Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
LuckyPlan

Single user taking up entire areas.

Recommended Posts

Where we live, there is a cacher who ownes about 2 1/2 thousand caches under his account. Many/most are of very poor quality and of course, unmaintained. He really is taking up so much space he dominates and frankly, isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas. It has got very frustrating sometimes.

He's a good guy and everything, but I don't know what utility he is getting out of all the caches he owns.

 

I was wondering, are other areas having this problem? Does anybody think GC.com will limit or should limit this type of behavior to encourage better quality caches?

Share this post


Link to post

Where we live, there is a cacher who ownes about 2 1/2 thousand caches under his account. Many/most are of very poor quality and of course, unmaintained. He really is taking up so much space he dominates and frankly, isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas. It has got very frustrating sometimes.

He's a good guy and everything, but I don't know what utility he is getting out of all the caches he owns.

 

I was wondering, are other areas having this problem? Does anybody think GC.com will limit or should limit this type of behavior to encourage better quality caches?

 

Should GC limit it? No, there would be no fair way for them to do it.

 

Now, should the cachers in that area shame the CO into adopting out, maintaining his caches, or archiving the ones he can't maintain? In my opinion, absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post

The publication of one of my caches (I have six) was held up because someone else had hidden a cache in the same area and was awaiting the okay as I was. The reviewer actually suggested that he contact them to see if they would allow me to place mine instead. The other party had requested publication before me but because I was fairly new and they were seasoned cache owners, they graciously withdrew their request and I got the location. In summary, it doesn't hurt to contact the other party (in my case, through the reviewer) and, if he's a "nice guy" as you say, he'll quite possibly understand that he's not allowing a fair chance to his peers.

Share this post


Link to post

The publication of one of my caches (I have six) was held up because someone else had hidden a cache in the same area and was awaiting the okay as I was. The reviewer actually suggested that he contact them to see if they would allow me to place mine instead. The other party had requested publication before me but because I was fairly new and they were seasoned cache owners, they graciously withdrew their request and I got the location. In summary, it doesn't hurt to contact the other party (in my case, through the reviewer) and, if he's a "nice guy" as you say, he'll quite possibly understand that he's not allowing a fair chance to his peers.

I thought in that case, the one with the lowest GC got the publish.

Share this post


Link to post

The publication of one of my caches (I have six) was held up because someone else had hidden a cache in the same area and was awaiting the okay as I was. The reviewer actually suggested that he contact them to see if they would allow me to place mine instead. The other party had requested publication before me but because I was fairly new and they were seasoned cache owners, they graciously withdrew their request and I got the location. In summary, it doesn't hurt to contact the other party (in my case, through the reviewer) and, if he's a "nice guy" as you say, he'll quite possibly understand that he's not allowing a fair chance to his peers.

I thought in that case, the one with the lowest GC got the publish.

 

The first to choose the spot (which would have the lower number) rightfully gets the spot, but in this case, gave it up to a newer cacher.

Share this post


Link to post
The first to choose the spot (which would have the lower number) rightfully gets the spot, but in this case, gave it up to a newer cacher.

 

In most cases the first will have a lower GC code, yes. Some people, like myself, will grab a GC code as soon as they have an idea for a cache. I've heard others who keep GC codes "on hand" for when they want to place a cache on a whim. In those cases the lower GC code may not have actually put first dibs on a spot.

 

Regardless, back to topic. :D

 

When an area is blessed/cursed with a prolific hider it forces everyone else to get more creative in picking spots. You'll need to put more effort into finding hidden gems of locations. It's not easy, but it can be done.

 

If you have your eye on an area, put up a notification for that area to watch for Archived logs. Be ready to go when a spot opens up. Patience is key as well. I've seen plenty of cachers who come in, go absolutely numbers crazy for a few years and then disappear when they burn out or discover the numbers don't really matter.

 

As for whether or not Groundspeak should limit hiders...

