Jump to content

Caches that are obviously against guidelines . . .


Upanther
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I'm fairly new to Geocaching, but it seems like a significant number of caches fail the guidelines . . . and that the vast majority of those are by people who haven't cached long. I even found one by someone who left the cache . . . but hasn't ever found one!

 

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

a) Was placed by someone with 2 finds

B) Was placed UNDER a sign that said "Restricted Area" and next to a second one warning to keep away

c) Was placed on private property (owned by an Alaska train company with "private property" signs everywhere)

d) The *second* person to find the cache was approached by security and asked to leave

e) Was placed in Seward, Alaska by someone who lives in Vegas

 

The *only* thing that has kept me from placing a cache is the fact that I travel so constantly that I wouldn't be able to maintain it. Yet a large number of caches that I find (at least in Alaska) were clearly placed by people who will never get back to them again. Why are so many of these allowed?

 

Before anyone asks why *I* was on private property, I work on a cruise ship and my work was literally less than 100 feet from the cache.

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to Geocaching, but it seems like a significant number of caches fail the guidelines . . . and that the vast majority of those are by people who haven't cached long. I even found one by someone who left the cache . . . but hasn't ever found one!

 

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

a) Was placed by someone with 2 finds

B) Was placed UNDER a sign that said "Restricted Area" and next to a second one warning to keep away

c) Was placed on private property (owned by an Alaska train company with "private property" signs everywhere)

d) The *second* person to find the cache was approached by security and asked to leave

e) Was placed in Seward, Alaska by someone who lives in Vegas

 

The *only* thing that has kept me from placing a cache is the fact that I travel so constantly that I wouldn't be able to maintain it. Yet a large number of caches that I find (at least in Alaska) were clearly placed by people who will never get back to them again. Why are so many of these allowed?

 

Before anyone asks why *I* was on private property, I work on a cruise ship and my work was literally less than 100 feet from the cache.

 

In many cases such as you describe, the reviewer can't know the actual situation at the cache location.

In many such situations, they will assume (never mind what that means) that the CO has done their homework and obtained the necessary permissions. If reviewers actually had to determine property ownership of the cache location and verify permission, the review process would take much too long.

 

In Arizona (at least) cachers finding the cache and not getting arrested or hassled means the cache is OK.

Link to comment

Yes, I guess it would help if I posted which one it is: http://coord.info/GC3153Q.

 

I'm sure it has been talked about a lot, although I did a brief review of the first few pages of the forum and didn't see anything . . . so thought perhaps a reminder would be good.

 

On one hand, I hate to "tell on" someone whom I'm sure had the best of intentions. On the other, it is so obviously against guidelines I almost feel it is necessary.

 

In terms of the reviewers knowing the ownership of the location, that's 100% true. The part I was surprised at was the sheer number of caches placed by people who obviously don't live anywhere near them (and who admit in the cache posting that they stopped by there on a vacation) and obviously do not travel there on a regular basis.

Link to comment

True, but I would think that the majority do. I can't think of anything else that *would* be a metric for experience with caches, actually. I'm sure it isn't an absolute, but I would think that a large enough percentage of people log their finds to make it a worthwhile standard . . . and maybe even get people to log their finds! :)

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to Geocaching, but it seems like a significant number of caches fail the guidelines . . . and that the vast majority of those are by people who haven't cached long. I even found one by someone who left the cache . . . but hasn't ever found one!

 

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

a) Was placed by someone with 2 finds

B) Was placed UNDER a sign that said "Restricted Area" and next to a second one warning to keep away

c) Was placed on private property (owned by an Alaska train company with "private property" signs everywhere)

d) The *second* person to find the cache was approached by security and asked to leave

e) Was placed in Seward, Alaska by someone who lives in Vegas

 

The *only* thing that has kept me from placing a cache is the fact that I travel so constantly that I wouldn't be able to maintain it. Yet a large number of caches that I find (at least in Alaska) were clearly placed by people who will never get back to them again. Why are so many of these allowed?

 

Before anyone asks why *I* was on private property, I work on a cruise ship and my work was literally less than 100 feet from the cache.

