Should there be a limit to # of caches in one area by one person?

[+Jaan]

Now, I don't have 2 or 3 hundred caches out there like some people. I have a couple that I think are enjoyable. However, I've noticed that there are some members that "carpet bomb" an area with caches. Most don't even put any thought into them; they're slapdash affairs and often no more than a film canister. In a nutshell; boring.

 

The result of this though, is that the casual cache placer can't find any decent areas to place a cache. The geocacher themselves too suffer, because all they can find is "RIdogz5, RIDogz6, RIDogz7"...just one lame cache after another after another for a couple of miles sometimes.

 

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

[Andronicus]

Now, I don't have 2 or 3 hundred caches out there like some people. I have a couple that I think are enjoyable. However, I've noticed that there are some members that "carpet bomb" an area with caches. Most don't even put any thought into them; they're slapdash affairs and often no more than a film canister. In a nutshell; boring.

 

The result of this though, is that the casual cache placer can't find any decent areas to place a cache. The geocacher themselves too suffer, because all they can find is "RIdogz5, RIDogz6, RIDogz7"...just one lame cache after another after another for a couple of miles sometimes.

 

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

I think to suggest that the hider didn't "even put any thougth into them" is unfair and insulting. I bet the CO put a lot of work trying to find locatins that were available, making log sheets, purchasing cache containers etc. I think more cachers need to be happy that there are caches to find. And if you don't like them, there are plenty more or there to find.

[+Hypnopaedia]

Now, I don't have 2 or 3 hundred caches out there like some people. I have a couple that I think are enjoyable. However, I've noticed that there are some members that "carpet bomb" an area with caches. Most don't even put any thought into them; they're slapdash affairs and often no more than a film canister. In a nutshell; boring.

 

The result of this though, is that the casual cache placer can't find any decent areas to place a cache. The geocacher themselves too suffer, because all they can find is "RIdogz5, RIDogz6, RIDogz7"...just one lame cache after another after another for a couple of miles sometimes.

 

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

I don't know how you could fairly set up a limit. However I know what you mean. Here in Washington (I refuse to add state to it to clarify) our 3rd oldest cache, Monte Cristo (GCBC), is down a 4 mile trail. One cacher family dropped 8 caches on their hike in. They left many caches here when they moved to the East Coast and even though they asked for people to adopt their caches they ignored all attempts to reach them. I personally think it's pretty egocentric and rude to place 8 caches (Including a multi) on an extremely historic trail and then when you leave town and can no longer perform reasonable maintenance you simply ignore them.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know how you could fairly set up a limit.

However I know what you mean.

Agree with both points. We have a few locals that are really into hiding gobs of caches. Some of these folks are conscientious owners, checking up on their hides whenever an issue is reported. They take a bit of time to make creative cache containers, and their chosen locations are mostly interesting. Others just spew out whatever crappy containers they have on hand, copy/paste the cache page, and largely ignore maintenance issues.

 

Since I know which cachers fall into what categories, it's easy for me to avoid the ones likely to cause my Tree of Angst to blossom. As for placing limits on the number of hides they place, I don't think there is any equitable way to accomplish that. Other than the maintenance issues, the guys spitting out the gobs of crappy caches are doing so within the guidelines, and there are many who enjoy having zillions of P&Gs to hunt.

[jholly]

short answer, no

longer answer, no

really long answer, no

[+lamoracke]

well, if so, forget power trails!

 

those aside, sometimes I feel some cachers oversaturate certain areas, but I would still say no. I thought there was some discretionary language in the rules once that said a cacher could not effectively monopolize an area but I doubt its enforced...certainly is not in Washington state.

[+Ambient_Skater]

It seems like a good idea, but would be a nightmare to implement.

[+StarBrand]

As long as they are all within guidelines, the answer is no. I just wish the old 'power trail' wording was re-instated.

[AZcachemeister]

No.

 

Their ability and willingness to maintain the caches will determine the caches fate.

[jholly]

As long as they are all within guidelines, the answer is no. I just wish the old 'power trail' wording was re-instated.

The toothpaste is squeezed out of that tube a long time ago.

[+DragonsWest]

Best answer I can give is Be there before the carpet bombers are.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

To the OP, do you log all of your finds? I only see 3 found and 3 hid but you've been a member for a few years.

I don't always log a find, becoming a problem since I re-found a couple of caches, so I'm wondering if your stats could be low for that reason.

 

I've been biting my tongue all night between this one and another on here from new caches. Actually I've noticed on these forums new cachers have ideas to change the game as soon as they start.