 

I'm not in favor of any sort of hard numerical limit, but I would be willing to consider some sort of system that says a cacher can't hide any additional caches if they have x% of existing hides with a Needs Maintenance icon, or x% of existing hides are disabled or something. No idea what "x" should be though. That sort of thing would be easy to program so the hider gets warned right up front when they go to submit a new cache. Anything you do to keep a numbers hound from racking up another number is bound to get their attention.

Share this post


Link to post

Where we live, there is a cacher who ownes about 2 1/2 thousand caches under his account. Many/most are of very poor quality and of course, unmaintained. He really is taking up so much space he dominates and frankly, isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas. It has got very frustrating sometimes.

He's a good guy and everything, but I don't know what utility he is getting out of all the caches he owns.

 

I was wondering, are other areas having this problem? Does anybody think GC.com will limit or should limit this type of behavior to encourage better quality caches?

 

Wasn't hard to figure that out.

 

Over 2,500 hides, and very few that have "needs maintenance" attributes.

 

On the other hand, it's highly interesting to see the archived caches that are still being logged as found. The cache owner clearly states in the few "archived" logs that the caches are still there and finders should feel free to continue logging them.

 

Looks like the reviewer might want to take a closer look at the situation.

 

As far as I'm aware, nothing like this bizarre situation exists or takes place in my area.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I would be grateful someone took the time to put out so many for me to find. The lack of nm logs would seem they are doing fine. If they deteriorate too much nm and na loss will take care odd that. if you have one you want to put out somewhere a polite request would be in order but if he refuses mine on.

Share this post


Link to post

 

On the other hand, it's highly interesting to see the archived caches that are still being logged as found. The cache owner clearly states in the few "archived" logs that the caches are still there and finders should feel free to continue logging them.

 

Looks like the reviewer might want needs to take a closer look at the situation.

 

As far as I'm aware, nothing like this bizarre situation exists or takes place in my area.

 

Sounds like a pretty keen way to pack way more than one cache in a 528 foot radius! B)

 

NOT! :mad:

 

At the very least it seems like a little CITO is in order. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I would be grateful someone took the time to put out so many for me to find. The lack of nm logs would seem they are doing fine. If they deteriorate too much nm and na loss will take care odd that. if you have one you want to put out somewhere a polite request would be in order but if he refuses mine on.

 

The lack of NM logs indicates some other scenarios:

 

--finders don't know how to post a NM log

 

--finders are afraid to post NM logs

 

--finders don't care, because they are numbers hounds who post "wet log" in their "found it" logs for hundreds of caches

 

--cache owner deletes the NM logs

 

Another interesting twist is that there are archived caches that don't have an "archived" log, so there's no way to know when the cache was archived. How many of them have been logged as "found" after the archival date?

 

It's painfully obvious that the cache owner is creating gobs of geolitter. The few archival logs state that the cache is still there and that people should continue to post "found it" logs.

 

Seriously, this is a very fishy situation.

Share this post


Link to post

It looks like the guy sure is into power trails along roads. Only looked at like the first 10 pages of his 90 pages of cache listings but I did count 55 caches placed in one day. Seems to me that if you are wanting to do the same old boring guard rail placements named after every song on every album of your favorite bands, or every episode from every season of you favorite TV series because you are unimaginative enough to come up with something creative, or that particular section of guard rail is uninteresting enough to inspire something original, then yes, the guy is definitely blocking you. However, I'd say it's a safe bet that if you venture off the roadways at all he won't be blocking you.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow! Looks like King Boreas is getting a run for his money! KB had better get moving!

 

KB has 2891 hides, JAC0B has 2577 as of today. I wish there were an easy way to see how many of each were active.

Share this post


Link to post

Proximity frustration here, yes, but not to the extent you have it. Have you tried emailing him if you are interested in a particular spot? Low quality or not, he's put in time and money to give people in your community more caches to find.

Share this post


Link to post

Yea, I could see where an area might run out of parking lots and guardrails with someone hiding that many caches in one area. Go find some spots that take seekers on nice long hikes wit some good scenery. I'll bet there are some of those open nearby.