 

You say, "a significant number" of caches show this problem. What exactly do you mean by "significant number"? You reference exactly one example.

 

It would appear that the cache may be inappropriate, possibly to the point of flaunting the guidelines by placing it right at the edge of private property. If you feel that strongly that this cache should not be there, then feel free to post a NA log to bring it to the reviewer's attention.

 

By the way, where is your Found It log on that cache? Or did you chose to not log a found it because you felt the cache was inappropriate (which would be a commendable thing)?

Link to comment

I didn't feel like it would be helpful to include a list, as I'm sure everyone experiences it. My point in posting wasn't to bring attention to specific caches so much as it is to wonder if there shouldn't be added guidelines/scrutiny for placing a cache.

 

This particular cache isn't on the "fringe" of private property, unless you count the fringe being the edge you get to after going all the way across the property to the other side (you can't legally get there by boat without having a berth at the pier). :)

 

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Instead of logging it, I sent a nice e-mail to the owner to ask if he read the guidelines before dropping it there. :)

Edited by Upanther
Link to comment

and maybe even get people to log their finds! :)

 

Why do we need to log our finds?

 

Anyway, some people make very nice hides with little caching experience. Others make really bad hides with years of caching experience.

 

I think it really depends on how much pride someone takes with their caches. If you really care, you will probably make decent caches. If you're just putting out caches so people have something to find then you might not do so well.

Link to comment

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Perhaps the Alaskans should start doing like the folks in Hawaii. Stop volunteering to maintain vacation caches. They're against the rules unless you have a maintenance plan in place. Start putting NA logs on them and let the reviewers take appropriate action.

Link to comment

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Perhaps the Alaskans should start doing like the folks in Hawaii. Stop volunteering to maintain vacation caches. They're against the rules unless you have a maintenance plan in place. Start putting NA logs on them and let the reviewers take appropriate action.

Ditto

Link to comment

upanther, good on you for having the courage to raise questions about the appropriateness of a cache location. I'm with you that there are too many geocaches appearing that totally flaunt the requirements for hiding. And please note that they are REQUIREMENTS not guidelines. If anyone wants to argue that point then go to gc.com and read the page. A requirement is an absolute, not something that is open to the interpretation of the hider or the reviewer.

 

I don't know your location but I am in New Zealand and could provide a list as long as your arm of local caches that somehow flaunt the requirements. My concern is that these are the sort of caches that attract negative attention to geocaching and will ultimately ruin it for us all. In NZ we enjoy relatively unrestricted access to public lands for caching but it will only take a few irresponsible caches for that to end.

 

I have found our local reviewers to be absolutely useless when it comes to sorting out problematic caches. Earlier this year I raised concerns, including a Needs Archived log, about a cache that was in the middle of a haul-out area for seals and sealions, marine animals that are protected by NZ law. Early loggers had actually admitted in their logs to disturbing and "scaring off" the wildlife. Totally illegal behaviour but it also highlighted the inappropriateness of that location for a cache. The reviewers did nothing. Eventually I reported the matter to the government department responsible for protecting marine wildlife. They were very grateful and the cache is now gone. However, I received abusive emails about the matter and defamatory statements about me were posted to the cache page. The reviewers have declined to remove the offending comments.

 

Now I am concerned about a cache in the grounds of a school. Guess what? The reviewer who approved the hide actually found the cache just this weekend and posted a Found log suggesting that it is a good hide! This is despite the fact that not putting caches in schools is one of the most clear-cut of gc.com's requirements!!!! The NZ local reviewers are incompetent in my view but what can you do? The reviewers close ranks to protect one another and you can do nothing about it.

 

upanther, as geocaching grows it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is an activity that lacks integrity. The hide requirements are treated as a joke by many, including reviewers. I still love the activity and that is the reason why I'm standing up and trying to focus attention on some of the nonsense that is dragging the activity down. You clearly feel the same. Keep up the work.

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to Geocaching, but it seems like a significant number of caches fail the guidelines . . . and that the vast majority of those are by people who haven't cached long. I even found one by someone who left the cache . . . but hasn't ever found one!