 

After reading your original post and getting the feeling you're complaining, I looked up your finds/hides and after reading one of your hide descriptions which I find so incredibly rude and obnoxious, you are the first and only hider on my ignore list. And yes I do cache in your area sometimes.

 

My opinion, which is not worth your time to read, is you need to lighten up, relax and realize this is only a pastime.

[+TheGrey]

1. If someone hides 500 caches, and they are all high quality, cool!

2. If someone hides 500 low/medium quality caches, but they are in places where others wouldn't be hiding them otherwise, cool!

3. If somone hides 500 low quality caches in an area where other cachers would be hiding high quality ones if space was available, bummer!

 

Unfortunately, I don't see a way of stopping #3 without also limiting #1 and #2.

[+NeverSummer]

Now, I don't have 2 or 3 hundred caches out there like some people. I have a couple that I think are enjoyable. However, I've noticed that there are some members that "carpet bomb" an area with caches. Most don't even put any thought into them; they're slapdash affairs and often no more than a film canister. In a nutshell; boring.

 

The result of this though, is that the casual cache placer can't find any decent areas to place a cache. The geocacher themselves too suffer, because all they can find is "RIdogz5, RIDogz6, RIDogz7"...just one lame cache after another after another for a couple of miles sometimes.

 

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

"Bad" caches usually go away faster than "good" ones. So, in time, many of these caches will end up archived. If there is a problem hiding your own caches because someone has taken "all of the good spots" (not saying you said that, but I'm just saying), you might need to get creative.

 

You can always ask a cacher if you can adopt a cache and/or upgrade the container. Or, you can ignore it. It's hard. Really hard. But it might just come down to that...

[+wimseyguy]

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

No. Geocaches are like desserts. Some are snackwell cookies or cheap popcorn, others are homemade pie or outrageous chocolaty things. Sometimes a box of snackwells or a bag of popcorn is all you need or want. Other times you need something else. Sounds like you frequently need something else. Learn how to better search for it, and your geocaching sweet tooth will be happier.

Edited July 6, 2011 by wimseyguy

[+d+n.s]

I don't think the game needs more rules and convolution and it might hurt us as much as help us in the long run, but I feel your pain. There are several parks in San Antonio like this. It makes you scratch your head sometimes.

 

... and don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the anti-park & grab guys either. It's more an issue of too much chocolate not enough peanut butter... or something. I don't know.

Edited July 6, 2011 by d+n.s

[+tozainamboku]

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

No. Geocaches are like desserts. Some are snackwell cookies or cheap popcorn, others are homemade pie or outrageous chocolaty things. Sometimes a box of snackwells or a bag of popcorn is all you need or want. Other times you need something else. Sounds like you frequently need something else. Learn how to better search for it, and your geocaching sweet tooth will be happier.

I think the complaint is that his tummy is upset eating through 500 snackwell cookies and cheap popcorn hoping to find at least one homemade pie or outrageous chocolaty thing. Perhaps even more that since the store has a shelf saturation rules, there may not be any room on the shelf for the outrageous chocolaty thing after someone places 500 cheap desserts on it. Maybe we should stick to donuts and ice cream

 

Seriously, after the recent power trails controversies, Jeremy has indicatated that he may consider some kind of guideline to prevent one person from monopolizing an area. The so-called "Swiss Rule" has been proposed where an individual would be limited in the number of caches they could place near a cache they already own for some period of time. If there is still a close by spot after that time they could then place another cache there. The main issue with this rule is that it doesn't stop someone from creating sock puppet accounts to place a lot of caches or for a group of individuals getting together to do it.

 

For almost as long as I have been geocaching we have had people who prefer hiding caches to finding them. Whenever a newbie comes along and starts hiding lots of caches there is always someone who complains that they are saturating the area. For various reasons, these people generally stop at some point. Many times they quit geocaching altogether. Then their caches get archived and new players can come in a place new caches. In reality, there was never a monolopy. You could always find a place to put a cache the proflific hider hasn't gotten to it. And if he had put in a cache in that perfect place you had been eyeing, you could wait for his hides to archived and be ready to place a cache when the area becomes available again (or even ask if they would archive a cache to let you place one).

[+A & J Tooling]

I wish someone would saturate my area.

 

 

...kidding of course....

[+Scubasonic]

No there are already enough limitations in Geocaching we don't need anymore

 

SS

[+ARHogFanz]

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

No. Geocaches are like desserts. Some are snackwell cookies or cheap popcorn, others are homemade pie or outrageous chocolaty things. Sometimes a box of snackwells or a bag of popcorn is all you need or want. Other times you need something else. Sounds like you frequently need something else. Learn how to better search for it, and your geocaching sweet tooth will be happier.