Share this post


Link to post

Yea, I could see where an area might run out of parking lots and guardrails with someone hiding that many caches in one area. Go find some spots that take seekers on nice long hikes wit some good scenery. I'll bet there are some of those open nearby.

Bad suggestion. If you do that you'll be able to hid caches and can't whine there is no where to hide.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I should clarify myself a little bit. I misspoke when I said "isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas". We are still quite a ways from not having any room left. It's just that I feel when people place several hundred caches, they usually never return to maintain them and they remain until too many needs maintenances are posted (And unfortunately, few people post those when they should). And I can't blame them for not returning, that is just way too many caches. But I feel that more responsibility should be taken in some cases. Offering for locals to adopt could be one way, or maybe disabling when several dnfs have been posted in a row after a solid stream of finds.

 

I never meant for anybody to look up that user, which I feel bad for. I do not want to rip on him or complain. (Mostly, I was just curious if other areas had a user who places thousands of caches as well.) Again, the user I was initially referring to, I have much respect for. He places many that are in fact good, but unfortunately many are neglected. But I am grateful for them. Just yesterday, we got over one hundred of his caches on his "power trail", it was quite an adventure. And with his permission, we replaced logs to help him out. He puts on many events and has been caching nearly since the beginning. He has more experience that I probably ever will. That I do very much respect him for and hope to meet him soon. He actually does caching tours which I want to take him up on.

 

Well, it's about time we go out and find more caches, thanks for all the cache owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grin:

Share this post


Link to post

I also have been geocaching since nearly the beginning (2001), and one of the requirements of placing a cache has always been the obligation to maintain it. It is a physical impossiblity to adequately maintain thousands of caches. Period.

 

What he's doing is placing "throw-aways", and rather than maintaining them, simply archives them as soon as they need maintainence. But even then, he leaves them out there as geo-litter rather than doing the honorable thing and removing them (which would open the area up for others to place caches).

 

So while you may respect him, IMO that respect is misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen plenty of cachers who come in, go absolutely numbers crazy for a few years and then disappear when they burn out or discover the numbers don't really matter.

 

In the present case, his first cache was placed on 10/28/2000 and his latest, today (only one! but 23 hides yesterday). I wouldn't hold my breath.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen plenty of cachers who come in, go absolutely numbers crazy for a few years and then disappear when they burn out or discover the numbers don't really matter.

In the present case, his first cache was placed on 10/28/2000 and his latest, today (only one! but 23 hides yesterday). I wouldn't hold my breath.

:laughing: Fair enough. I didn't really think looking up the user in question would really add much value to the conversation so I didn't bother. I guess the good news is that at least he's not likely to just disappear one day leaving all those caches with no owner.

Share this post


Link to post

What he's doing is placing "throw-aways", and rather than maintaining them, simply archives them as soon as they need maintainence. But even then, he leaves them out there as geo-litter rather than doing the honorable thing and removing them (which would open the area up for others to place caches).

If he doesn't remove archived caches, then they do indeed become geo-litter. But that doesn't prevent others from placing new caches in the area of his archived caches.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Honestly, that makes me upset. Blatant disregard for the meaning of the word "archived."

 

And although I can't prove it (because the new cache in the area is of unknown type), my guess is that the CO is essentially breaking the .1 mile rule by keeping the achived cache active. In other words, he's going around the rules. No bueno.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Honestly, that makes me upset. Blatant disregard for the meaning of the word "archived."

 

And although I can't prove it (because the new cache in the area is of unknown type), my guess is that the CO is essentially breaking the .1 mile rule by keeping the achived cache active. In other words, he's going around the rules. No bueno.

 

Apparently he not only archives them and leaves them, he actively advertises the fact that they are still there and available.

 

His archive note makes it obvious that it's his sneaky way to get around the saturation guideline.

Share this post


Link to post

:rolleyes:

 

Yeah, I said that about the "archived" caches back in post #7.

 

Apparently the caching community in that area isn't bothered by such things.