 

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

a) Was placed by someone with 2 finds

B) Was placed UNDER a sign that said "Restricted Area" and next to a second one warning to keep away

c) Was placed on private property (owned by an Alaska train company with "private property" signs everywhere)

d) The *second* person to find the cache was approached by security and asked to leave

e) Was placed in Seward, Alaska by someone who lives in Vegas

 

The *only* thing that has kept me from placing a cache is the fact that I travel so constantly that I wouldn't be able to maintain it. Yet a large number of caches that I find (at least in Alaska) were clearly placed by people who will never get back to them again. Why are so many of these allowed?

 

Before anyone asks why *I* was on private property, I work on a cruise ship and my work was literally less than 100 feet from the cache.

 

so many things I want to say, I'm going to break it down to bullet points...

 

-the "minimum finds" thing has been discussed at length and we can't seem to all agree, but most of us think this is a bad idea for too many reasons to list, but a search would reveal past debates

 

-you can't always tell how many finds a person has as some people use multiple accounts. their finds may be logged on another account, or they may be one of those people that never logs online but still finds caches (some people do that, and it's not against the rules for them to do so)

 

-if a cache is placed in an area where a cache shouldn't be, the best way to handle it is to contact the reviewer in your area and ask for clarification. It may have permission, it may need to be archived. You can email the reviewer privately or post a "needs archived" on the cache page to bring this to their attention.

 

-sometimes CO's are allowed to place caches in places that are not local to them if they can prove to the reviewer that they have an acceptable maintenance plan. Maybe they regularly visit this place. Maybe a local cacher is caring for it for them.

Link to comment

True, but I would think that the majority do. I can't think of anything else that *would* be a metric for experience with caches, actually. I'm sure it isn't an absolute, but I would think that a large enough percentage of people log their finds to make it a worthwhile standard . . . and maybe even get people to log their finds! :)

Nothing would be a metric for experience except placing caches. I can take you on a 2 day caching trip and you will gain well over 100 caches and the only things you will learn about placing caches are:

Put log inside magnetic jewelry and attach to the bolt of a road sign.

Stick log in pill bottle and hide under lamp post skirt.

Place log in magnetic key holder and attach to guard rail.

 

Now after doing that and a noob is not put off of geocaching by the volume of identical hids they will probably attempt something they view as cool and some one will complain that:

The find count needs to be increased.

A time period need to be added.

They need to do a 1000 question quiz.

Require you read every forum topic and memorize what every poster says they hate.

Swear a blood oath that states as soon as a poster says they hate something you will check all of your caches and archive any that fit.

Swear a blood oath that states no matter how much you an your friends like a 10 stage multi you will only hide 9 traditionals that have to be used to solve the location of a mystery cache.

see where this is going?

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

No.

 

Well ultimately almost everyone does. I mean you can find a handful of people in any crowd who do (or in this case do not) something out of the norm. :)

 

Sounds like a couple different issues in the OP, but actually, I do think they are related; that being bad n00b placements, and vacation cache placements. A inexperienced cache placer isn't going to be very familar with the guidelines. Yeah, yeah, I know they checked the box. And everyone reads software licensing agreements too. I'll bet dollars to donuts that a huge percentage of vacation cache submittals are from newer, inexperienced cache placers.

 

This guy got away with a vacation cache. Some n00bs from another State and 300 miles away got away with one about a mile from my house last month. It happens. Now that I mention it, that one was a victim of a lawnmower. It won't be replaced, and it will go away. Might take a while, but the same thing is going to happen to this Alaskan cruise ship cache too.

Link to comment

Hi Upanther, reviewer response here:

 

1. Was placed by someone with 2 finds

 

Find count is not a guidelines issue, and not a good metric as to whether the guidelines have been met.

 

2. Was placed UNDER a sign that said "Restricted Area" and next to a second one warning to keep away

 

Please, log a Needs Archived on this; the log needs to explain what is present.

Needs Archived logs are forwarded to a local reviewer.