 

This hit the nail on the head for me. Sometimes, I'm out running errands in shorts and flipflops and like to hit some PNG's that don't require being dressed in cache attire (boots & jeans) to help increase my experience & numbers. Other days, I like to get dressed for caching & go hit those really neat hides that require some hiking.

 

Also, in a small town, you may only have a few active CO's. If there were a limit, it would also limit the fun for those of us out looking. We have about 3-4 CO's in this area who have placed the majority of the caches and I for one, am greatful for all their hard work. Once we stop moving so frequently, I can't wait to join the ranks of the COs & add to someone else's fun.

 

Just a noob's 2 cents.

[+Warturtle]

The big cachers in my area are Chemed2 and MountainHobbit. They, together, have saturated lots of areas. However, all the caches are high quality and maintained very well, so it would be a shame if they were limited.

[+L0ne.R]

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

Yes.

[AZcachemeister]

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

Yes.

 

I'll bite.

And what, pray tell, should be the parameters of the restriction?

 

One a week?

One a month?

 

Or perhaps a clamp-down once you reach a certain ceiling?

 

Only one a week once you have hidden ten? Twenty?? One hundred and twenty??

 

Or the often invoked (which I somewhat support), no new hides if you have a cache needing maintenance?

 

The permutations are mind-boggling.

[+ChileHead]

Nope.

 

Luckily many of the people that place lots of caches place them in crappy areas I want to avoid anyway.

[+briansnat]

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

No. Geocaches are like desserts. Some are snackwell cookies or cheap popcorn, others are homemade pie or outrageous chocolaty things. Sometimes a box of snackwells or a bag of popcorn is all you need or want. Other times you need something else. Sounds like you frequently need something else. Learn how to better search for it, and your geocaching sweet tooth will be happier.

 

This hit the nail on the head for me. Sometimes, I'm out running errands in shorts and flipflops and like to hit some PNG's that don't require being dressed in cache attire (boots & jeans) to help increase my experience & numbers. Other days, I like to get dressed for caching & go hit those really neat hides that require some hiking.

 

Also, in a small town, you may only have a few active CO's. If there were a limit, it would also limit the fun for those of us out looking. We have about 3-4 CO's in this area who have placed the majority of the caches and I for one, am greatful for all their hard work. Once we stop moving so frequently, I can't wait to join the ranks of the COs & add to someone else's fun.

 

Just a noob's 2 cents.

 

To me the problem is that in many areas you walk into the store and there is aisle after aisle of Snackwells and Food Basics popcorn as far as the eye can see. That one small rack of homemade blueberry pie and chocolate truffles is in the back somewhere and getting harder and harder to find.

 

Anyway, I'm not a fan of "carpet bombing" because they are usually caches with little thought put into them and can crowd out potential thoughtful hides.

 

The number of people with hundreds of hides has exploded in the last year or so. A quick look at some of the profiles of these prolific hiders show many of them are relative newbies.

 

I think that some new cachers are entering the game and want to make a name for themselves. People used to do that for the most part by finding a lot of caches. Now newbies see people with 20 - 50+ thousand finds and find that to be an unrealistic goal. But then they realize they can be in the top 50 of cache hiders in a few afternoons and all it takes is a box of film canisters and a few sheets of notebook paper.

 

That said I'm not in favor of any rule or guideline restricting how many caches someone can hide (but that doesn't mean I can't change my tune if the sport continues on its present course).

Edited July 8, 2011 by briansnat

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

 

No. Geocaches are like desserts. Some are snackwell cookies or cheap popcorn, others are homemade pie or outrageous chocolaty things. Sometimes a box of snackwells or a bag of popcorn is all you need or want. Other times you need something else. Sounds like you frequently need something else. Learn how to better search for it, and your geocaching sweet tooth will be happier.

 

 

Also, in a small town, you may only have a few active CO's. If there were a limit, it would also limit the fun for those of us out looking. We have about 3-4 CO's in this area who have placed the majority of the caches and I for one, am greatful for all their hard work.

 

 

You make a good point. Cache saturation is not a global issue. There certainly are areas where there is a high saturation of caches, and imposing some sort of limit might allow more cachers to find a spot to place a cache. However, in most of the world, cache saturation is *not* a problem. Limiting the number of caches placed by one person would limit the number of finding opportunities in an area which already has a limited number of caches.

[Clan Riffster]

Or the often invoked (which I somewhat support), no new hides if you have a cache needing maintenance?