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.geocachin...&log=y&decrypt=

 

How very clever, why didn't I think of that?? :laughing:

 

Honestly, that makes me upset. Blatant disregard for the meaning of the word "archived."

 

And although I can't prove it (because the new cache in the area is of unknown type), my guess is that the CO is essentially breaking the .1 mile rule by keeping the achived cache active. In other words, he's going around the rules. No bueno.

 

Apparently he not only archives them and leaves them, he actively advertises the fact that they are still there and available.

 

His archive note makes it obvious that it's his sneaky way to get around the saturation guideline.

Any idea if any reviewers are aware of this? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

We don't have any hiders like this in my local area. There are several with 200-300 caches; but they are spread out over quite a big area. I've not seen any owner with thousands of finds. (And the 3 owners I know who have 200+ caches are very good at maintenance).

Share this post


Link to post

Not to hijack this thread, but how does one get a GC code ahead of time?

 

Quoting a previous post:

"In most cases the first will have a lower GC code, yes. Some people, like myself, will grab a GC code as soon as they have an idea for a cache. I've heard others who keep GC codes "on hand" for when they want to place a cache on a whim."

************************

 

I have two caches that I want to place and was wondering how people put the GC Code information into/on the cache container before approval. IAW the guidelines for hiding the cache it needs to be placed before submitting for approval. I guess this would be the way if I knew how to get a GC code ahead of time. Ha!

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Not to hijack this thread, but how does one get a GC code ahead of time?

 

Quoting a previous post:

"In most cases the first will have a lower GC code, yes. Some people, like myself, will grab a GC code as soon as they have an idea for a cache. I've heard others who keep GC codes "on hand" for when they want to place a cache on a whim."

************************

 

I have two caches that I want to place and was wondering how people put the GC Code information into/on the cache container before approval. IAW the guidelines for hiding the cache it needs to be placed before submitting for approval. I guess this would be the way if I knew how to get a GC code ahead of time. Ha!

Thanks

You just go and create a listing as you normally would. You just leave the "this cache is active" checkbox unchecked and the listing will just sit there in your account without a reviewer ever seeing it. You can freely edit and update all aspects of the listings at any time. When you're ready to actually use it, check the "active" checkbox and it will enter the review queue.

Share this post


Link to post

The local reviewer is aware and has contacted the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I don't see the problem. The cache is on HIS property so it's not like he's preventing someone else from placing another. It's archived, so it's not like it's just going to show up on the site. Judging from the post-archival logs, the only people logging it are people he's told that it's still there.

 

It already counts in his find total whether it's archived or not, so it's not padding the total for his number of hides.

 

So, really... how is this hurting anyone? I understand that the area reviewer really doesn't have a choice in the matter and support his action. But still, why would this really upset anyone? It's one more cache to find. People just need to relax and remember that this is a GAME.

Share this post


Link to post

The local reviewer is aware and has contacted the cache owner.

 

Seriously, the entire reviewer staff is excellent. Another example of prompt work by outstanding volunteers. Thank y'all for keeping Geocaching up to its standards. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I don't see the problem. The cache is on HIS property so it's not like he's preventing someone else from placing another. It's archived, so it's not like it's just going to show up on the site. Judging from the post-archival logs, the only people logging it are people he's told that it's still there.

 

It already counts in his find total whether it's archived or not, so it's not padding the total for his number of hides.

 

So, really... how is this hurting anyone? I understand that the area reviewer really doesn't have a choice in the matter and support his action. But still, why would this really upset anyone? It's one more cache to find. People just need to relax and remember that this is a GAME.

 

Well,

  • for one thing, that wasn't apparent until the cache owner posted a rather snarky-sounding note on his cache. Before that, there was nothing to indicate as much.
  • Second, only a reviewer can archive a cache. All anybody else can do is to alert the reviewer of possible issues, which is all that was done here.
  • Third, the cache owner has thousands of caches. While I can't vouch for it, the OP has implied that other archived caches by this cache owner may have similar status, although not on his property,
  • and lastly... there are a few rules to this game. If you chose to not play by them and you get busted, deal with it.