The geocaching community must self police. Reviewers cannot see these signs from their computers.

 

3. Was placed on private property (owned by an Alaska train company with "private property" signs everywhere)

 

Again, log a Needs Archived, noting the signs. Or perhaps start with an email to the cache owner asking if there is permission. Sometimes there is. Often there isn't.

 

4. The *second* person to find the cache was approached by security and asked to leave

 

Another Needs Archived log, preferably by the person who was asked to leave, but it's okay to read that log, and log your own Needs Archived referencing it.

 

5. Was placed in Seward, Alaska by someone who lives in Vegas

 

People love to place caches while on vacation. They must offer a maintenance plan for these to be published. Sometimes that plan actually results in cache maintenance. Sometimes it doesn't. I publish caches in Florida, a vacation hot spot. I will say that I used to worry about the many vacation caches I see and publish, to the point of tracking them on a bookmarked list. Generally, they fare no worse then other caches. Some percentage are actually maintained, some are not. (The worst cache maintenance is often by in-state cachers on a weekend trip, just outside of their usual work, school, shopping, driving range. They may own caches 60 miles north of home that they often get to, but the one they left 60 miles west of home requires a special trip, and maintenance gets ignored).

Edited by palmetto
Link to comment

 

5. Was placed in Seward, Alaska by someone who lives in Vegas

 

People love to place caches while on vacation. They must offer a maintenance plan for these to be published. Sometimes that plan actually results in cache maintenance. Sometimes it doesn't. I publish caches in Florida, a vacation hot spot. I will say that I used to worry about the many vacation caches I see and publish, to the point of tracking them on a bookmarked list. Generally, they fare no worse then other caches. Some percentage are actually maintained, some are not. (The worst cache maintenance is often by in-state cachers on a weekend trip, just outside of their usual work, school, shopping, driving range. They may own caches 60 miles north of home that they often get to, but the one they left 60 miles west of home requires a special trip, and maintenance gets ignored).

 

I assume you mean vacation caches with a maintenance plan. I would agree, I'll bet they fare no worse than the general cache population. :D

 

I doubt there was a maintenance plan here in Alaska. I'm 99.9% sure there is no maintenance plan for the parking lot micro dropped a mile from my house last month. A "slipped through the cracks" vacation cache bookmark list would be interesting. Of course the reviewer wouldn't know which caches to put on it. :)

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

This is a topic for a whole other thread, but...

 

I can't imagine the headache it must be to maintain a list of found caches without logging a find. Why not just use the site the way it was designed to be used and not worry what somebody else thinks about your stats?

Link to comment
I can't imagine the headache it must be to maintain a list of found caches without logging a find. Why not just use the site the way it was designed to be used and not worry what somebody else thinks about your stats?
Some people just don't want a public record of where they've been posted on the web. You aren't going to convince them to log their finds online, even with a pseudo-anonymous name. But to be honest, they are unlikely to hide caches either, so it is unlikely to be an issue in this case.

 

Others got tired of the drama involved with online logs and/or public stats, and decided to stop logging finds online.

 

Others never started logging online. There are a few "old timers" who started before online logging was the norm, and they continue doing things the old way.

 

Some people hide caches with one account, and log finds with another.

 

There may be other reasons too. Premium members can just use their ignore list to hide caches they've found, so there is less inconvenience associated with not logging finds online.

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

This is a topic for a whole other thread, but...

 

I can't imagine the headache it must be to maintain a list of found caches without logging a find. Why not just use the site the way it was designed to be used and not worry what somebody else thinks about your stats?

 

Not a headache at all. I've been using GSAK since I started caching to keep up with my finds, owned caches, etc. With the introduction of bookmark lists, it became really easy to keep tabs on the caches you've found.

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

This is a topic for a whole other thread, but...

 

I can't imagine the headache it must be to maintain a list of found caches without logging a find. Why not just use the site the way it was designed to be used and not worry what somebody else thinks about your stats?

 

Not a headache at all. I've been using GSAK since I started caching to keep up with my finds, owned caches, etc. With the introduction of bookmark lists, it became really easy to keep tabs on the caches you've found.