I would support some standard by which owners with a bunch of caches in need of maintenance had their ability to hide more curtailed, but I'm not certain where that line should be drawn. Locally, there is a prolific cacher with just over 200 hides to his name. Some of these are archived, naturally. Of the ones that are not archived, 37 are either disabled, or have unaddressed "Needs Maintenance" logs. This cacher has a history of ignoring maintenance requests, and ignoring Reviewer notes suggesting that a particular problem be corrected within 30 days, choosing instead to make the Reviewer archive their caches.

 

To my way of thinking, that attitude shows a blatant disregard for the maintenance section of the guidelines. Yet, if this cacher went out and carpet bombed a new area with 50 or 100 new film cans, the Reviewer would publish any that didn't have some specific problem.

 

But again, assuming such a rule does get created, where do you draw the line?

 

5 caches in need of maintenance? 10? Hopefully somewhere less than 37.

[+GeoGeeBee]

But again, assuming such a rule does get created, where do you draw the line?

 

5 caches in need of maintenance? 10? Hopefully somewhere less than 37.

 

How about one?

 

That's right... one single cache with an unresolved NM should, IMHO, block the owner from placing any new caches. If you have time to create a new cache, you have time to do maintenance on your existing cache.

[+GroveBird]

But again, assuming such a rule does get created, where do you draw the line?

 

5 caches in need of maintenance? 10? Hopefully somewhere less than 37.

 

How about one?

 

That's right... one single cache with an unresolved NM should, IMHO, block the owner from placing any new caches. If you have time to create a new cache, you have time to do maintenance on your existing cache.

 

I would agree with this. Make the restriction for keepig them maintained not how many you have.

[knowschad]

After reading your original post and getting the feeling you're complaining, I looked up your finds/hides and after reading one of your hide descriptions which I find so incredibly rude and obnoxious, you are the first and only hider on my ignore list. And yes I do cache in your area sometimes.

Really? I looked at all three of their hides after reading this, and I have no clue what about their cache descriptions may seem rude to you! They all seemed very straightforward and polite to me.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

After reading your original post and getting the feeling you're complaining, I looked up your finds/hides and after reading one of your hide descriptions which I find so incredibly rude and obnoxious, you are the first and only hider on my ignore list. And yes I do cache in your area sometimes.

Really? I looked at all three of their hides after reading this, and I have no clue what about their cache descriptions may seem rude to you! They all seemed very straightforward and polite to me.

 

WOW! This is NOT the way it read a few days ago! It has been highly edited since then. I would not have commented on this one if this is what it originally said.

 

OP? comment?

 

"Originally I placed this cache out here just before Hallowe'en filled with Hallowe'en toys for the kids, to honor "The Haunted Monastery". However, I now suspect the area is ACTUALLY HAUNTED by the spirits of grumpy and cranky geocachers!

 

The original cache was protected by a guardian, but a well meaning geocacher took him away as trash. The new cache also has a guardian, not a very scary one, but he shoots so be careful! Please don't put him IN the cache as another well meaning geocacher did. If the guardian is there, it will be easy to find.

 

This is the second cache, since the first one got stolen (pitty too, it was a nice solid ammo box). It's in a slightly different location so make sure your coordinates are updated"

[+L0ne.R]

Anyway, I'm not a fan of "carpet bombing" because they are usually caches with little thought put into them and can crowd out potential thoughtful hides.

+1

 

I think that some new cachers are entering the game and want to make a name for themselves. People used to do that for the most part by finding a lot of caches. Now newbies see people with 20 - 50+ thousand finds and find that to be an unrealistic goal. But then they realize they can be in the top 50 of cache hiders in a few afternoons and all it takes is a box of film canisters and a few sheets of notebook paper.

 

That's an interesting observation. I hadn't looked at it that way, i.e. as a way of making a name for oneself. In my area large multi-use trailways are being carpet bombed. There's a steady rise, not quite exponentially but almost. One cacher once made a name for himself by holding the record for most cache finds. Now it looks like placing the first power trails in the area is the new goal.

 

I don't hate power trails but I find them to be rather selfish especially when good trails with good swag size cache potential are taken up with pill bottles and film can hides. Power trails that include a variety of water tight cache types and different cache hides (not 100 pill bottles hanging in a tree every .1 miles) are a much better caching experience. But a trail with many caches placed by different cachers, in different containers, in a variety of hiding styles, with different online cache pages (not typical cut and paste power trail cache pages) is so much more satisfactory.

[+L0ne.R]

But again, assuming such a rule does get created, where do you draw the line?

 

5 caches in need of maintenance? 10? Hopefully somewhere less than 37.

 

How about one?

 

That's right... one single cache with an unresolved NM should, IMHO, block the owner from placing any new caches. If you have time to create a new cache, you have time to do maintenance on your existing cache.