Edited by knowschad

Share this post


Link to post

Despite your response, I'm still not sure why people are upset about this. Whether or not someone logs an archived cache has zero effect on me and how I play this game. So why should I care?

Share this post


Link to post

well, in theory, and not necessarily the case here, lets say you have 100 caches on a trail. You want more there but cant list them. You archive 50 of them, and then place 50 more in between them all and tell your friends who like padding their numbers that there is a cache every 260 feet and not every 528 feet for a certain part of it. Thus folks for one little power trail of 52800 feet can get 150 caches and not 100.

 

Not saying that is here, but I think folks are implying that someone could game the system by leaving archived caches there and advertising them as a way to increase # of finds for other folks who want high numbers in less time and increasing the # of finds on his caches.

 

Am not saying that is the exact situation here, but just stating the possibility for cause for concern...gaming the system in order for number hungry folks to even get more in less time.

 

(edited to change to 52800, whoops)

Edited by lamoracke

Share this post


Link to post

Despite your response, I'm still not sure why people are upset about this. Whether or not someone logs an archived cache has zero effect on me and how I play this game. So why should I care?

 

It's not just logging archived caches, it's about a cache owner who is trying to circumvent the cache density guideline.

Share this post


Link to post

 

  • Second, only a reviewer can archive a cache.

 

I'm not trying to split hairs, but cache owners can archive caches. Which is what he did.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I should clarify myself a little bit. I misspoke when I said "isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas". We are still quite a ways from not having any room left. It's just that I feel when people place several hundred caches, they usually never return to maintain them and they remain until too many needs maintenances are posted (And unfortunately, few people post those when they should). And I can't blame them for not returning, that is just way too many caches. But I feel that more responsibility should be taken in some cases. Offering for locals to adopt could be one way, or maybe disabling when several dnfs have been posted in a row after a solid stream of finds.

 

I never meant for anybody to look up that user, which I feel bad for. I do not want to rip on him or complain. (Mostly, I was just curious if other areas had a user who places thousands of caches as well.) Again, the user I was initially referring to, I have much respect for. He places many that are in fact good, but unfortunately many are neglected. But I am grateful for them. Just yesterday, we got over one hundred of his caches on his "power trail", it was quite an adventure. And with his permission, we replaced logs to help him out. He puts on many events and has been caching nearly since the beginning. He has more experience that I probably ever will. That I do very much respect him for and hope to meet him soon. He actually does caching tours which I want to take him up on.

 

Well, it's about time we go out and find more caches, thanks for all the cache owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grin:

Its always great seeing an expert emerge after a year of geocaching.

 

As you state there are areas that are not saturated. If you are so keen on placing a cache, then do it there.

Otherwise, first person there, is one to place the cache.

 

And as for your respect of the cacher? its very curious to me on how a veiled forum post, equates your respect of said cacher.

He put those caches out there for people like you to find, he is a prolific cacher in your area. Yes some may need maintenace from time to time, and its sometimes hard to maintain caches, because life takes you in a different direction. (Since I haven't cached for a long while, I need to get on a maintenance run soon).

 

So in other words, keep calm, carry on.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I should clarify myself a little bit. I misspoke when I said "isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas". We are still quite a ways from not having any room left. It's just that I feel when people place several hundred caches, they usually never return to maintain them and they remain until too many needs maintenances are posted (And unfortunately, few people post those when they should). And I can't blame them for not returning, that is just way too many caches. But I feel that more responsibility should be taken in some cases. Offering for locals to adopt could be one way, or maybe disabling when several dnfs have been posted in a row after a solid stream of finds.

 

I never meant for anybody to look up that user, which I feel bad for. I do not want to rip on him or complain. (Mostly, I was just curious if other areas had a user who places thousands of caches as well.) Again, the user I was initially referring to, I have much respect for. He places many that are in fact good, but unfortunately many are neglected. But I am grateful for them. Just yesterday, we got over one hundred of his caches on his "power trail", it was quite an adventure. And with his permission, we replaced logs to help him out. He puts on many events and has been caching nearly since the beginning. He has more experience that I probably ever will. That I do very much respect him for and hope to meet him soon. He actually does caching tours which I want to take him up on.

