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

[+_Wolverine]

 

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?

 

Simple answer... no.

[+sidekeck]

 

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.

 

I spent a lot of time caching with experienced cachers then out on my own checking out the good, the bad and the ugly before I started hiding--at the ripe old number of 8-900 finds. I waited for no other reason than to get the experience and knowledge so I could contribute positively to the sport, and avoid being blasted as an idiot newbie with lame caches. At least now the only thing that sticks is idiot, and let's face it that was there long before geocaching.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

At least now the only thing that sticks is idiot

 

Wow...you read my mind.

[+sidekeck]

At least now the only thing that sticks is idiot

 

Wow...you read my mind.

 

I learned from the best. I don't do anything half-way.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

The version I read said that they used Groundspeak's rating system to set the terrain level. Presumably, you wouldn't have to have any experience as long as you plug in the correct answers to the questions.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Don_J

[+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.

 

The version I read said that they used Groundspeak's rating system to set the terrain level. Presumably, you wouldn't to have any experience as long as you plug in the correct answers to the questions.

 

One would think. I use that system each time and for the last cache I placed it severely overrated the terrain--by double. I answered all the questions quite accurately and it gave my 2 terrain cache a 4 terrain rating. I've also had that tool give a cache a 4 difficulty and 1 terrain on a cache that should have had a 1.5/3 rating. My caching experience raised the red flag on those ratings and I adjusted accordingly.

 

I think the tool is a good start, but it's not the end-all be-all for ratings. Experience has to kick in at some point. There's way too many factors for an on-line tool to cover it all.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

Doing maintenance isn't always about time. While I have no caches with NM attached to them, I do have two that have been disabled for almost two years. Because of a forest fire, no one is legally allowed in the area until the USFS determines that it is safe to do so. At a glance, it looks like I am a negligent cache owner. I would not approve of a system that barred me from placing new caches, or forced me to plead my case to my reviewer every time I wanted to get a new one published.

 

Besides, it would only punish the honest cache owners. The others would just post fake Maintenance Performed logs.

[+Vater_Araignee]

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.

That is you, it sure isn't everybody. Just like everyone who has more than 5 spots held isn't planning to blanket an area or publish a power trail, however if they are making plans and weren't allowed to have than 5 unpublished then it would allow the opportunity for another individual to gain a spot. If you have fast reviewers then you are still looking at being able to place 35 caches a week (70 if the reviewer checks twice a day) and there is nothing unfair about being able to hide only 35 a week. I'll go as far to say 14 a week isn't unreasonable.

 

I have thought about the not allowed to publish because of unresolved NM.

It should be:

A. NM younger than 5 days = publish away.

B. NM 5-7 days old = no publishing until resolution.

C. NM 8 days or more = no publishing until 24 hours after resolution.

It should be built into the system so that you cant even fill out a cache page until the requirements for B. or C. have been fulfilled.

 

I also feel as if those are actually being nice because I think that anyone who has an unresolved NM for more than 14 days should not be allowed to publish a cache for as many days after resolution as the log existed prior plus should not be allowed to log a find during the same period. Tho I wouldn't suggest implementing it.

[+Don_J]

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.

That is you, it sure isn't everybody. Just like everyone who has more than 5 spots held isn't planning to blanket an area or publish a power trail, however if they are making plans and weren't allowed to have than 5 unpublished then it would allow the opportunity for another individual to gain a spot. If you have fast reviewers then you are still looking at being able to place 35 caches a week (70 if the reviewer checks twice a day) and there is nothing unfair about being able to hide only 35 a week. I'll go as far to say 14 a week isn't unreasonable.

 

I have thought about the not allowed to publish because of unresolved NM.

It should be:

A. NM younger than 5 days = publish away.

B. NM 5-7 days old = no publishing until resolution.

C. NM 8 days or more = no publishing until 24 hours after resolution.

It should be built into the system so that you cant even fill out a cache page until the requirements for B. or C. have been fulfilled.

 

I also feel as if those are actually being nice because I think that anyone who has an unresolved NM for more than 14 days should not be allowed to publish a cache for as many days after resolution as the log existed prior plus should not be allowed to log a find during the same period. Tho I wouldn't suggest implementing it.

 

Which can all be over-ridden by the cacher simply posting a maintenance performed log, regardless if that actually happened or not.

[+briansnat]

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.