 

I would agree with this. Make the restriction for keepig them maintained not how many you have.

 

I agree.

[+niraD]

That's right... one single cache with an unresolved NM should, IMHO, block the owner from placing any new caches. If you have time to create a new cache, you have time to do maintenance on your existing cache.

Or at least post an armchair Owner Maintenance log...

[Mr.Yuck]

After reading your original post and getting the feeling you're complaining, I looked up your finds/hides and after reading one of your hide descriptions which I find so incredibly rude and obnoxious, you are the first and only hider on my ignore list. And yes I do cache in your area sometimes.

Really? I looked at all three of their hides after reading this, and I have no clue what about their cache descriptions may seem rude to you! They all seemed very straightforward and polite to me.

 

WOW! This is NOT the way it read a few days ago! It has been highly edited since then. I would not have commented on this one if this is what it originally said.

 

OP? comment?

 

"Originally I placed this cache out here just before Hallowe'en filled with Hallowe'en toys for the kids, to honor "The Haunted Monastery". However, I now suspect the area is ACTUALLY HAUNTED by the spirits of grumpy and cranky geocachers!

 

The original cache was protected by a guardian, but a well meaning geocacher took him away as trash. The new cache also has a guardian, not a very scary one, but he shoots so be careful! Please don't put him IN the cache as another well meaning geocacher did. If the guardian is there, it will be easy to find.

 

This is the second cache, since the first one got stolen (pitty too, it was a nice solid ammo box). It's in a slightly different location so make sure your coordinates are updated"

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

[+sidekeck]

Anyway, I'm not a fan of "carpet bombing" because they are usually caches with little thought put into them and can crowd out potential thoughtful hides.

+1

 

I think that some new cachers are entering the game and want to make a name for themselves. People used to do that for the most part by finding a lot of caches. Now newbies see people with 20 - 50+ thousand finds and find that to be an unrealistic goal. But then they realize they can be in the top 50 of cache hiders in a few afternoons and all it takes is a box of film canisters and a few sheets of notebook paper.

 

That's an interesting observation. I hadn't looked at it that way, i.e. as a way of making a name for oneself. In my area large multi-use trailways are being carpet bombed. There's a steady rise, not quite exponentially but almost. One cacher once made a name for himself by holding the record for most cache finds. Now it looks like placing the first power trails in the area is the new goal.

 

I don't hate power trails but I find them to be rather selfish especially when good trails with good swag size cache potential are taken up with pill bottles and film can hides. Power trails that include a variety of water tight cache types and different cache hides (not 100 pill bottles hanging in a tree every .1 miles) are a much better caching experience. But a trail with many caches placed by different cachers, in different containers, in a variety of hiding styles, with different online cache pages (not typical cut and paste power trail cache pages) is so much more satisfactory.

 

Nobody said that name was good...or bad, for that matter.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

After reading your original post and getting the feeling you're complaining, I looked up your finds/hides and after reading one of your hide descriptions which I find so incredibly rude and obnoxious, you are the first and only hider on my ignore list. And yes I do cache in your area sometimes.

Really? I looked at all three of their hides after reading this, and I have no clue what about their cache descriptions may seem rude to you! They all seemed very straightforward and polite to me.

 

WOW! This is NOT the way it read a few days ago! It has been highly edited since then. I would not have commented on this one if this is what it originally said.

 

OP? comment?

 

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

 

still not the same write up I saw - would not have ignored this write up either.

[+sidekeck]

After reading your original post and getting the feeling you're complaining, I looked up your finds/hides and after reading one of your hide descriptions which I find so incredibly rude and obnoxious, you are the first and only hider on my ignore list. And yes I do cache in your area sometimes.

Really? I looked at all three of their hides after reading this, and I have no clue what about their cache descriptions may seem rude to you! They all seemed very straightforward and polite to me.

 

WOW! This is NOT the way it read a few days ago! It has been highly edited since then. I would not have commented on this one if this is what it originally said.

 

OP? comment?

 

"Originally I placed this cache out here just before Hallowe'en filled with Hallowe'en toys for the kids, to honor "The Haunted Monastery". However, I now suspect the area is ACTUALLY HAUNTED by the spirits of grumpy and cranky geocachers!

 

The original cache was protected by a guardian, but a well meaning geocacher took him away as trash. The new cache also has a guardian, not a very scary one, but he shoots so be careful! Please don't put him IN the cache as another well meaning geocacher did. If the guardian is there, it will be easy to find.