 

Well, it's about time we go out and find more caches, thanks for all the cache owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grin:

Its always great seeing an expert emerge after a year of geocaching.

 

As you state there are areas that are not saturated. If you are so keen on placing a cache, then do it there.

Otherwise, first person there, is one to place the cache.

 

And as for your respect of the cacher? its very curious to me on how a veiled forum post, equates your respect of said cacher.

He put those caches out there for people like you to find, he is a prolific cacher in your area. Yes some may need maintenace from time to time, and its sometimes hard to maintain caches, because life takes you in a different direction. (Since I haven't cached for a long while, I need to get on a maintenance run soon).

 

So in other words, keep calm, carry on.

 

Nice said!

Share this post


Link to post

Despite your response, I'm still not sure why people are upset about this. Whether or not someone logs an archived cache has zero effect on me and how I play this game. So why should I care?

 

It's not just logging archived caches, it's about a cache owner who is trying to circumvent the cache density guideline.

 

I'm still trying to see how that matters.

 

- It's not padding his total, because it was already listed once.

- It's not preventing another cacher from placing a cache because he's got another one listed nearby

- It's not "creating confusion," which is the justification for the saturation guidelines anyway.

 

So, what's the harm here? Who is hurt by this? The "it's against the rules" argument only goes so far.

 

You see, I see this as a cache hider being nice to other cachers. They go on to his property, find a cache that's listed there. He comes out and says, "Hey I've still got a cache over there. I archived it so I could place this one, but if you want to find and log it, that's fine. Here's the GC code."

 

So, again. How is this "unfair?" He's not benefiting in any way from this. How is this HURTING anyone?

 

I STILL don't see why I should care.

Share this post


Link to post

I should also add that I know the "offending" cache in question here. I found and logged it before it was archived. If anyone should have any "right" to be upset about other people being able to log it after it gets archived it should be me and anyone else who found it before it got archived.

 

But I'm not. Instead, I'm glad that the people who didn't get to find it before it got archived still get to log it. Yay for them. Another smiley.

Edited by DrJay

Share this post


Link to post

Would it all be okay if he kept it listed on another site? That's why we're told not to remove archived caches that aren't ours, after all.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I should clarify myself a little bit. I misspoke when I said "isn't allowing for others to place good quality caches in many areas". We are still quite a ways from not having any room left. It's just that I feel when people place several hundred caches, they usually never return to maintain them and they remain until too many needs maintenances are posted (And unfortunately, few people post those when they should). And I can't blame them for not returning, that is just way too many caches. But I feel that more responsibility should be taken in some cases. Offering for locals to adopt could be one way, or maybe disabling when several dnfs have been posted in a row after a solid stream of finds.

 

I never meant for anybody to look up that user, which I feel bad for. I do not want to rip on him or complain. (Mostly, I was just curious if other areas had a user who places thousands of caches as well.) Again, the user I was initially referring to, I have much respect for. He places many that are in fact good, but unfortunately many are neglected. But I am grateful for them. Just yesterday, we got over one hundred of his caches on his "power trail", it was quite an adventure. And with his permission, we replaced logs to help him out. He puts on many events and has been caching nearly since the beginning. He has more experience that I probably ever will. That I do very much respect him for and hope to meet him soon. He actually does caching tours which I want to take him up on.

 

Well, it's about time we go out and find more caches, thanks for all the cache owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grin:

Its always great seeing an expert emerge after a year of geocaching.

 

As you state there are areas that are not saturated. If you are so keen on placing a cache, then do it there.

Otherwise, first person there, is one to place the cache.

 

And as for your respect of the cacher? its very curious to me on how a veiled forum post, equates your respect of said cacher.

He put those caches out there for people like you to find, he is a prolific cacher in your area. Yes some may need maintenace from time to time, and its sometimes hard to maintain caches, because life takes you in a different direction. (Since I haven't cached for a long while, I need to get on a maintenance run soon).

