unknown to the hunt. This CAN be overcome with a little creativity in most cases- fer instance, I just placed a TB in a very small pill bottle today. The present rule on exclusivity is apparently 0.1 miles separation. My only concern is in urban parks where there just isn't that much space. I encountered this situation last week on a cache I placed which got the boot because a log only micro was placed there just HOURS before my cache report. Since it had not yet been posted I was taken completely by surprise when mine was archived. I had been preparing this cache for weeks, but was not satisfied with it yet and did not post it until the same day the other was posted. As several have pointed out, this will probably never happen again. I did solve the problem by making mine a multi with 2 'virtual' clues and a bogus starting coordinate which located one of the clues. (of course now no one can post a cache within .1 miles of MY coordinates- even though there's nothing there. (I dont think there is anything cache-worthy within range, but I'll probably be proven wrong.) GDAE, Dave Link to comment
Recommended Posts