 

This is the second cache, since the first one got stolen (pitty too, it was a nice solid ammo box). It's in a slightly different location so make sure your coordinates are updated"

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

 

Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope.

[+TheLoneGrangers]

Now, I don't have 2 or 3 hundred caches out there like some people. I have a couple that I think are enjoyable. However, I've noticed that there are some members that "carpet bomb" an area with caches. Most don't even put any thought into them; they're slapdash affairs and often no more than a film canister. In a nutshell; boring.

 

The result of this though, is that the casual cache placer can't find any decent areas to place a cache. The geocacher themselves too suffer, because all they can find is "RIdogz5, RIDogz6, RIDogz7"...just one lame cache after another after another for a couple of miles sometimes.

 

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

I think to suggest that the hider didn't "even put any thougth into them" is unfair and insulting. I bet the CO put a lot of work trying to find locatins that were available, making log sheets, purchasing cache containers etc. I think more cachers need to be happy that there are caches to find. And if you don't like them, there are plenty more or there to find.

 

This ^^

[Mr.Yuck]

Now, I don't have 2 or 3 hundred caches out there like some people. I have a couple that I think are enjoyable. However, I've noticed that there are some members that "carpet bomb" an area with caches. Most don't even put any thought into them; they're slapdash affairs and often no more than a film canister. In a nutshell; boring.

 

The result of this though, is that the casual cache placer can't find any decent areas to place a cache. The geocacher themselves too suffer, because all they can find is "RIdogz5, RIDogz6, RIDogz7"...just one lame cache after another after another for a couple of miles sometimes.

 

Should there be a limit on the amount of caches placed by one member in a small amount of time in the same general area?

I think to suggest that the hider didn't "even put any thougth into them" is unfair and insulting. I bet the CO put a lot of work trying to find locatins that were available, making log sheets, purchasing cache containers etc. I think more cachers need to be happy that there are caches to find. And if you don't like them, there are plenty more or there to find.

 

This ^^

 

Hmm, a couple of new converts to the Church of "every cache out there is a gift". Rev. Snoogans always accepts new applications. I think.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+Hobo.]

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

 

Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope.

 

Dang it! One of my T4 finds was demoted?!

 

Look. We all cache differently, and there's no way to stop idiotic behavior in this game. Yes, it's a game. And with the way that geocaching is becoming more widespread because of simpler technology, the situation is only going to compound.

 

We all started somewhere and learned as we went. It should up to us more knowledgeable cachers to provide the newer ones with assistance. And many do give that assistance. But too often, newer hiders don't ask questions and go about things their own way. Most likely they're not trying to cause problems but just don't have the proper knowledge yet. Sometimes, these new cachers just aren't willing to accept the advice from others. That's the worst. But sometimes they do.

 

In the end, this particular cache was updated accordingly and that's what should matter. Maybe next time (if there is one), a more accurate rating may be assigned to start with.

 

I think it was best said earlier in this thread that eventually the weak cachers and their caches get weeded out. Only the good ones truly last. So do what you can to make geocaching better and keep hoping the bad stuff goes away sooner than later.

 

Just my thoughts. Even if I am a crank.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

 

Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope.

 

Dang it! One of my T4 finds was demoted?!

 

Look. We all cache differently, and there's no way to stop idiotic behavior in this game. Yes, it's a game. And with the way that geocaching is becoming more widespread because of simpler technology, the situation is only going to compound.

 

We all started somewhere and learned as we went. It should up to us more knowledgeable cachers to provide the newer ones with assistance. And many do give that assistance. But too often, newer hiders don't ask questions and go about things their own way. Most likely they're not trying to cause problems but just don't have the proper knowledge yet. Sometimes, these new cachers just aren't willing to accept the advice from others. That's the worst. But sometimes they do.

 

In the end, this particular cache was updated accordingly and that's what should matter. Maybe next time (if there is one), a more accurate rating may be assigned to start with.

 

I think it was best said earlier in this thread that eventually the weak cachers and their caches get weeded out. Only the good ones truly last. So do what you can to make geocaching better and keep hoping the bad stuff goes away sooner than later.

 

Just my thoughts. Even if I am a crank.

 

Well, not exactly a Ringbone moment. But why does my post say HoboCP?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

 

Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope.

 

Dang it! One of my T4 finds was demoted?!

 

Look. We all cache differently, and there's no way to stop idiotic behavior in this game. Yes, it's a game. And with the way that geocaching is becoming more widespread because of simpler technology, the situation is only going to compound.

 

We all started somewhere and learned as we went. It should up to us more knowledgeable cachers to provide the newer ones with assistance. And many do give that assistance. But too often, newer hiders don't ask questions and go about things their own way. Most likely they're not trying to cause problems but just don't have the proper knowledge yet. Sometimes, these new cachers just aren't willing to accept the advice from others. That's the worst. But sometimes they do.