 

Not to pry, so you own caches under a different account?

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

This is a topic for a whole other thread, but...

 

I can't imagine the headache it must be to maintain a list of found caches without logging a find. Why not just use the site the way it was designed to be used and not worry what somebody else thinks about your stats?

 

Not a headache at all. I've been using GSAK since I started caching to keep up with my finds, owned caches, etc. With the introduction of bookmark lists, it became really easy to keep tabs on the caches you've found.

 

Not to pry, so you own caches under a different account?

Used to. Well, technically, I still do. But I've archived them.

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

Why not?

 

EDIT: nevermind read the post above this one LOL..GSAK, got it.

Edited by TheLoneGrangers
Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

Why not?

 

Don't want to.

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

For all the reasons that people complain about short/blank logs: to thank the CO; to let the CO know about the condition of the cache; to let subsequent finders know the condition of the cache; to let subsequent finders know what you think about the cache; so you can "favorite" a special cache to let the CO and other cachers know about one you think is special.

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

For all the reasons that people complain about short/blank logs: to thank the CO; to let the CO know about the condition of the cache; to let subsequent finders know the condition of the cache; to let subsequent finders know what you think about the cache; so you can "favorite" a special cache to let the CO and other cachers know about one you think is special.

Are you saying my notes on the cache listing do not accomplish those tasks?

 

I will admit not having favorite points is a bummer, but I don't put a lot of stock into that system anyway.

Link to comment

I really wonder if there should be a minimum number of finds before someone can place a cache. I was looking for one today which:

 

Number of finds is not a good metric for experience. Not all of us log our finds.

Log your finds.

Why?

 

For all the reasons that people complain about short/blank logs: to thank the CO; to let the CO know about the condition of the cache; to let subsequent finders know the condition of the cache; to let subsequent finders know what you think about the cache; so you can "favorite" a special cache to let the CO and other cachers know about one you think is special.

Are you saying my notes on the cache listing do not accomplish those tasks?

 

I will admit not having favorite points is a bummer, but I don't put a lot of stock into that system anyway.

 

If you are posting notes, then you *are* logging your finds. You just aren't logging them using the "found it" log type. A DNF or a note is still a log types. I honestly don't care how anybody chooses to log their finds (or if they choose not to log them at all). I just find it interesting that people get bent out of shape over short/blank logs, but don't complain about people who don't log at all, or log extremely late. But...now I've gone wayyyy off topic, so, uhm...if you find a cache that is obviously against the guidelines, post a Needs Archived, or contact the reviewer directly with the relevant information. :)

Link to comment

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Perhaps the Alaskans should start doing like the folks in Hawaii. Stop volunteering to maintain vacation caches. They're against the rules unless you have a maintenance plan in place. Start putting NA logs on them and let the reviewers take appropriate action.

My Alaska cache has been in place since 2004. I live in California. In those 7 years, it has disappeared about 6 times. I have a maintenance plan in place and while the 2 week goal is sometimes hard to meet, the cache is maintained on a regular basis and has over 1000 finds. I take pride in this cache and don't want it to get a reputation of a poor "vacation cache". And ironically, like Palmetto commented, my local cache hides are actually maintained worse then my Alaska cache. Exception to the rule? YMMV...

Link to comment

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Perhaps the Alaskans should start doing like the folks in Hawaii. Stop volunteering to maintain vacation caches. They're against the rules unless you have a maintenance plan in place. Start putting NA logs on them and let the reviewers take appropriate action.

My Alaska cache has been in place since 2004. I live in California. In those 7 years, it has disappeared about 6 times. I have a maintenance plan in place and while the 2 week goal is sometimes hard to meet, the cache is maintained on a regular basis and has over 1000 finds. I take pride in this cache and don't want it to get a reputation of a poor "vacation cache". And ironically, like Palmetto commented, my local cache hides are actually maintained worse then my Alaska cache. Exception to the rule? YMMV...

 

I have no problem with Vacation caches with a maintenance plan. And neither does Groundspeak, seeing as that's pretty much the Policy. :) Good job with yours.