 

So in other words, keep calm, carry on.

 

He is indeed a very prolific cacher and has more experience than I may ever will, which is why I respect him so much. It can get a little frustrating sometimes though, not about finding open areas, but just neglected caches... But again I didn't meant to complain. Not a big deal, just was curious if other areas have such an active cache placer and if GC will or should take action to encourage higher quality caches... Well besides the action they took with the recent newsletter about maintaining hides.

 

By the way, thanks for the compliment of only a year of caching... My first cache I found the day before we got married in November! Finally a hobby that keeps us out and active.

 

Thanks everyone.

Edited by LuckyPlan

Share this post


Link to post

What he's doing is placing "throw-aways", and rather than maintaining them, simply archives them as soon as they need maintainence. But even then, he leaves them out there as geo-litter rather than doing the honorable thing and removing them (which would open the area up for others to place caches).

If he doesn't remove archived caches, then they do indeed become geo-litter. But that doesn't prevent others from placing new caches in the area of his archived caches.

The mere fact that a cache is archived doesn't make it litter.

 

If a land manager gives me permission to leave an item on his property, then that item is fine regardless of whether I have it'slocation listed on GC.com.

Share this post


Link to post

Do it once, and perhaps you are merely giving a gift to the community in the way of being able to log more than one cache within 528'.

Do it repeatedly and perhaps you are trying to game the system and do an end around of the saturation guideline.

Who's to say which is which in this particular case. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Do it once, and perhaps you are merely giving a gift to the community in the way of being able to log more than one cache within 528'.

Do it repeatedly and perhaps you are trying to game the system and do an end around of the saturation guideline.

Who's to say which is which in this particular case. :unsure:

 

Either way, I still wouldn't care.

Share this post


Link to post

Do it once, and perhaps you are merely giving a gift to the community in the way of being able to log more than one cache within 528'.

Do it repeatedly and perhaps you are trying to game the system and do an end around of the saturation guideline.

Who's to say which is which in this particular case. :unsure:

 

Either way, I still wouldn't care.

Thats very clear from your posts but there are also many others who like to play a game by its rules.

What this cacher is doing is clearly violating those rules.

Share this post


Link to post

Do it once, and perhaps you are merely giving a gift to the community in the way of being able to log more than one cache within 528'.

Do it repeatedly and perhaps you are trying to game the system and do an end around of the saturation guideline.

Who's to say which is which in this particular case. :unsure:

 

Either way, I still wouldn't care.

 

You seem to care enough to tell us, at least twice, how much you don't care.

 

I do care though. I think there are good reasons for the proximity rule, and if it's nullified by people gaming the system, I see that as something harmful to geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

Do it once, and perhaps you are merely giving a gift to the community in the way of being able to log more than one cache within 528'.

Do it repeatedly and perhaps you are trying to game the system and do an end around of the saturation guideline.

Who's to say which is which in this particular case. :unsure:

 

Either way, I still wouldn't care.

 

You seem to care enough to tell us, at least twice, how much you don't care.

 

I do care though. I think there are good reasons for the proximity rule, and if it's nullified by people gaming the system, I see that as something harmful to geocaching.

Well said.

 

To answer the OP: this exact same situation temporarily migrated to North San Diego County for a few years. I spent some time working in SLC; coming home to cache the same geo-trash was frustration writ large. I always wanted a PQ filter to ignore all hides by that UID.

 

By definition, 2500 caches are all trash. If you can't or won't maintain them, they're trash. There are hundreds of cachers who want to create that something special cache but simply cannot because of a rolling mass of crap that archives itself and is reborn periodically as more crap. Finding and correcting one out of the lot after a whack of forum posts is not a confidence builder in the reviewer community or process but a confirmation that they only have time to address issues when they are specifically raised.

 

Shame won't work in this specific case but I think it's the right tool most of the time. The caches are only meant to be found by a small number of cachers in any event, not the community at large, so appealing to the greater good and all that jazz is not likely to work.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×