 

In the end, this particular cache was updated accordingly and that's what should matter. Maybe next time (if there is one), a more accurate rating may be assigned to start with.

 

I think it was best said earlier in this thread that eventually the weak cachers and their caches get weeded out. Only the good ones truly last. So do what you can to make geocaching better and keep hoping the bad stuff goes away sooner than later.

 

Just my thoughts. Even if I am a crank.

 

Well, not exactly a Ringbone moment. But why does my post say HoboCP?

Not sure what you are implying...that HoboCP and sidekeck are one and the same? Or Hobo and Jaan are the same person?

 

Having cached with Hobo and sidekeck (at the same time in fact) I can vouch for the fact that they are two very different people. One is much bitchier than the other.

Edited July 8, 2011 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+sidekeck]

Yeah Hobo's WAY bitchier. LOL

[+KATnDOGZ]

 

Look. We all cache differently, and there's no way to stop idiotic behavior in this game. Yes, it's a game. And with the way that geocaching is becoming more widespread because of simpler technology, the situation is only going to compound.

 

We all started somewhere and learned as we went. It should up to us more knowledgeable cachers to provide the newer ones with assistance. And many do give that assistance. But too often, newer hiders don't ask questions and go about things their own way. Most likely they're not trying to cause problems but just don't have the proper knowledge yet. Sometimes, these new cachers just aren't willing to accept the advice from others. That's the worst. But sometimes they do.

 

 

I agree that we all have to start somewhere, and for many of us it's the knowledge books, forums, and the experience of getting out there and finding caches. I am seeing far too many hides by cachers with less than 10 finds that either break the rules (buried cache), are hidden with no plan for longevity and hence they become geotrash, or are quick "slapstick carpet bombs" as the OP stated. I read what I could on the forums and in the knowledge books before I even considered placing my first cache and the advice was to have at least 100 finds before hand. How else does one know what types of hides are out there if all they've ever found was under a lamp post skirt.

 

It is a shame that the OP lost a nice ammo can to thieves. The cache description states "The original cache was protected by a guardian, but a well meaning geocacher took him away as trash. The new cache also has a guardian, not a very scary one, but he shoots so be careful! Please don't put him IN the cache as another well meaning geocacher did. If the guardian is there, it will be easy to find."

 

If the quardian is there it will be an easy find? Good coordinates make for easy finds, skeletons hanging above the cache, or large action figures, make it easy for non-cachers to find.

 

KATnDOGZ (note the dogz) from RI with a couple of hides in the same park as Jaan - coincidence??

[+Vater_Araignee]

I invoke the NM = no new publishing and raise it by no more than 5 unpublished caches at a time.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

and raise it by no more than 5 unpublished caches at a time.

 

Why? If I have somethign in the works, and another cacher submits something that is int he same general area, my reviewer always contacts me to see what is up. If I am close to placing it, I get to hide. If it's only a place holder with nother imminent, I give up the space.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

 

Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope.

 

Dang it! One of my T4 finds was demoted?!

 

Look. We all cache differently, and there's no way to stop idiotic behavior in this game. Yes, it's a game. And with the way that geocaching is becoming more widespread because of simpler technology, the situation is only going to compound.

 

We all started somewhere and learned as we went. It should up to us more knowledgeable cachers to provide the newer ones with assistance. And many do give that assistance. But too often, newer hiders don't ask questions and go about things their own way. Most likely they're not trying to cause problems but just don't have the proper knowledge yet. Sometimes, these new cachers just aren't willing to accept the advice from others. That's the worst. But sometimes they do.

 

In the end, this particular cache was updated accordingly and that's what should matter. Maybe next time (if there is one), a more accurate rating may be assigned to start with.

 

I think it was best said earlier in this thread that eventually the weak cachers and their caches get weeded out. Only the good ones truly last. So do what you can to make geocaching better and keep hoping the bad stuff goes away sooner than later.

 

Just my thoughts. Even if I am a crank.

 

Well, not exactly a Ringbone moment. But why does my post say HoboCP?

Not sure what you are implying...that HoboCP and sidekeck are one and the same? Or Hobo and Jaan are the same person?

 

Having cached with Hobo and sidekeck (at the same time in fact) I can vouch for the fact that they are two very different people. One is much bitchier than the other.

 

Never mind, I read Hobo's post wrong. As a matter of fact I still read it wrong the second time. Took a third time. No, no sock puppetry is going on here.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+Hobo.]