 

Hawaii is kind of a special case, and may have more vacation caches dropped than anywhere in the world. I don't blame the locals. In addition to that, a couple years ago a cacher from an Island off of Europe (It was probably The Azores, but don't quote me on that) said that they were one of the handful of Native cachers there, and they were absolutely inundated with emails from people who had dropped vacation caches on the Island(s). I'm quite sure they too started refusing to maintain, but offered to pick up and send back. :o

Link to comment

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Perhaps the Alaskans should start doing like the folks in Hawaii. Stop volunteering to maintain vacation caches. They're against the rules unless you have a maintenance plan in place. Start putting NA logs on them and let the reviewers take appropriate action.

My Alaska cache has been in place since 2004. I live in California. In those 7 years, it has disappeared about 6 times. I have a maintenance plan in place and while the 2 week goal is sometimes hard to meet, the cache is maintained on a regular basis and has over 1000 finds. I take pride in this cache and don't want it to get a reputation of a poor "vacation cache". And ironically, like Palmetto commented, my local cache hides are actually maintained worse then my Alaska cache. Exception to the rule? YMMV...

 

In that case Alaskans not maintaining your cache will have no effect and an NA log would not be needed. If you are in that area regularly there is no reason for a reviewer to deny publishing of the cache.

 

However, the type of cache being discussed is one where locals wind up taking on the maintenance. Then they complain about vacation caches.

 

I'm just saying stop maintaining the vacation caches and once they fall in disrepair put an NA log on them. No need to complain. Just let the system take care of them.

Edited by Avenois
Link to comment

It would be interesting to know why greatland reviewer approved this vacation cache. The co joined the day before submitting the cache.

1. The cache owner's level of experience and tenure is not a guidelines issue to the point of denying a placement for that reason. It usually means a more careful review for newbie mistakes.

 

2. Consistent with the above, Greatland Reviewer asked the owner about whether the cache site was publicly accessible.

 

3. No question was asked about the so-called "vacation cache" issue because the cache owner listed home coordinates less than 100 miles from the cache location.

 

I would have reviewed the listing in pretty much the same way. Well, except there are no cruise ships docking in Toledo.

Link to comment

For all the reasons that people complain about short/blank logs:

becuase I dont log on line now they wont have to worry about short of blank logs. Not that short was typical for me.
to thank the CO;
If the cache is worthy of thanking the CO then the CO will know if they bother to read the log book. If it is so good that I just have to let them know quick or there isn't enough room in the logbook, well thats what e-mail is for.
to let the CO know about the condition of the cache;
e-mail, besides that it isn't a found it log anyway.
to let subsequent finders know the condition of the cache;
it isnt a found it
to let subsequent finders know what you think about the cache;
Why do they need to know? That isn't polite to tell them, it is egotistical.
so you can "favorite" a special cache to let the CO and other cachers know about one you think is special.

E-mail.

Simply put, there is absolutely no good reason for you or anyone else to know my find count.

You can't determine what I know by it.

You can't determine if I found a single cache using my count.

I'm not in competition with with anyone and I'm not going to make it easy for them to think they are competing against me.

I don't care to participate caches that require me to find caches. Tho I put one out for those who enjoy it.

I know my find count.

There isn't a single compelling reason for me to log a find.

Link to comment

Obviously here I'm not worried about caches that DO have a maintenance plan. I have found plenty of caches in Alaska that were really great hides by non-locals . . . but who had a plan to keep them maintained. I'm just referring to the glaringly obvious ones that are dropped off in the hopes that "someone" will maintain them.

 

Coincidentally enough, ShowStop, yours is one I looked for in Skagway three weeks ago. Unfortunately it was gone (someone had found the log lying on the ground the day before), so I put it up for "needs maintenance". Some Aussies found it elsewhere and returned it with a new container, so I'll need to go there again when I get back to Skagway next week. :) There have been a number of finds since then, so I think that it is more than safe to take the "maintenance" tag back off it. You are welcome to e-mail me if you want me to let you know after I'm there next week.