That is you, it sure isn't everybody. Just like everyone who has more than 5 spots held isn't planning to blanket an area or publish a power trail, however if they are making plans and weren't allowed to have than 5 unpublished then it would allow the opportunity for another individual to gain a spot. If you have fast reviewers then you are still looking at being able to place 35 caches a week (70 if the reviewer checks twice a day) and there is nothing unfair about being able to hide only 35 a week. I'll go as far to say 14 a week isn't unreasonable.

 

I have thought about the not allowed to publish because of unresolved NM.

It should be:

A. NM younger than 5 days = publish away.

B. NM 5-7 days old = no publishing until resolution.

C. NM 8 days or more = no publishing until 24 hours after resolution.

It should be built into the system so that you cant even fill out a cache page until the requirements for B. or C. have been fulfilled.

 

I also feel as if those are actually being nice because I think that anyone who has an unresolved NM for more than 14 days should not be allowed to publish a cache for as many days after resolution as the log existed prior plus should not be allowed to log a find during the same period. Tho I wouldn't suggest implementing it.

 

What's to keep someone from resetting a NM flag without visiting the cache? Or what about NMs for minor problems? I received a NM for a damp log. I know I should visit it and will soon, but it's only damp so its not a priority. People have been finding the cache and signing the log without complaint since the NM.

[+PJ²:]

Tink says: "Every time you hide a film can, a fairy dies."

Wow..... me and that E.T Highway have been hard on fairies. LOL

 

Oh well.... Off to kill a few more today. (Sorry Tink)

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

Do it like favorites. For every 50 caches you find, you can hide 1.

 

Also, you cannot hide a new cache if any of your current caches require maintenance.

Edited August 2, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+firennice]

What's to keep someone from resetting a NM flag without visiting the cache? Or what about NMs for minor problems? I received a NM for a damp log. I know I should visit it and will soon, but it's only damp so its not a priority. People have been finding the cache and signing the log without complaint since the NM.

 

Agreed. In desert areas a damp log will dry out in a few days and will need no maintenance at all. I use write in rain paper as well. So a damp log is annoying but when the summer air hits all is well.

 

As to the other, limiting the caches is dumb. there are people in my area that have dozens of hides and cannot take care of them, they are being regularly archived. Others have far more hides, and far fewer issues.

[+PJ²:]

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.

If you're not happy that paradice put out so many caches along the trail, then moved ought to make you happy. Since he can't maintain his caches all you have to do when they need work is to flag them as "NEEDS MAINTENANCE" after a couple of them, the reviewer should contact the CO. If no response then it should get archived. Monte Cristo is a cool place; but why do you consider it an 'extremely historic trail," other than a merely historic trail?

[+PJ²:]

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.

If you're not happy that paradice put out so many caches along the trail, then moved ought to make you happy. Since he can't maintain his caches all you have to do when they need work is to flag them as "NEEDS MAINTENANCE" after a couple of them, the reviewer should contact the CO. If no response then it should get archived. Monte Cristo is a cool place; but why do you consider it an 'extremely historic trail," other than a merely historic trail?

[+L0ne.R]

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.

Since he can't maintain his caches all you have to do when they need work is to flag them as "NEEDS MAINTENANCE" after a couple of them, the reviewer should contact the CO. If no response then it should get archived.

That process will take 6 months to a year. Gotta be very patient and work with the system. But I agree with Hypnopaedia that it's rather rude to abandon caches and ignore requests to adopt.

[+Jaan]

Sorry for the necro-posting but quite frankly I had forgotten about this...it's OKay, hallowe'en is in a few days.

 

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 cached for a while before I even made a user name, and have found quite a lot of caches with someone else. I no longer like them. I just decided to start fresh...I've never been one to judge a person based on things like post count so I didn't bother updating.

 

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.

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Ignoring someone is one thing, making sure they know about it...well...

 

I think what had irritated me that day was a comment like this;

 

"...the fun of the day was lost and the spirit of caching stripped away."

 

Gee thanks. Really thanks. Well you just made my day too.