 

Look. We all cache differently, and there's no way to stop idiotic behavior in this game. Yes, it's a game. And with the way that geocaching is becoming more widespread because of simpler technology, the situation is only going to compound.

 

We all started somewhere and learned as we went. It should up to us more knowledgeable cachers to provide the newer ones with assistance. And many do give that assistance. But too often, newer hiders don't ask questions and go about things their own way. Most likely they're not trying to cause problems but just don't have the proper knowledge yet. Sometimes, these new cachers just aren't willing to accept the advice from others. That's the worst. But sometimes they do.

 

 

I agree that we all have to start somewhere, and for many of us it's the knowledge books, forums, and the experience of getting out there and finding caches. I am seeing far too many hides by cachers with less than 10 finds that either break the rules (buried cache), are hidden with no plan for longevity and hence they become geotrash, or are quick "slapstick carpet bombs" as the OP stated. I read what I could on the forums and in the knowledge books before I even considered placing my first cache and the advice was to have at least 100 finds before hand. How else does one know what types of hides are out there if all they've ever found was under a lamp post skirt.

 

It is a shame that the OP lost a nice ammo can to thieves. The cache description states "The original cache was protected by a guardian, but a well meaning geocacher took him away as trash. The new cache also has a guardian, not a very scary one, but he shoots so be careful! Please don't put him IN the cache as another well meaning geocacher did. If the guardian is there, it will be easy to find."

 

If the quardian is there it will be an easy find? Good coordinates make for easy finds, skeletons hanging above the cache, or large action figures, make it easy for non-cachers to find.

 

KATnDOGZ (note the dogz) from RI with a couple of hides in the same park as Jaan - coincidence??

 

I have to agree there. It is a shame that the CC was lost, but just by knowing that additional trinkets could draw muggles may have prevented it. And as for the original point, there are plenty of other spots to place new caches. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who'd like to see new locations instead of the same places over and over again. If a low quality cache is in a place you want to use, then you'll just have to wait for it to be archived or work out something with the other CO.

 

If it's a decent hide, then tough break. Find another spot. And if the original caches that were described are the ones I think they are, I'd consider it a lost battle for the OP. Those caches seem decent enough to me...

 

And yes, I am WAY bitchier.

[+Hobo.]

 

The Cached (no pun intended) page from Google shows a different page, but I'd hardly consider this an "ignore all hides" write-up.

 

Personally, something like an entire cache page that says "Quick P & G, BYOP" would be an ignore all hides offense for me.

 

Hah! I hadn't seen that revision of the cache page. That's some silly stuff. When I originally found that cache (and my log is there, unchanged, for all to view) the cache had just been replaced from it's original location. I was caching with someone who had looked for it in it's original spot. He said the original spot was indeed a 4 terrain, but we both agreed the new spot wasn't. But I don't pay much attention to CO's who don't get it right, particularly when they have 3 finds and 3 hides. How can they possibly know much with that kind of experience? I just annotate my thoughts on it in my log and move on. If the CO wants to use it as a learning experience, great. If they want to get cranky, great. Do I care? Nope.

 

Dang it! One of my T4 finds was demoted?!

 

Look. We all cache differently, and there's no way to stop idiotic behavior in this game. Yes, it's a game. And with the way that geocaching is becoming more widespread because of simpler technology, the situation is only going to compound.

 

We all started somewhere and learned as we went. It should up to us more knowledgeable cachers to provide the newer ones with assistance. And many do give that assistance. But too often, newer hiders don't ask questions and go about things their own way. Most likely they're not trying to cause problems but just don't have the proper knowledge yet. Sometimes, these new cachers just aren't willing to accept the advice from others. That's the worst. But sometimes they do.

 

In the end, this particular cache was updated accordingly and that's what should matter. Maybe next time (if there is one), a more accurate rating may be assigned to start with.

 

I think it was best said earlier in this thread that eventually the weak cachers and their caches get weeded out. Only the good ones truly last. So do what you can to make geocaching better and keep hoping the bad stuff goes away sooner than later.

 

Just my thoughts. Even if I am a crank.

 

Well, not exactly a Ringbone moment. But why does my post say HoboCP?

Not sure what you are implying...that HoboCP and sidekeck are one and the same? Or Hobo and Jaan are the same person?

 

Having cached with Hobo and sidekeck (at the same time in fact) I can vouch for the fact that they are two very different people. One is much bitchier than the other.

 

Never mind, I read Hobo's post wrong. As a matter of fact I still read it wrong the second time. Took a third time. No, no sock puppetry is going on here.

 

It's ok. I do it all the time, even with my own posts.