Link to comment

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Perhaps the Alaskans should start doing like the folks in Hawaii. Stop volunteering to maintain vacation caches. They're against the rules unless you have a maintenance plan in place. Start putting NA logs on them and let the reviewers take appropriate action.

My Alaska cache has been in place since 2004. I live in California. In those 7 years, it has disappeared about 6 times. I have a maintenance plan in place and while the 2 week goal is sometimes hard to meet, the cache is maintained on a regular basis and has over 1000 finds. I take pride in this cache and don't want it to get a reputation of a poor "vacation cache". And ironically, like Palmetto commented, my local cache hides are actually maintained worse then my Alaska cache. Exception to the rule? YMMV...

 

In that case Alaskans not maintaining your cache will have no effect and an NA log would not be needed. If you are in that area regularly there is no reason for a reviewer to deny publishing of the cache.

 

However, the type of cache being discussed is one where locals wind up taking on the maintenance. Then they complain about vacation caches.

 

I'm just saying stop maintaining the vacation caches and once they fall in disrepair put an NA log on them. No need to complain. Just let the system take care of them.

My primary maintenance is actually done by a local non-cacher. They don't even own a GPS. However some other local geocachers assist with maintenance when needed or are in the area.

Link to comment

I would say that at least 10-20% of the caches I have found so far are ones that are placed by people who are never in the vicinity. Luckily there have been some really great cachers in Alaska who have volunteered to take care of some of them once they started needing maintenance . . . but I'm sure if these nice people had wanted to take on more caches they would have placed them already. :)

 

Perhaps the Alaskans should start doing like the folks in Hawaii. Stop volunteering to maintain vacation caches. They're against the rules unless you have a maintenance plan in place. Start putting NA logs on them and let the reviewers take appropriate action.

My Alaska cache has been in place since 2004. I live in California. In those 7 years, it has disappeared about 6 times. I have a maintenance plan in place and while the 2 week goal is sometimes hard to meet, the cache is maintained on a regular basis and has over 1000 finds. I take pride in this cache and don't want it to get a reputation of a poor "vacation cache". And ironically, like Palmetto commented, my local cache hides are actually maintained worse then my Alaska cache. Exception to the rule? YMMV...

 

In that case Alaskans not maintaining your cache will have no effect and an NA log would not be needed. If you are in that area regularly there is no reason for a reviewer to deny publishing of the cache.

 

However, the type of cache being discussed is one where locals wind up taking on the maintenance. Then they complain about vacation caches.

 

I'm just saying stop maintaining the vacation caches and once they fall in disrepair put an NA log on them. No need to complain. Just let the system take care of them.

My primary maintenance is actually done by a local non-cacher. They don't even own a GPS. However some other local geocachers assist with maintenance when needed or are in the area.

 

Again, we're not talking about caches with maintenance plans. I had one 6 hours away from me that my non-caching nephew would check on for me and that I was able to check on several times a year. As long as you have a maintenance plan in place prior to placing the cache and it doesn't depend on strangers to do the job for you, there is nothing wrong with it.

 

What is not proper is for someone to hide a cache while visiting an area that is too far away for them to maintain and just assume that the locals will do the maintenance for them. That is irresponsible. If the locals wanted to maintain caches they would hide their own.

Link to comment

Coincidentally enough, ShowStop, yours is one I looked for in Skagway three weeks ago. Unfortunately it was gone (someone had found the log lying on the ground the day before), so I put it up for "needs maintenance". Some Aussies found it elsewhere and returned it with a new container, so I'll need to go there again when I get back to Skagway next week. :) There have been a number of finds since then, so I think that it is more than safe to take the "maintenance" tag back off it. You are welcome to e-mail me if you want me to let you know after I'm there next week.

Timing is everything. :(

 

The biggest challenge is the lag with cruisers posting finds. It is often a week or so before I get the logs as people return home from their cruise and catch up on their logging. So sometimes, as in the most recent case, the cache is replaced before I even disable it and can request maintenance.

 

Thanks for the heads-up on the cache. I didn't realize the NM was still active.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...