 

Maybe since your numbers are so much larger than mine, perhaps you can explain why people were so irritated with the terrain rating? Honestly, is it that big of a deal? Do you know where most of my experience walking in the woods comes from? Having a hunting cabin half way up a mountain in the Adirondacks, and hunting there for the past 20 years in the middle of winter when it's 20 below and at least a couple of feet of snow on the ground. Ratings are subjective. Compared to that, there's not a spot in the entire area of that cache I would rate above a .3

 

 

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

LOL, I just picked a random amalgamation of names I recently saw...I didn't mean you specifically. (c:

[jholly]

Maybe since your numbers are so much larger than mine, perhaps you can explain why people were so irritated with the terrain rating? Honestly, is it that big of a deal? Do you know where most of my experience walking in the woods comes from? Having a hunting cabin half way up a mountain in the Adirondacks, and hunting there for the past 20 years in the middle of winter when it's 20 below and at least a couple of feet of snow on the ground. Ratings are subjective. Compared to that, there's not a spot in the entire area of that cache I would rate above a .3

 

Actually they are not that subjective. Both the Clayjar and Markwell rating systems narrows things down quite a bit and allows for reasonable ratings. And yes, ratings, especially terrain, is a big deal. Not everyone is blessed with a strong body. Some do use the rating to sort what caches they want/can do. And by the way a .3 would be beyond easy for a wheelchair bound cacher. Is it really that easy?

[+L0ne.R]

Maybe since your numbers are so much larger than mine, perhaps you can explain why people were so irritated with the terrain rating? Honestly, is it that big of a deal? Do you know where most of my experience walking in the woods comes from? Having a hunting cabin half way up a mountain in the Adirondacks, and hunting there for the past 20 years in the middle of winter when it's 20 below and at least a couple of feet of snow on the ground. Ratings are subjective. Compared to that, there's not a spot in the entire area of that cache I would rate above a .3

 

Actually they are not that subjective. Both the Clayjar and Markwell rating systems narrows things down quite a bit and allows for reasonable ratings. And yes, ratings, especially terrain, is a big deal. Not everyone is blessed with a strong body. Some do use the rating to sort what caches they want/can do. And by the way a .3 would be beyond easy for a wheelchair bound cacher. Is it really that easy?

 

I have come to understand the importance of properly rated terrain. Broke my leg while geocaching. Started to get back into the game at the end of 2 months recovery - it was good physio for me to get walking again. So I filtered my PQs for caches that were rated 2 and under. It is so disappointing to drive for miles, limp to ground zero only to find that the cache is 25 metres away down a 45 degree slope, or 25 meters of bushwacking through twigs, branches, rocks, logs. It seems some people judge terrain by the overall terrain i.e. most of the walk is easy so it's a 2, rather then judging the last bit of the walk to get to and retrieve the cache. And some people just take a wild guess at the terrain rating without looking at ClayJar or Markwell's ratings. There's a link to ClayJar's ratings on the form a CO fills out when submitting a cache.

 

Markwell's definition of T2:

Suitable for small children

Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.

ClayJar's definition of T2:

Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

Edited October 27, 2011 by Lone R

[Narcosynthesis]

I can't see any way in which a rule preventing poorer quality caches could be implimented without risking a lot of good caches too - there is no way to say for sure how much thought or effort an owner has put into choosing a nice location - there could just as easily be four or five points of historical attention a well planned owner wants to direct geocachers to in a small area as there could be five poor quality throwdowns hidden to bolster the numbers.

 

All I can say is that if you find what you consider a poorer quality cache, make sure to log any problems, and it should hopefully become apparent whether the owner is keeping on top of maintenance and problems (in which case good for them, even if it is an uninspiring series), or whether they are uncaring and leaving them to ruin, in which case they should be archived and the area cleared for a new owner.

[+Space Invador]

i wish it was like the favorites points. you find a cretain amount of caches and then are granted the hide.

[+Hobo.]

i wish it was like the favorites points. you find a cretain amount of caches and then are granted the hide.

This shouldn't be necessary. The key should be that the guidelines are actually read before hiding a cache. Too often it seems that somebody finds a few caches and thinks that they know what they're doing. And that's when you get the low-quality hides that violate guidelines and cause issues with property owners, etc.

That will obviously never happen, as GS cannot place requirements on experienced hiders without causing total outrage. Instead, it needs to be something that we promote from within our ranks.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Too often it seems that somebody finds a few caches and thinks that they know what they're doing. And that's when you get the low-quality hides that violate guidelines and cause issues with property owners, etc.

 

You still get those from people who have been doing this for years.

[+Hobo.]

You still get those from people who have been doing this for years.

Good point. I stand corrected. EVERYONE should be reading the guidelines and working with their reviewer to promote high-quality hides, not just the new cachers. But I still stand by my assertion that it shouldn't be Groundspeak's job to make sure that people are doing the right thing. Their job is mainly just to make the rules that we play by. In the end the responsibility should ALWAYS be the cache owner.